This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Session 2012-2013 Course code: PLIT10061 Course convenor: Dr Pontus Odmalm Room: Chrystal Macmillan Building 3.20 E-mail: Pontus.Odmalm@ed.ac.uk Office hour: Friday, 3-5pm Course Tutor: Martin Booker E-mail: M.Booker@sms.ed.ac.uk Office hour: tba
What does ‘comparative research’ involve? How can it help us to explain political processes and events? By using comparison as a method, and drawing on a wide range of cases and themes, the course will enable students to better understand key debates and developments in political science (and beyond).
By the end of the course, students will be able to: a) demonstrate knowledge of the comparative method and its applications; b) show familiarity with core texts in the field of comparative politics; c) critically analyse key political processes and institutions in a comparative perspective, d) articulate an informed view about current debates and questions surrounding comparative politics.
Teaching Methods The course is taught in Semester 1 with the teaching format of 1 lecture/week for 10 weeks and 1 tutorial/week for 10 weeks. A) Learning Exercise (10%) This assessment contains two components. Please note that students who have not signed up for tutorials by the end of week 2 will be deemed to have dropped the course. Please note: students who are unable to do the ‘ Presentation’ (e. Assessment The course is assessed by a combination of (a) Learning Exercise (10%) + (b) Essay 1 (40%) + (c) Essay 2 (50%). The core readings and other information relating to the course are available on Learn. The essay mark is capped at 70%. Students are expected to read all of the core readings for each week. a mark of 0 will be awarded to the ‘Presentation’ element. If the essay is not submitted. Tutorials take place on Thursday and Fridays and start in Week 1 – please sign up on Learn. 2 . The first lecture is on 19th September 2012. All presentations will be given a mark ( capped at 70%) with accompanying feedback (after the tutorial). Lectures take place on Wednesdays. The marking indicators are specified in the ‘ Presentation Feedback Form’ but students may also address further issues if necessary (under ‘Further comments’).g. i) A paired presentation ii) Participation i) Presentation Students will team up and do a 10 minute presentation answering one of the questions specified for each week (starting in Week 3). Faculty Room South.3. David Hume Tower. Detailed readings accompany each week's topic (see below). The essay is to be submitted before Week 11 and e-mailed to the tutor. due to illness or absence) will be asked to write a 1000 word essay (referenced in the standard way) addressing ‘their’ presentation question. 4. The presentation will be timed exactly so it is important to work on time management and clearly define the division of labour. 11am – 12am.
due to illness or absence) will be asked to submit a 1000 word literature review on two of the core readings for the week in question.g. 10 min. font 12 and one-and-a-half spaced.g. Essays should be typed using Times New Roman. ‘Comments’ can.g. The way it works is as follows.. Each pair fills in a ‘Presentation Feedback Form’ during the presentation which is followed by comments and/or questions to the presenters . Please note: students who are unable to do the ‘Participation’ element (e. involve suggestions for improvement or other types of constructive criticism. e. a mark of 0 will be awarded for the ‘Participation’ element.e. relate to asking for clarification or further quizzing the presenters on why and how they arrived at their particular conclusion/s.g..g. ‘Questions’ can. the other will do the marking of the presentation and provide the verbal feedback. The final mark for the ‘Learning Exercise’ is calculated in the following way: Presentation [grade] + Participation [grade] x 0. Relevance? .) on the presentation made during the tutorial. If the literature review is not submitted. Choose one of the following questions: i) ii) iii) Is the study of politics unavoidably comparative? To what extent does ‘the comparative method’ oversimplify very complex political processes? Can the study of single countries be comparative? 3 . The following marking indicators are used: a. Please also note: if one discussant is missing. e. 40%) This essay should be no longer than 2000 words. The upper limit must be observed since anything more than 5% over the word limit will receive a penalty of 5 marks . The mark for the literature review is capped at 30%. constructive comments? Simplistic questions? c. The literature review is to be submitted before Week 11 and e-mailed to the tutor.Please also note: if one presenter is missing.g.e. Clarity? .10. the other will do the presentation.e. B) Essay 1: Understanding the Comparative Method (2000 words. ii) Participation This part of the learning exercise consists of students marking and providing verbal feedback (for appr. Quality? . do the questions/comments relate to the presentation topic? Are they of a ‘Yes/No’-character? Marks are capped at 30%. do the presenters understand the questions/comments? Are they to the point? b.
voter turn-out. learning disabilities. Do you agree? C) Essay 2: Applying the Comparative Method’ (3500 words. Essays are marked anonymously and come with written feedback. Depending on the topic chosen. ‘Late Penalty Waivers’. varying/similar levels of democratisation.iv) v) How can comparative research overcome the problem of “same phenomena. 50%) Based on the topics covered in Weeks 3-10. choose an issue to address (e. 4 . bad for everything else’. One copy will be returned to the student. The same word length penalties and text formatting applies to the second essay as well. Deadline for submission of Essay 1 is Friday 12th October at 12pm (Week 4).g. design and answer a research question. different meanings”? ‘Large n comparisons: good for theory building. Please see the ‘Honours Handbook’ for further information on submission of coursework. students may wish to contact the relevant lecturer regarding any topic specific questions they have. Please note: the late penalty takes effect immediately after 12 NOON on the day of the deadline. the other will be kept so that it is available for the external examiner. You are free to formulate your own question but it must be ‘comparative’ and involve a problem to be solved. common marking descriptors. Please note: Choosing a ‘presentation’ or one of Essay 1’s questions is not permitted. who may amend or confirm the mark received. special circumstances. etc). state survival. Deadline for submission of Essay 2 is Friday 30th November at 12 pm (Week 11). institutional change. This essay should be no longer than 3500 words. re-marking procedures and appeals. plagiarism. It is recommended that students run their question by the course convenor/tutor.
