SYLLABUS:
POLITICAL SCIENCE 5012
CORE SEMINAR IN COMPARATIVE POLITICS
SPRING, 1993
MARK I. LICHBACH
CENTER FOR COMPARATIVE POLITICS
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO
CAMPUS BOX 333
BOULDER, COLORADO 80309
I. OVERVIEW
Let's begin with my assumptions about social science. I assume that comparative analysis lays at the foundation of theory building. One evaluates a theory by comparing. How is the theory's application to one context different than its application to another context? What would another theory say? In addition, one understands a single context by comparing. What does a theory indicate are the relevant similarities and differences? What would another theory say? Comparison therefore lays at the heart of theory building because it mediates between ideas and evidence, hypotheses and data, abstractions and substance. Thinking theoretically about politics means thinking comparatively.
Note that I assume that one must compare theories and cases. Comparisons, moreover, should be both historical and cross-sectional. One must be concerned about how theories compare and contrast with one another (a Popperian "crucial test" perspective) as well as how each theory developed historically (a Lakatosian "progressivity" perspective). One must also be concerned about how cases compare and contrast with one another (e.g., similarities and differences between the French and Russian Revolutions) as well as how each case developed historically (e.g., each Revolution's historical roots).
These assumptions lead to this course's two purposes. First, I aim to teach theory building though comparative analysis. I will show how one uses comparative analysis to arbitrate between research programs, theories, models and hypotheses on the one hand, and case studies, stylized facts, observations and quantitative evidence on the other. I will explore how theories illuminate substantive problems, how substantive problems clarify theories, and how comparison mediates between the theories and the problems.
Comparative politics is the field within political science within which the principles of comparative analysis are applied most explicitly. A second purpose of this course is therefore to explore the core concepts, methods, theories and problem areas of the field of comparative politics. Neither Americanists nor students of international relations, however, should be deterred. Research programs, theories and methods in comparative politics are related to research programs, theories and methods in political science and social science more generally. To understand how to think theoretically (i.e., comparatively) about substantive problems in comparative politics is also to understand how to think theoretically about substantive problems in other fields.
Evidence for this last assertion is the types of research programs we will study. We will consider two types of micro approaches to comparative politics, rationalist and culturalist, and three types of macro approaches, group, class and organization. These approaches obviously transcend the boundaries of comparative politics and even of political science.
This syllabus serves these goals for the course in three ways. First, it contains an outline of the material we will cover. An overview, the requirements, a reading list, a schedule of lectures, and some handouts are included. Second, the syllabus contains a preliminary set of references to get you started on one of the course's requirements: A research proposal. I have tried to summarize the articles and books that are central to several different problem areas in the field of comparative politics. I touch most bases and cite the major review articles and bibliographic essays. However, I have made no attempt to cover any topic in depth. I cite those writings that I have found most interesting and important. I offer a beginning, not an end, to your research proposal's literature review. Finally, the syllabus covers the material that I think should be mastered for the comprehensives in comparative politics at CU.
II. REQUIREMENTS
This course has four requirements.
1. CRITICAL EVALUATION OF A RESEARCH PROGRAM (20%)
You must critically evaluate the readings for a particular research program in comparative politics (see Part II of the Lecture Sequence). The literature evaluation should be approximately ten double spaced pages long. You will also serve as the discussion leader for the week's readings. Three copies of your paper are due in the Comparative Center by 9:00 AM on the Wednesday before Friday's seminar. In addition, put one copy of your paper in my box. These papers, plus the readings, will form the basis of each Friday's seminar.
NOTE: ALL GRADUATE STUDENTS ARE EXPECTED TO COMPLETE EACH WEEK'S READINGS AND PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSIONS. THIS REQUIREMENT HOLDS EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT THE WEEK'S DISCUSSION LEADER. EACH STUDENT SHOULD THUS EXPECT THAT HE OR SHE WILL BE CALLED UPON TO SPEAK AT LEAST ONCE EACH WEEK.
What should the literature evaluations include? You should address three questions: What is said? Why is it said? What if it is said? The first question asks you to summarize the readings. This should take no more than 25% of your paper. In other words, do not write a nine page summary of the readings and append a one page critique. This is not acceptable. The second question asks you to explore the author's reasoning. Spend some time dissecting the author's assumptions. Explore how he or she came to their conclusions. Attempt to expose contradictions, inconsistencies and incoherences in the author's reasoning. Analytic scrutiny is often aided by trying to draw connections to other literatures that you have read both in this course and elsewhere. Ask yourself: What would Author X say about Author Y? How is Author X's argument similar to (different from) Author Y's argument? What accounts for the similarities and differences? How do different theoretical and methodological presuppositions lead to different conclusions? You might also ask why the author reasons as he or she does. Do the theories appear in historically specific situations? How are they addressed to particular audiences? The third question asks you to draw out the implications of what the author is saying. Do the author's ideas have normative implications for public policy? You might think about how to implement the author's view of the world. Do the ideas have positive implications for theory testing? You might think about the conditions under which the argument is valid and invalid. Does the argument hold in a different geographic or historical context than the one in which it is posed? How well does the argument work in the author's original context? In sum, a critical evaluation of the literature involves conducting a conversation with the author. You must think about where the argument came from and where it is headed.
There are other ways to think about doing a critical evaluation of the literature. For further suggestions, take a look at the sample questions listed below under the sections labelled "Research Programs," "Theories" and "The State of the Field."
2. CRITICAL EVALUATION OF A PROBLEM AREA (20%)
Same assignment as above, except for a problem area (see Part III of the Lecture Sequence).
3. RESEARCH PROPOSAL IN A PROBLEM AREA (30%)
The best way for students to learn about the competing research programs and the many substantive problems in comparative politics is to write a research proposal. I am therefore asking you to write an approximately twenty page research proposal. The assignment is simple: Apply any theory (or theories) you have learned in this course to any substantive problem in comparative politics. You may propose a case study, comparative case study or quantitative analysis. Note that you do not have to actually "execute" the design. The research, however, must be "do-able."
For those of you who are new to writing research papers in graduate school, I have prepared some guidelines. These appear later in this syllabus. You can also take a look at the sample questions listed below under the sections labelled "Moving from Theory to Evidence" and "Moving from Evidence to Theory."
4. TAKE HOME FINAL (30%)
Students will have three days to write answers to questions relating to the material we cover in class and/or is contained in the required readings. These questions will be broadly similar to the comprehensive exams in comparative politics offered here at CU. The final will thus be good practice for this major hurdle in your graduate careers. Sample questions appear later in this syllabus.
Note how these four assignments are cumulative. You can write a critical evaluation of one research program and then investigate what that research program has to say about a particular problem area. You can then choose to write a research proposal on that problem. Finally, you can expect questions on the final exam to cover both the research program you analyze and the problem area you select.
ONE FINAL NOTE: NO INCOMPLETES WILL BE GIVEN. YOUR RESEARCH PROPOSALS ARE DUE MAY 10.
III. READING LIST
The following books are available for purchase in the bookstore:
Bates, Robert H. (1989). Beyond the Miracle of the Market: The Political Economy of Development in Kenya. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cardoso, Fernando Henrique and Faletto, Enzo (1979). Dependency and Development in Latin America. Berkeley, Ca.: University of California Press.
Huntington, Samuel (1968). Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Inglehart, Ronald (1990). Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Moon, Bruce E. (1991). The Political Economy of Basic Human Needs. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Moore, Barrington, Jr. (1966). Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Boston, Ma.: Beacon Press.
Powell, G. Bingham, Jr. (1982). Contemporary Democracies: Participation, Stability, and Violence. Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press.
Skocpol, Theda (1979). States and Social Revolutions: Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steinmo, Sven, Thelen, Kathleen and Longstreth, Frank, Eds. (1992). Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
IV. COURSE ORGANIZATION
Class meets on Fridays from 12:00 to 2:30 in Ketchum 116. My office hours are Thursdays and Fridays, 11:00 to 12:00, in Ketchum 134A. If these times are inconvenient, call and make an appointment. I can be reached by phone at 492-8601 (office) or 321-2124 (home). By the way, do not be afraid to stop by and talk. It is important for students to get to know faculty and for faculty to get to know students.
HOW TO WRITE A RESEARCH PROPOSAL
If you look closely at articles that appear in scholarly journals in the social sciences you will discover that most of the articles follow a similar style. A research proposal contains at least four of these parts.
Part No. 1: Introduction
The first part of a research proposal typically explores what you are studying and why. Here are some questions that you should try to address.
1. What is your general goal?
a. What subject do you wish to explore?
b. What problem do you wish to investigate?
c. What topic do you wish to study?
2. What is your specific purpose?
a. What puzzle is to be resolved?
b. What issue is to be confronted?
c. What is your particular point of view?
i. The theme of this paper is ...
ii. The argument to be investigated is ...
iii. I aim to ...
iv. I would like to demonstrate the point that ...
v. My solution to the problem of ... is ...
3. Why are there issues worthy of investigation?
a. What motivates your analysis?
c. What justifies your interest?
d. What makes the subject important?
e. What contributions will your study make?
Your introduction, in short, should contain a clear motivation and a well-defined thesis statement.
Part No. 2: The Theory To Be Tested
The second part of a research proposal typically states the theoretical arguments to be explored. Here are some questions that you should try to address.
1. What is the research program under which you are working?
a. What are its core assumptions?
b. What are its operating rules?
2. For each hypothesis or idea that you derive from that research program:
a. What is the bivariate linkage among the variables?
i. Can you offer a verbal statement of the causal argument?
ii. Can you offer a formal statement, an if-then hypothesis?
b. What do you want to explain?
i. What is your dependent variable?
ii. How do you define it?
c. What is your explanation?
i. What is your independent variable?
ii. How do you define it?
d. Under what conditions is the hypothesis true?
i. What are your control variables?
ii. What is the context under which the relationship holds?
iii. Where and when are the independent and dependent variables related?
e. Why do you believe that the hypothesis is true?
i. What assumptions lead you to propose the hypothesis?
ii. Why is the hypothesis plausible?
iii. What is the reasoning behind the hypothesized relationship?
Your theory section, in short, should contain clearly stated ideas. You may or may not choose to put your ideas in terms of hypotheses, independent variables, dependent variables, etc. However, you must be precise about what you are trying to explain and how you are trying to explain it.
Part No. 3: Literature Review
The third part of a research proposal typically discusses what is known and unknown, settled and debated, about the subject under study. Here are some questions that you should try to address.
1. What is the current state of our knowledge?
a. How does your problem relate to existing scholarship?
b. What does the research record on your problem look like?
c. What do existing studies on your topic tell us?
