1

University of Oxford – Department of Politics and International Relations

MPhil in Politics: Comparative Government

POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS PROGRAMME

M.Phil. Comparative Government

Teaching arrangements and assessment:

This course is taught through twenty classes running through all of Michaelmas and Hilary terms and

the first four weeks of Trinity Term. In addition students will take a number of paired tutorials during

Michaelmas, Hilary and Trinity. The course is assessed through a written examination given in Trinity

Term of the first year. For the formal examination provisions please see the most recent version of

Examination Regulations a copy of which is issued to each graduate student and which is also available on

the DPIR website.

Aims of the course:

(i) To develop a critical understanding of the important theoretical contributions to the field of

comparative politics and to develop an understanding of ‘what we currently know’ in the sub-

discipline of comparative politics.

(ii) To examine selected debates in comparative politics that are of practical and theoretical

importance, paying particular attention to the methodological issues in those debates, and to the

utility of different methodological approaches in contemporary political science.

(iii) To explore and discuss some of the different ways political scientists use comparison as a method

of inquiry, in a way that is intended to complement methods teaching in other courses.

(iv) To compare and contrast contemporary ideas in comparative politics with those of previous

generations of political scientists.

2

Class Sequence:

Michaelmas Term

1. Comparative Politics: An Introduction

2. Democracy

3. Democratisation

4. Social Movements and Collective Action

5. Political Parties and Voting

6. Ethnicity and Civil War

7. Federalism

8. Political Economy

Hilary Term

9. Political Development

10. States and State Building

11. Authoritarianism

12. Presidentialism and Parliamentarism

13. Political Corruption

14. Parties and Politics in Post-Authoritarian

Societies

15. Comparative Legislatures

16. Political Culture

Trinity Term

17. Agency and Leadership

18. Time, History and Narrative

19. Revision Session 1

20. Revision Session 2

3

General Reading

a) Overviews

Gerardo L. Munck and Richard Snyder, eds., Passion, Craft and Method in Comparative Politics.

(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007).

Ira Katznelson and Helen V. Milner, eds., Political Science: State of the Discipline. (NY: Norton,

2002)

Boix, Carles and Susan Stokes eds. (2007), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics

Dalton, Russell and Hans-Dieter Klingemann eds. (2007), The Oxford Handbook of Political

Behaviour

Lichbach, Mark and Alan Zuckerman eds. (2009), Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture and

Structure

Peters, B Guy (1999), Institutional Theory in Political Science

Rhodes, R.A.W., Sarah Binder and Bert A. Rockman (2006), The Oxford Handbook of Political

Institutions

Lijphart, A (2012), Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries,

2nd edition

b) Methods and Approaches

Mills, C. Wright (1952) “On Intellectual Craftsmanship” in The Sociological Imagination: 195-227.

Mahoney, James and Dietrich Reuschemeyer eds. (2003), Comparative Historical Analysis in the

Social Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press,

Box-Steffensmeier, Janet, Henry Brady and David Collier eds. (2008), The Oxford Handbook of

Political Methodology

Ragin, Charles C. (1987), The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative

Strategies

King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O and Verba, Sidney (1994), Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific

Inference in Qualitative Research

Goodin, Robert and Charles Tilly eds. (2006) The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis

Related Lectures and Seminars

Check the University Gazette and Lecture List, weekly email Circulars from the Courses Team, and the

events section on the DPIR website for seminars and lectures on topics of interest to you that relate to the

topics in this course. For example, Nuffield College holds political science seminars on Tuesdays at 5pm,

the DPIR sponsors occasional political economy seminars at lunch-time,and St Antony’s College

sponsors research seminars on various topics most afternoons. David Robertson will run a new

Comparative Politics Colloquium series which the DPIR will publicize.

Libraries

In your induction week you will be introduced to the university library system (which consists of

multiple libraries). Your college librarian has been encouraged to order the mandatory readings on this

4

course outline. The Social Science Division Library, located on the floor below the Department in the

Manor Road Building has ordered three copies of all the bold items; we are investigating other methods

of improving access to the texts, but you may well need to coordinate and share resources.(The Social

Science Librarian in Margaret Robb email Margaret.robb@ssl.ox.ac.uk) You will also find Nuffield

College library (open to all graduate students 9.30 to 5.30 Monday to Friday) a particularly useful

resource, since it offers a reference collection of all books on the core reading list.

You will also find some useful online resources available through the library system. The University

Library Services website includes a helpful guide to what is available at:

http://www.ouls.ox.ac.uk/eresources/guide

Of particular utility will be OxLIP, a gateway to a wide variety of information sources – helpful for

literature searches, access to reference works and digital collections, and much else – and the TDNet

access point for electronic journals to which the university is subscribed, which should include most of

the journals referenced during the course. You may also find useful the British Library’s table of contents

for journals and conference proceedings (http://zetoc.mimas.ac.uk) and the country links available from

the Library of Congress

(http://www.loc.gov/rr/international/portals.html).

List of journal abbreviations used in the reading list

AJPS – American Journal of Political Science

APSR – American Political Science Review

BJPS – British Journal of Political Science

CPS – Comparative Political Studies

IPSR – International Political Science Review

JP – Journal of Politics

JD –Journal of Democracy

JTP – Journal of Theoretical Politics

PS – Political Studies

WP – World Politics

Class format

The class will run in two sections; everybody will be assigned to one or the other section at the induction

meeting. You MUST attend the section to which you have been assigned. All classes will take place on

Wednesdays: Section A meets at 9am and Section B at 11am. Classes will last between one and a half and

two hours.

Classes will involve discussion of the readings for that week, normally guided by presentations that two

students will have prepared. You will be told which presentations will be assigned to you at the

induction meeting for Michaelmas. Please make contact by email with the relevant class tutor to get

more detailed advice on what form your presentation should take. Here is some general advice for both

those presenting and those not presenting:

5

For non-presenters: you should do as much of the listed reading as possible, and in particular you

MUST carefully and critically read the material listed in bold for each week .Readings marked with

asterisks are recommended but not mandatory. You should take time before the class to think about the

strengths and weaknesses of the arguments in the works you have read and you should come prepared

with your own answers to the questions on the syllabus.

For presenters: you should seek more detailed advice about what to read well in advance from the class

teacher for the week you are presenting (email addresses are provided for all the class instructors in the

class list above). You should prepare a 15 minute presentation responding to the discussion question

you have chosen, using the mandatory readings as your foundation but taking your own position and

using other materials too if you wish. The presentation should not simply summarise or repeat material

that the other class participants will have read. If you use visual aids (e.g. PowerPoint) it should be for a

good reason and not simply to summarise key points while you present. Hand-outs to the rest of the

class may be more useful, especially since time constraints may make it difficult to go into depth on all

your points.

Tutorials

You and a tutorial partner will be assigned a tutor for tutorials early in Michaelmas term. You should

make contact with your tutor as soon as this assignment is made.. For each tutorial you will need to

write a substantial essay and do further reading in a particular topic area; your tutor will give you more

detail about preparation and expectations.. You will generally have two tutorials in each term, although

this may vary. Every student must have at least six tutorials during the academic year. Ideally, these

would number two per term.

6

Michaelmas Term Week 1 - Comparative Politics: An Introduction

Aim of the session: To develop a working understanding of the history, nature and focus of

comparative politics

Discussion topics:

a) Is comparative politics a method, a sub-field or something else?

b) What continuities and discontinuities can we identify in the field of comparative politics over

time?

c) Is the scholarship in comparative politics improving?

Readings:

(a) Early examples

Aristotle. Politics. Book IV, sections 1-12.

Machiavelli. Discourses. Book I, discourse 2-6

Mill, John Stuart. A System of Logic, Book VI and Book XII

Montesquieu. The Spirit of Laws. Books III -V

Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America

(b) Commentaries and debates

Arendt Lijphart, "Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method," American Political

Science Review (September 1971): 682-93.