) Comparative Politics (London.Course schedule Lecture topics Week 1 (19th Sept. 2nd edition (London: Sage). (2010). (hard copies and e-book ordered) Lim. D. Sage) (in library.) The State and State Formation (Martin Booker) Week 4 (10th Oct. e-book ordered) Caramani. e-book ordered) Drogus. (e-book ordered) Hague. Doing Comparative Politics: An Introduction to Approaches and Issues.) Institutional change: Revolutions (Luke March) Week 7 (31st Oct. (2011) (ed. T.) Territorial Politics (Carmen Gebhard) Week 9 (14th Nov. (2012) Introducing Comparative Politics: Concepts and Cases in Context.) The Comparative Method (Pontus Odmalm) Week 2 (26th Sept.) The Modern State: A Critical Perspective (Carmen Gebhard) The following textbooks are good companion pieces to the core readings and will give students an idea of what is involved in comparative research: • • • • • Bara. Comparative Government and Politics. J. M. (2010). e-book ordered) 5 . and Pennington. (in library. (in library.A. M.) Political Institutions (Carmen Gebhard) Week 5 (17th Oct.) Governing Divided Societies (Carmen Gebhard) Week 10 (21st Nov.) Parties and Elections (Luke March) Week 8 (7th Nov. 8th edition (Basingstoke: Palgrave). 2nd edition (Boulder: Lynne Riener).)Democracy and Democratisation (Luke March) Week 6 (24th Oct. (2009) (ed. C.C.) Comparative Politics. and Orvis. 2nd edition (Oxford: OUP). R.) Issues in Comparative Politics (Pontus Odmalm) Week 3 (3rd Oct. S. and Harrop.
and Stoker. Theory and Methods in Political Science (Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan). and Kleinnijenhuis. P. American Political Science Review 65(3): 682-693 Hopkin. and Mahon. 5. (1989) Case Study Research. (2010). (1985) 'Cross-national statistical research and the study of comparative politics'. R. B. R. country or political system. 6 . (2006) Doing Research in Political Science: An Introduction to Comparative Methods and Statistics (London: Sage). L.. and Harrop. 8th edition (Basingstoke: Palgrave).E. Rose. how it can further our understanding of political phenomena and the different ways to compare. A (1971) 'Comparative politics and the comparative method'. M. R. J. (1989) Redefining Comparative Politics: Promise Versus Performance (London: Sage). Keman H. B. A comparative approach to analysing politics is usually divided into a method and subject of study. (2006) ‘(Non)comparative politics in Britain’. Design and Methods (London: Sage). A and Teune. Tilly. (1991) 'Comparing forms of comparative analysis'.) Lijphart. (1987) The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press). (1998) Comparative Politics: Theory and Methods (Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan). I. Political Studies 39(3): 446-462. Politics 26(1): 29-37. J. D.G. Comparative Government and Politics. Ragin. (eds) (1970) The Methodology of Comparative Research. p. D. American Journal of Political Science 29(1):161-182 Mayer. Collier. Hague. J. American Political Science Review. (2002) ‘Comparative Methods’ in Marsh. (eds). R. and Turner. E (1990) 'British political science and comparative politics'. Peters.T.K. G. R. Political Studies 38(2): 438-452 Pennings. Page. Jackman. D. H (1970) The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry (Malabar. society. J. (Ch. C.E. the latter focuses on understanding and explaining political processes within a state. The lecture also covers the nature of comparative politics. Core Readings Biezen van. (1989) 'Comparative analysis in political science: requiem or resurrection?' Political Studies 37(3): 340-351. C. Fl: Robert E Krieger Publishing Co). Przeworski. (1993) 'Conceptual stretching revisited: adapting categories in comparative analysis'.Week 1: The Comparative Method (Pontus Odmalm) The first lecture provides an introduction to ‘comparative politics’ as a sub-discipline of political science. and Caramani. Large Processes.W. Yin. While the former is concerned with what comparison can tell us about internal or domestic dynamics. 87(4): 845-855 Holt. Further Reading Badie. (1984) Big Structures. Sage Foundation). 249-267. Huge Comparisons (New York: Russell.