2. What does the journal literature look like? (You must track down journal articles as well as books. Much of the good empirical work in our discipline occurs in the journals and not in books).
3. What do we know about your
a. Research program?
b. Theories?
c. Hypotheses?
d. Methodologies?
c. Evidence?
4. What are the literature's major limitations?
a. Is there progress or stagnation in this field?
b. What are the shortcomings in theory and method?
c. What are the major roadblocks to progress?
d. What are scholars fighting about (i.e., what don't we know)?
e. What do scholars agree upon (i.e., what do we think we know)?
5. What are the literature's major themes?
a. What are the Big Questions that scholars are asking?
b. What are the key issues scholars are debating?
Your literature review, in short, should be based on a carefully compiled sample of the professional literature. You then need to reflect upon that literature. Summarize thematically. Avoid summarizing article by article. And remember that if your refer to theories, methods or data, you must cite specific sources.
Part No. 4: The Research Design
The fourth part of a research proposal typically offers a research design to probe the theoretical arguments you have advanced. Here are some questions that you should try to address.
1. What methodological guidelines will you follow?
a. What is your study design or research plan?
i. How will you confront the issues you raised?
ii. How will you answer the questions you posed?
b. How does your research design address the problem?
i. Why have you chosen your approach to the problem?
ii. How would you justify your research choices and decisions?
2. How will you choose cases to examine?
a. Why were your cases selected?
b. Why were other cases not selected?
3. How will you choose your indicators?
a. What is your measurement strategy?
b. What sources of evidence will you use?
i. Survey research - questionnaires, interviews
ii. Fieldwork - participant and non-participant observation
iii. Secondary analysis of statistical sources
iv. Content analysis of archives and historical records
4. How will you eliminate plausible rival hypotheses?
a. What test implications lend support to your hypotheses?
b. What test implications lead to the rejection of your hypotheses?
c. What challenges to falsification exist?
Your research design, in short, should contain clear procedures. BOTH QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE PROPOSALS ARE EQUALLY ACCEPTABLE. If you propose a quantitative study, you should list specific variables (independent, dependent and control) and a specific sample of cases. If you plan to use an existing data collection, indicate the specific variables you will use and why. For example, If you plan to use a sample survey, indicate what questions you will use and why. If you propose a qualitative study, you should state your plans as clearly as possible. Qualitative research is, however, more open-ended. You will probably emphasize your ideas that fill gaps in the literature and deemphasize specific procedures to evaluate those ideas.
The Specific Requirements
Your research proposal must be done professionally. You should write your proposal as if you were going to submit it to either the American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science or Political Research Quarterly. Take a look at the APSA footnoting standard and the other guidelines these journals demand of all manuscript submissions. In particular, your paper should meet the following requirements:
1. Typed (presumably on a word processor)
2. Stapled (no clips)
3. Double-spaced
4. Cover sheet (no plastic research covers)
5. Title page contains
- name
- date
- title
- who the paper is submitted to
- course name and number
6. 8-l/2" x ll" paper
7. 1.5" margins on top and bottom, left and right
8. Pages numbered
9. 150 word abstract summarizing the paper
10. APSA footnoting style
On Writing
You must do more than get the form right. You must write clearly and effectively. Social scientists who write well get their ideas across. Social scientists who write poorly tend to have their ideas ignored.
I can offer two suggestions for improving your writing skills. First, take a few days off and read a couple of books on writing and composition.
1. Some References on How to Write a Research Paper:
University of Chicago Press (1969). A Manual of Style. Chicago, Il.: University of Chicago Press.
Mullins, Carolyn J. (1977). A Guide to Writing and Publishing in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. N.Y.: Wiley.
2. Some References on How to Compose Readable Prose:
Strunk, William Jr. and White, E. B. (1972). The Elements of Style. 2nd Ed. N.Y.: Macmillan.
Flesch, Rudolf (1949). The Art of Readable Writing. N.Y.: Collier
Barrass, Robert (1978). Scientists Must Write: A Guide to Better Writing for Scientists, Engineers and Students. London: Chapman and Hall.
Tichy, H. J. (1966). Effective Writing For Engineers, Managers, Scientists. N. Y.: Wiley.
Second, try using a grammar checker. Many are available as auxiliary "tools" to supplement your word processor. You should know, however, that some people like grammar checkers and others hate them. My view is that grammar checkers are not perfect. However, they do assist the novice writer by forcing him or her think about sentence and paragraph construction. As your writing improves, grammar checkers tend to slow you down and generally become a hinderance.
One final note. If you use a word processor, you should think about using its related tools: A speller and a thesaurus. You should at least run a spell check on your papers. A paper with numerous spelling errors and typos is unprofessional.
MY FAVORITE EXAM QUESTIONS
This course tries to teach the craft (science + art) of comparative politics. I explore research programs, theories, the state of the field, moving from ideas to evidence and moving from evidence to ideas. The questions I like to ask on finals and comprehensives reflect these concerns.
Research Programs
(1) Choose any research program (paradigm) in comparative politics with which you are familiar. Do a rational reconstruction of the research program as Lakatos suggests (i.e., trace its life history). Make sure that you evaluate the research program's (a) core assumptions, (b) auxiliary assumptions, (c) key theories, (d) important hypotheses, (e) do's (the sorts of research activities suggested by the program), and (f) don't (the sorts of research activities proscribed by the program). Is the program progressive or degenerative? What avenues for future work seem most promising? (Note: It is acceptable to argue that a particular literature does not meet Lakatos' standards).
(2) Compare and contrast any two research programs in comparative politics with which you are familiar. Show how the deficiencies in one are addressed by the other.
Theories
(1) Are theories of political participation (or policy, institutions, etc.) making any progress? What do we know for sure? What is disputed?
(2) What are the major hypotheses about underdevelopment (or coalition formation, revolution, etc.) What would a proposition inventory of the causes of underdevelopment reveal? What patterns would be discovered? What is the best way to categorize explanations of underdevelopment?
(3) Take any area of comparative politics (e.g., political violence, coalitions, elections) where a great deal of empirical work has been done. What stylized facts emerge from this body of empirical work? What, in other words, do we know for sure? What is in dispute?
The State of the Field
(1) Examine a sample of review articles in any problem area in comparative politics. What are practitioners saying to one another? What do they think the agenda for the field is? What are the controversies? What do people agree on?
(2) Follow all the articles in a major journal in comparative politics (e.g, World Politics, Comparative Politics, Comparative Political Studies, International Organization) over the past twenty years to determine what have been the major trends (in substance, methodology, theory) in the field. What accounts for these trends?
(3) Pick a particular puzzle in comparative politics (e.g., why no socialism in the U.S.). Use indexes and abstracts to compose a bibliography. Determine how answers to the question have changed over the years.
(4) Use the social science citation index, book reviews and review articles to follow the reception of a major work in the field (e.g., Gurr's Why Men Rebel). What themes do the critics emphasize? How have the criticisms changed over time? What do the critics consider the most promising future avenues for research?
Moving From Theory to Evidence
(1) Choose any research program (paradigm) in comparative politics with which you are familiar. Choose one important theory in the research program. (a) Carefully state the assumptions behind the theory. (b) Derive three different hypotheses (if-then statements) from that theory. (c) For each hypothesis in (b), consider whether alternative theories and research programs lead to the same hypothesis. (d) Propose three distinct and demanding tests of each of the hypotheses offered in (b), clearly indicating the cases to be sampled, the data to be collected, the variables to be measured and the research design to be used. (e) Indicate how each test eliminates or controls possible perturbing variables not included in the theory under consideration. (f) Indicate how each test uses operationalizations consistent with the theory. And (g) if an hypothesis fails, consider how the theory and/or research program should be modified, repaired, restated, narrowed, discarded, etc.
(2) Choose any theory in comparative politics with which you are familiar. (a) Show how it may be deduced from one or more research programs in comparative politics. (b) Derive three different hypotheses from the theory. (c) Propose three different tests for each of the hypotheses in (b). And (d) indicate how each of the tests are consistent with one or more of the research programs.
(3) Arthur Stinchcombe, in Constructing Social Theories, writes (p. 13):
"I usually assign students in a theory class the following task: Choose any relation (i.e., hypothesis) between two or more variables which you are interested in; invent at least three theories, not now known to be false, which might explain these relations; choosing appropriate indicators, derive at least three different empirical consequences from each theory, such that the factual consequences distinguish among the theories. This I take to be the model of social theorizing as a practical scientific activity."
Take Stinchcombe's challenge for an interesting and important hypothesis in comparative politics.
(4) Choose any three hypotheses about conflict found in Samuel Huntington's Political Order in Changing Societies. For each hypothesis, (a) carefully state the hypothesis in if-then terms, (b) show how it may be derived from one or more research programs in conflict studies, (c) compare the reasoning in (b) to Huntington's argument for the hypothesis, and (d) propose three different specific tests, indicating clearly the supporting evidence that would convince you that the hypothesis was true, and the contrary evidence that would convince you that the hypothesis was false. (This question is also suitable to other major works in the field.)
Moving From Evidence to Theory
(1) Suppose that we observe that in country X at time Y (pick any country and time with which you are familiar) a conflict event, episode or campaign (i.e., some specific military coup, riot, terrorist attack, guerilla war, etc.) has occurred. (Example: student riots in Korea in September, 1988) How would the rational actor or resource mobilization research program explain the conflict? How would the deprived actor or relative deprivation research program explain it? What would identity oriented approaches say? Propose at least one crucial test to determine which research program offers the more adequate explanation.
(2) Chose any case study of any particular conflict (e.g., the American civil war, the French Revolution, the struggle in South Africa) with which you are familiar. Cite three important stylized facts or observations about the case which the author tries to explain. For each fact or observation, (a) show how it may be explained by one or more research programs in conflict studies, (b) compare the reasoning in (a) with the author's explanation, and (c) propose three different tests to determine which research program offers the more adequate explanation.
(3) Take any quantitative study of conflict in which you are interested (e.g., Gurr's model, Hibbs' model, Barnes and Kaase's survey work). Make a list of the five most intriguing stylized facts to come out of the research. Offer a theory to explain any one of them; any two of them; any three of the them; any four of them; and finally, any five of them.
(4) Pick any revolution (e.g., Iran, Mexico, Nicaragua, Cuba) not studied by Moore or Skocpol. Evaluate how well Moore's and Skocpol's theories explain that revolution.
(5) Pick any two cases of Great Revolutions. Pick any two theories of revolution. Use the cases to evaluate the theories.