Geddes, Barbara. Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design in

Comparative Politics (2003) Ch. 1 pp 1-26.

Munck, Gerardo and Richard Snyder. Passion Craft and Method in Comparative Politics (2007)

pp. 32-59 and excerpts from the book in “What has Comparative Politics Accomplished?” in

APSA-CP Newsletter of the American Political Science Association Organized Section in

Comparative Politics vol. 15 no. 2 pp. 26-31

Brown, Archie. “Comparative Politics: A View from Britain” APSA-CP Newsletter of the

American Political Science Association Organized Section in Comparative Politics vol. 16, no. 1

(Winter 2005)

Hardin, Russell, et.al. (2002), ‘Shaking Things Up? Thoughts about the future of political

science’, PS Political Science and Politics 35 (2) Selections by Elinor Ostrom and Suzanne

Hoeber Rudolph

Shapiro, Ian (2004) “Problems, Methods, and Theories in the Study of Politics, or: What’s Wrong

with Political Science and What to Do About It” in Ian Shapiro, Rogers M. Smith and Tarek E.

Masoud, eds., Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics. (NY: Cambridge University Press, 1941.

APSA-Comparative Politics Section (2008) ‘Symposium: Big Unanswered Questions in

Comparative Politics’ in APSA-CP 19:1

Mair, Peter (1996) “Comparative Politics: An Overview,” pp. 309-35, in Robert Goodin and Hans-

Dieter Klingemann (eds.), The New Handbook of Political Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

Laitin, David D. (2002), "Comparative Politics: The State of the Sub-discipline," pp. 630-659 in Ira

Katznelson and Helen V. Milner (eds.), Political Science: State of the Discipline (New York: W.W.

Norton & Washington, DC: American Political Science Association,)

Boix, Carles and Susan Stokes (2008), The Oxford Handbook of Political Science (OUP)

7

Mahoney, James andDietrich Reuschemeyer, (2003) Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social

Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press

Sartori, Giovanni “Concept Mis-formation in Comparative Politics,” APSR, 64:4:1033-53.

Bates, Robert (1997) "Area Studies and the Discipline: A Useful Controversy?" PS: Political Science

& Politics, vol. 30 no. 2 (June).

Johnson, Chalmers (1997) "Preconception vs. Observation, or the Contributions of Rational Choice

Theory and Area Studies to Contemporary Political Science," PS: Political Science & Politics vol. 30,

no. 2 (June).

8

Michaelmas Term Week 2 - Democracy

Aim of the session: To develop insights into what distinguishes democracy from other regime types.

Discussion topics:

a) How should scholars define democracy? How can democracies be identified in the real world?

b) How do democracies emerge?

Readings:

(a) The Concept of Democracy

Dahl, Robert. (1971) Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University

Press, ch. 1.

Schumpeter, Joseph. (1947) Capitalism, Socialism, & Democracy. New York: Harper & Brothers,

ch. XXII Sec I pp.269-273

Schmitter, Philippe and Terry Lynn Karl. (1996) “What Democracy is …and is Not” in Larry

Diamond and Marc Plattner eds. The Global Resurgence of Democracy pp. 39-52 original in

Journal of Democracy

(b) Explanations for Democracy’s Emergence

Rustow, Dankwart. (1970) “Transitions to Democracy: Toward a Dynamic Model” in

Comparative Politics vol 2 no. 2 (April)pp.337-63.

Moore, Barrington. (1968) Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Part 3 Ch. 7 pp. 413-

432.

Capoccia, Giovanni and Daniel Ziblatt. (2010) “The Historic Turn in Democratization Studies:

A New Research Program for Europe and Beyond,” Comparative Political Studies, vol. 30

August 2010 pp. 931-968.

Lindberg, Staffan ed. (2009) Democratization by Elections: A New Mode of Transition

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. pp. 314-341.

Acemoglu, Daron and James A. Robinson. (2006) Economic Origins of Dictatorship and

Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ch. 1 skim Chs. 2-3

Boix, Carles. (2003) Democracy and Redistribution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1-

109.

Seymour Martin Lipset. (1959) “Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development

and Political Legitimacy” APSR, Vol. 53, No. 1. (March 1959), pp. 69-105.

Boix, Carles, and Susan Stokes. (2003) “Endogenous Democratization,” WP, Volume 55, No. 4,

July.

Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, Evelyne Huber Stephens, and John Stephens. (1992) Capitalist

Development and Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, chapters 1, 2, and 3.

O’Donnell, Guillermo and Philippe C. Schmitter, (1986) “Negotiating (and Renegotiating)

Pacts,” from Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain

Democracies.

Huntington, Samuel. (1991) The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman,

Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, pp. xiii-xv, chs. 1~4.*

Bunce, Valerie (2003) “Rethinking recent Democratization: Lessons from the Postcommuist

Experience”. WP Vol. 55, Iss. 2; pp. 167-195.

9

Linz, Juan and Alfred Stepan. (1996) Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation 3-83.

Whitehead, Laurence. (2001) The International Dimensions of Democratization. Ch. 1 and Postcript pp.

3-25 and pp. 443-454 by Whitehead and Ch. 2 by Schmitter pp. 26-49.

10

Michaelmas Term Week 3 - Democratization

Aim of the session: To analyse why democratization gets reversed,and whether democracy is only

possible in certain sorts of settings.

Discussion topics:

a) What factors have explained the breakdown of democracy in the past and are they likely to have

validity in the future?

b) Is democratization possible everywhere?

Readings:

(a) Democratization’s Reversals

Linz, Juan (1978) Crisis, Breakdown and Re-equilibration. Ch. 3-4.

Bermeo, Nancy (2003) Ordinary People in Extraordinary Times: The Citizenry and the

Breakdown of Democracy. Introduction, Ch. 1 and 7.

Capoccia, Giovanni. (2005) Defending Democracy; Reactions to Extremism in Interwar Europe Ch. 3.

Diamond, Larry (2011) “Why Democracies Survive” JoD 22:1 pp. 15-29

(b) Is Democratization Possible Everywhere?

Finkel, Steven E; Pérez-Liñán, Aníbal; Seligson, Mitchell A. (2007) “The Effects of U.S. Foreign

Assistance on Democracy Building” World Politics 59. 3 April: pp. 404-438.

Collier, Paul (2009) Wars, Guns and Votes: Democracy in Dangerous Places Ch. 1 pp. 15-50

Tilly, Charles (2007) Democracy chs. 2, 3 pp. 25-79

Haggard, Stephan and Robert Kaufman (2012) “Inequality and Regime Change: Democratic

Transitions and the Stability of Democratic Rule” APSR vol 106: 3 Aug. pp. 495-516

Howard, Marc Morjé, and Philip G. Roessler (2006) “Liberalizing Electoral Outcomes in Competitive

Authoritarian Regimes“ American Journal of Political Science 50 (2), 365–381.

Mansfield, Edward and Jack Snyder, (2005) Electing to Fight. Ch. 3.

Snyder, Jack (2000) From Voting to Violence Ch. 1 pp. 15-43 or ch. 7 pp. 313-353

Hoglund, K. (2009) “Electoral Violence in Conflict-Ridden Societies: Causes, Concepts and

Consequences.” Terrorism and Political Violence, 21, 412–427.

Barany, Zoltan and Robert G. Moser eds. (2009) Is Democracy Exportable? Cambridge Press

Carothers, Thomas (2002) “The End of the Transition Paradigm” JoD 13:1 pp5-21.

Teorell, Jan. (2010) Determinants of Democratization, Cambridge

Gilles, David, ed. (2011) Elections in Dangerous Places, McGill Queens University Press

11

Michaelmas Term Week 4 - Social Movements and Collective Action

Aim of the session: To understand why and when people take collective action in politics.