or. Week 3 The State and State Formation (Martin Booker) What is a ‘state’? And. (1999) ‘Who gets legislation passed in a marginal legislature and is the label marginal legislature still appropriate?: a study of the Honduran congress’. Gerring. G. data adequacy and Central America’.L. and Snyder. (2010) ‘Comparative politics: some points for discussion’. representativeness. looking at different 7 .g. Comparative Political Studies 40(1): 37-44. (2010) ‘Of differences and similarities: is the explanation of variation a limitation to (or of) comparative analysis?’. European Political Science 9(1): 49-61. (2007) ‘Is there a (viable) crucial-case method?’.S. M.G. and Mahoney. this week’s lecture focuses on the implications of these ‘issues’ for doing comparative research and what the potential solutions can be. Lehoucq. J. J. Firstly. R. (2010) ‘The strategy of paired comparison: toward a theory of practice’. Political Analysis 2(1):131-150. Comparative Political Studies 42(9): 1143-1166. E. Wibbels. Comparative Political Studies 40(2): 196-214.Week 2 Issues in Comparative Politics (Pontus Odmalm) As a sub-discipline of political science. do processes of state formation vary from one case to the other? This lecture has three main objectives. Levy. Issues relating to e. (2007) ‘Qualitative methods and cross-method dialogue in political science’. F. van Kersbergen. European Political Science 9(1): 62-67. (2007) ‘No method to the comparative politics madness’. T. (2007) ‘Debating the direction of comparative politics: an analysis of leading journals’. Comparative Political Studies 38(8): 939-970. (2009) ‘Context and causal mechanisms in political analysis’. Caramani.. (2005) ‘Measuring political democracy: case expertise. comparative politics has gained momentum over the past decades. Comparative Political Studies 40(3):231-253. (2010) ‘Causal description: moving beyond stamp collecting in political science’. Schneider.M. Core readings Bowman. Falleti. what is ‘state formation’? Is there a generic pattern of state formation. it will provide several definitions of the state. case selection. B. deductive vs. Geddes. (2010) ‘Debate on the future of comparative politics: a rejoinder’. G. Further reading Caramani. Taylor-Robinson. European Political Science 9(1):78-82. quantitative studies. S. European Political Science 19(1): 34-48. Munck. D. (1990) ‘How the cases you choose affect the answers you get: selection bias in comparative politics’. But this development has come with a number of debates regarding the most appropriate way of conducting comparative research. K. While the above disputes are still on-going. J. Comparative Political Studies 32(5):589-625. J. and Lynch. Tarrow. inductive modes of analysis and the nature of ‘comparison’ have all featured on the agenda. Comparative Political Studies 40(1): 5-31. Comparative Political Studies 43(2): 230-259.F. qualitative vs. D. K.
(2001) ‘Abiding Sovereignty’. World Politics 35(1):1-24. M. World Politics 20(4):559-92. (1986) ‘The autonomous power of the state: its origins. Mann. K.109-136. S.) States in History (Oxford: Basil Blackwell). Journal of Latin American Studies 35(4): 827-862. A. (1988) ‘Notes on the difficulty of studying the state’.G and Jackson. Tauris). state servants. J. (1968) ‘The state as a conceptual variable’.H. Over-Stating the Arab State: Politics and Society in the Middle East (London: I. and state building in Latin America’.R. Saouli. (2001) Prosperity and Violence: the Political Economy of Development (London: W. p. A.B. Tilly. War and State-Building: Constructing the Rule of Law in El Salvador’.K.D. Ayoob. 1-19. T. R. C. Capital. Latina America and Asia. and Wittich. Further Reading Abrams. p. M. (1985) ‘War making and state making as organized crime’ in Evans. mechanism. p. Journal of Historical Sociology 1(1):58-89.. Nettl. J.990-1990 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).” in Hall. Krasner. Finally. (1990) Coercion. Brown. International Political Science Review 22(3): 229-251.P. rivalry. B. Thies. 169-187. C. (2005) ‘War. Woo-Cumings. (2003) ‘Democratisation. C. J.P. D. it will examine some generic patterns associated with the process of state formation. and European States. Call. Y. (ed. Russia and China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Cohen. (1990) ‘War and the state in Africa’. M. World Politics 20(4): 559-92. C. G.D. (1979) Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology (Berkeley: University of California Press). W. Roth. P. (1995). it will analyse some variations in the processes of state formation. T. and Parikh.. The American Political Science Review 75(4):901-910. Secondly. Rosberg. R. and the International System (Boulder: Lynne Rienner). Africa.. International Security 14(4): 117-139. W. N. Norton). ruling classes.A (ed. (1999) The Developmental State (Ithaca: Cornell University Press). looking at examples from Europe. (1991) ‘Comparative perspectives on the state’. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 19(4):701-717. Rueschemeyer. Regional Conflict. Skocpol. (1996) ‘Introduction: power elites. Tilly.theoretical and conceptual approaches. Ayubi. (2006) ‘Stability under late state formation: the case of Lebanon’. Reinhard. (1982) ‘Why Africa's weak states persist: the empirical and the juridical in statehood’. P.) Power Elites and State Building (New York: Oxford University Press). and results. Herbst. C. and the growth of state power’ in Reinhard. (1968) ‘The state as a conceptual variable’.F.G. American Journal of Political Science 49(3): 451-465. Core Readings Nettl. J. 8 . (1995) The Third World Security Predicaments: State Making. Bates. W. and Skocpol. C. A.H. N. (eds) Bringing the State Back In (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). and Organski. S. Barkey. (1979) States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France. Annual Review of Sociology 17: 523-49. Weber. M. (1981) ‘The paradoxical nature of state making: the violent creation of order’.
