School of Social and Political StudiesUniversity of Edinburgh

Comparative Politics

Session 2011-2012Course code: PLIT10061

Course convenor: Dr Pontus Odmalm

Room: Chrystal Macmillan Building 3.20E-mail: Pontus.Odmalm@ed.ac.uk

Office hour: Monday, 2-4pm

Course Tutor: Martin Booker (M.Booker@sms.ed.ac.uk)

Office hour: tba

1. IntroductionWhy does democracy work in some countries but not in others? Does low voter turnout signal the death of democracy? Conversely, why does voter turnout differ between countries? How are governing powers in “divided societies” arranged? These are some of the questions students will explore in this course. By invoking comparison as a method for analysing political processes and events, and drawing on a wide range of cases and themes, this course will enable students to better understand debates surrounding key political institutions.

2. Learning Objectives

By the end of the course, students will be able to:

a) Demonstrate knowledge of the comparative method and its application;

b) Show familiarity with core texts in the field of comparative politics;

c) Critically analyse key political processes and institutions in a comparative perspective,

d) Articulate an informed view about current debates and questions surrounding comparative politics.

1

3. Teaching MethodsThe course is taught in the Autumn Semester and the teaching format is 1 lecture per week for 10 weeks and 1 tutorial per week for 10 weeks. Detailed reading accompanies each week's topic (see below). Each topic has two or more tutorial questions which constitute the main framework of the tutorial

Lectures will take place on Wednesdays, 11.10 – 12.00, Lec Th 1, 7 Bristo Sq

The first lecture is on 21 st September 2011

Tutorials start in Week 1 – please sign up on WebCT.

Please note that students who have not signed up for tutorials by the end of week 2 will be deemed to have dropped the course.

4. Student ActivitiesWhat students get out of the tutorials depends on what they put in. Students are expected to not only to attend but also to prepare for and participate actively during the tutorial.

Students are furthermore expected to have read all of the core readings as well as being able to answer each week’s tutorial question. The course is a group enterprise and should be treated as such. This means that everyone is expected to participate and will be given an opportunity to do so and engage in the tutorial discussion.

The tutorials are your opportunity to develop your ideas, question the ideas of your peers, and be questioned by them in return. It cannot be emphasised enough how important it is that you try and participate fully in the tutorials. Through discussing the questions, probing difficult subjects, and challenging assumptions, students will learn a great deal. The tutor is there to guide and shape the discussion, and not to provide it.

Students are expected to read all of the core readings for each week.

The core readings and other information relating to the course are available on Web-CT (accessed through MyED).

5. AssessmentThe course is assessed by a combination of A) one essay (40%), B) a two hour examination (50%) and C) a tutorial exercise (10%). The examination will take place during the examination period (December 2011)

Generalised exam feedback will be posted on Web-CT early January, 2011.

2

Deadline for submission of essays is Friday 28 th October, 12 Noon.

The late penalty takes effect immediately after 12 Noon.

Penalties for late submission

The penalties are set by College, and are as follows:

Five marks per working day (i.e. excluding weekends) for up to 5 days;

Coursework handed in more than 5 days late will receive a zero.

Penalty for over-long essays are as follows - essays more than 5% over the word limit will lose 5 marks.

PLEASE NOTE that Failure to submit an electronic version along with the hard copy of your coursework will be treated as failure to submit, and subject to the same lateness penalties set out above.

Observe that there are NEW RULES ON LATE SUBMISSION (see Politics and Internationals Relations Honours Handbooks and below for more details)

Tutorial exerciseThis assessment consists of a weekly group exercise where each group answers a number of set questions relating to two of the readings (one Core and one Further) (please see Web-CT for the relevant document). A hard-copy from each group is handed to the tutor and the answers are then discussed during the tutorials (starting in Week 3). Each fully completed answer is worth 2 points (Weeks 3-5) and 1 point (6-9).

Essay

Essays should be no longer than 3000 words. The upper limit must be observed since anything more than 5% over the word limit will receive a penalty of 5 marks. Essays should be typed using Times New Roman, font 12 and one-and-a-half spaced.

Essays are marked anonymously and will come with written feedback.

One copy will be returned to you, the other will be kept so that it is available for the external examiner, who may amend the mark you receive from your tutor.

Essay questions (choose one)

1. ‘Large n comparisons: good for theory building, bad for everything else’. Do you agree?

3

2. What, if anything, should determine your case selection when conducting comparative research?

3. Choose a dependent variable (e.g. varying/similar levels of democratisation; voter turn-out, institutional stability; state survival, etc) and discuss the ways in which a comparative approach may help you to answer the question. 4. Discuss the relative merits of structuralist, modernist and transition approaches for our understanding of 'democratisation'.

5. Discuss, and critically address, the issues that political scientists should be ‘aware’ of when conducting comparative research.

Submitting the hard copy

Please note: All course work must be submitted as hard copies AND electronically.

Submitting the hard copyStudents must deposit two hard copies of their essay in the Politics and IR Honours Essay Box, located in the wall outside room 1.11, Chrystal Macmillan Building. When doing so, students must complete a Politics/IR Honours coversheet (available outside room 1.11 ), indi-cating their examination number and tutor’s name, and signing a plagiarism form (see below).