Discussion topics:

a) What forms does collective action take in politics and is collective political action always

“logical”?

b) How do social movements emerge and prove “successful”?

Readings:

a) The Forms and Logics of Collective Action

Olson, Mancur (1971) The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups,

pp. 5-52

Scott, James C. (1990) Domination and the Arts of Resistance pp. 17-47

Tarrow, Sidney (1996) Power in Movement pp. 9-47

O’Brien, Kevin (1996) “Rightful Resistance” World Politics 49 (1) pp. 31-55

Shami, Mahvish (2012) “Collective Action, Clientelism and Connectivity” APSR vol.106 no 3 588-

604

McAdam, Doug, and Sidney Tarrow (2010) "Ballots and Barricades: The Reciprocal Relations

Between Elections and Social Movements." Perspectives on Politics 8:529-42.

Tilly, Charles and Lesley J. Wood (2009) Social Movements, 1768-2008, pp. 1-15

Kuran, Timur (1991) “Now Out of Never: The Element of Surprise in the East European

Revolution of 1989” WP October vol. 44:1

Ostrom, Elinor. (1998) “A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective

Action Presidential Address, American Political Science Association, 1997.” American Political

Science Review 92, no. 1 (March 1998).

Keck, Margaret E. and Kathryn Sikkink (1998) Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in

International Politics, pp. 1-38.

Beissinger, Mark (2002) Nationalist Mobilization and the Collapse of the Soviet State. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-32.

Baldez, Lisa (2002) Why Women Protest

McAdam, Doug (1982) The Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency

Gurr, Ted Robert (1970)Why Men Rebel

Givan, Rebecca Kolins, Kenneth M. Roberts and Sarah A. Soule (2010) The Diffusion of Social

Movements: Actors, Mechanisms, and Political Effects

b) The Emergence and Success of Social Movements

Tarrow, Sidney (1996) Power in Movement pp.170-198

Berman, Sheri (1997) “Civil Society and the Collapse of the Weimar Republic” World Politics

49:401-439

Mona El-Ghobashy, (2012) "Praxis of the Egyptian

Revolution" http://www.merip.org/mer/mer258/praxis-egyptian-revolution

Zhao, Dingxin (1998) ”Ecologies of Social Movements: Student Mobilization during the 1989

Prodemocracy Movement in Beijing” American Journal of Sociology Vol. 103, No. 6 (May 1998),

pp. 1493-1529

12

Piven, Frances and Richard Cloward (1979) Poor People’s Movements: Why they Succeed,

How they Fail, pp. 1-37

Goodwin, Jeff and James M. Jasper (1999) “Caught in a Winding, Snarling Vine: The Structural

Bias of Political Process Theory.” in Jeff Goodwin and James Jasper eds. Rethinking Social

Movements Structure, Meaning and Emotion (2003) pp. 3-30 Originally in Sociological Forum

14, no. 1 (March 1999) pp.3-29

McCarthy, John D. and Mayer Zald (1977) “Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A

Partial Theory” American journal of Sociology 82:1212-41

Kitschelt, Herbert. “Resource Mobilization: A Critique” in Dieter Rucht ed. Research on Social

Movements 323-47

Gamson, William. “Defining Movement ‘Success’” in Jeff Goodwin and James Jasper (2003) The

Social Movements Reader: Cases and Concepts, New York: Blackwell Publishing ch. 31

Brown, Nathan (2012) When Victory is Not an Option: Islamist Movements in Arab Politics

Clifford, Bob; Sharon Erickson Nepstad, (2007) “Kill a Leader, Murder a Movement? Leadership

and Assassination in Social Movements” The American Behavioral Scientist 50. 10 (June): pp. 1377-

1394.

Andrews, K. T. (2001). Social Movements and Policy Implementation: The Mississippi Civil

Rights Movement and the War on Poverty, 1965 to 1971. American Sociological Review, 66(1), 71-95

Htun, Mala and S. Laurel Weldon (2012) “The Civic Origins of Progressive Policy Change:

Combating Violence against Women in Global Perspective, 1975–2005” American Political Science

Review Vol. 106, No. 3 August 548-569

Oliver, Pamela and Gerald Marwell (1993) The Critical Mass in Collective Action: A Micro-social

Theory, pp. 1-13, 38-57.

Mansbridge, Jane (1986) Why We Lost the ERA

Weldon, S. Laurel (2011) When Protest Makes Policy: How Social Movements Represent Disadvantaged

Groups

Ganz, Marshall. (2009) “Why David Sometimes Wins: Strategic Capacity in Social Movements.”

in Goodwin, Jeff and James M. Jasper eds., Rethinking Social Movements: Structure, Meaning and

Emotion.

Boudreau, Vincent. (2002) “State Repression and Democracy Protest in Three Southeast Asian

Countries,” in Meyer, David S., Nancy Whittier & Belinda Robnett eds., Social Movements,

Identity, Culture and the State

13

Michaelmas Term Week 5 - Political Parties and Voting

Aim of the session: Elections and party competition are essential to a functioning democracy because

they enable public preferences to be translated into public policy. But who actually

sets the political agenda, how do parties mobilise support, and what determines

how an individual votes? This session aims to explore party competition and the

relationship between parties and voters.

Discussion topics:

a) How do parties try and mobilize support? Have new technologies and populist strategies eroded

the significance of party structure for election outcomes?

b) Do we best understand how people vote by adopting the lens of ideology, class voting, economic

voting, or post-materialist voting? How much variation exists across nations, and what research

strategies can we use to model this?

Readings:

(a) Party political competition and electioneering

Anstead, Nick and Andrew Chadwick (2009) ‘Parties, election campaigning, and the internet’,

in the Handbook of Internet Politics (Routledge, also available via google books).

**Bratton, Michael (2008) ‘Vote Buying and Violence in Nigerian Election Campaigns’ Electoral

Studies 27.

**Dalton, Russell (2006), Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties.

Downs, Anthony (1957), An Economic Theory of Democracy. For an applied example see

Hindmoor, A. (2005), ‘Reading Downs: New Labour and An Economic Theory of Democracy’ The

British Journal of Politics & International Relations). For an alternative approach to Downs, see

Dunleavy, Patrick (1986) Democracy, Bureaucracy and Public Choice, Chs 4 & 5, and compare

with Schumpeter, J. (1985) ‘Two Concepts of Democracy’ in A. Quinton ed., Political Philosophy.

Mair, Peter (2002), ‘Comparing Party Systems’, in Lawrence LeDuc et al. (eds.), Comparing

Democracies 2: New Challenges in the Study of Elections and Voting.

**Nichter, Simeon (2008) ‘Vote Buying or Turnout Buying? Machine Politics and the Secret Ballot’,

American Political Science Review, 102, 1.

Party Politics 9, 5 (2003) special issue: Party Organization and Campaigning at the Grass Roots.

Ware, Alan (1985) The Breakdown of the Democratic Party organization (Oxford).

Ware, Alan (1996) Political Parties and Party Systems, Oxford: OUP, Part I (Useful intro to topic)

(b) Voters and vote choice

Clarke, Harold D., David Sanders, Marianne C. Stewart, et al (2004), Political Choice in Britain.

Evans, Geoffrey, ed (1999), The End of Class Politics? Class Voting in Comparative Context, esp

Intro and Conc (pay attention to the definition of class at pp. 8-11).

**Jane Green and Sara Hobolt (2008) ‘Owning the Issue Agenda’, Electoral Studies 27.

Hinich, M. J. and M. C. Munger (1994), Ideology and the theory of political choice.

Hout, M, C. Brooks & J. Manza (1999), ‘The Democratic Class Struggle in the United States’

American Sociological Review 60.