Note: Variations of these questions could be developed for problems other than political violence and revolution.
LECTURE SEQUENCE
Three types of readings are listed below. A reading denoted by "**" means that it is required reading for this course. You will find it either on reserve in the library or available for purchase in the bookstore. A reading denoted by "*" means that it is recommended (i.e., for comprehensives). All other readings are background readings that students may consult for their critical evaluations and research proposals.
PART I. METHODOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES:
THEORY BUILDING AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
WEEK 1 (JANUARY 15) A. PHILOSOPHIES OF SCIENCE
One of the aims of this course is to teach you about theories in the social sciences generally and in comparative politics specifically. You will write critical evaluations of existing research and a proposal for new research. What criteria should you use to evaluate existing scholarship? What should you be trying to accomplish in your own research? Alternative philosophies of science offer alternative answers to these questions.
1. OVERVIEWS AND EVALUATIONS:
**Moon, J. Donald (1975). "The Logic of Political Inquiry: A Synthesis of Opposed Perspectives." In Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby, Eds. Handbook of Political Science. Volume I: Political Science Scope and Theory. Reading, Ma.: Addison-Wesley.
Bowen, Elinor R. and Balch, George (1981). "Epistemology, Methodology, and Method in the Study of Political Behavior." In Samuel l. Long, Ed. Handbook of Political Behavior. Volume 1. New York: Plenum Press.
Mayer, Lawrence C. (1972). Comparative Political Inquiry: A Methodological Survey. Homewood, Il: Dorsey, part I.
Kaplan, Abraham (1964). The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science. Scranton, Penn.: Chandler.
Rudner, Richard S. (1966). Philosophy of Social Science. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Brodbeck, May, Ed. (1968). Readings in the Philosophy of the Social Sciences. London: Macmillan.
Suppe, Frederick, Ed. (1977). The Structure of Scientific Theories. Urbana, Il.: University of Illinois.
Lloyd, Christopher (1986). Explanation in Social History. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Rhoads, John K. (1991). Critical Issues in Social Theory. University Park, Penn.: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Outhwaite, William (1987). New Philosophies of Social Science: Realism, Hermeneutics and Critical Theory. N.Y.: St. Martin's.
2. SOME CLASSICS:
Popper, Karl R. (1965). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. N.Y.: Harper Torchbooks.
Popper, Karl R. (1968). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. N.Y.: Harper Torchbooks.
Feyerabend, Paul (1988). Against Method. Revised Ed. London: Verso.
3. THE POSITIVIST POSITION:
*Blalock, Hubert M., Jr. (1969). Theory Construction: From Verbal to Mathematical Formulations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, ch. 3.
*Blalock, Hubert M., Jr. (1968). "The Measurement Problem: A Gap Betwen the Languages of Theory and Research. In Hubert M. Blalock, Jr. and Ann B. Blalock, Eds. Methodology in Social Resarch. N.Y.: McGraw-Hill.
Platt, John Rader (1966). "Strong Inference." In John Rader Platt, The Step to Man. N.Y.: Wiley.
Merton, Robert K. (1948). "The Bearing of Empirical Research Upon the Development of Social Theory." American Sociological Review 5 (1948): 505-515.
4. EXPLANATION:
*Stinchcombe, Arthur (1968). Constructing Social Theories. N.Y.: Harcourt, Brace & World, Introduction, ch. 1.
Lane, Ruth (1990). "Concrete Theory: An Emerging Political Method." American Political Science Review 84 (September): 927-940.
5. FORMAL MODELS:
*Lave, Charles A. and March, James G. (1975). An Introduction to Models in the Social Sciences. N.Y.: Harper & Row, ch. 1-3.
*Zinnes, Dina A. (1980). "Three Puzzles in Search of a Researcher." International Studies Quarterly 24 (September): 315-342.
*Riker, William H. (1977). "The Future of a Science of Politics." American Behavioral Scientist 21 (September/October): 11-38.
6. RESEARCH PROGRAMS:
**Lakatos, Imre (1970). "Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programs." In Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, Eds. Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
*Kuhn, Thomas S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Second Edition, Enlarged. Chicago, Il.: University of Chicago Press.
Hirschman, Albert O. (1970). "The Search for Paradigms as a Hindrance to Understanding." World Politics 22 (April): 329-343.
7. BIG QUESTIONS:
**Mills, C. Wright (1959). The Sociological Imagination. London: Oxford University Press, ch. 1.
8. THEORETICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS:
**Alexander, Jeffrey C. (1987). Twenty Lectures: Sociological Theory Since World War II. N.Y.: Columbia University Press, ch. 1.
9. SOCIAL SCIENTISTS DISPUTING "SCIENCE":
Knorr, Klaus and Rosenau, James M., Eds. (1969). Contending Approaches to International Politics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Gunnell, John G., et al. (1969). "Symposium on 'Deduction, Explanation, and Social Scientific Inquiry'." American Political Science Review 63 (December): 1233-1263.
Miller, Eugene F., et al. (1972). "Symposium on 'Positivism, Historicism, and Political Inquiry'." American Political Science Review 66 (September): 796-873."
10. THEORY DEVELOPMENT IN THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES:
Watson, James D. (1968). The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of DNA. N.Y.: Mentor.
Feynman, Richard P. (1985). Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman. N.Y.: Bantam Books.
11. THEORY DEVELOPMENT IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES:
Wagner, David G. and Berger, Joseph (1985). "Do Sociological Theories Grow?" American Journal of Sociology 90 (January): 697-182.
Riker, William (1982). "The Two-party System and Duverger's Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science." American Political Science Review 76 (December): 753-766.
Ball, Terence (1976). "From Paradigms to Research Programs: Toward Post-Kuhnian Political Science." American Journal of Political Science 20 (February): 151-177.
Ball, Terrance (1987). "Is There Progress in Political Science?" In Terence Ball, Ed. Idioms of Inquiry: Critique and Renewal in Political Science. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.
Farr, James (1988). "The History of Political Science." American Journal of Political Science 32 (November): 1175-1195.
Eckstein, Harry (1980). The Natural History of Congruence Theory. Monograph Series in World Affairs, Volume 18, Book 2. Denver, Co.: Graduate School of International Studies, University of Denver.
WEEK 2 (JANUARY 22) B. THE FIELD
This section aims to provide an overview of the field of comparative politics. The field contains a great diversity of methods, issues and approaches. We will examine the debates in the field over concepts, boundaries, epistemology, etc., etc., etc. ....
1. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT:
**Eckstein, Harry (1963). "A Perspective on Comparative Politics, Past and Present." In Harry Eckstein and David E. Apter, Eds. Comparative Politics: A Reader. N.Y.: Free Press, pp. 3-32.
**Wiarda, Howard J. (1985). "Comparative Politics Past and Present." In Howard J. Wiarda, Ed. (1985). New Directions in Comparative Politics. Boulder, Co.: Westview.
*Verba, Sidney (1985). "Comparative Politics: Where Have We Been, Where Are We Going." In Howard J. Wiarda, Ed. (1985). New Directions in Comparative Politics. Boulder, Co.: Westview.
2. COMPETING RESEARCH PROGRAMS:
Bill, James A. and Hardgrave, Robert L. (1973). Comparative Politics: The Quest for Theory. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill.
Chilcote, Ronald H. (1981). Theories of Comparative Politics: The Search for a Paradigm. Boulder, Co.: Westview.
Holt, Robert T. and Johnson, John M., Jr. (1970). "Competing Paradigms in Comparative Politics." In Robert T. Holt and John E. Turner, Eds. The Methodology of Comparative Research. N.Y.: Free Press.
Merkl, Peter H. (1970). Modern Comparative Politics. N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
3. SCOPE:
**Sigelman, Lee and Gadbois, George H. (1983). "Contemporary Comparative Politics: An Inventory and Assessment." Comparative Political Studies 16 (October): 275-305.
*Mayer, Lawrence C. (1989). Redefining Comparative Politics: Promise Versus Performance. Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage.
Mayer, Lawrence C. (1972). Comparative Political Inquiry: A Methodological Survey. Homewood, Il: Dorsey.
LaPalombara, Joseph (1974). Politics Within Nations. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.
Canatori, Louis J. and Ziegler, Andrew H. Jr., Eds. (1988). Comparative Politics in the Post-Behavioral Era. Boulder, Co.: Rienner.
Dogan, Mattei and Pelassy, Dominique (1984). How to Compare Nations: Strategies in Comparative Politics. Chatham N.J.: Chatham House.
Merritt, Richard L. (1971). Systematic Approaches to Comparative Politics. Chicago, Il.: Rand-McNally.
4. METHODOLOGIES:
a. CASE STUDY:
**Eckstein, Harry (1975). "Case Study and Theory in Political Science." In Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby, Eds. Handbook of Political Science. Volume 7: Strategies of Inquiry. Reading, Ma.: Addison-Wesley.
*Campbell, Donald T. (1975). "'Degrees of Freedom' and the Case Study." Comparative Political Studies 8 (July): 178-193.
*George, Alexander (1979). "Case Study and Theory Development." In Paul Gordon Lauren, Ed. Diplomacy: New Approaches in History, Theory, and Policy. N.Y.: Free Press.
b. COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY:
**Lijphart, Arend (1975). "The Comparable-Cases Strategy in Comparative Research." Comparative Political Studies 8 (July): 158-177.
*Lijphart, Arend (1971). "Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method," American Political Science Review 65 (September): 682-693.
c. COMPARATIVE HISTORY:
**Skocpol, Theda (1984). "Sociology's Historical Imagination." In Theda Skocpol, Ed. Vision and Method in Historical Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
**Skocpol, Theda (1984). "Emergent Agendas and Recurrent Strategies in Historical Sociology." In Theda Skocpol, Ed.. Vision and Method in Historical Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
**Bloch, Marc (1967). "A Contribution Towards a Comparative History of European Societies." In Marc Bloch, Land And Work in Medieval Europe. Berkeley, Ca.: University of California Press.
*Tilly, Charles (1984). Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons. N.Y.: Russell Sage.
*Skocpol, Theda and Somers, Margaret (1980). "The Uses of Comparative History in Macrosociologcal Theory." Comparative Studies in Society and History 22 (April): 174-197.
Abrams, Philip (1982). Historical Sociology. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Mills, C. Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. London: Oxford University Press.
Smelser, Neil (1976). Comparative Methods in the Social Sciences. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Stinchcombe, Arthur L. (1978). Theoretical Methods in Social History. N.Y.: Academic Press.
d. CROSS-NATIONAL:
**Gurr, Ted Robert (1972). Politimetrics: An Introduction to Quantitative Macropolitics. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, ch. 1-5, 8.