Guidelines to Note Submit two copies of the essay. Put only your Exam number on each copy of the essay. Complete ONE Essay Front Coversheet and be sure you complete the Plagiarism

Statement at the bottom of it. Staple the first copy of the essay to the front cover sheet and paperclip the

second to both of them. Post the completed essays into the Politics essay box situated outside room 1.11,

Chrystal Macmillan Building by 12 NOON on the day of deadline.

NOTE: All students should pay particular attention when completing the Plagiarism segment of the Essay Front Coversheet. If it is not completed correctly, coursework will not be marked until the student returns to the office to complete/correct the section.

Electronic Submission

All honours courses now require that students submit their work electronically IN ADDITION TO submitting the hard copies.

SUBMISSION OF COURSEWORK TO WEBCT

1) In addition to the two hard copies, you must, by the same deadline, submit an electronic version via WebCT. The instructions for doing so are as follows.

4

2) Before submitting your coursework, please ensure that you SAVE YOUR ESSAY WITH A FILE NAME THAT INCLUDES YOUR EXAM NUMBER. To ensure anonymity, do not include your name anywhere on the essay.

3) Do not submit your bibliography separately from the essay. Our internal checks make sure the bibliography will not count as ‘plagiarised’ material.

4) Failure to follow these instructions will cause delays in getting your work marked and returned to you.

FILE FORMAT

1) Files must be in Word (.doc), rich text (.rtf), text (.txt) or PDF format. Microsoft Publisher, Open Office and Microsoft Works files will not be accepted.

UPLOADING AND SUBMITTING YOUR ESSAY

1) At the Course Home Page click on the Assignments tab situated on the Course Tools bar at the left hand side of the page.

2) Click on the relevant essay title in the middle of the screen (It will be called ‘Course essay’ or such) and then either:

3) Click on Add Attachment and locate your essay on your computer and attach it. Or you can copy and paste your essay into the window provided.

4) Click on Submit to finish.

5

LATE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSED COURSEWORK

Managing deadlines is a basic life skill and you are expected to have mastered this skill by the time you reach Honours. Timely submission of all assessed items (coursework, essays, dissertations, etc.) is a vitally important responsibility at Honours level. Unexcused lateness can put at risk your prospects of proceeding to Senior Honours, and can damage your final degree grade.

Work submitted late is subject to a 'lateness penalty' of 5 marks deducted per working day after the deadline, and will receive a mark of ‘0’ (without being marked) if submitted after five working days.

Please note: Failure to submit an electronic version along with the hard copy of your coursework will be treated as failure to submit, and subject to the same lateness penalties set out above.

If there are factors beyond your control which make it essential for you to submit work after the deadline you must fill in a ‘Lateness Penalty Waiver’ (LPW) form, copies of which can be found outside room 1.11, CMB, stating the reason for the request. You should submit requests as soon as possible, preferably before the deadline in question. But you should always submit an LPW form when work is late, even if you are unable to submit the form until after the missed deadline.

In cases where there is clear evidence and/or appropriate documentation , the form shall be submitted directly to the Student Support Officer (Susan Orr) in room 1.11, who will sign the form to acknowledge receipt and forward it to the course convenor. Your DoS will be notified for more serious and/or ongoing problems, or when you have made repeated applications on different occasion and if the circumstances are more likely to have academic implications.

Please DO NOT ask the Student Support Officer about whether your request is likely to be approved, and DO NOT apply for a penalty waiver on non-legitimate grounds such as having a heavy workload or computer problems. Your Student Support Officer may decide your request does not meet the criteria above and refuse to receive the form.

Please note: Course convenors should not be approached directly with requests for an extension. The formal process outlined above of requesting a Late Penalty Waiver must always be followed .

Please also note: Signing the LPW form by the Student Support Officer only indicates acknowledgment of the request, not the waiving of lateness penalties.

A provisional decision may be made by the Course Convenor, but final decisions on all marks rest with the Politics exam board. However, you can be reasonably confident that if your request provides good reasons, is well documented and the degree of lateness is proportionate to the reasons for the delay, then lateness penalties will be lifted.

6

At their discretion, course convenors may partially waive lateness penalties if they feel the reason for late submission is legitimate, but they believe that the length of the delay in submitting the work is disproportionate to the reasons for the late submission).

A word of warning about plagiarism !

Plagiarism is the use, without acknowledgement, of the intellectual work of other people, and the act of representing the ideas or discoveries of another as one’s own in written work submitted for assessment. To copy sentences, phrases or even striking expressions without acknowledgment of the source (either by inadequate citation or failure to indicate verbatim quotations), is plagiarism; to paraphrase without acknowledgement is likewise plagiarism. Where such copying or paraphrase has occurred the mere mention of the source in the bibliography shall not be deemed sufficient acknowledgement; each such instance must be referred specifically to its source. Verbatim quotations must be either in inverted commas, or indented, and directly acknowledged. Although discussion between students is encouraged, all essays, dissertations and all other types of coursework are accepted on the understanding that they are, in the end, the student's own work .

Copying passages from books, articles, documents or electronic resources without putting these passages into quotation marks must be avoided . Furthermore, copying from other students' essays will not be condoned. Cases of plagiarism will normally lead to automatic failure on the whole course , and may also lead to action under the University's Code of Discipline.

Please also refer to the Politics Honours Handbook. This year's version has further sections on plagiarism that you should make sure you read.

ii. Dyslexia and Learning Disabilities

SSPS welcomes students with disabilities (including those with specific learning difficulties such as dyslexia) and is working to make all its courses accessible. If you have special needs which may require adjustments to be made to ensure access to such settings as lectures, tutorials or exams, you should discuss these with your Director of Studies who will advise on the appropriate procedures.