(1967) ‘Matched-dependent behaviouralism: the cargo cult of political science’. Pierre. (2002) ‘Democratic institutions and regime survival: parliamentary and presidential democracies reconsidered’. 1-38. March. Institutional theory (‘new institutionalism’) will be contrasted with behaviouralism (‘old institutionalism’) in order to further understand the potential effects that institutions have on society and the actors within. F. Annual Review of Political Science 2: 369-404.C.G. T. P. B. M. (1992) ‘Historical institutionalism in comparative politics’ in Steinmo. Shugart.Presentation questions: 1) When. Wormouth. R. p.W. (1996) ‘Political science and the three new institutionalisms’. Presentation questions: 1) Do institutions affect policy outcomes? 9 . Thelen. This week focuses on the nature of ‘institutions’. Thelen. (2000) Governance. M. and Powell.W. World Politics 22(2): 197-236.J. Political Studies 44(5): 936-957.A. S.J. H. J. S and Thelen. (1991) ‘Introduction’ in Powell. Politics.W. Norton). and Limongi.V. Hanson. F. Hughes. K and Longstreth. (1989) Rediscovering Institutions: the Organizational Basis of Politics (New York: Free Press). how they can be defined and applied in political research. R. J. and Wattenberg. Riggs. (2000) Institutional Theory: Problems and Prospects (Vienna: Political Science Series). 693-721. K. K. P.A. (1970) ‘Behavioralism in the study of the United Nations’. DiMaggio. (2002) ‘Historical institutionalism in contemporary political science’ in Katznelson. and Olsen. B. do states fail? 2) To what extent is the process of state formation universal? Week 4 Political Institutions (Carmen Gebhard) The study of political institutions enables us to understand different authority systems and government structures as well as how power is distributed within different states. M. W.S.) Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Heinx. and Taylor.P. Peters. (2005) Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds? (Oxford: Oxford University Press). (1999) ‘Historical institutionalism in comparative politics’. B and Volgy. W. and Skocpol. I. (eds.) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis Chicago (University of Chicago Press). Annual Review of Political Science 5: 151-179.) Political Science: State of the Discipline (New York: W. Pierson. K. (ed. p. and why.P. (eds. P. and Peters.G. T. J. The Western Political Quarterly 20(4): 809-840. Core readings Hall. and Milner. and the State (Basingstoke: MacMillan). 1-32. J. and DiMaggio.D. Further Reading Cheibub. P. F. p. and Steinmo.
S. Journal of Democracy 13(11): 5-21. L. socio-economic and personal factors involved in a transition to democracy. Core Readings Carothers. (1999) Democracy and Democratization: Post-Communist Europe in Comparative Perspective (London: Sage). the Former Soviet Union. (1970) ‘Transitions to democracy: toward a dynamic model’. West (Cambridge: Polity Press).A. (1999) Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press). 2(3): 337-363. (details) Held.) (1993) Prospects for Democracy: North. Marsh. and Lipset. Russia's Fall. L. Huntington. L. (2002) ‘The fourth wave of democracy and dictatorship’. S. Comparative Political Studies 33(6/7): 703-734. D. are we now seeing a democratic roll-back in some parts of the world? This lecture focuses on examples of democratic success and relative failure focussing on the key institutional. (2002) 'The end of the transition paradigm'. and Plattner. and Noutcheva. 10 . cultural. Linz. (eds.K. and Way Lucan (2010). (1991) The Third Wave:Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press).D. (1999) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in ThirtySix Countries (New Haven: Yale University Press). 13(2) (details) Levitsky. M..' Journal of Democracy. McFaul. D. The Herald of Europe 2: 1-33. L. M.. (ed. Rustow.M. M. 381-394. . South. Co: Lynne Rienner). Competitive authoritarianism: hybrid regimes after the Cold War (New York: Cambridge University Press).) The Sage Handbook of Comparative Politics (London: Sage). G. (2005) Unparalleled Reforms: China's Rise. pp. N.2) How can similar institutions have different outcomes? Week 5 Democracy and Democratisation (Luke March) After successive ‘waves’ of democratisation. Comparative Politics. J. and the Interdependence of Transition (Lanham. (1988) Democracy in Developing Countries (Boulder. Schedler. Lijphart. T and Robinson. (2005) ‘Europeanisation as a gravity model of democratisation’. Democratization (2004) (special issue) Democratization in the Early Twenty-first Century . Oxford : Lexington Books). Special issue ‘Elections without Democracy’. C. V (2000). (1991) 'What democracy is. Further Reading Bunce. (details) Dahl. Md. A. (1961) Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City (New Haven: Yale University Press). We will refer to theoretical literature on ‘transition’ and focus on East-Central Europe. R. S. Diamond. World Politics. (2009) ‘Electoral authoritarianism’ in Landman. East. T. and Mahr..and is not. ‘Comparative democratization: big and bounded generalizations’. Emerson. A. Diamond.B.J. Schmitter. 11(5) (details) Diamond. 54(2): 212-244 (details) Nagle. P. (1996) (eds) The Global Resurgence of Democracy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press). and Terry.F. Journal of Democracy (2002). 2(3): 75-88. A. J. and contemporary China as examples of democratic transitions of varying degrees of success.