Inglehart, Ronald and J-R Rabier (1986), ‘Political Realignment in Advanced Industrial Society:

From Class-Based Politics to Quality-of-Life Politics’ Government and Opposition 21.

14

**Lipset, Seymour M and Rokkan, Stein (1967) ‘Cleavage Structures, Party Systems and Voter

Alignments: An Introduction’, in S.M. Lipset and S. Rokkan eds Party Systems and Voter

Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives.

Marsh, M. and J. Tilley (2010), ‘The Attribution of Credit and Blame to Governments and Its

Impact on Vote Choice’, British Journal of Political Science, Volume 40, Issue 01, January 2010,

pp. 115-134.

Thomassen, J. ed. (2006), The European Voter.

Students might also want to consider one of the following ‘eye-witness’ accounts:

McGinness, Joe (1988), The Selling of the Presidency

Thompson, Hunter S (2005), Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail.

15

Michaelmas Term Week 6 - Ethnicity and civil war

Aim of the session: Ethnicity is often said to be bad for development and democracy. On average,

‘highly diverse’ countries have been found to have GDP growth rates 2% higher

than ‘less diverse’ countries. Meanwhile, ‘ethnic politics’ is often associated with

electoral violence and, in the most extreme cases, civil war. But given that many

ethnically diverse countries are peaceful and prosperous, is ethnicity really the

problem? And what is the actual process through which group identities undermine

the provision of public goods?

Discussion topics:

a) Is ethnic diversity detrimental to effective governance and the provision of public goods? If so,

does this help to explain the different political and economic trajectories between ‘developed’

and ‘underdeveloped’ states?

b) Why do civil wars start? Are countries that are ethnically diverse more likely to suffer civil

conflict, and if so why?

Readings:

(a) Ethnicity and the politics of development

Chandra, K. 2004. Why Ethnic Parties Succeed: Patronage and ethnic head counts in India.

Chandra, K. and S. Wilkinson. “Measuring the Effect of ‘Ethnicity’”. Comparative Political Studies,

41 (2008): 515-563.

**Cheeseman, Nic (2012) ‘Ethnicity and Development’ (forthcoming in the OUP Handbook on

the Politics of Development, will be handed out in week 5, please do not circulate), concise

summary.

Easterly, L. and R. Levine. “Africa’s Growth Tragedy: Policies and Ethnic Divisions,” The

Quarterly Journal of Economics 112, 4 (1997): 1203-1250.

Habyarimana, J., Humphreys, H., Posner, D. and J. Weinstein. “Why Does Ethnic Diversity

Undermine Public Goods Provision?” American Political Science Review 101.

Miguel, E, “Tribe or Nation? Nation building and public goods in Kenya versus Tanzania,” World

Politics 56 (204): 327-62.

Montalvo, J. G. 2004. “Ethnic Diversity and Economic Development,” Journal of Development

Economics 76.

Nourzhanov, K., Jukes, G. & Alexandrov, M (1998) “Race, Religion, Ethnicity and Economics in

Central Asia,” in Inoue, K. and T. Uyama (eds) Quest for Models of Coexistence (available online:

http://src-h.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/sympo/97summer/jukes.html).

**Posner, Daniel. 2005. Institutions and Ethnic Politics in Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press (excellent introduction to ethnicity and how it becomes politicized).

(b) Ethnicity and civil war

Paul Collier & Nicholas Sambanis (eds) (2005) Understanding Civil War: Vol 1 Africa (World

Bank) [papers also available on World Bank web site].

Collier, Paul & Anke Hoeffler (2004) ‘Greed and Grievance in Civil War’, Oxford Economic

Papers, 56 (4): 563-595 **AND** the updated version of the argument: Collier, Paul & Anke

16

Hoeffler (2009) ‘Beyond Greed and grievance: feasibility and civil war’ Oxford Economic

Papers 61 (1): 1-27.

**Cramer, Chris ‘Homo economicus goes to war: methodological individualism, rational

choice and the political economy of war’, World Development 30 (critique of Collier approach).

Fearon, James & David Laitin (2003) ‘Ethnicity, insurgency and civil war’, American Political

Science Review 97, pp. 75-90.

Mann, Michael (2004) The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining ethnic cleansing (also see the

summary in the New Left Review I/235, May-June 1999 (focuses on genocides rather than civil

war, but see his discussion of Rwanda for the role of ethnicity).

Sambanis, Nicholas ‘Do ethnic and non-ethnic civil wars have the same causes? A theoretical

and empirical enquiry’, J. Conflict Resolution, 45 no3 (2001), 259-82.

**Wilkinson, S (2006) Votes and Violence: Electoral competition and ethnic riots in India. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press (not civil war, but a very influential discussion).

17

Michaelmas Term Week 7 - Federalism

Aim of the session: To understand the varied origins, forms and effects of federalism.

Discussion topics

a) Why, and how, do federal systems come into being?

b) What are the patterns of democratic federalism?

c) How do the effects of these different patterns of democratic federalism vary and why?

Readings:

(a) Origins and Patterns

Elazar, Daniel (1997) ‘Contrasting Unitary and Federal Systems’ IPSR vol 18 no3 pp237-251

Riker, William H (1975) ‘Federalism’ in F.I. Greenstein and N.W. Polsby eds Handbook of Political

Science, Vol 5.

Stepan, A (1999) ‘Federalism and Democracy Beyond the US Model’, J D, 10: 19-34

Beramendi, P (2007) ‘Federalism’ in Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, C. Boix and S.

Stokes, eds, Chapter 31, pp. 752-781.*

(b) Varieties and Effects

Gibson, Edward (2004) “Federalism and Democracy” in Edward Gibson ed. Federalism and

Democracy in Latin America pp1-27*

Beramendi, Pablo. The Political Geography of Inequality. Chs 1-3 *

Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison and John Jay.. The Federalist Papers, 10 and 51.

William Riker, Federalism: Origin, Operation, Significance. Boston: Little, Brown, 1964, chapt 1 and

Chpt 2 sections I-III.

Jonathan Rodden. “Comparative Federalism and Decentralization: On Meaning and

Measurement,” Comparative Politics. 36, 4 (2004).*

Bermeo, Nancy 2002 The Import of Institutions J D April , vol 13.no 2 pp 96-110.*

Bunce, Valerie 2003 in Ugo Amoretti and Nancy Bermeo eds. Federalism and Territorial Cleavages

Rodden, Jonathan 2006 Hamilton’s Paradox The Promise and Peril of Fiscal Federalism. Chs 1-2*

Rodden, Jonathan. “The Geographic Distribution of Political Preferences,” Annual Review of

Political Science 2010: 297-320.*

Dahl, Robert Democracy and Its Critics pp193-209 or Dahl, 1986 “Federalism and the Democratic

Process’ in Democracy, Identity and Equality

Stepan, Alfred “Electorally generated Veto Players in Unitary and Federal Systems” in Edward

Gibson ed. Federalism and Democracy in Latin America pp323-355.

Stepan, Alfred & Juan Linz “Comparative Perspectives on Inequality and the Quality of

Democracy in the United States,” Perspectives on Politics 2011.*

Stepan, Alfred (2001), ‘Toward a New Comparative Politics of Federalism: (Multi)-Nationalism,

and Democracy: Beyond Rikerian Federalism, ch 15 in Stepan, A, Arguing Comparative

Politics.*

Elazar, Daniel (1991) Exploring Federalism

Forsyth, Murray (1989) Federalism and Nationalism

Hesse, Jens and Wright, Vincent eds (1995) Federalizing Europe?