You can also contact the Student Disability Service, (Main Library in George Square alongside the Student Counselling and Careers Services), (telephone 0131 650 6828) and an Advisor will be happy to meet with you. The Advisor can discuss possible adjustments and specific examination arrangements with you, assist you with an application for Disabled Students' Allowance, give you information about available technology and personal assistance such as note takers, proof readers or dyslexia tutors, and prepare a Learning Profile for your School which outlines recommended adjustments. You will be expected to provide the Student Disability Service with evidence of disability - either a letter from your GP or specialist, or evidence of a

7

specific learning difficulty. For dyslexia or dyspraxia this evidence must be a recent Chartered Educational Psychologist's assessment. If you do not have this, Student Disability Service can put you in touch with an independent Educational Psychologist.

Students should contact - in advance of coursework deadlines - the Disability Service for further information: see the Student Disability Service’s website.

Course schedule

Textbooks (available for purchase at Blackwells or Amazon.co.uk):

Lim, T.C. (2006), Doing Comparative Politics: An Introduction to Approaches and Issues (Boulder: Lynne Riener).

Hague, R. and Harrop, M. (2004), Comparative Government and Politics (Basingstoke: Palgrave).

8

Lecture topic

Week 1 The Comparative Method (Pontus Odmalm)

Week 2 Issues in Comparative Politics(Pontus Odmalm)

Week 3 Political Institutions(Pontus Odmalm)

Week 4 The State and State Formation(Adham Saouli)

Week 5 Democracy and Democratisation (Adham Saouli)

Week 6 Institutional change: Revolutions(Adham Saouli)

Week 7 Parties and Elections (Wilfried Swenden)

Week 8 Territorial Politics (Wilfried Swenden)

Week 9 Governing Divided Societies (Wilfried Swenden)

Week 10 Revision

Theme

Week 1 The comparative method in practice

Week 2 Problems (and potential solutions) in comparative research

Week 3 Defining institutions.

Week 4 How to use ‘the state’ in comp. research

Week 5 Concepts, measurement issues and comparative challenges

Week 6 Origins, typologies and effects

Week 7 Issues in electoral research

Week 8 Origins and effects

Week 9 Federalism and regionalism

Week 10 Revision class (No lecture)

Calvert, P. (2002) Comparative Politics: An Introduction (Hemel Hempstead: Longman).

Peters, B.G. (1998) Comparative Politics. Theory and Methods, (New York: New York University Press).

Lijphart, A. (1999) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries (New Haven: Yale University Press).

9

Week 1: The Comparative Method (Pontus Odmalm)

This first lecture will provide an introduction to comparative politics as a sub-discipline of political science. A comparative approach to analysing politics can be divided into a method of study and a subject of study. While the former is concerned with what comparison can tell us about internal or domestic dynamics, the latter focuses on understanding and explaining political processes within a state, society, country or political system. The lecture will also cover the nature of comparative politics, how it can further our understanding of political phenomena and the different ways to compare.

Core ReadingsBiezen van, I. and Caramani, D. (2006) ‘(Non)comparative politics in Britain’,

Politics, 26(1): 29-37. Hague, R. and Harrop, M. (2004) Comparative Government and Politics,

Basingstoke: Palgrave/MacMillan (Ch. 5.).Lijphart, A (1971) 'Comparative politics and the comparative method', American

Political Science Review 65(3): 682-693 Hopkin, J. (2002) ‘Comparative Methods’ in Marsh, D. and Stoker, G. (eds),

Theory and Methods in Political Science, Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan, p. 249-267.

Further Reading

Badie, B. (1989) 'Comparative analysis in political science: requiem or resurrection?' Political Studies 37(3): 340-351.

Collier, D. and Mahon, J.E. (1993) 'Conceptual stretching revisited: adapting categories in comparative analysis', American Political Science Review, 87(4): 845-855

Holt, R.T. and Turner, J.E. (eds) (1970) The Methodology of Comparative Research. Jackman, R.W. (1985) 'Cross-national statistical research and the study of

comparative politics', American Journal of Political Science 29(1):161-182 Mayer, L. (1989) Redefining Comparative Politics: Promise Versus Performance,

London: SagePage, E (1990) 'British political science and comparative politics', Political Studies

38(2): 438-452 Pennings, P., Keman H. and Kleinnijenhuis, J. (2006) Doing Research in Political

Science: An Introduction to Comparative Methods and Statistics, London: Sage. Peters, B.G. (1998) Comparative politics: Theory and Methods, Basingstoke:

Palgrave/Macmillan. Przeworski, A and Teune, H (1970) The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry

Malabar, Fl: Robert E Krieger Publishing Co.Ragin, C. (1987) The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and

Quantitative Strategies, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.

10

Rose, R. (1991) 'Comparing forms of comparative analysis', Political Studies 39(3):. 446-462.

Tilly, C. (1984) Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons, New York: Russell, Sage Foundation).

Yin, R.K. (1989) Case Study Research. Design and Methods, London: Sage.

Week 2 Issues in Comparative Politics (Pontus Odmalm)

As a sub-discipline of political science, comparative politics has gained momentum over the past decades. But this development has come with a number of debates regarding the most appropriate way of conducting comparative research. Issues relating to e.g. case selection; representativity; qualitative vs. quantitative studies; deductive vs. inductive modes of analysis and the nature of ‘comparison’ have all featured on the agenda. While the above disputes are still on-going, this week’s lecture focuses on the implications of these ‘issues’ for doing comparative research and what the potential solutions can be.