and Outcomes'. M. (1973) ‘The revolution-social change nexus’. D. Goldstone.A. Cambridge: Polity Press. (2011) ‘The Black Swan of Cairo’. Recent ‘revolutions’. Goldstone.R. Mass. L.O’Donnell. Core readings Finkel. Goldstone. J.. Harvard University Press).M. (1986) Transitions from Authoritarian Rule (Baltimore. (2010) ‘Party politics in Georgia and Ukraine and the failure of Western assistance’. D. (2006) China's Trapped Transition: The Limits of Developmental Autocracy (Cambridge. R. Zakaria. E.. Schmitter.) (1997) Democratization. R. F. Comparative Studies of South Asia. F. T. (1997) ‘The Rise of Illiberal Democracy’. Democratization 19(1): 1-14. Offe. Gurr.199-227. (2002) ‘Comparing regime support in non-democratic and democratic countries’. Foreign Affairs. The Theory of Institutional Design (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). M.(details). Africa and the Middle East 29(1): 18-32. (2009) 'Rethinking Revolutions: Integrating Origins. N. R. Rose. Rose. Brudny (2012) ‘No more colour! Authoritarian regimes and colour revolutions in Eurasia’. Pei. C. (1996) ‘Designing institutions in East European transitions’ in (ed. 90(3). (2001) ‘Democratization Backwards: the Problem of Third-Wave Democracies’. L. and Moshiri. (1991) Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press). J. and Shin. including the so-called ‘coloured revolutions’ in the 2000s and the recent events in North Africa and the Middle East will be addressed more closely in order to investigate the issue of ‘successful’ institutional change. W. (2011) ‘Understanding the Revolutions of 2011’ Foreign Affairs. 90(3): 816. C. Potter. and Y.E. Sociological Theory 18(1): 1-16. British Journal of Political Science 31(2): 331-354. and Whitehead. C. Popular association of ‘revolution’ with the French and Russian cases has arguably marginalised numerous other examples. Foreign Affairs 76(6): 22-43. Democratization 9(2): 1-20. MA: John Hopkins University Press). P. Goldstone. Gurr. M. G. as well as distorted or restricted theoretical frameworks for the analysis of revolutions. Blyth.) Goodin. Presentation questions: 1) To what degree are the post-1989 ‘transitions’ in Eastern and East-Central Europe similar or different from earlier ‘waves’ of democratisation? 2) Is analysing regime change through the conceptual framework of ‘democratic transition’ misleading and/or misguided? Week 6 Institutional change: Revolutions (Luke March) Are we living in a new revolutionary age? This week analyzes revolution from both theoretical and comparative-historical perspectives.. T. Tilly. Comparative Politics 5(3): 359-392. Democratization 17(6): 1085-1107. p. J. (1991) Revolutions of the Late Twentieth Century 11 . Bader. (link) Further reading Anderson. 90(3):33-39. Processes. and Nicholas Taleb.R.C. and Mishler. (ed. (2011) ‘Demystifying the Arab Spring’. J. (2000) ‘Processes and mechanisms of democratization’. Foreign Affairs.
D. Contemporary Arab Affairs 4(2):123-126. Studlar. L. Presentation questions: 1) Are there any ‘most important factors catalysing revolutionary change’? 2) To what extent are the ‘coloured revolutions’ and the regime changes of the ‘Arab Spring’ the same? Week 7 Parties and Elections (Luke March) How can we measure. (1994) Social Revolutions in the Modern World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). (ed. Mudde. (2011) ‘The Arab revolution is marching on: Arabs recover their dignity". Shehata. Comparative. and Mair. count and compare party systems and why does it matter? How can we test what determines the nature of the party system: social cleavages or electoral institutions? Do parties even still matter? Were Katz and Mair right in identifying the rise of the cartel party? How can the comparative method help in assessing the validity of their claims? What kind of new parties are emerging? We will discuss new challenger parties such as populist parties. C (2004) ‘The populist zeitgeist’. and Mudde. Foreign Affairs 90 (3): 26-32. CO: Westview Press). C. C. Core Readings Bardi. P. Foreign Affairs 90 (3):40-47. and de-democratisation". Foreign Affairs 90 (3): 17-25. Comparative European Politics 3(1): 23-49. the new radical right and the new radical left. Sociological Theory 21(1): 37-43. Skocpol.) Annual Editions: Comparative Politics 06-07 (Dubuque: McGrawHill/Dushkin). C. T. March. (2005) ‘What’s left of the radical left? The European radical left after 1989: decline and adaptation’. Sakbani. Hamid. Scott Doran. (1999) ‘Unwritten rules: Britain’s constitutional revolution’. (2011) ‘The heirs of Nasser’. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics(2009) 25(2-3) Special Issue: Rethinking the ‘Coloured Revolutions’. D.) (2003) Revolutions: Theoretical. Detterbeck. L. (ed. T. El-Din (2011) "On the Arab 'democratic spring': lessons derived". and Historical Studies (Belmont. Harvard International Review 21(2): 48-52 (reprinted as ‘A constitutional revolution in Britain?’ in Soe. T. (2011) ‘The rise of the Islamists’. (2011) ‘The fall of the Pharaoh’. Z. S. Party Politics 14(2): 147-166. Party Politics 11(2): 173191. Kuran. (2011) "The revolutions of the Arab Spring: are democracy. Comparative Politics 5(3): 424-447. K. Tilly. 12 . World Politics 44(1): 7-48. Russia and China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). CA: Wadsworth/Thomson). K (2005) ‘Cartel parties in Western Europe’. p. democratization. (2008) ‘The parameters of party systems’. Goldstone. Skocpol. M. Contemporary Arab Affairs 4(2):113-122. development and modernity at the gates?" Contemporary Arab Affairs 4(2):127-147. Hafez. Haseeb. Tilly. Government and Opposition 39(4): 542– 563. (1979) States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France. (2003) "Inequality.16-22). C. (1973) ‘Does modernization breed revolution?. J. (1991) ‘Now out of never: the elements of surprise in the East European revolution of 1989’. M.(Boulder.