18

Peterson, Paul E (1995) The Price of Federalism (a focus on the US)

Kelemen, Daniel (2004) The Rules of Federalism: Institutions and Regulatory Politics in the EU Chapt

1.*

Nicolaidis, Kalypso and Robert Howse (2001) The Federal Vision: Legitimacy and Levels of Governance

in the United States and the European Union

Scharpf, Fritz (1988) ‘The Joint-Decision Trap: Lessons from West German Federalism and

European Integration’ Public Administration 66

Wheare, Kenneth (4th ed 1963) Federal Government

19

Michaelmas Term Week 8 - Political Economy

Aim of the session: Critically examine varieties of capitalism, explore how differences in institutions

condition economic performance and social equality, analyze whether national

differences can be sustained under the pressure of globalization.

Discussion topics:

a) How helpful are varieties-of-capitalism approaches in predicting diverse political and economic

outcomes?

b) Is there room for politics in a varieties-of-capitalism approach to the political economy of

industrialized democracies?

Readings:

Soskice, David and Hall, Peter eds (2001), Varieties of Capitalism – Intro by Hall and Soskice.*

Schumpeter, Joseph (1947), Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, esp. 250-289

Berger, Suzanne and Dore, Ronald eds (1996), National Diversity and Global Capitalism, esp 1-25.

Cerny, Philip G (1997), ‘International Finance and the Erosion of Capitalist Diversity’ in Colin

Crouch and Wolfgang Streeck, eds The Political Economy of Modern Capitalism: 173-81

Amable, Bruno (2003), The Diversity of Modern Capitalism, Chapter 2.

Dryzek, John (1996), Democracy in Capitalist Times: Ideals, Limits and Struggles

Kitschelt, Herbert et al eds (1999), Continuity and Change in Contemporary Capitalism,

especially chapters by Hall; Stephens, Huber and Ray; King and Wood.*

Olson, Mancur (1982), The Rise and Decline of Nations.

Cusack, Thomas R., Iversen, Torben and Soskice, David (2007), ‘Economic Interests and the

Origins of Electoral Systems’. American Political Science Review 101: 373-391.

Martin, Cathie Jo (2005), ‘Corporatism from the Firm Perspective: Employers and Social Policy in

Denmark and Britain,’ BJPS 2005 35 127-148.

Pontusson, Jonas and David Rueda “Wage Inequality and Varieties of Capitalism” World Politics

2000: 350-83.

Thelen, K. (2004), How Institutions Change, chapter 1.*

Desmond King and David Rueda ‘Cheap Labor: The New Politics of ‘Bread and Roses’ in

Industrial Democracies” Perspectives on Politics 2008: 279-97.*

Korpi, Walter “Power Resources and Employer-Centered Approaches to Explanations of

Welfare States and Varieties of Capitalism,” World Politics 2008: 167-206.*

Iversen, T and D Soskice (2001), ‘An Asset Theory of Social Policy Preferences,’ APSR 95: 875-894.

Martin, Cathie Jo and D Swank (2004), ‘Does the Organization of Capital Matter? Employers

and Active Labor Market Policy at the National and Firm Level,’ APSR 98: 593-612.*

Streeck, W & K Thelen eds. (2005), Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political

Economies, OUP.

20

Hilary Term Week 1 - The Politics of Development

Aim of the session: This session aims to identify what different political thinkers and governments have

meant by ‘development’ (industrialization, public services, state capacity, economic

growth, freedom). It also explores the question of why ‘third-world’ countries have

found development to be such an elusive goal (historical legacies, political

structures, global inequality, corrupt governments, misguided international

institutions, natural resources).

Discussion topics:

a) Why has ‘development discourse’ proved such an attractive language for governments, political

thinkers, and international institutions? Is it possible to identify in the literature a common

understanding of what development is and how it can be achieved? What are the main factors

preventing the ‘development’ of the ‘third-world’?

b) Does successful ‘development’ require a certain type of state (democratic vs. developmental vs.

authoritarian vs. neo-patrimonial)? Is there an inherent contradiction between the policies

required to successfully promote economic growth and the priorities of political actors in

underdeveloped countries?

Readings:

(a) Development and its discontents

Allen, T and A Thomas (2000), Poverty and Development into the Twenty First Century, esp Chs 1, 2,

17

Bates, R (2001), Prosperity and Violence: the political economy of development (a useful overview

and critique of the development of the discipline)

Cardoso, Fernando, and F Enzo (1979), Development and Dependency in Latin America

Collier, Paul (2007), The Bottom Billion, esp Parts 2 & 4

Cowen, M. & R.W. Shenton (1996), Doctrines of development

Hagopian, Frances. “Political Development, Revisited,” Comparative Political Studies. Vol 33, Issue

6, 2000.

Mark Kesselman, "The Literature of Political Development as Ideology”, World Politics, October

1973.

Escobar, Arturo (1995), Encountering Development: the making and unmaking of the Third World

Ferguson, James (1994), The Anti-politics Machine

Gwynne, Robert and Cristobal Kay (2004), Latin America Transformed: Globalization and Modernity

Leys, C (1996), The Rise and Fall of Development Theory

Sen, Amartya (1999), Development As Freedom

J. Samuel Valenzuela and Arturo Valenzuela, “Modernization and Dependency: Alternative

Perspectives in the Study of Latin American Underdevelopment,” Comparative Politics, 10, 4 (July 1978):

535-552.

Caporaso, James A. 1980. “Dependency Theory: Continuities and Discontinuities in

Development Studies.” International Organization 39 (Autumn), 605-628.

Stiglitz, Joseph (2002), Globalization and its Discontents

21

(b) The economic consequences of political structures

Bates, R (2005), Markets and States in Tropical Africa

Chabal, P. and J-P Daloz (1999), Africa works: disorder as political instrument, Chs 1, 8 & 9

Nicholas van de Walle (2001) African Economies and the Politics of Permanent Crisis 1979-1999

Evans, Peter (1992), ‘The State as Problem and Solution’, in Stephen Haggard and Robert

Kaufman eds The Politics of Economic Adjustment

Governance 7, no. 4 (1994), special issue on the Developmental State in Asia

Kline, Harvey and Wiarda, Howard (2006), Latin American Politics and Development, Ch 1

Leftwich, A. (1993), Governance, democracy and development in the Third World. Third World

Quarterly 14 (3)

Onis, Ziya (1991), ‘The Logic of the Developmental State’, Comparative Politics, 24 (1), (this is a

very helpful review article and the books discussed are all useful)

Polanyi, Karl (1944), The Great Transformation

Rueschemeyer, D et al (1992), Capitalist Development and Democracy, esp pp. 63-75.

Scott, James (1998), Seeing Like a State

Atul Kohli, State-Directed Development: Political Power and Industrialization in the Global

Periphery, Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Atul Kohli “State, Society and Development,” in Ira Katznelson and Helen Milner, ed., Political

Science: State of the Discipline, 2002.

22

Hilary Term Week 2 - State Formation and State Building

Aim of the session: to understand the diverse origins and political trajectories of modern states.

Discussion topics:

a) To what extent are modern states deliberate constructions?

b) Does war build states?

c) What do contemporary weak and failed states reveal about state formation?

Readings:

Tilly. Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990-1992.

Centeno, Miguel Angel. 2002. Chapter 1, “The Latin American Puzzle,” in Blood and Debt: War and

the Nation-State in Latin America. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Fukuyama, Francis, Statebuilding (Profile Books 2005).

Tilly, Charles, “War Making and State Making as Organized Crime” in Peter Evans, Dietrich

Rueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol, Bringing the State Back In (Cambridge University Press,

1985), pp. 169-191.

Tilly, Charles. 1975. “Reflections on the History of European State-Making.” In Tilly, ed., The

Formation of National States in Western Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Anderson, Perry. Lineages of the Absolutist State.

Herbst, Jeffrey. 2000. States and Power in Africa. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Evans, Peter, Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation (Princeton: Princeton

University Press, 1995), chapter 3.