Core readingsBowman, K.; Lehoucq, F. and Mahoney, J. (2005) ‘Measuring political

democracy: case expertise. data adequacy and Central America’ Comparative Political Studies 38(8): 939-970.

Caramani, D. (2010) ‘Of differences and similarities: is the explanation of variation a limitation to (or of) comparative analysis?’, European Political Science 19(1):34-48.

Geddes, B. (1990) ‘How the cases you choose affect the answers you get: selection bias in comparative politics’, Political Analysis 2(1):131-150.

Tarrow, S. (2010) ‘The strategy of paired comparison: toward a theory of practice’, Comparative Political Studies 43(2): 230-259.

Further readingsCaramani, D. (2010) ‘Debate on the future of comparative politics: a rejoinder’

European Political Science 9(1):78-82. Falleti, T.G. and Lynch, J.F. (2009) ‘Context and causal mechanisms in political

analysis’, Comparative Political Studies 42(9): 1143-1166. Gerring, J. (2007) ‘Is there a (viable) crucial-case method?’, Comparative Political

Studies 40(3):231-253. van Kersbergen, K. (2010) ‘Comparative politics: some points for discussion’,

European Political Science 9(1): 49-61.Levy, J.S. (2007) ‘Qualitative methods and cross-method dialogue in political

science’, Comparative Political Studies 40(2): 196-214. Munck, G.L. and Snyder, R. (2007) ‘Debating the direction of comparative politics:

an analysis of leading journals’, Comparative Political Studies 40(1): 5-31. Schneider, G. (2010) ‘Causal description: moving beyond stamp collecting in political

11

science’, European Political Science 9(1): 62-67.Taylor-Robinson, M.M. (1999) ‘Who gets legislation passed in a marginal legislature

and is the label marginal legislature still appropriate?: A study of the Honduran congress’, Comparative Political Studies 32(5):589-625.

Wibbels, E. (2007) ‘No method to the comparative politics madness’, Comparative Political Studies 40(1): 37-44.

Week 3 Political Institutions (Pontus Odmalm)

The study of political institutions enables us to understand different authority systems and government structures as well as how power is distributed within different states. This week will focus primarily on formal structures such as different arrangements of executive power, legislative structures and executive-legislative relations and how they shape societies and politics. However, institutions may also be informal e.g. political culture and ideas and modes of citizenship which can also influence political behaviour. Institutional theory (‘new institutionalism’) will be contrasted with behaviouralism (‘old institutionalism’).

Core readings

Hall, P.A. and Taylor, R.C. (1996) ‘Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms’, Political Studies, 44(5): 936-957.

Peters, B.G. (2000) Institutional Theory: Problems and Prospects, Vienna: Political Science Series.

Pierson, P. and Skocpol, T. (2002) ‘Historical institutionalism in contemporary political science’ in Katznelson, I. and Milner, H.V. (ed.) Political Science: State of the Discipline, New York: W.W. Norton, 693-721.

Wormouth, F.D. (1967) ‘Matched-dependent behaviouralism: the cargo cult of political science’, The Western Political Quarterly 20(4): 809-840.

Further Reading

Cheibub, J.A. and Limongi, F. (2002) ‘Democratic institutions and regime survival: parliamentary and presidential democracies reconsidered’, Annual Review of Political Science, 5: 151-179.

Hall, P. and Taylor, R. (1996), ‘Political Science and the three New Institutionalisms’, Political Studies, 44(5): 936-57.

DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1991) ‘Introduction’, in Powell, W.W. and DiMaggio, P.J. (eds.) (1991): The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 1-38.

March, J.and Olsen, J.P. (1989) Rediscovering Institutions: the Organizational Basis of Politics, New York: Free Press.

Pierre, J. and Peters, B.G. (2000) Governance, politics, and the State Basingstoke: MacMillan.

12

Riggs, R. Hanson, K, Heinx, M, Hughes, B and Volgy, T. (1970) ‘Behavioralism in the study of the United Nations’, World Politics 22(2): 197-236.

Shugart, M.S. and Wattenberg, M.P. (2005) Mixed-member Electoral Systems: the Best of Both Worlds?, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Thelen, K. (1999) ‘Historical institutionalism in comparative politics’, Annuial Review of Political Science 2: 369-404.

Thelen, K. and Steinmo, S. (1992) ‘Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics’, Steinmo, S and Thelen, K and Longstreth, F. (eds.): Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 1-32.

Week 4 The State and State Formation (Adham Saouli)

What is a ‘state’? And, what is a state formation? Is there a generic pattern of state formation; or, do processes of state formation vary from one case to the other? This lecture has 3 main objectives. Firstly, it will provide several definitions of the state, looking at different theoretical and conceptual approaches. Secondly, it will examine some generic patterns associated with the process of state formation. Finally, it will analyse some variations in the processes of state formation, looking at examples from Europe and the developing world.

Core Readings:

Nettle, J.P. (1968) ‘The state as a conceptual variable’, World Politics 20(4):559-92

Barkey, K. and Parikh, S. (1991) ‘Comparative perspectives on the state’, Annual Review of Sociology 17: 523-49

Tilly, C. (1985), ‘War making and state making as organized crime’ in Bringing the state back in Evans, P.J., Rueschemeyer, D. and Skocpol., T (eds.), Cambridge University Press, p. 169-187.