and Taagepera. (1994) West European Communist Parties after the Revolutions of 1989 (Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan). (1967) Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives (New York: Free Press). and Norris. Duverger. and Dobrzynska. A. (1994) Electoral Systems and Party Systems (Oxford: Oxford University Press). (2007) Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). (1999) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in ThirtySix Countries (New Haven: Yale University Press). and Diamond.) Political Parties and Electoral Change: Party Responses to Electoral Markets (London: SAGE).J. (details) Gunther. J. March. Katz.C. R. and Linz. Political Parties in a Consociational Democracy (London: Routledge). L. (1990) Understanding Party System Change in Western Europe (London: Cass). F. Mair. S. 113-136. (eds. Montero. (2003) ‘Ten theories of the extreme right’ in P. M.R. (1998) Green Parties and Politics in the European Union (London: Routledge). (1997) Party System Change: Approaches and Interpretation (Oxford: Clarendon Press). E.M. (1979) ‘Effective number of parties. International Political Science Review 16(1): 9-29. Hino. M.) (1999) Party Elites in Divided Societies.). (1959) Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State (London: Methuen).. 1-66. P. R. Niemi. (2002) Comparing Democracies 2: New Challenges in the Study of Elections and Voting (London: Sage). British Journal of Political Science 29(1): 205–224. L. (1999) ‘Electoral engineering and cross-national turnout differences: what role for compulsory voting?’. P. (2001. P. Bull. P. A measure with application to Western Europe’. (eds.) Political Parties: Old Concepts and New Challenges (Oxford: Oxford University Press). (2002) Political Parties: Old Concepts and New Challenges (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Hainsworth. Bomberg. P. p. Lijphart. and Rokkan. M. J. Hainsworth. Lipset. A (2012) New Challenger Parties in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis (Abingdon: Routledge). (2002) ‘The ascendancy of the party in public office: party organizational change in twentieth-century democracies’ in Gunther. (1998) ‘Turnout in electoral democracies’. 47–73 Further Reading Blais. G. P. p. Routledge). A. and Smith. Mair. R. R.H. L. R. J. Party Politics 9(2): 167-199. Dunleavy.. p. Weinberg (eds.. European Journal of Political Research 33(2): 239–261. A. S. C. Franklin.) Electoral Systems: A Comparative Introduction (Basingstoke: Palgrave/MacMillan). A.J. Comparative Political Studies 12(1): 3-27.G. P. J. (2000) Politics of the Extreme Right: From the Margins to the Mainstream (London: Pinter). 143-170. (1995) ‘Understanding the dynamics of electoral reform’ . Right-Wing Extremism in the Twenty-First Century (Abingdon. R. (2003) ‘Species of political parties: a new typology’. Farrell.M. W. and Margetts. P. Lijphart.K and Deschouwer K. Müller. (2004. Luther R. H. 13 .R. and Plasser. P. Montero.. Mair. M. D. R. Merkl and L. and Mair.Eatwell. (details) Gunther.J and Heywood. LeDuc. (2011) Radical Left Parties in Contemporary Europe (Abingdon: Routledge) Mudde.S. and Linz. Laakso. (2008) The Extreme Right in Western Europe (Abingdon: Routledge). p.
J. (2004) ‘Rethinking the origins of federalism: puzzle. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 7.. P. S. International Political Science Review 18(3): 297-312 (details). and Schakel. World Politics 51(1): 70-98. 291-318. (2002) ‘Beyond the catch-all party: approaches to the study of parties and party organization in contemporary democracies’ in Gunther. Panebianco.. (2002) ‘Party systems. Norris. J. and why? Week 8 Territorial Politics (Carmen Gebhard) More than half of the world’s population who live in a democracy also live in a federation. But what is a federation and how can it be distinguished from federalism. p. and Rhodes. Hooghe. (eds) Developments in West European Politics 2 (Basingstoke: Palgrave/MacMillan).Linz. E. and Linz.J. 9 and 10). majoritarian. Norris.R. G.. (2011) ‘The Political science of federalism’. confederalism. J. Sartori. (2008) ‘Measuring regional authority’. (eds. J. (1996) Political Parties and Party Systems (Oxford: Oxford University Press). (1976) Parties and Party System: A Framework for Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) (chs. A. p. Wolinetz. p. P. J. D. multi-level governance. Montero. 111-121 Ziblatt. Electoral Engineering. Pippa (1997) ‘Choosing electoral system: proportional. (2002) ‘Parties in contemporary democracies: problems and paradoxes’ in Gunther. and Linz. Parliamentary Affairs 56 (1) Special Issue What's Left? The Left in Europe Today (details). theory and evidence from nineteenth-century Europe’. Voting Rules and Political Behaviour (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Jones. and mixed systems’. Ware.J. J. electoral cleavages and government stability’ in Heywood. R. 136-166. 115-134. Marks. M.B.R. (2004).. Montero. A. 5. Webb.) Political Parties: Old Concepts and New Challenges (Oxford: Oxford University Press). R. immobilism or litigation? Under what conditions can territorial politics help to hold together multi-national or socioculturally fragmented societies? Core Readings Bednar. P. 6. L. Regional and Federal Studies 18 (2-3). Presentation questions: 1) What are the sources of stability and change in contemporary European party systems and why? 2) Which ‘new challenger parties’ provide the biggest challenge to party system stability. regionalism or devolution? How and why does ‘territorial politics’ matter? Why are some states federal and others not? Does territorial politics make governance more or less efficient? When and how can multi-level governance produce policy innovation and experimentation and when does it lead to policy duplication. 1-51. (eds. A. (1988) Political Parties: Organization and Power (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). G.) Political Parties: Old Concepts and New Challenges (Oxford: Oxford University Press). 14 .