**Lichbach, Mark Irving (1989). "An Evaluation of 'Does Economic Inequality Breed Political Conflict' Studies." World Politics 41(July): 431-470.
*Jackman, Robert (1985). "Cross-National Statistical Research and the Study of Comparative Politics." American Journal of Political Science 29 (February): 161-182.
Hill, Kim (1980). "Measurement Problems in Cross-National Analysis: Persisting Dilemmas and Alternative Strategies." Quality and Quantity 14 (May): 397-413.
Burrowes, Robert C. (1972). "Theory Sí, Data No! A Decade of Cross-national Political Research." World Politics 25 (October): 120-144.
Elder, Joseph W. (1976). "Comparative Cross-National Methodology." Annual Review of Sociology 2: 209-229.
Hage, Jerald (1975). "Theoretical Decision Rules for Selecting Research Designs: The Study of Nation-States or Societies." Sociological Methods and Research 4 (November): 131-165.
Whiting, John W. M. (1968). "Methods and Problems in Cross-Cultural Research." In Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson, Eds. The Handbook of Social Psychology Volume 2: Research Methods. 2nd Ed. Reading Ma.: Addison-Wesley.
Ross, Marc Howard and Homer, Elizabeth (1976). "Galton's Problem in Cross-National Research." World Politics 39 (October): 1-28.
e. CONTEXTUAL (MULTILEVEL) ANALYSIS:
**Przeworski, Adam and Teune, Henry (1970). The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. N.Y.: Wiley, pp. 3-87.
*Meckstroth, Theodore W. (1975). "'Most Different Systems' and 'Most Similar Systems': A Study in the Logic of Comparative Inquiry." Comparative Political Studies 8 (July): 132-157.
Eulau, Heinz (1977). "Multilevel Methods in Comparative Politics." American Behavioral Scientist 21 (September/October): 39-62.
Teune, Henry (1973). "Political Systems as Residual Variables: Explaining Differences Within Systems." Comparative Political Studies 6 (April): 3-21.
Teune, Henry (1975). "Comparative Research, Experimental Design, and the Comparative Method." Comparative Political Studies 8 (July): 195-199.
Iversen, Gudmund R. (1991). Contextual Analysis. (Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, series no. 07-081). Newbury Park, Ca.: Sage.
f. GENERAL WORKS:
*Sartori, Giovanni (1970). "Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics." American Poltiical Science Review 64 (December): 1033-1053.
Frendreis, John P. (1983). "Explanation of Variation and Detection of Covariation: The Purpose and Logic of Comparative Analysis." Comparative Political Studies 16 (July): 255-272.
DeFeliz, E. Gene (1986). "Causal Inference and Comparative Methods." Comparative Political Studies 19 (October): 415-437.
Ragin, Charles and David Zaret (1983). "Theory and Method in Comparative Research: Two Strategies." Social Forces 61 (March): 731-755.
Charles C. Ragin (1987). The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley, Ca.: University of California Press.
Vallier, Ivan, Ed. (1971). Comparative Methods in Sociology: Essays on Trends and Applications. Berkeley, Ca.: University of California Press.
5. ELEMENTS AND VARIETIES OF POLITICAL SYSTEMS:
What is it that we study? There have been several attempts to define the elements of "politics" and of "political systems." Typologies of polities abound.
**Eckstein, Harry and Gurr, Ted Robert (1975). Authority Patterns: A Structural Basis for Political Inquiry. N.Y.: Wiley, ch. 12.
*Dogan, Mattei and Pelassy, Dominique (1984). How to Compare Nations: Strategies in Comparative Politics. Chatham N.J.: Chatham House, part 4.
*Lijphart, Arend (1984). Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Lange, Peter and Meadwell, Hudson (1985). "Typologies of Democratic Systems: From Political Inputs to Political Economy." In Howard J. Wiarda, Ed. New Directions in Comparative Politics. Boulder, Co.: Westview.
Lijphart, Arend (1968). "Typologies of Democratic Systems." Comparative Political Systems (April): 3-44.
Almond, Gabriel (1956). "Comparative Political Systems." Journal of Politics 18 (August): 391-409.
Friedrich, Carl J. and Brzezinski, Zbigniew K. (1963). "Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy." In Harry Eckstein and David E. Apter, Eds. Comparative Politics: A Reader. N.Y.: Free Press.
Pye, Lucian (1958). "The Non-Western Political Process. Journal of Politics 20 (August): 468-486.
6. QUANTITATIVE CATALOGUES OF THE ELEMENTS OF POLITIES:
Banks, Arthur S. (1971). Cross-Polity Time-Series Data. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press.
Banks, Arthur S. and Textor, Robert B. (1963). A Cross Polity Survey. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press.
Rummel, Rudolph J. (1976). The Dimensionality of Nations Project: Attributes of Nations and Behavior of Nation Dyads, 1950-1965. Ann Arbor, Mi.: ICPSR.
Gurr, Ted Robert and Associates (1978). Comparative Studies of Political Conflict and Change: Cross-National Data Sets. Ann Arbor, Mi.: ICPSR.
Taylor, Charles Lewis and Jodice, David A. (1983). World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators. Third Ed. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Eisenstadt, S. N. (1969). The Political Systems of Empires: The Rise and Fall of Historical Bureaucratic Societies. N.Y.: Free Press, Appendix, esp. pp. 376-386.
7. JOURNALS:
You should become familiar with the sort of material that appear in the principal journals in the field. The major general journals in comparative politics include:
World Politics
Comparative Politics
Comparative Political Studies
International Organization
The major journals in Latin American studies include:
Journal of Latin American Studies
Latin American Research Review
The major journals in Western European studies include:
British Journal of Political Science
Scandinavian Political Studies
Western European Politics
The major journals in Asian studies include:
China Quarterly
Asian Survey
Journal of Asian Studies
The major journals in African politics include:
Journal of African Studies
The major journals in Eastern European studies (the former Soviet Union) include:
Eastern European Politics and Societies
Studies in Comparative Communism
PART II. THEORETICAL CONTROVERSIES:
RESEARCH APPROACHES
Alternative research programs in comparative politics offer alternative ways of understanding the relationship between state and society. There are many research programs in comparative politics that are currently active and/or are of great historical significance. The best analyses of these paradigms, which are rooted in general paradigms in the social sciences, have been done by sociologists:
Alexander, Jeffrey C (1987). Twenty Lectures: Sociological Theory Since World War II. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.
Craib, Ian (1984). Modern Social Theory: From Parsons to Habermas. N.Y.: St. Martin's.
Giddens, Anthony and Turner, Johnson, Eds. (1987). Social Theory Today. Stanford, Ca.: Stanford University Press.
Skidmore, William (1979). Theoretical Thinking in Sociology. 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, Johnathan H. (1986). The Structure of Sociological Theory. Fourth Ed. Belmont, Ca.: Wadsworth.
Collins, Randall (1988). Theoretical Sociology. San Diego, Ca.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Nisbet, Robert A. (1966). The Sociological Tradition. N.Y.: Basic Books.
Ritzer, George, Ed. (1990). Frontiers of Social Theory: The New Syntheses. N.Y.: Columbia University Press.
Collins, Randall (1988). Theoretical Sociology. San Diego, Ca.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
WEEK 3 (JANUARY 29) A. PRE-SYNTHESES: THE CLASSICS
We will consider two types of micro approaches to comparative politics, rationalist and culturalist, and three types of macro approaches, group, class and organization. We begin our examination of these five alternative research programs by setting them in historical perspective. Contemporary research programs may be traced to the classic social theorists of the 18th and 19th century.
1. MADISON AND HAMILTON - RATIONALIST:
**Madison, James (1987). "Federalist No. 10." In James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, The Federalist Papers. England: Penguin Books.
2. DURKHEIM - CULTURALIST:
**Durkheim, Emile (1933). The Division of Labor in Society. N.Y.: Free Press, pp. 200-229.
**Durkheim, Emile (1972). Selected Writings. Anthony Giddens, Ed. Cambridge.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 89-102.
3. TOCQUEVILLE - GROUP:
**Tocqueville, Alexis de (1955). The Old Regime and the French Revolution. Stuart Gilbert, Trans. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, pp. 22-96.
**Tocqueville, Alexis de (1969). Democracy in America. George Lawrence, Trans. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, pp. 9-20, 61-84, 189-195.
4. MARX - CLASS:
**Marx, Karl (1963). The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. N.Y.: International Publishers, parts I and VII.
**Marx, Karl (1956). Karl Marx: Selected Writings in Sociology and Social Philosophy. Tom Bottomore, Trans. N.Y.: McGraw-Hill, pp. 178-212.
5. WEBER - ORGANIZATION:
**Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. Wright, Eds. (1946). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. N.Y.: Oxford University Press, pp. 180-195.
**Weber, Max (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Translated by A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons. N.Y.: Free Press, pp. 324-33, 341-45, 358-373.
6. EVALUATIONS:
*Giddens, Anthony (1971). Capitalism and Modern Social Theory: An Analysis of the Writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
*Swingewood, Alan (1991). A Short History of Sociological Thought. N.Y.: St. Martin's Press.
Zeitlin, Irving M. (1968). Ideology and the Development of Sociological Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.
Martindale, Don (1960). The Nature and Types of Sociological Theory. Boston, Ma.: Houghton Mifflin.
Bottomore, Tom and Nisbet, Robert, Eds. (1978). A History of Sociological Analysis. N.Y.: Basic Books.
Turner, Jonathan H., Beeghley, Leonard and Powers, Charles H. (1989). The Emergence of Sociological Theory. 2nd Ed. Belmont Ca.: Wadsworth.
Coser, Lewis A. (1977). Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context. 2nd Ed. San Diego, Ca.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Aron, Raymond (1970). Main Currents in Sociological Thought. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books.
Seidman, Steven (1983). Liberalism and the Development of European Social Theory. Berkeley, Ca.: University of California Press.
WEEK 4 (FEBRUARY 5) B. SYNTHESES: THE GRAND THEORIES
The 1950s and 1960s brought a renewed interest in theory to the field of comparative politics. A set of macro approaches became quite popular. We will study five of these "Grand Theories," three equilibrium theories and two evolutionary theories, of politics.
1. EQUILIBRIUM THEORIES:
a. SYSTEMS THEORY:
**Easton, David (1957). "An Approach to the Analysis of Political Systems." World Politics 9 (April): 383-400.
Easton, David (1965). A Framework for Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.