Further Readings

Abrams, P. (1988). ‘Notes on the difficulty of studying the state’, Journal of Historical Sociology 1(1):58-89.

Ayoob, M. (1995). The Third World security predicaments state making, regional conflict, and the international system, Emerging global, Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Ayubi, N. N. (1995). Over-stating the Arab state: politics and society in the Middle

East. London: I.B. Tauris.Bates, R.H. (2001) Prosperity and violence:the political economy of development,

London: W. W. Norton.(2005) Markets and states in tropical Africa the political basis of agricultural policies, Berkeley: University of California Press.

Cohen, Y, Brown, B.R. and Organski, A.F.K. (1981) ‘The paradoxical nature of state

13

making: the violent creation of order’, The American Political Science Review 75(4):901-910.

Evans, P.J., Rueschemeyer, D. and Skocpol, T. (1985) Bringing the state back in, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gongora, T. (1993) ‘War making and state power in the contemporary Middle East’, International Journal of Middle East Studies 29(3):323-340.

Herbst, J. (1990) ‘War and the state in Africa’, International Security 14(4):117-139.Mann, M. (1986) ‘The autonomous power of the state: its origins, mechanism, and

results,” in Hall, J.A (ed.) States in History, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, p.109-136.

Reinhard, W. (1996). ‘Introduction: power elites state servants, ruling classes, and the growth of state power’ in Reinhard, W. (ed.) Power Elites and State Building, New York: Oxford University Press, p. 1-19.

Rosberg, C.G and Jackson, R.H. (1982) ‘Why Africa's weak states persist: the empirical and the juridical in statehood’, World Politics 35(1):1-24.

Saouli, A. (2006) ‘Stability under late state formation: the case of Lebanon’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs 19(4):701-717.

Skocpol, T. (1979) States and social revolutions: a comparative analysis of France, Russia and China, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tilly, C. (1990) Coercion, capital, and European states, A.D.990-1990, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Weber, M., Roth, G. and Wittich, C. (1979) Economy and society : an outline of interpretive sociology, Berkeley, University of California Press.

Woo-Cumings, M. (1999) The developmental state, Cornell studies in political Economy, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Week 5 Democracy and Democratisation (Adham Saouli)

After successive ‘waves’ of democratisation, are we now seeing a democratic roll-back in some parts of the world? This lecture focuses on examples of democratic success and relative failure focussing on the key institutional, cultural, socio-economic and personal factors involved in a transition to democracy. We will refer to theoretical literature on ‘transition’ and focus on East-Central Europe, the Former Soviet Union, and contemporary China as examples of democratic transitions of varying degrees of success.

Core Readings

Carothers, T. (2002) 'The End of the Transition Paradigm', Journal of Democracy, 13(11): 5-21.

Rustow, D.A. (1970) ‘Transitions to Democracy: Toward a Dynamic Model’Comparative Politics, 2(3): 337-363.

Schmitter, P. and Terry, L.K. (1991) 'What Democracy Is...and is Not.' Journal of Democracy, 2(3): 75-88.

Tilly, C. (2000) ‘Processes and mechanisms of democratization’, Sociological Theory 18(1): 1-16.

14

Further Reading

Bunce, V (2000), ‘Comparative Democratization: Big and Bounded Generalizations’, Comparative Political Studies, 33(6/7): 703-734 (details)

Dahl, R.B. (1961) Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Democratization (2004) Special issue, Democratization in the Early Twenty-first Century, 11(5) (details)

Diamond, L., Linz, J.J. and Lipset, S.M. (1988) Democracy in Developing Countries Boulder, Co: Lynne Rienner. (Volumes on Africa, Asia and Latin America)

Diamond, L. and Plattner, M.F. (1996) (eds) The Global Resurgence of Democracy, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press (especially chapters by Linz, Horowitz, Huntington, Diamond, Lijphart and O Donnell)

Diamond, L. (1999) Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation. Balltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Emerson, M. and Noutcheva, G. (2005) ‘Europeanisation as gravity model of democratisation’, The Herald of Europe 2: 1-33. (details)

Held, D. (ed.) (1993) Prospects for Democracy: North, South, East, West Cambridge: Polity Press.

Huntington, S. (1991) The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Journal of Democracy (2002), Special issue ‘Elections without democracy’, 13(2) (details)

Lijphart, A. (1999) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, New Haven: Yale University Press.

McFaul, M. (2002) ‘The fourth wave of democracy and dictatorship’, World Politics, 54(2): 212-244 (details)

Nagle, J.D. and Mahr, A. (1999) Democracy and Democratization: Post-communist Europe in Comparative Perspective, London: Sage.

O’Donnell, G., Schmitter, P.C. and Whitehead, L. (1986) Transitions from Authoritarian Rule, Baltimore, MA: John Hopkins University Press (4 volumes).

Offe, C. (1996) ‘Designing institutions in East European transitions’ in (ed.) Goodin, R.E. The Theory of Institutional Design, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.199-227.

Potter, D. (ed.) (1997) Democratization, Cambridge: Polity Press.Rose, R. and Shin, D. C. (2001) ‘Democratization Backwards: the Problem of Third-

Wave Democracies’, British Journal of Political Science, 31(2): 331-354. Rose, R. and Mishler, W. (2002) ‘Comparing regime support in non-democratic and

democratic countries’, Democratization, 9(2): 1-20. Zakaria, F. (1997) ‘The Rise of Illiberal Democracy’, Foreign Affairs, 76(6): 22-43.