Scott, James. (1998). Seeing like a State. New Haven: Yale University Press, Introduction and pp. 87-

102, 182-191.

King, Desmond, and Robert Lieberman, “Ironies of State Building: A Comparative Perspective

on the American State.” World Politics 61, No. 3 (July 2009): 547-588.

Levi, Margaret, “The State of the Study of the State,” in Katznelson and Milner (eds) The State of the

Discipline (New York: W.W. Norton), pp. 33-55.

Migdal, Joel, Strong Societies and Weak States: State-Society Relations and State

Capabilities in the Third World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988).

Waldner, David, State Building and Development (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999).

Weber, Eugen, Peasants Into Frenchmen (Stanford University Press, 1978), especially the

Conclusion.

23

Hilary Term Week 3 - Authoritarianism

Aim of the session: To analyse the similarities and differences between authoritarian and hybrid

regimes and to understand the different trajectories of both regime types.

Discussion topics:

a) What explains the emergence and endurance of authoritarianism?

b) What explains the emergence and endurance of hybrid regimes?

Readings:

a) Authoritarian endurance

Bellin, Eva (2004), “The Robustness of Authoritarianism in the Middle East: A Comparative

Perspective,” Comparative Politics, 36 (2): 139-157.

Collier, David, ed (1979), The New Authoritarianism in Latin America

Linz, Juan (1975), “Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes,”

Slater, Dan (2010), Ordering Power: Contentious Politics and Authoritarian Leviathans in

Southeast Asia

Polsby, eds., Handbook of Political Science, vol. 3 (Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., 1975)

Magaloni, Beatriz and Ruth Kricheli (2010), “Political Order and One-Party Rule” Annual

Review of Political Science 13:123-43

Smith, Benjamin (2005), “Life of the Party: The Origins of Regime Breakdown and Persistence

under Single Party Rule” World Politics 57(3): 421-451

Brownlee, Jason. (2007), Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization pp 16-43.

Ambrosio, Thomas (2007), “Insulating Russia from a Colour Revolution: How the Kremlin

Resists Regional Democratic Trends” Democratization 14:2 232-252.

Tsai, Lily 2007 “Solidary Groups, Informal Accountability and Local Public Goods Provision in

Rural China” APSR May 101:2

b) Hybrid regimes

Levitsky, Steven and Lucan Way 2011 Competitive Authoritarianism. New York: Cambridge

University Press (Intro (skim) chapter 2 37-83 and conclusion 339-364).

Collier, David and Steven Levitsky,1997 “Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in

Comparative Research,” World Politics 49, no. 3: 430–451.

Brown, Archie (2001), ‘Evaluating Russia’s Democratization’ in Archie Brown ed. Contemporary

Russian Politics: A Reader pp546-68.

Diamond, L. and L. Morlino 2004 “The Quality of Democracy: An Overview” JoD 15(4) 20-31.

Howard, Marc Morjé, and Philip G. Roessler (2006) “Liberalizing Electoral Outcomes in

Competitive Authoritarian Regimes “ American Journal of Political Science 50 (2), 365–381.

Mansfield, Edward and Jack Snyder, (2005) Electing to Fight. Chap 3.

Mainwaring, Scott, Ana Maria Bejarano and Eduardo Pizarro Leongómez eds (2006). The Crisis of

Democratic Representation in the Andes Chap 1 and Chap 10 if possible.

Mattes, Robert and Michael Bratton (2007) “Learning about Democracy in Africa: Awareness,

Performance, and Experience” A J P S 51 (1), 192–217.

McFaul, M. (2002) ‘The Fourth Wave of Democracy and Dictatorship’ WP 54(2): 212-44.

24

O’Donnell, Guillermo (1999), ‘Horizontal Accountability in New Democracies’ in Schedler,

Diamond and Plattner eds. The Self-restraining State.

O’Donnell, Guillermo, Modernization and Bureaucratic-authoritarianism: Studies in South American

Politics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973).

Magaloni, Beatriz, Voting for Autocracy: Hegemonic Party Survival and its Demise in Mexico.

(Cambridge University Press, 2006).

Pepinsky, Tom, Economic Crises and the Breakdown of Authoritarian Regimes: Indonesia and

Malaysia in Comparative Perspective (Cambridge 2009).

Schedler, A. (2002), ‘Elections without Democracy’ JoD 13(2): 36-50.

Whitefield, Stephen (2006) “Mind the Representation Gap: Explaining Differences in Public

Views of Representation in Post-communist Democracies” CPS 39 (6).

Whitehead, L. (2002) Democratization Theory and Experience (Chap 7).?

Helmke, Gretchen and Steven Levitsky, eds. (2006) Informal Institutions and Democracy: Lessons

from Latin America

25

Hilary Term Week 4 - Parliamentarism and Presidentialism

Aim of the session: Democratic regimes structure representation, accountability and the policy process

in different ways. This session examines the nature of these regime type differences,

and the extent to which they affect political outcomes ranging from the survival of

democracy to budget balances.

Discussion topics:

a) What are the main differences between parliamentarism and presidentialism, and do they have

any substantive implications for the nature of democratic representation and accountability?

b) Is parliamentarism conducive to better political outcomes than presidential systems? Why/Why

not?

Readings:

(a) Regime type, representation and accountability

Strom, K, Muller, W. and Bergman, T. Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary

Democracies (2003), particularly chapter 3

Lijphart, Arend (1999), Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six

Countries, New Haven: Yale UP, ch 7.

Shugart, M.S. (2008) ‘Comparative Executive–Legislative Relations’ in The Oxford Handbook

of Political Institutions (Oxford: OUP) Ch 18.

David J. Samuels and Matthew S. Shugart, Presidents, Prime Ministers and Political. Parties: A

Framework for Analysis, Cambridge University Press, 2010

Siaroff, A., (May 2003) ‘Comparative Presidencies: The Inadequacy of the Presidential, Semi-

Presidential and Parliamentary Distinction’, European Journal of Political Research, 42(3), pp.

287-312.

Carey, J. M. (2007). "Competing Principals, Political Institutions, and Party Unity in Legislative

Voting." American Journal of Political Science 51(1): 92-107 or Carey, J. M. (2009). Legislative voting

and accountability. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Dahl, Robert, Ian Shapiro and Jose A. Cheibub (eds.) (2003), The Democracy Sourcebook. (Chs by

Scott Mainwaring on Presidentialism, Multipartism and Democracy, and Joe Foweraker on

Institutional Design, Party Systems and Governability).

(b) Regime type, Coalitions and Policy

Tsebelis, G. (2002), Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work.

Eaton, Kent, ‘Parliamentarism versus Presidentialism in the Policy Arena’, Comparative

Politics 32, no. 3 (April 2000), 355-376. (Review of several key books on the effects of executive

format on policy making.)

Samuels, David (2004), Presidentialism and Accountability for the Economy in Comparative

Perspective, American Political Science Review, vol. 98, no. 3, August 2004

Weaver, R. Kent, and Bert A. Rockman, eds., (1993), Do Institutions Matter? Government Capabilities

in the United States and Abroad, Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.

Powell, G. Bingham (1982), Contemporary Democracies. Participation, Stability and Violence.

Persson, Torsten and Guido Tabellini (2005), The Economic Effects of Constitutions.

26

Cheibub, Jose Antonio (2006), ‘Presidentialism, Electoral Identifiability, and Budget Balances in

Democratic Systems’, American Political Science Review 100: 353-368.

Shugart, M. S. (1999), ‘Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, and the Provision of Collective Goods in

Less-Developed Countries.’ Constitutional Political Economy 10(1): 53-88.