Easton, David (1953). The Political System. N.Y.: Knopf.
Scarritt, James (1986). "The Explanation of African Politics and Society: Toward a Synthesis of Approaches." Journal of African Studies 13 (Fall): 18-25.
Bill, James A. and Hardgrave, Robert L. (1973). Comparative Politics: The Quest for Theory. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, ch. 7.
Kaplan, Morton A. (1967). "Systems Theory." In James C. Charlesworth, Ed. Contemporary Political Analysis. N.Y.: Free Press.
Spiro, Herbert J. (1967). "An Evaluation of Systems Theory." In James C. Charlesworth, Ed. Contemporary Political Analysis. N.Y.: Free Press.
Chilcote, Ronald H. (1981). Theories of Comparative Politics: The Search for a Paradigm. Boulder, Co.: Westview, ch. 5.
b. FUNCTIONALISM:
**Almond, Gabriel A. (1960). "Introduction: A Functional Approach to Comparative Politics." In Gabriel A. Almond and James S. Coleman, Eds. The Politics of the Developing Areas. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press.
Almond, Gabriel and Powell, G. Bingham, Jr. (1966). Comparative Politics, A Developmental Approach. Boston, Ma.: Little Brown.
Holt, Robert (1967). "A Proposed Structural-Functional Famework." In James C. Charlesworth, Ed. Contemporary Political Analysis. N.Y.: Free Press.
Levy, M. J. (1968). "Structural Functional Analysis." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences.
Stinchcombe, Arthur (1968). Constructing Social Theories. N.Y.: Harcourt, Brace & World, pp. 80-120.
Bill, James A. and Hardgrave, Robert L. (1973). Comparative Politics: The Quest for Theory. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, ch. 7.
Flanigan, William and Edwin Fogelman (1967). "Functional Analysis." In James C. Charlesworth, Ed. Contemporary Political Analysis. N.Y.: Free Press.
Chilcote, Ronald H. (1981). Theories of Comparative Politics: The Search for a Paradigm. Boulder, Co.: Westview, ch. 5.
Mayer, Lawrence C. (1972). Comparative Political Inquiry: A Methodological Survey. Homewood, Il: Dorsey, ch. 8.
Hempel, Carl G. (1965). "The Logic of Functional Analysis." In Carl G.Hempel, Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. N.Y.: Free Press
Gregor, A. James (1968). "Political Science and the Use of Functional Analysis." American Political Science Review 52 (June): 425-439.
Stephens, Jerone (1969). "The Logic of Functional and Systems Analyses in Political Science." Midwest Journal of Political Science 13 (August): 367-394.
c. AUTHORITY PATTERNS:
**Eckstein, Harry and Gurr, Ted Robert (1975). Authority Patterns: A Structural Basis for Political Inquiry. N.Y.: Wiley, ch. 1
**Gurr, Ted Robert (1974). "Analytic Scheme for the Description of Authority Patterns." Mimeo.
2. EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES
a. MODERNIZATION:
**Huntington, Samuel (1968). Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
b. POST-INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY:
**Bell, Daniel (1973). The Coming of Post-Industrial Society. N.Y.: Basic Books, pp. 3-45.
3. EVALUATIONS:
*LaPalombara, Joseph (1968). "Macrotheories and Microapplications in Comparative Politics: A Widening Chasm." Comparative Politics 1 (October): 52-78.
*Verba, Sidney (1967). "Some Dilemmas in Comparative Research." World Politics 20 (October): 111-127.
WEEK 5 (FEBRUARY 12) C. POST-SYNTHESES: FRAGMENTATION
1. MICRO THEORIES
a. RATIONALIST
Social science is about people. Micro approaches focus explicitly on the person. One assumption is that, in general, individuals are goal oriented and situation interpreting. Rational actor and social choice theorists use this assumption about individuals to derive conclusions about social outcomes.
1. THE MICROFOUNDATIONS OF MACRO-OUTCOMES:
**Coleman, James S. (1987). "Microfoundations and Macrosocial Behavior." In Jeffrey C. Alexander, Bernhard Giesen, Richard Münch and Neil J. Smelser, Eds. The Micro-Macro Link. Berkeley, Ca.: University of California Press.
*Nozick, Robert (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. N.Y.: Basic Books, ch. 2.
2. COLLECTIVE ACTION:
**Lichbach, Mark Irving (1992). "Rethinking Rationality and Rebellion: Theories of Collective Action and Problems of Collective Dissent." Paper Presented to the Panel on "Rebellion and Political Protest" at the Annual Meeting of the Public Choice Society/Economic Science Association. New Orleans, Louisiana, March 20-22 (forthcoming, Rationality and Society).
*Olson, Mancur, Jr. (1971). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
3. COLLECTIVE CHOICE:
**Schwartz, Thomas (1987). "Votes, Strategies, and Institutions: An Introduction to the Theory of Collective Choice." In Mathew D. McCubbins and Terry Sullivan, Eds. Congress: Structure and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
*William H. Riker (1982). Liberalism Against Populism: A Confrontation Between the Theory of Democracy and The Theory of Social Choice. San Francisco, Ca.: Freeman.
*Downs, Anthony (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. N.Y.: Harper and Row.
4. RATIONALIST THEORIES AND THE STATE:
**Bates, Robert H. (1989). Beyond the Miracle of the Market: The Political Economy of Development in Kenya. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
*Mitchell, William C. (1983). "Fiscal Behavior of the Modern Democratic State: Public Choice Perspectives and Contributions." In Larry L. Wade, Ed. Political Economy: Recent Views. Boston, Ma.: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
Aranson, Peter H. and Ordeshook, Peter C. (1985). "Public Interest, Private Interest, and the Democratic Polity." In Roger Benjamin and Stephen L. Elkin, Eds. The Democratic State. Kansas: University of Kansas Press.
5. EVALUATIONS:
Moe, Terry M. (1979). "On the Scientific Status of Rational Models." American Journal of Political Science 23 (February): 215-243.
Note: The syllabus for my social choice course contains an extensive bibliography on rationalist theories of politics. It is available on request.
WEEK 6 (FEBRUARY 19) b. CULTURALIST
One may adopt a different micro assumption: People are motivated by culturally defined values and norms. Culturalist perspectives on identity and consciousness have always been important in the social sciences. They have seen a considerable revival in recent years.
1. INTERPRETIVE THEORY:
**Geertz, Clifford (1973). "Thick Description: Toward an Interpetive Theory of Culture." In Clifford Geertz, The Interpetation of Cultures. N.Y.: Basic Books.
*Banfield, Edward G. (1958). The Moral Basis of a Backward Society. N.Y.: Free Press.
2. CULTURE:
Alexander, Jeffrey C. and Seidman, Steven, Eds. (1990). Culture and Society: Contemporary Debates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. POLITICAL CULTURE:
Rosenbaum, Walter A. (1975). Political Culture. N.Y.: Praeger.
4. ELITE POLITICAL CULTURE:
Putnam, Robert D. (1973). The Beliefs of Politicians: Ideology, Conflict, and Democracy in Britain and Italy. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Aberbach, Joel D., Putnam, Robert D. and Rockman, Bert A. (1981). Bureaucrats and Politicians in Western Democacies. Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press.
5. POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION:
Dawson, Richard, E. and Prewitt, Kenneth (1969). Political Socialization. Boston, Ma.: Little, Brown and Co.
Greenstein, Fred I. (1969). Children and Politics. Revised Ed. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Cook, Timothy E. (1985). "The Bear Market in Political Socialization and the Costs of Misunderstood Psychological Theories." American Political Science Review 79 (December): 1079-1092.
Sears, David O. (1975). "Political Socialization." In Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby, Eds. Handbook of Political Science. Volume 2: Micropolitical Theory. Reading, Ma.: Addison-Wesley.
Merkl, Peter H. (1970). Modern Comparative Politics. N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, ch. 2.
6. CULTURALIST THEORY AND THE STATE:
a. ISSUES, IDEOLOGIES AND BELIEF SYSTEMS - THE END OF IDEOLOGY?:
Bell, Daniel (1962). The End of Ideology: On the Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the Fifties. N.Y.: Free Press.
Waxman, Chaim I., Ed. (1969). The End of Ideology Debate. N.Y.: Clarion.
Lane, Jan-Erik and Ersson, Svante O. (1991). Politics and Society in Western Europe. 2nd Ed. Newbury Park, Ca.: Sage, pp. 96-98.
Dalton, Russell J. (1988). Citizen Politics in Western Democracies: Public Opinion and Political Parties in the United States, Great Britain, West Germany, and France. Chatham, N. J.: Chatham House, ch. 2.
b. CULTURAL CRISES OF CAPITALISM: POSTMATERIALISM:
**Inglehart, Ronald (1990). Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
*Inglehart, Ronald (1977). The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Publics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
c. VALUES AND POLITICAL STABILITY:
*Almond, Gabriel A. and Verba, Sidney (1965). The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Boston, Ma.: Little, Brown and Co.
*Barry, Brian (1978). Sociologists, Economists and Democracy. Chicago, Il.: University of Chicago Press, chs. 3-4.
Almond, Gabriel A. and Verba, Sidney, Eds. (1980). The Civic Culture Revisited. Newbury Park, Ca.: Sage.
Lipset, Seymour Martin (1963). The First New Nation: The United States in Historical and Comparative Perspective. Garden City, N. Y.: Anchor Books.
Eckstein, Harry (1961). "A Theory of Democratic Stability." In Harry Eckstein, Division and Cohesion in Democracy: A Study of Norway. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press.
d. AUTHORITARIANISM AND POLITICAL INTOLERANCE:
Shamir, Michal and Sullivan, John (1983). "The Political Context of Tolerance: The United States and Israel." American Political Science Review 77 (December): 911-928.
e. TRADITION AND MODERNITY:
Pye, Lucian W. and Verba, Sidney, Eds. (1965). Political Culture and Political Development. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Inkles, Alex and David H. Smith (1974). Becoming Modern: Individual Change in Six Developing Countries. Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press.
Banuazizi, Ali (1987). "Social-Psychological Approaches to Political Development." In Myron Weiner and Samuel Huntington, Eds. Understanding Political Development. Boston, Ma.: Little, Brown & Co.
7. EVALUATIONS:
*Elkins, David and Simeon, Richard (1979). "A Cause of Its Effect, or What Does Political Culture Explain?" Comparative Politics 11 (January): 127-143.
*Wildavsky, Aaron (1987). "Choosing Preferences by Constructing Institutions." American Politial Science Review 81 (March): 3-21.