(details)

Week 6 Institutional change: Revolutions (Adham Saouli)

This week analyzes revolution from both theoretical and comparative-historical perspectives. Popular associations of revolution with the French and Russian cases of

15

the “long nineteenth century” has arguably marginalized numerous other examples, as well as distorted or restricted theoretical frameworks for the analysis of revolution. The recent events in North Africa/Middle East will be looked at more closely in order to address the issue of ‘successful’ institutional change.

Core readingsGurr. T.R. (1973) “The revolution-social change nexus,” Comparative Politics,

5(3): 359-392. Goldstone, Jack (2009) 'Rethinking Revolutions: Integrating Origins, Processes,

and Outcomes', Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East,  29(1): 18-32.

Kuran, T. (1991) "Now out of never: the elements of surprise in the East European revolution of 1989.", World Politics 44(1): 7-48.

Tilly, C. (1973), “Does modernization breed revolution?”, Comparative Politics, 5(3): 424-447.

Further readings

Goldstone, J. (1991) Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Goldstone, J., Gurr. T.R. and Moshiri, F. (1991) Revolutions of the Late Twentieth Century, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Goldstone, J. (ed.) (2003) Revolutions: Theoretical, Comparative, and Historical Studies, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson.

Skocpol, T. (1979) States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, (esp. p. 3-42).

Skocpol, T. (1994) Social Revolutions in the Modern World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 99-119.

Studlar, D. (1999) “Unwritten Rules: Britain’s Constitutional Revolution” Harvard International Review 21(2): 48-52 (reprinted as "A Constitutional Revolution in Britain?" in (ed.) Christian Soe, Annual Editions: Comparative Politics 06-07, Dubuque: McGrawHill/Dushkin, p.16-22).

Tilly, C. (2003) "Inequality, democratization, and de-democratisation", Sociological Theory, 21(1): 37-43.

Week 7 Parties and Elections (Wilfried Swenden)

How can we measure, count and compare party systems and why does it matter? Were Katz and Mair right in identifying the rise of the cartel party? How can the comparative method help is in assessing the validity of their claims? How can we test what determines the nature of the party system: social cleavages or electoral institutions? How can a single case study still be strongly comparative? How can we compare the strategies of statewide parties in multi-level states with regard to their

Core Readings Bardi, L. and Mair, P.(2008), ‘The Parameters of Party Systems’, Party Politics,

14(2): 147-166.Detterbeck, K (2005). ‘Cartel Parties in Western Europe’, Party Politics, March,

16

(11) 173-191Libbrecht, L., Maddens, B and Swenden, W., ‘Party competition in regional

elections: the strategies of statewide parties in Spain and the UK’, Party Politics.

Vatter, A. (2003), ‘Legislative Party Fragmentation in Swiss Cantons, A Function of Cleavage Structures or Electoral Institutions?, Party Politics, 9(4): 445-461.

Further Reading Blais, A. and Dobrzynska, A. (1998) ‘Turnout in electoral democracies’, European

Journal of Political Research 33(2): 239–261.Bomberg, E. (1998) Green Parties and Politics in the European Union,London:

Routledge. Bull, M.J and Heywood, P. (1994.) West European Communist Parties after the

Revolutions of 1989, Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan. Detterbeck, K. (2005) ‘Cartel parties in Western Europe?’, Party politics, 11(2): 173-

191 (details)Dunleavy, P. and Margetts, H. (1995), ‘Understanding the Dynamics of Electoral

Reform’, International Political Science Review, 16(1): 9-29. Duverger, M. (1959.) Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the

Modern State, London: Methuen. Farrell, D.M. (2001.) Electoral Systems: A Comparative Introduction, Basingstoke:

Palgrave/MacMillan. Franklin, M. (1999) ‘Electoral engineering and cross-national turnout differences:

what role for compulsory voting?’, British Journal of Political Science 29(1): 205–224. (details)

Gunther, R. and Diamond, L. (2003) ‘Species of political parties: a new typology’, Party Politics, 9(2): 167-199 (details)

Gunther, R., Montero, J.R. and Linz, J.J. (2002) Political Parties: Old Concepts and New Challenges,Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Katz R.S and Crotty W. J. (eds.) (2006) Handbook of Party Politics, London: Sage. Katz, R.S. and Mair, P. (2002) ‘The Ascendancy of the Party in Public Office: Party

Organizational Change in Twentieth-Century Democracies’ in Gunther, R., Montero, J.R. and Linz, J.J. (eds.) Political Parties: Old Concepts and New Challenges, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 113-136.

Laakso, M. and Taagepera, R. (1979), ‘Effective Number of Parties. A Measure with Application to Western Europe’, Comparative Political Studies, 12(1): 3-27.

LeDuc, L., Niemi, R.G. and Norris, P. (2002), Comparing democracies 2: New Challenges in the Study of Elections and Voting, London: Sage.

Lijphart, A. (1994) Electoral Systems and Party Systems, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lijphart, A. (1999) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, New Haven: Yale University Press, p. 143-170.

Lipset, S.M. and Rokkan, S. (1967) Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives, New York: Free Press, p. 1-66.

Luther R.K and Deschouwer K. (eds.) (1999) Party Elites in Divided Societies. Political Parties in a Consociational Democracy, London: Routledge.