and Di Palma. S. and Polsby. (1979) Devolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press). The Promise and Peril of Fiscal Federalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). (2007) ‘Federalism’ in Boix C.) Restructuring Territoriality. Burgess M. V. P. P. Riker. and Marks. Beramendi. (eds. P. On meaning and measurement’. (2007) Explaining Federalism. West European Politics 31(1-2): 6081. (eds.. G. C. S.K. Democracy and Justice: Regionalism and Federalism in Western Democracies (Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan).G. Chibber. Bogdanor. 93-113. W. J. G. C. Hooghe L. Keating. King. Kincaid. (1982) Federalism and Federation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press). Hough.) (2005) Federalism and the Welfare State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).) (2006) Territory.I. (2004) The Formation of National Party Systems: Federalism and Party Competition in Canada.) Comparative Federalism. D. Comparative Politics. D. (2008) ’Thirty years of territorial politics’. and Stokes. W. V. C. (2002) European Cities. (2001) Local Governance in Western Europe (London: Sage). Le Gales. Benefits and Preconditions of Federal Political Systems (Oxford: Clarendon Press). 263-90 Obinger. 4672. D.) (2006) Devolution and Electoral Politics (Manchester: Manchester University Press). India and the United States (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Volume 5: Governmental Institutions and Processes (Reading. J. Rodden. and Fenna. Great Britain. Leibfried. (2005) Theories of Federalism: A Reader (Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan).) Federalizing Europe? The Costs. Europe and the United States Compared (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Hooghe. (eds. A Systematic Inquiry (Peterborough. p. J. (2005) Constitutional Origins. (2008) ‘Federal and local government institutions’ in Caramani. (2001) Multi-Level Governance and European Integration (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield). (1996) ‘The constitutional arrangements of federal systems: a skeptical view from the outside’ in Hesse J. 15 . Loughlin. J. and Kollman.D. (2005) ‘Old and new peripheries in the process of European territorial integration’ in Ansell. p.) Comparative Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press). (2003) ‘Unraveling the central state.L.Further Reading Bartolini. Greer. Erk.) (1968) Why Federations Fail: An Inquiry into the Requisites for Successful Federalism (New York: New York University Press). E. p. G.) (2004) Federalism and Democracy in Latin America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press). Franck.19-45. S. P. Saunders. Hueglin.) The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press).J. (ed. N. Structure and Change in Federal Countries (Montreal and Kingston: Kingston University Press). Germany and Switzerland (London: Routledge). A. Elazar. (ed. L. and Castles F. F. (eds. State. Thomas M. M.G. (1987) Exploring Federalism (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press).S. (2006) Comparative Federalism: Theory and Practice (London: Routledge). Rodden. (ed. D.) Handbook of Political Science. S. J. (1975) ‘Federalism’ in Greenstein. (eds. Karmis. H. T.H. and Norman. Canada. P. Belgium. (eds. ‘Comparative federalism and decentralization. but how?’. Ontario: Broadview Press). A. and Wright. MA: Addison-Wesley). John.O.W. (2006) Hamilton’s Paradox. (2004). Social Conflicts and Governance (Oxford: Oxford University Press). 36(4): 481-500. K. and Marks. (eds. (ed. p. and Tarr. Gibson. Society and Congruence in Austria. American Political Science Review 97(2): 233-243. and Jeffery.
K. and Bermeo. B. Horowitz. M. Horowitz.) The Architecture of Democracy. B. 546-71. Annual Review of Political Science 9: 165-188. Further Reading Adeney. and O’Leary.) (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Ethnopolitics 8(1):5-25. A Comparative and Thematic Analysis (Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan).) (2004) Federalism and Territorial Cleavages (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press). Comparative Political Studies 44 (5). Regional and Federal Studies 19(2): 255-272. Watts R. (2009). K (2007). Reilly. ‘Political engineering and party politics in conflict-prone societies'. (2002) ‘Constitutional design: proposal versus processes’ in Reynolds. Sorens. Treisman. How can the comparative method help us in determining what is good for divided societies: federalism. ‘Must plurinational federations fail?’. Keating. Wibbels. Constitutional Design. The New Politics of Nationalism in 16 .C. consociationalism or electoral engineering? Why has India held together but (ex)-Yugoslavia or the Soviet Union has not? Why did Bosnia or Iraq opt for federalism to govern diversity. J. (2007) The Architecture of Government. Territorial Party Politics in Western Europe (Basingstoke: Palgrave). Presentation questions: 1) Assess whether sub-national authority been on the rise across many OECD countries since the 1960s? 2) Does federalism help to maintain national unity or does it hasten the disintegration of territorially heterogeneous states? Week 9 Governing Divided Societies (Carmen Gebhard) There are many more nations than states but the capacity of multi-national states to hold together may depend on the institutions that have been set up to govern diversity. and to what extent have electoral devises contributed to successful conflict regulation in the Fiji Islands? Core Readings McGarry. Federalism and Ethnic Conflict Regulation in India and Pakistan (Basingstoke: Palgrave). D. (ed. Swenden. N. Rethinking Political Decentralization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).L (2000) Ethnic Groups in Conflict (Berkeley: University of California Press). W. (2011). J. C.M. 15-37. (2001) Nations Against the State. D. (2006) 'Madison in Baghdad? Decentralization and federalism in comparative politics'. D. ‘Understanding the multinational game: toward a theory of asymmetrical federalism’.L. A. B. (2009) (eds). p. E. Democratization 13(5): 811-827. (1996) Comparing Federal Systems in the 1990s (Kingston: Queen's University Press). Conflict Management and Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Zuber. (2006). Amoretti U. W and Maddens. (2006) Federalism and Regionalism in Western Europe. Wheare.Swenden. (1963) Federal Government (4th ed. (2009). ‘The Partisan logic of decentralization in Europe’. (eds.