*Laitin, David and Wildavsky, Aaron (1988). "Political Culture and Political Preferences." American Political Science Review 82 (June): 589-596.
*Chilton, Stephen (1988). "Defining Political Culture." Western Poltiical Quarterly 41 (September): 420-445.
*Eckstein, Harry (1988). "A Culturalist Theory of Political Change." American Political Science Review 82 (September): 789-804.
*Inglehart, Ronald (1988). "The Renaissance of Political Culture." American Political Science Review 82 (December): 1203-1230.
Kim, Young C. (1964). "The Concept of Political Culture in Comparative Politics. Journal of Politics 26 (May): 313-336.
Bill, James A. and Hardgrave, Robert L. (1973). Comparative Politics: The Quest for Theory. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, ch. 3.
Chilcote, Ronald H. (1981). Theories of Comparative Politics: The Search for a Paradigm. Boulder, Co.: Westview, ch. 6.
Merkl, Peter H. (1970). Modern Comparative Politics. N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, ch. 3.
Mayer, Lawrence C. (1972). Comparative Political Inquiry: A Methodological Survey. Homewood, Il: Dorsey, ch. 9.
WEEK 7 (FEBRUARY 26) 2. MACRO THEORIES
a. GROUP: THE DEMOCRATIC STATE
The first macro theory we will consider assumes that groups hold the key to understanding state and society. There are several key ideas here. First, social cleavages are not limited to class. They include religion, center-periphery, ethnicity, language, kinship, generation, gender and ideology. Second, the group and not the class is the key political actor. Third, aspects of the cleavage structure of society, such as whether cleavages are cross-cutting or overlapping, greatly influence politics. Finally, competition among social groups determines political outcomes. Just as civil society is characterized by social pluralism (cleavages not limited to class) the state is characterized by political pluralism (power not defined by class).
1. SOCIAL CLEAVAGES:
**Lipset, Seymour Martin (1960). Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, chs. 5-7.
**Lipset, Seymour Martin and Rokkan, Stein (1967). "Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments: An Introduction." In Seymour Martin Lipset and Stein Rokkan, Eds. Party Systems and Voter Alignments. N.Y.: Macmillan.
**Rose, Richard and Urwin, Derek (1969). "Social Cohesion, Political Parties and Strains in Regimes." Comparative Political Studies (April): 7-67.
*Zuckerman, Alan S. (1982). "New Approaches to Political Cleavage: A Theoretical Introduction." Comparative Political Studies 15 (July): 131-144.
*Zuckerman, Alan S. (1989). "The Bases of Political Cohesion: Applying and Reconstructing Crumbling Theories." Comparative Politics (July): 473-495.
*Zuckerman, Alan S. and Lichbach, Mark I. (1977). "Stability and Change in European Electorates." World Politics (July): 523-551.
Rae, Douglas W. and Michael Taylor (1970). The Analysis of Political Cleavages. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Eckstein, Harry (1966). Division and Cohesion in Democracy: A Study of Norway. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press.
2. SOME SPECIFIC SOCIAL CLEAVAGES:
a. ETHNICITY:
**Gurr, Ted Robert and Scarritt, James R. (1989). "Minorities Rights at Risk: A Global Survey." Human Rights Quarterly 11 (No. 3): 375-405.
**Gurr, Ted Robert (1990). "Third World Minorities at Risk Since 1945." Background Paper Prepared for the Conference on Conflict Resolution in the Post-Cold War Third World, U. S. Institute of Peace, October 3-5.
Horowitz, Donald L. (1985). Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley, Ca.: University of California Press.
Connor, Walker (1987). "Ethnonationalism." In Myron Weiner and Samuel Huntington, Eds. Understanding Political Development. Boston, Ma.: Little, Brown & Co.
Olzak, Susan (1985). "Ethnicity and Theories of Ethnic Collective Behavior." Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change 8: 65-85.
Mason, T. David (1992). "Ethnicity and Politics." In Mary Hawkesworth and Maurice Kogan, Eds. Encyclopedia of Government and Politics. Volume I. London: Routledge.
Lane, Jan-Erik and Ersson, Svante O. (1991). Politics and Society in Western Europe. 2nd Ed. Newbury Park, Ca.: Sage, pp. 96-98.
b. RELIGION:
*Levine, Daniel H. (1986). "Religon and Politics in Comparative and Historical Perspective." Comparative Politics 19 (October): 95-122.
Lijphart, Arend (1979). "Religous vs. Linguistic vs. Class Voting: The 'Crucial Experiment' of Comparing Belgium, Canada, South Africa, and Switzerland." American Political Science Review (June): 442-458.
3. GROUPS AND THE STATE - POLITICAL PLURALISM:
**Dahl, Robert A. (1966). "Patterns of Opposition" and "Some Explanations." In Robert A. Dahl, Ed. Political Oppositions in Western Democracies. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
**Dahl, Robert A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, pp. 1-32.
**Dahl, Robert A. (1978). "Pluralism Revisited." Comparative Politics 10 (January): 191-203.
Dahl, Robert A. (1972). A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago, Il.: University of Chicago Press.
Dahl, Robert A. Ed. (1973). Regimes and Oppositions. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Dahl, Robert A. (1961). Who Governs?. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Truman, David B. (1951). The Governmental Process. N.Y.: Alfred A. Knopf, chs. 2 and 3.
Ware, Alan (1974). "Polyarchy." European Journal of Political Research 2 (June): 179-200.
4. EVALUATIONS:
*Greenstone, J. David (1975). "Group Theories." In Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby, Eds. Handbook of Political Science, Volume 2: Micropolitical Theory. Reading, Ma.: Addison Wesley.
*Salisbury, Robert H. (1975). "Interest Groups." In Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby, Eds. Handbook of Political Science, Volume 4: Nongovernmental Politics. Reading, Ma.: Addison Wesley.
Garson, G. David (1974). "On the Origins of Interest-Group Theory: A Critique of a Process." American Political Science Review 67 (December): 1505-1519.
WEEK 8 (MARCH 5) b. CLASS: THE CAPITALIST STATE
An alternative macro approach focuses on class as the key to understanding state and society. This rich research tradition has many facets.
1. CLASS STRUCTURES:
Ashcraft, Richard (1979). "Class and Class Conflict in Contemporary Capitalist Societies." Comparative Politics 11 (January): 225-244.
Giddens, Anthony (1973). The Class Structure of the Advanced Societies. N.Y.: Harper Torchbooks.
Wright, Erik (1984). "A General Framework for the Analysis of Class Struggle." Politics and Society 13(No. 3): 383-417.
2. THE CLASS/RACE/GENDER NEXUS:
Leggett, John C. (1968). Class, Race and Labor. London: Oxford University Press.
Sapiro, Virginia (1981). "Research Frontier Essay: When are Interests Interesting? The Problem of Political Representation of Women." American Political Science Review 75 (September): 701-716.
Diamond, Irene and Hartsock, Nancy (1981). "Beyond Interests in Politics: A Comment on Virginia Sapiro's 'When Are Interests Interesting? The Problem of Political Representation of Women." American Political Science Review 75 (September): 717-721.
Katzenstein, Mary Fainsod (1992). "Comparing the Feminist Movements of the United States and Western Europe: An Overview." In Mary Fainsod Katzenstein and Carol McClurg Mueller, Eds. The Women's Movements of the United States and Western Europe: Consciousness, Political Opportunity, and Public Policy. Philadelphia, Penn.: Temple University Press.
3. CLASS FORMATION:
Thompson, E. P. (1963). The Making of the English Working Class. N.Y.: Vintage Books.
Katznelson, Ira and Zolberg, Aristide R. (1986). Working-Class Formation: Nineteenth-Century Patterns in Western Europe and the United States. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press.
4. CAPITALIST CRISES:
Wright, Erik Olin (1978). Class, Crisis, and the State. London: New Left Books.
O'Connor, James (1973). The Fiscal Crisis of the State. N.Y.: St. Martin's Press.
5. CLASS INSTITUTIONS - TRADE UNIONS:
Korpi, Walter and Shalev, Michael (1980). "Strikes, Power, and Politics in the Western Nations, 1900-1976." In Maurice Zeitlin, Ed. Political Power and Social Theory. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.
6. CLASS INSTITUTIONS - SOCIALIST PARTIES:
Przeworski, Adam (1985). Capitalism and Social Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Przeworski, Adam and Sprague, John (1986). Paper Stones: A History of Electoral Socialism. Chicago, Il.: University of Chicago Press.
7. CLASS STRUCTURE AND THE STATE:
**Moore, Barrington, Jr. (1966). Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Boston, Ma.: Beacon Press.
8. EVALUATIONS:
Elster, Jon (1985). Making Sense of Marx. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Avineri, Shlomo (1968). The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dahrendorf, Ralf (1959). Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford, Ca.: Stanford University Press.
Chilcote, Ronald H. (1981). Theories of Comparative Politics: The Search for a Paradigm. Boulder, Co.: Westview, ch. 8.
WEEK 9 (MARCH 12) c. ORGANIZATION: THE BUREAUCRATIC STATE
A research program in comparative politics that has become very important during the last ten years is state theory. This macro perspective suggests that the state has a independent influence on such phenomena as social revolutions and public policies. Statist factors (e.g., state actors with preferences, state organizations that structure politics) are thought to deserve as much consideration as societal factors (e.g., social groups, class alliances).
1. THE THEORY OF THE STATE:
**Skocpol, Theda (1985). "Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Research." In Peter B. Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer and Theda Skocpol, Eds. Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
**Evans, Peter B., Rueschemeyer, Dietrich and Skocpol, Theda (1985). "On the Road toward a More Adequate Understanding of the State." In Peter B. Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer and Theda Skocpol, Eds. Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
**Krasner, Stephen (1984). "Approaches to the State: Alternative Conceptions and Historical Dynamics." Comparative Politics 16 (January): 223-246.
2. STATES AND REVOLUTIONS:
**Skocpol, Theda (1979). States and Social Revolutions: Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. EVALUATIONS:
*Nettl, J. P. (1968). "The State as a Conceptual Variable." World Politics 20 (July): 559-591.
*Almond, Gabriel A. (1988). "The Return to the State." American Political Science Review 82 (September): 853-874. (also see the rejoinders)
Cammack, Paul (1989). "Review Article: Bringing the State Back In?" British Journal of Political Science 19 (April): 261-290.
March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (1984). "The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life." American Political Science Review (September): 734-749.
Easton, David (1983). "The Political System Beseiged by the State." Political Theory 9 (August): 303-325.