17

Mair, P. (1997) Party System Change: Approaches and Interpretation, Oxford: Clarendon Press (chs. 2 and 8).

LeDuc, L., Niemi, R.G. and Norris, P. (2002), Comparing democracies 2: new challenges in the study of elections and voting, London: Sage (chs.5, 9, 10) (available on WebCT, Readings for Week 8 folder)/

Linz, J. (2002) ‘Parties in Contemporary Democracies: Problems and Paradoxes’ in Gunther, R., Montero, J.R. and Linz, J.J. (eds.) Political Parties: Old Concepts and New Challenges, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 291-318.

Mair, P. and Smith, G. (1990) Understanding Party System Change in Western Europe, London: Cass.

Mair, P., Müller, W.C. and Plasser, F. (2004.) Political Parties and Electoral Change: Party Responses to Electoral Markets, London: SAGE.

March, L. and Mudde, C. (2005) ‘The European Radical Left, Decline and Adaptation’ Comparative European Politics 3(1): 23-49 (details).

Norris, Pippa (1997), ‘Choosing Electoral System: Proportiona, Majoritarian, and Mixed Systems’ International Political Science Review 18(3): 297-312 (details).

Norris, P. (2004), Electoral Engineering. Voting Rules and Political Behaviour, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Panebianco, A. (1988) Political Parties: Organization and Power, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Parliamentary Affairs 56 (1) Special Issue What's Left? The Left in Europe Today (details).

Sartori, G. (1976) Parties and Party System: A Framework for Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (chs. 5, 6, 9 and 10).

Ware, A. (1996) Political Parties and Party Systems, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Webb, P. (2002) ‘Party systems, electoral cleavages and government stability’ in Heywood, P., Jones, E. and Rhodes, M. (eds) Developments in West European Politics 2, Basingstoke: Palgrave/MacMillan, p. 115-134.

Wolinetz, S.B. (2002) ‘Beyond the Catch-All Party: Approaches to the Study of Parties and Party Organization in Contemporary Democracies’ in Gunther, R., Montero, J.R. and Linz, J.J. (eds.) Political Parties: Old Concepts and New Challenges, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 136-166.

Week 8 Territorial Politics (Wilfried Swenden)

More than half of the world’s population who live in a democracy also live in a federation. But what is a federation and how can it be distinguished from federalism, confederalism, multi-level governance, regionalism or devolution? How and why does ‘territorial politics’ matter? Why are some states federal and others not? Does territorial politics make governance more or less efficient? When and how can multi-level governance produce policy innovation and experimentation and when does it lead to policy duplication, immobilism or litigation? Under what conditions can territorial politics help to hold-together multi-national or socio-culturally fragmented societies?

Core Readings

18

Bednar, J. (2011), ‘The Political Science of Federalism’, Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 1-51.

Marks, G., Hooghe, L. and Schakel, A. ‘Measuring Regional Authority’, Regional & Federal Studies, 18, (2-3), 111-121

Ziblatt, D. (2004) ‘Rethinking the origins of federalism: puzzle, theory and evidence from nineteenth-century Europe’, World Politics, 51(1): 70-98.

Further Reading

Bartolini, S. (2005) ‘Old and new peripheries in the process of European territorial integration’ in Ansell, C.K. and Di Palma, G. (eds.) Restructuring Territoriality. Europe and the United States Compared, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bogdanor, V. (1979) Devolution, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beramendi, P. (2007), ‘Federalism’, in Boix C. and Stokes, S.S. (eds.) The Oxford

Handbook of Comparative Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Burgess M. (2006) Comparative Federalism: Theory and Practice, London:

Routledge.Chibber, P.D. and Kollman, K. (2004) The Formation of National Party Systems:

Federalism and Party Competition in Canada, Great Britain, India and the United States, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Erk, J. (2007), Explaining Federalism. State, society and congruence in Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany and Switzerland (London: Routledge)

Elazar, D. (1987) Exploring Federalism, Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Franck, Thomas M. (ed.) (1968) Why Federations Fail: An Inquiry into the Requisites

for Successful Federalism, New York: New York University Press.Gibson, E.L. (ed.) (2004) Federalism and Democracy in Latin America, Baltimore:

Johns Hopkins University Press.Greer, S. (ed.) (2006) Territory, Democracy and Justice: Regionalism and Federalism

in Western Democracies, Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan.Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2001) Multi-Level Governance and European Integration,

Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Hooghe L. and Marks, G. (2003) ‘Unraveling the central state, but how?’ American

Political Science Review 97(2): 233-243. Hough, D. and Jeffery, C. (eds.) (2006) Devolution and Electoral Politics,

Manchester: Manchester University Press. Hueglin, T.O. and Fenna, A. (eds.) Comparative Federalism. A Systematic Inquiry,

Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press. John, P. (2001) Local Governance in Western Europe, London: Sage.Karmis, D. and Norman, W. (2005) Theories of Federalism: A Reader, Basingstoke:

Palgrave/Macmillan.Keating, M. (2008), ’Thirty Years of Territorial Politics’, West European Politics,

31(1-2): 60-81. Kincaid, J. and Tarr, A.G. (2005) Constitutional Origins, Structure and Change in

Federal Countries,Montreal and Kingston: Kingston University Press.King, P. (1982) Federalism and Federation,Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University

Press.