(2008). World Politics 31(3): 325-344. Kymlicka.Quebec. W. Stateless Nations in a Post-Sovereignty Era (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Norris.I. Driving Democracy. J. p.. Stepan. Do Power-Sharing Institutions Work? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). and Yadav. A. Nepantla: Views From South. Stepan. institutionalization. Conflict Management and Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press). (2005) (eds. (esp.) Politics in the Vernacular. (2002) (ed. A.H. I. M. (ed. 312-328 Rudolph.) Autonomy. (2001) ‘Minority nationalism and multination federalism’ in Kymlicka. Lustick. chs 1. A. E. Responses to Ethnic Violence (London: Routledge). J. (multi)nationalism. Keating. Electoral Competition and Ethnic Riots in India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). (2007) Conflict and Peace Building in Divided Societies. The Architecture of Democracy. and Eurocentrism’. P. in The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation (Cambridge: Cambridge 17 .315362. W. Self-Governance and Conflict Resolution (London: Routledge). (1995) Multicultural Citizenship (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Constitutional Design. A. (2000) ‘Europe. p. W (2000) (eds.) Arguing Comparative Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Hobson. Weller. M. p. (2001) Plurinational Democracy.M. A. (2006) Politics and Ethnicity. A Comparative Study (Basingstoke: Palgrave). (2004) Votes and Violence. Nationalism. Modernity. p. (2002) ‘The wave of power-sharing democracy’ in Reynolds. Ross. Core Readings Dussel. Kylmlicka. Linz. and Norman. S. 91-120 Kymlicka W. (2007) Cultural Contestation in Ethnic Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). India and other Multinational Democracies (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press). In this session we will discuss critical perspectives on Eurocentrism and cultural universalism as it can be found in a lot of comparative politics research. Multiculturalism and Citizenship (Oxford: Oxford University Press). J. (1979) ‘Stability in deeply divided societies: consociationalism versus Control’. Y. and democracy: beyond Rikerian federalism’ in Stepan. M and Wolff. I(3).) Citizenship in Diverse Societies (Oxford: Oxford University Press).). 7 and 8). 465-478.. Oberschall. S. Presentation questions: 1) What is the contribution of institutional engineering to the accommodation of ethnic divisions within divided societies? 2) Is devolution the best way to deal with regional differences? Week 10 The Modern State: A Critical Perspective (Carmen Gebhard) Many concepts and theoretical assumptions in Comparative Politics are based on the European or Western experience with state formation. (ed. W. A.37-55. The State-Nation. (2001) ‘Toward a new comparative politics of federalism. (2004) ‘Countering the Eurocentric myth of the Pristine West: discovering the oriental West’. modernization and democracy. Wilkinson. Lijphart. Catalonia and Scotland (Basingstoke: Palgrave) (2nd edition).
and the Sovereign State: The Evolution and Application of the Concept of Sovereignty (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. (reprinted in Crawford. 18(1). S. Crawford. E. Leys C. (2004).University Press). 373-384. (2009). (1996). Richard (1997) ‘False Universalism and the Geopolitics of Exclusion: The Ease of Islam’. Vol. 1-28. Matthews S. ‘Post-Development Theory and the question of alternatives: a view from Africa’. (2001) ‘Abiding Sovereignty’. Wallerstein. (2001) ‘Sovereignty’. B. Epifanio. Nederveen Pieterse. (2006) European Universalism: The Rhetoric of Power. Krasner. Bunck's (1995) Law. Boundary 2. J. Beyond Postcolonial Theory. Thomas. 27-48. Verso. James Currey. [chapter 1] Further Reading Ayoob. Hobson (2011) ‘The Big Bangs of IR: The Myths That Your Teachers Still Tell You about 1648 and 1919’. 1997. The Rise and Fall of Development Theory. B. British Journal of International Relations 6. (1993) ‘Eurocentrism and Modernity (Introduction to the Frankfurt Lectures)’. Liberalization and Leninist Legacies: Comparative Perspectives on Democratic Transitions. International Studies Review 4(3). Moore-Gilbert Bart (1997). B. and J. 15(2). I. 171-199. M. (2001). Development Theory: Deconstructions/Reconstructions (2nd edition). S. Foreign Policy 122: 20-29. (2003) ‘Inequality and Theorizing in International Relations: The Case for Subaltern Realism’. The New Press. Gandhi L.Journal of International Studies. S. and A. 39(3).D. Dussel.D. M. 735-758. Lijphart (1995) ‘Explaining Political and Economic Change in PostCommunist Eastern Europe’. Third World Quarterly. Falk. 1996. Berkeley: University of California Press. C. 25(2). (2004) ‘The End of the ‘Third World’?’ Third World Quarterly. Leira and J. and P. and A. International Political Science Review 22(3): 229-251. Presentation questions: 1) In what way is cultural and political universalism related to power? 2) Is the “developing world” an inherently Western concept? 18 . 241-258. A Critical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Berger M. Krasner. H. London: Sage. Postcolonial Theory: Contexts. (1997). Postcolonial Theory. Practices. Lijphart.. Basingstoke: Palgrave. 257-275.. 65-76. 7-23. J. M. Wilkin (2004) ‘Still Waiting after all these Years: ‘The Third World’ on the Periphery of International Relations’. Fowler. Third World Quarterly. Millennium . 20(3).) De Carvalho. Comparative Political Studies 28(2). M. Power. Politics.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.