Pedersen, Ove K. (1991). "Nine Questions to a Neo-institutional Theory in Political Science." Scandinavian Political Studies 14 (No. 2): 125-148.
Dearlove, John (1989). "Bringing the Constitution Back In: Political Science and the State." Political Studies 37 (December): 521-539.
Lentner, Howard H. (1984). "The Concept of the State: A Response to Stephen Krasner." Comparative Politics 16 (April): 367-377.
Andrews, Bruce (1975). "Social Rules and the State as a Social Actor." World Politics 27 (July): 521-540.
Deutsch, Karl W. (1981). "The Crisis of the State." Government and Opposition 16 (Summer): 331-343.
Eckstein, Harrry (1979). "On the 'Science' of the State." Daedalus 108 (Fall): 1-20.
Frankel, Boris (1979). "On the State of the State: Marxist Theories of the State after Leninism." Theory and Society 7 (January-May): 199-242.
Nordlinger, Eric A. (1987). "Taking the State Seriously." In Myron Weiner and Samuel Huntington, Eds. Understanding Political Development. Boston, Ma.: Little, Brown & Co.
Alford, Robert R. and Friedland, Roger (1985). Powers of Theory: Capitalism, the State and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Badie, Bertrand and Birnbaum, Pierre (1983). The Sociology of the State. Chicago, Il.: University of Chicago Press.
Nordlinger, Eric (1981). On the Autonomy of the Democratic State. Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press.
Hall, John A. and Ikenberry, G. John (1989). The State. Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota Press.
Jessop, Bob (1982). The Capitalist State. N.Y.: NYU Press.
Vincent, Andrew (1987). Theories of the State. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Jordan, Bill (1985). The State: Authority and Autonomy. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Carnoy, Martin (1984). The State and Political Theory. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Benjamin, Roger and Elkins, Stephen L., Eds. (1985). The Democratic State. Kansas: University of Kansas Press.
Poggi, Gianfranco (1990). The State: Its Nature, Development and Prospects. Stanford, Ca.: Stanford University Press.
PART III. SUBSTANTIVE CONTROVERSIES:
THE BIG QUESTIONS
We now turn from comparative politics' research programs to its problem areas. Each problem area is beset by controversies. It is possible to identify at least two alternative theoretical perspectives (e.g., social choice vs. statist theory) and at least two alternative methodological orientations (e.g., cross-national work vs. comparative case study) towards each problem.
WEEK 10 (MARCH 19)
A. DEBATES OVER DEMOCRACY AND ELECTIONS:
HOW ARE INTERESTS REPRESENTED?
One Big Question in comparative politics relates to democratic elections: How are divergent preferences translated into political outcomes? More specifically, what factors determine which interests win election and gain office? Preferences and their activation via political participation must somehow matter. But political institutions, such as parties, party systems and electoral laws, obviously affect how preferences are aggregated. In addition to Inglehart's Culture Shift, see:
1. POLITICAL PARTICIPATION:
**Verba, Sidney, Nie, Norman H., and Kim, Jae-On Kim (1978). Participation and Political Equality: A Seven Nation Comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, chs. 1, 3-5.
Kaase, Max (1990). "Mass Participation." In M. Kent Jennings et al., Eds. Continuities in Political Action: A Longitudinal Study of Political Orientations in Three Western Democracies. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Barnes, Samuel H., et al. (1979). Political Action: Mass Participation in Five Western Democracies. Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage.
Huntington, Samuel and Nelson, Joan (1976). No Easy Choice: Political Participation in Developing Countries. Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press.
Nie, Norman and Verba, Sidney (1975). "Political Participation." In Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby, Eds. Handbook of Political Science. Volume 4: Nongovernmental Politics. Reading, Ma.: Addison-Wesley.
Patrick Conge (1988). "The Concept of Political Participation: Toward a Definition." Comparative Politics 20 (January): 241-48.
Nelson, Joan M. (1987). "Political Participation." In Myron Weiner and Samuel Huntington, Eds. Understanding Political Development. Boston, Ma.: Little, Brown & Co.
Milbrath, Lester W. (1965). Political Participation: How and Why Do People Get Involved in Politics? Chicago, Il.: Rand Mc-Nally.
2. PREFERENCE CHANGE AND ELECTORAL CHANGE:
**Dalton, Russell J., Beck, Paul Allen, and Flanagan, Scott C. (1984). "Electoral Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies." In Russell J. Dalton, Scott C. Flanagan and Paul Allen Beck, Eds. Electoral Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies: Realignment or Dealignment?. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press.
**Zuckerman, Alan S. and Lichbach, Mark Irving (1977). "Stability and Change in European Electorates." World Politics 29 (July): 523-551.
*Dalton, Russell J., Flanagan, Scott C. and Beck, Paul Allen (1984). "Political Forces and Partisan Change." In Russell J. Dalton, Scott C. Flanagan and Paul Allen Beck, Eds. Electoral Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies: Realignment or Dealignment?. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press.
3. POLITICAL PARTIES:
**Kitschelt, Herbert (1989). The Logics of Party Formation: Ecological Politics in Belgium and West Germany. Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University Press, chs. 1-2.
**Shefter, Martin (1977). "Party and Patronage: Germany, England, and Italy." Politics and Society 7 (No. 4): 403-451.
**Janda, Kenneth (1985). "Formalizing and Testing Duverger's Theories on Political Parties." Comparative Political Studies 18 (July): 139-169.
Kenneth Janda (1980). Political Parties: A Cross-National Survey. N.Y.: Free Press.
Duverger, Maurice (1964). Political Parties. N.Y.: Wiley.
Epstein, Leon D., Ed. (1980). Politial Parties in Western Democracies. 2nd Ed. New Brunswick, N. J. : Transaction Books.
LaPalombara, Joseph and Weiner, Miron Eds. (1966). Political Parties and Political Development. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Charlot, Jean (1989). "Political Parties: Towards a New Theoretical Synthesis." Political Studies 37 (September): 352-361.
Mayer, Lawrence C. (1972). Comparative Political Inquiry: A Methodological Survey. Homewood, Il: Dorsey, ch. 11.
4. PARTY SYSTEMS:
**Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, Listhaug, Ola and Rabinowitz, George (1991). "Issues and Party Support in Multiparty Systems." American Political Science Review 85 (December): 1107-1131.
**Daalder, Hans (1984). "In Search of the Center of European Party Systems." American Political Science Review 78 (March): 92-109.
Sartori, Giovanni (1976). Party and Party System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Merkl, Peter H. (1970). Modern Comparative Politics. N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, ch. 5.
Rose, Richard, Ed. (1974). Electoral Behavior: A Comparative Handbook. N.Y.: Free Press.
5. ELECTORAL LAWS:
**Tufte, Edward R. (1973). "The Relationship Between Seats and Votes in Two-Party Systems." American Political Science Review 67(June): 540-554.
**Riker, William H. (1986). "Duverger's Law Revisited." In Bernard Grofman and Arend Lijphart, Eds. Electoral Laws and Their Political Consequences. N.Y.: Agathan Press.
Rae, Douglas W. (1971). The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Taagepera, Rein and Shugart, Matthew Soberg (1989). Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
WEEK 11 (APRIL 2)
B. DEBATES OVER POWER AND COALITIONS
WHO RULES?
Democracies are often thought to be controlled by the few rather than by the many. Candidates for dominant social coalitions abound.
1. ELITE COALITIONS - RULING OLIGARCHIES:
a. CLASSICS:
**Mosca, Gaetano (1939). The Ruling Class. Edited by Arthur Livingston, translated by Hannah D. Kahn. N.Y.: McGraw-Hill, pp. 50-51, 65-69.
Pareto, Vilfredo (1980). Compendium of General Sociology. Abridged by Giulio Farina, edited by Elisabeth Abbott. Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota Press.
Michels, Robert (1962). Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy. N.Y.: Free Press.
b. THE POWER ELITE:
**Mills, C. Wright (1956). The Power Elite. N.Y.: Oxford University Press, ch. 1.
c. ELITE STUDIES:
Putnam, Robert D. The Comparative Study of Political Elites. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.
Aberbach, Joel D., Putnam, Robert D. and Rockman, Bert A. (1981). Bureacrats and Politicians in Western Democracies. Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press.
Armstrong, John A. (1973). The European Administrative Elite. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press.
d. EVALUATIONS:
**Dahl, Robert A. (1958). "Critique of the Ruling Elite Model." American Political Science Review 52 (June): 463-469.
Parry, Geraint (1969). Political Elites. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Bill, James A. and Hardgrave, Robert L. (1973). Comparative Politics: The Quest for Theory. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, ch. 5.
Bachrach, Peter (1967). The Theory of Democratic Elitism. Boston, Ma.: Little, Brown & Co.
Polsby, Nelson W. (1963). Community Power and Political Theory. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
2. PARTY COALITIONS - CABINET GOVERNMENT:
**Dodd, Larry (1976). Coalitions in Parliamentary Government. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, ch. 2-3.
**Laver, Michael and Schofield, Norman (1991). Multiparty Government: The Politics of Coalition in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, ch. 5.
Strom, Kaare (1990). Minority Government and Majority Rule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. GROUP COALITIONS - CONSOCIATIONAL DEMOCRACY:
**Lijphart, Arend (1969). "Consociational Democracy." World Politics 21 (January): 207-225.
Lijphart, Arend (1968). The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands. 2nd Ed., Revised. Berkeley, Ca.: University of California Press.
Lijphart, Arend (1977). Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
McRae, Kenneth, Ed. (1974). Consociational Democracy: Political Accommodation in Segmented Societies. Canada: McClelland and Stewart.
Nordlinger, Eric (1972). Conflict Regulation in Divided Societies. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Center for International Affairs.
Lorwin, Val R. (1971). "Segmented Pluralism: Ideological Cleavages and Political Cohesion in the Smaller European Democracies." Comparative Politics 3 (January): 141-175.
Barry, Brian (1975). "Review Article: Political Accommodation and Consociational Democracy." British Journal of Political Science 5 (October): 477-505.
Barry, Brian (1975). "The Consociational Model and Its Dangers." European Journal of Political Research 3 (December): 393-412.
4. INTEREST GROUP COALITIONS - CORPORATISM:
**Schmitter, Philippe C. (1977). "Modes of Interest Intermediation and Models of Societal Change in Western Europe." Comparative Political Studies 10 (April): 7-38.
**Safran, Bill (1983). "Interest Groups in Three Democracies: France, West Germany and the U.S." In Fred Eidlin, Ed. Constitutional Democracy: Essays in Comparative Politics. Boulder, Co.: Westview.