19

Le Gales, P. (2002) European Cities, Social Conflicts and Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Loughlin, J. (2008) ‘Federal and local government institutions’ in Caramani, D. Comparative Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 263-90

Obinger, H., Leibfried, S. and Castles F.G. (eds.) (2005) Federalism and the Welfare State, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Riker, W.H. (1975) “Federalism.” in Greenstein, F.I. and Polsby, N.W. (eds.) Hand-book of Political Science, Volume 5: Governmental Institutions and Processes, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, p. 93-113.

Rodden, J. (2004), ‘Comparative Federalism and Decentralization. On Meaning and Measurement’, Comparative Politics, July 2004, 481-500 [can be downloaded from Professor Rodden’s web-site at: http://www.stanford.edu/~jrodden/ComparativeFederalism.pdf]

Rodden, J. (2006) Hamilton’s Paradox. The Promise and Peril of Fiscal Federalism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Saunders, C. (1996) “The constitutional arrangements of federal systems: a skeptical view from the outside” in Hesse J.J. and Wright, V. (eds.) Federalizing Europe? The Costs, Benefits and Preconditions of Federal Political Systems, Oxford: Clarendon Press, p. 46-72.

Swenden, W. (2006) Federalism and Regionalism in Western Europe. A Comparative and Thematic Analysis, Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan.

Swenden, W and Maddens, B. eds., Territorial Party Politics in Western Europe, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2009.

Treisman, D. (2007), The Architecture of Government. Rethinking Political Decentralization, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Watts R.L. (1996) Comparing Federal Systems in the 1990s, Kingston: Queen's University Press (esp. chs. 1, 3 and 4).

Wibbels, E. (2006) 'Madison in Baghdad? Decentralization and Federalism in Comparative Politics', Annual Review of Political Science 9: 165-188.

Wheare, K.C. (1963) Federal Government (4th ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Week 9 Governing Divided Societies (Wilfried Swenden)

There are many more nations than states but the capacity of multi-national states to hold together may depend on the institutions that have been set up to govern diversity. How can the comparative method help us in determining what is good for divided societies: federalism, consociationalism or electoral engineering? Why does India hold together, but Yugoslavia or the Soviet Union did not? Why did Bosnia or Iraq opt for federalism to govern diversity, and to what extent have electoral devises contributed to successful conflict regulation in the Fiji Islands?

Core Reading:

McGarry, J. and O’Leary, B. (2009), ‘Must Plurinational Federations Fail?’, Ethnopolitics, 8, (1), 5-25.

Reilly, B. (2006), ‘Political Engineering and Party Politics in Conflict-Prone societies', Democratization, 13(5): 811-827.

Sorens, J. (2009), ‘The Partisan Logic of Decentralization in Europe’, Regional

20

and Federal Studies, 19(2): 255-272. Zuber, C. (2011), ‘Understanding the Multinational Game: Toward a Theory of

Asymmetrical Federalism’, Comparative Political Studies, 44 (5), 546-71

Further Reading:

Adeney, K (2007). Federalism and Ethnic Conflict Regulation in India and Pakistan, Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Amoretti U.M. and Bermeo, N. (eds.) (2004) Federalism and Territorial Cleavages, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press (esp. ‘Introduction’).

Horowitz, D.L (2000), Ethnic Groups in Conflict, Berkeley: University of California Press.

Horowitz, D. (2002) ‘Constitutional design: proposal versus processes’ in Reynolds, A. (2002) (ed.), The Architecture of Democracy. Constitutional design, conflict management and Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 15-37.

Keating, M. (2001) Nations against the State. The New Politics of Nationalism in Quebec, Catalonia and Scotland, Basingstoke: Palgrave (2nd edition).

Keating, M. (2001) Plurinational Democracy. Stateless Nations in a Post-Sovereignty Area, Oxford: Oxford University Press, (esp. p. 1-28).

Kymlicka, W. (1995) Multicultural Citizenship, Oxford: Oxford University Press. (esp. chs 1, 7 and 8).

Kylmlicka, W. (2001), ‘Minority Nationalism and Multination Federalism’ in Kymlicka, W. (ed.) Politics in the Vernacular. Nationalism, Multiculturalism and Citizenship, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 91-120

Kymlicka W. and Norman, W (2000), eds., Citizenship in Diverse Societies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lijphart, A. (2002) ‘The wave of power-sharing democracy’ in Reynolds, A. (2002) (ed.), The Architecture of Democracy. Constitutional design, conflict management and Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 37-55.

Lustick, I. (1979) “Stability in Deeply divided societies: consociationalism versus control,” World Politics, 31(3): 325-344.

Norris, P. (2008), Driving Democracy. Do Power-Sharing Institutions Work?, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oberschall, A. (2007), Conflict and Peace Building in Divided Societies. Responses to Ethnic Violence, (London: Routledge.

Ross, M.H. (2007), Cultural Contestation in Ethnic Conflict, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 312-328

Rudolph, J. (2006), Politics and Ethnicity. A Comparative Study, Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Stepan, A. (2001) ‘Toward a new comparative politics of federalism, multinationalism and democracy: beyond Rikerian federalism’ in Stepan, A. (ed.) Arguing Comparative Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 315-362.

Stepan, A., Linz, J. and Yadav, Y., The State-Nation. India and other Multinational Democracies (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press)

Weller, M and Wolff, S. (2005) (eds.) Autonomy, Self-Governance and Conflict Resolution, London: Routledge.

Wilkinson, S.I. (2004), Votes and Violence. Electoral Competition and Ethnic Riots in India, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

21

Week 10 Revision class (tutorial as usual but no lecture)

22