Mainwaring, Scott, and Matthew Soberg Shugart (1997), Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin

America, Cambridge: CUP, chs. 1 and 11

Haggard, S. and McCubbins, M., (2001) Presidents, Parliaments and Policy (Cambridge: CUP),

Esp. Chs 1-2. JF255.PRE

Cox, Gary and Morgenstern, Scott, ‘Latin America’s Reactive Assemblies and Proactive

Presidents’ Comparative Politics, January, 2001.

Amorim Neto, ‘The Presidential Calculus: Executive Policy-Making and Cabinet Formation in the

Americas’, Comparative Political Studies, vol.39, no.6, 2006

Huber, John D. (1996), ‘The Vote of Confidence in Parliamentary Democracies’ American Political

Science Review, Vol.90, No.2, pp.269-282.

Feigenbaum, Harvey, Richard Samuels, and R. Kent Weaver (1993), ‘Innovation, Coordination,

and Implementation in Energy Policy’, in R. Kent Weaver and Bert A. Rockman (eds.), Do

Institutions Matter? Government Capabilities in the United States and Abroad, Washington, D.C.:

Brookings Institution, 42-109.

Cowhey, Peter F., ‘Domestic Institutions and the Credibility of International Commitments: Japan

and the United States’, International Organization 47, no. 2 , spring 1993, 299-326.

(c) Regime type and the survival of democracy

Lijphart, Arend ed. (1992), Parliamentary versus Presidential Government, (a collection of

abridged relevant articles, including those from Linz, Duverger, Horowitz and Lipset) or:

Linz, Juan J., ‘The Perils of Presidentialism’, Journal of Democracy 1, no. 1, winter 1990.

Horowitz, Donald, ‘Comparing Democratic Systems’, Journal of Democracy 1, no. 4, fall 1990. (Both

at SSL Staff Desk.)

Cheibub, Jose Antonio (2007), Presidentialism, Parliamentarism and Democracy.

Przeworski, Adam et al., ‘What Makes Democracies Endure?’ Journal of Democracy 7, no. 1 winter

1996, 39-55.

Sing, Ming (2010), “"Explaining Democratic Survival Globally (1946–2002)." Journal of Politics,

Vol.72(2):438-55.

Svolik, Milan (2008), “Authoritarian Reversals and Democratic Consolidation”, American

Political Science Review, vol. 102, no. 2.

Stepan, Alfred and Cindy Skach (1993), ‘Constitutional Frameworks and Democratic

Consolidation’ World Politics 46.

Mainwaring, Scott, and Shugart M.S. (1997), Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America.

Bernhard, Michael, Timothy Nordstrom, and Christopher Reenock, ‘Economic Performance,

Institutional Intermediation, and Democratic Survival’, Journal of Politics 63, no. 3, August 2001,

775-803.

27

Hilary Term Week 5 - Political Corruption

Aim of the session: To understand how governmental corruption is conceptualized and measured by

different scholars, and to examine the political factors that may shape governmental

corruption (both petty and grand) and the mechanisms by which these causal effects

may operate.

Discussion topics:

a) How far and by what mechanisms do constitutions and electoral rules shape governmental

corruption?

b) What are the main political causes of governmental corruption beyond constitutions and

electoral rules, and through what mechanisms do they operate?

Readings:

(a) Theory

Fearon, James D. 1999. “Electoral Accountability and the Control of Politicians”, in Przeworski

et al (eds.), Democracy, Accountability and Representation.

Ferejohn, John 1999. “Accountability and Authority: Toward a Theory of Political

Accountability” (in Przeworski et al (eds), Democracy, Accountability and Representation.

Keefer, Philip and Razvan Vlaicu. 2008. “Democracy, Credibility and Clientelism” Journal of Law

Economics and Organization, vol. 24 (2): 371-406.

(b) Applied Work

Adsera, Boix, Payne. 2003. “Are you being served? Political Accountability and governmental

performance.” Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 19 (Fall): 445-490.

Gerring, John and Strom C. Thacker, “Do Neoliberal Policies Deter Political Corruption?”

International Organization 2005, vol. 59, pp.233-254.

Keefer, Philip. 2007. “Clientelism, Credibility, and the Policy Choices of Young Democracies.”

American Journal of Political Science, vol.51, no.4, pp.804-821.

Kurer, Oskar (2001), Ch 4 “Why do voters support corrupt politicians?”, in Arvind K. Jain, The

political economy of corruption Routledge: New York

Treisman, D. 2000. ‘The causes of corruption: a cross national study.’ Journal of Public Economics,

pp. 399-457.

Rothstein, Bo, 2011. The quality of government: corruption, social trust, and inequality in

international perspective (University of Chicago Press)

Treisman, Daniel. 2007. “What have we learned about the causes of corruption from ten years

of cross-national empirical research?” Annual Review of Political Science vol10: 211-44

Scheiner, Ethan. 2005. “Pipelines of Pork: Japanese Politics and a Model of Local Opposition

Party Failure” Comparative Political Studies 38, 799.

(c) Constitutional Features

Brunetti, Aymo and Beatrice Weder, 2003, “A free press is bad news for corruption”, Journal of

Public Economics 87 (2003) 1801–1824.

Fisman, R. & Gatti, R. 2002a. ‘Decentralization and corruption: Evidence across countries.’ Journal

of Public Economics, Vol. 83(3), pp. 325-345.

28

Gerring & Thacker. 2004. “Political Institutions and Corruption: The Role of Unitarism and

Parliamentarism” BJPS, 34, 295.

Montinola & Jackman. 2002. “Sources of Corruption: A cross-country study” BJPS 32, 1: 147-70

Persson and Tabellini, The Economic Effects of Constitutions. 2005. MIT.

(d) Electoral Rules and Clarity of Responsibility

Jana Kunicova & Susan Rose-Ackerman (2005) Electoral Rules and Constitutional Structures as

Constraints on Corruption, British Journal of Political Science 35, 573-606.

Chang, Eric, and Miriam Golden. 2007. “Electoral Systems, District Magnitude and

Corruption.” British Journal of Political Science 37 (1): 115 – 37.

Chang, Eric, Miriam Golden, and Seth J. Hill. 2010. “Legislative Malfeasance and Political

Accountability.” World Politics 62 (2): 177-220.

Chang, Eric. 2005. “Electoral Incentives for Political Corruption under Open-List Proportional

Representation.” Journal of Politics 67 (3): 716 – 30.

Golden, Miriam, and Eric Chang. 2001. “Competitive Corruption: Factional Conflict and Political

Malfeasance in Postwar Italian Christian Democracy.” World Politics 53 (4): 588– 622.

Margit Tavits. 2007. Clarity of Responsibility and Corruption. AJPS 51:1, 218-229

29

Hilary Term Week 6 - Parties and Politics in Post-Authoritarian States

Discussion Topics:

a) What factors predict party system institutionalization in post-authoritarian political systems?

b) Is it possible for the monopolistic or dominant parties of authoritarian regimes to adapt to

subsequent democratic politics?

c) Do strong political parties offer any protection against so-called “delegative democracy?”

Readings:

Greene, Kenneth. Why Dominant Parties Lose: Mexico’s Democratization in Comparative Perspective

(Cambridge University Press, 2007).

Hale, Henry E., Why Not Parties in Russia? Democracy, Federalism, and the State (Cambridge

University Press, 2006), chapter 1.

Kitschelt, Herbert, “The Formation of Party Systems in East-Central Europe,” Politics and

Society 20, No. 1 (1992): 7-50.

Kitschelt, Herbert. “Linkages Between Parties and Citizens in Democratic Politics.”

Comparative Political Studies 33, nos. 6-7 (August-September 2000): 845-879.

Levitsky, Steven and Lucan A. Way, Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold

War (Cambridge University Press, 2010), chapters 1-2.

Mainwaring, Scott, and Mariano Torcal, “Party System Institutionalization and Party System

Theory after the Third Wave of Democratization.” In Richard S. Katz and William Crotty, eds.,

Handbook of Party Politics, pp. 204-227. London: Sage Publications, 2006.