Collier, David and Collier, Ruth (1979). "Inducements versus Constraints: Disaggregating 'Corporatism'." American Political Science Review 73 (December): 967-984.
Chambers, Douglas (1985). "Corporatism and Comparative Politics." In Howard J. Wiarda, Ed. New Directions in Comparative Politics. Boulder, Co.: Westview.
Cawson, Alan (1985). "The Varieties of Corporatism, in Alan Cawson, Ed. Organized Interests and the State: Studies in Meso-Corporatism. Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage.
Almond, Gabriel (1983). "Corporatism, Pluralism and Professional Memory." World Politics 35 (January): 245-260.
Wilson, Frank (1983). "Interest Groups in Western Europe: The Neo-Corporatist Approach." Comparative Politics 16 (October): 105-123.
Bianchi, Robert (1986). "Interest Group Politics in the Third World." Third World Quarterly 8 (April): 507-539.
Chambers, Douglas A. (1985). "Corporatism and Comparative Politics." In Howard J. Wiarda, Ed. New Directions in Comparative Politics. Boulder, Co.: Westview.
Cameron, David (1984). "Social Democracy, Corporatism, Labour Quiescence and the Representation of Economic Intersts in Advance Capitalist Society." In John H. Goldthrorpe, Ed. Order and Conflict in Contemporary Capitalism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Burger, Suzanne, Ed. (1981). Organizing Interests in Western Europe: Pluralism, Corporatism, and the Transformation of Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Malloy, James M., Ed. (1977). Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin America. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Bill, James A. and Hardgrave, Robert L. (1973). Comparative Politics: The Quest for Theory. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, ch.4.
Chilcote, Ronald H. (1981). Theories of Comparative Politics: The Search for a Paradigm. Boulder, Co.: Westview, ch. 8
Merkl, Peter H. (1970). Modern Comparative Politics. N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, ch. 6.
5. CLASS COALITIONS - STATE-CLASS ALLIANCES:
Class analyses of society typically distinguish one or more of the following classes: Proletariat, lumpenproletariat, haute bourgeoisie, petite bourgeoisie, white collar employees, landed elite, family farmers, peasant laborers, monarchs, military elites and civil bureaucrats. Class theorists assume that the alignment of these various social forces determines politics. In short, social alignments produce policy alliances which produce governing coalitions. In addition to Moore's, Skocpol's and Cardosa and Faletto's classics, which we read elsewhere, see:
**Rogowski, Ronald (1989). Commerce and Coaliltions: How Trade Affects Domestic Political Alignments. Princeton: Princeton University Press, ch. 1.
**Gourevitch, Peter Alexis (1984). "Breaking with Orthodoxy: The Politics of Economic Policy ResponSes to the Depression of the 1930s." International Organization 38 (Winter): 95-129.
**O'Donnell, Guillermo (1978). "State and Alliances in Argentina, 1956-1976." Journal of Development Studies 15 (October): 3-33. [Reprinted in Robert H. Bates, Ed. (1988). Toward a Political Economy of Development: A Rational Choice Perspective. Berkeley, Ca.: University of California Press.]
*Katzenstein, Peter J. (1985). Small States in World Markets: Industrial Policy in Europe. Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University Press.
Katzenstein, Peter J. (1984). Corporatism and Change: Austria, Switzerland, and the Politics of Industry. Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University Press.
Gourevitch, Peter (1986). Politics in Hard Times: Comparative Responses to International Economic Crises. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Gourevitch, Peter Alexis (1977). "International Trade, Domestic Coalitions, and Liberty: Comparative Responses to the Crisis of 1873-1896." Journal of Interdisciplinary History 8 (Autumn): 281-313.
Luebbert, Gregory (1991). Liberalism, Fascism or Social Demoracy: Social Classes and the Political Origins of Regimes in Interwar Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Esping-Andersen, Gøsta (1985). Politics Against Markets: The Social Democratic Road to Power. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press.
Ferguson, Thomas (1984). "From Normalcy to New Deal: Industrial Structure, Party Competition, and the American Public Policy in the Great Depression." International Organization 38 (Winter): 41-94.
Abraham, David (1981). The Collapse of the Weimar Republic: Political Economy and Crisis. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press.
Gerschenkron, Alexander (1943). Bread and Democracy in Germany. Berkeley, Ca.: University of California Press.
Burnham, Walter Dean (1970). Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics. N.Y.: W. W. Norton.
WEEK 12 ( APRIL 9)
C. DEBATES OVER POLICY AND WELFARE:
WHO WINS AND WHO LOSES?
A third Big Question in comparative politics is, "What Causes Public Policy?" One approach to explaining public policy focuses on institutions. It is interesting to note that there is a rational choice (e.g., Bates' Beyond the Miracle of the Market) and a statist (e.g., Steinmo, Thelen and Longstreth's Structuring Politics) version of this appoach. We will study both. We will also take a look at a quantitative and rationalist approach to the etiology of macroeconomic policy and performance.
1. QUALITATIVE AND STATIST APPROACHES:
**Steinmo, Sven, Thelen, Kathleen and Longstreth, Frank, Eds. (1992). Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
*Steinmo, Sven (1989). "Political Institutions and Tax Policy." World Politics 41 (July): 500-535.
2. QUANTITATIVE AND SOCIAL CHOICE APPROACHES:
**Alt, James E. and Chrystal, K. Alec (1983). Political Economics. Berkeley, Ca.: University of California Press, ch. 5-6.
**Hibbs, Douglas A. (1977). "Political Parties and Macroeconomic Policy." American Political Science Review 71 (December): 1467-87. [Reprinted in Douglas A. Hibbs, Ed. (1987). The Political Economy of Industrial Democracies. Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press.]
*Tufte, Edward R. (1978). Political Control of the Economy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Hibbs, Douglas A. (1987). The American Political Economy: Macroeconomics and Electoral Politics. Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press.
WEEK 13 (APRIL 16)
D. DEBATES OVER VIOLENCE AND DISSENT:
WHY IS AUTHORITY CHALLENGED?
Another Big Question in comparative politics is, "Why do people rebel?" We will focus on three approaches, culturalist, rationalist and statist, to this question. Note that each approach comes in earlier and later versions.
1. CULTURALIST:
a. RELATIVE DEPRIVATION:
**Gurr, Ted Robert (1970). Why Men Rebel. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, chs. 1, 10.
**Gurr, Ted Robert, and Lichbach, Mark Irving (1979). "Forecasting Domestic Political Conflict." In J. David Singer and Michael D. Wallace, Eds. To Augur Well: Forecasting in the Social Sciences. Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage.
b. THOUGHT AND IDENTITY:
**Scott, James (1985). Weapons of the Weak. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, ch. 1-2, 8.
**Gamson, William A. (1992). "The Social Psychology of Collective Action." In Aldon D. Morris and Carol McClurg Mueller, Eds. Frontiers in Social Movement Theory. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
2. RATIONALIST
a. RESOURCE MOBILIZATION:
**Tilly, Charles (1978). From Mobilization to Revolution. Reading, Ma.: Addison-Wesley, chs. 1, 3.
b. COLLECTIVE ACTION:
**Lichbach, Mark (1992). "Rethinking Rationality and Rebellion: Theories of Collective Action and Problems of Collective Dissent." Paper Presented to the Panel on "Rebellion and Political Protest" at the Annual Meeting of the Public Choice Society/Economic Science Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, March 20-22 (forthcoming, Rationality and Society). (re-read)
3. STATIST
a. POLITICAL INSTITUTIONALIZATION:
**Huntington, Samuel (1968). Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. (re-read)
b. STATE AND REVOLUTION:
**Skocpol, Theda (1979). States and Social Revolutions: Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (re-read)
4. EVALUATIONS AND OVERVIEWS:
*Eckstein, Harry (1980). "Theoretical Approaches to Explaining Collective Political Violence." In Ted Robert Gurr, Ed. Handbook of Political Conflict. N.Y.: Free Press.
Note: The syllabus for my course on political violence and revolution contains an extensive bibliography of conflict studies. It is available on request.
WEEK 14 (APRIL 23)
E. DEBATES OVER "DEVELOPMENT" AND "UNDERDEVELOPMENT":
WHY ARE SOME NATIONS "DEVELOPED"?
Here's one final Big Question in comparative politics: Why are some countries more "developed" than others? Several explanations occupy center stage.
1. MODERNIZATION AND ITS AMENDMENTS:
a. APPLICATIONS:
**Deutsch, Karl W. (1961). "Social Mobilization and Political Development." American Political Science Review 55 (September): 493-514.
**Lipset, Seymour Martin (1960). "Economic Development and Democracy." In Seymour Martin Lipset, Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor.
**Huntington, Samuel P. (1968). Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. (re-read)
Lerner, Daniel (1958). The Passing of Traditional Society: Modernizing the Middle East. N.Y.: Free Press.
Binder, Leonard et al. (1971). Crises and Sequences in Political Development. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
b. EVALUATIONS:
Bendix, Reinhard (1967). "Tradition and Modernity Reconsidered." Comparative Studies in Society and History 9 (April): 292-346.
Mazrui, Ali A. (1968). "From Social Darwinism to Current Theories of Modernization: A Tradition of Analysis." World Politics 21 (October): 69-83.
Packenham, Robert A. (1964). "Approaches to the Study of Political Development." World Politics 17 (October): 108-120.
Salamon, Lester M. (1970). "Comparative History and the Theory of Modernization." World Politics 23 (October): 83-103.
Pennock, J. Roland (1966). "Political Development, Political Systems, and Political Goods." World Politics 18 (April): 415-434.
Huntington, Samuel P. (1987). "The Goals of Development." In Myron Weiner and Samuel Huntington, Eds. Understanding Political Development. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.
Bates, Robert H. (1987). "Agrarian Politics." In Myron Weiner and Samuel Huntington, Eds. Understanding Political Development. Boston, Ma.: Little, Brown & Co.
Huntington, Samuel P. (1971). "The Change to Change: Modernization, Development, and Politics." Comparative Politics 3 (April): 283-322.
Migdal, Joel S. (1983). "Studying the Politics of Development and Change: The State of the Art." In Ada W. Finifter, Ed. Political Science: The State of the Discipline. Washington, D.C.: American Political Science Association.
Binder, Leonard (1986). "The Natural History of Development Theory." Comparative StudIes in Society and Histroy 28 (January): 3-33.
Eckstein, Harry (1982). "The Idea of Political Development: From Dignity to Efficiency." World Politics 34 (July): 451-486.
Riggs, Fred w. (1967). "The Theory of Political Development." I