*Moser, Robert, “Electoral Systems and the Number of Parties in Postcommunist Systems,” World

Politics 51, No. 3 (April 1999): 359-384.

O’Donnell, Guillermo, “Delegative Democracy.” Journal of Democracy 5, no. 1 (1994): 55-69.

Randall, Vicky, and Lars Svasand, “Party Institutionalization in New Democracies.” Party Politics

8, no. 1 (2002): 5-29.

Kenneth M. Roberts, “Party-Society Linkages and Democratic Representation in Latin America.”

Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 27, no. 53 (2002), pp. 9-34.

Smith, Benjamin. 2005. “Life of the Party: The Origins of Regime Breakdown and Persistence

under Single-Party Rule.” World Politics 57, No. 3: 421-451.

30

Hilary Term Week 7 - Comparative Legislatures

Discussion Topics:

a) What do legislatures actually do?

b) What is the most persuasive framework for classifying and categorizing legislatures?

c) Is “legislative institutionalization” a useful concept outside of very old democracies?

Readings:

Arter, David. 2006. “Questioning the ‘Mezey Question’: An Interrogatory Framework for the

Comparative Study of Legislatures.” Journal of Legislative Studies 12, nos. 3-4: 162-182.

Gerald Gamm and John Huber, “Legislatures as Political Institutions: Beyond the Contemporary

Congress,” pp. 313-41 in Katznelson and Milner, eds., Political Science: The State of the Discipline.

New York: Norton, 2002.

Cox, Gary W., and Scott Morgenstern. 2001. “Latin America's Reactive Assemblies and

Proactive Presidents.” Comparative Politics 33: 171-190.

Fish, M. Steven. 2006. “Stronger Legislatures, Stronger Democracies.” Journal of Democracy 17,

no. 1.

Fish, M. Steven, and Matthew Kroenig. 2009. The Handbook of National Legislatures: A Global

Survey. New York: Cambridge University Press (introductory chapters).

Hibbing, John. “Legislative Institutionalization with Illustrations from the British House of

Commons.” American Journal of Political Science 32, no. 3 (August 1988): 681-712.

Kreppel, Amie. “The Environmental Determinants of Legislative Structure: A Comparison of the

U.S. House of Representatives and the European Parliament.” In Timothy J. Power and Nicol C.

Rae, eds., Exporting Congress? The Influence of the U.S. Congress on World Legislatures, pp. 137-156.

Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2006.

Polsby, Nelson. “The Institutionalization of the U.S. House of Representatives.” American Political

Science Review 62, no. 1 (March 1968): 144-168.

Mezey, Michael L. “The Functions of Legislatures in the Third World.” In Gerhard

Loewenberg, Samuel C. Patterson, and Malcolm E. Jewell, eds., Handbook of Legislative

Research, pp. 733-772. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985.

Nelson W. Polsby. “Legislatures.” In Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby, eds., Handbook

of Political Science, pp. 257-319. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1975.

31

Hilary Term Week 8 - Political Culture

Discussion Topics:

a) Should we consider culture a direct causal factor in politics, or is culture best treated as a residual

explanatory category?

b) Inglehart and collaborators claim that the value priorities of mass publics around the globe are

changing in fundamental and predictable ways. Does this work represent a successful

resurrection of modernization theory?

c) Must political culture be congruent with the prevailing regime type?

Readings:

Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba, The Civic Culture (Princeton University Press 1963,

reprinted 1989).

Larry Diamond, Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins

University Press, 1999), chapter 5 on political culture in new democracies.

David J. Elkins and Richard E .B. Simeon, “A Cause in Search of Its Effect, or What Does Political

Culture Explain?” Comparative Politics 11, no. 2 (January 1979): 127-145.

Ronald Inglehart, “The Renaissance of Political Culture.” American Political Science Review

82 (1988): 1203-1230.

Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel, Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The

Human Development Sequence (Cambridge University Press, 2005).

Robert W. Jackman and Ross A. Miller, “Social Capital and Politics.” Annual Review of

Political Science 1998: 47-73.

James Johnson, “Conceptual Problems as Obstacles to Progress in Political Science: Four Decades

of Political Culture Research.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 15, no. 1 (2003): 87-115.

Ruth Lane, “Political Culture: Residual Category or General Theory.” Comparative Political Studies

25 (1992): 362-387.

Edward N. Muller and Mitchell A. Seligson, “Civic Culture and Democracy: The Question of

Causal Relationships.” American Political Science Review 88 (1994): 645-52.

Robert Putnam et al., Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton

University Press, 1993).

Robert Putnam. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (Simon & Schuster,

2000).

William M. Reisinger, “The Renaissance of a Rubric: Political Culture as Concept and

Theory.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 7, no. 4 (1995): 328-352.

Mitchell A. Seligson, “The Renaissance of Political Culture or the Renaissance of the

Ecological Fallacy?” Comparative Politics (April 2002): 273-292.

Dietlind Stolle and March Hooghe, “Inaccurate, Exceptional, One-Sided, or Irrelevant? The

Debate About the Alleged Decline of Social Capital and Civic Engagement in Western

Democracies.” British Journal of Political Science 35 (2005): 149-167.

Stephen Whitefield and Geoffrey Evans, “Political Culture versus Rational Choice: Explaining

Responses to Transition in the Czech Republic and Slovakia.” British Journal of Political Science 29

(1999).

Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, various editions.

32

Trinity Term Week 1 - Agency, Leadership, and Politics

Aim of the session: To assess the relationship between institutional leadership and ‘democratic values’.

It is often claimed that the concept, practice, and processes of leadership are little

studied by political scientists. It has in recent years also often been claimed that the

effects of leadership in determining political outcomes is little understood. We need

to consider: whether such claims are warranted and if so, why; what role leadership

plays in different institutions (such as executive, legislative, judicial, bureaucratic

and military); and what problems if any the phenomenon of leadership poses for

democrats.

Discussion topics:

a) What is ‘leadership’? Under what circumstances and why does ‘agency’ matter? (In answering

the first part of the question, you need to consider who means what by the term leadership and

how ‘leadership’ should be conceptualized. In answering the second question, you need to

consider how ‘agency’ interacts with structure and culture in institutional settings.)

b) Is ‘leadership’ compatible with ‘democratic values’, and if so, in what senses? (In answering this

question, you might want to consider whether the concept of ‘leadership’ is an embarrassment to

democrats in general or to radical egalitarians in particular; what sort of leadership is compatible

with traditional liberal understandings of the state; the validity and implications of Max Weber’s

analysis of the tension between charismatic and rational-legal leadership, his concerns about

‘Caesarism,’ and his analysis of the professionalization of modern democratic politics.)

c) Is it true that political science has paid little attention to the concept and practice of leadership,

and if so, why? Given that political scientists have written so extensively about the state,

executives, bureaucracies, power, and policy, is there a major gap in their analysis of agency and

leadership?

Readings:

Aristotle (1998), The Politics, Cambridge University Press, pp. ix-xxvii;

Ayman, Roya, Martin Clemens, and Fred Fiedler (1995), ‘The contingency model of leadership

effectiveness: its levels of analysis’, The Leadership Quarterly, 6, (2): 147-167.

Bailey, F G (1988) Humbuggery and Manipulation: The Art of Leadership

Besley, Timothy and Marta Reynal Querol (2011) ‘Do Democracies Select More Educated

Leaders?’ APSR 105 (3): 552-66

Bienen, Henry (1993), ‘Leaders, Violence, and the Absence of Change in Africa’, Political Science

Quarterly, 108 (2): 271-282.

Bowles, Nigel (2005), Nixon’s Business: Authority and Power in Presidential Politics, chapters 1, 3,

and 7

Brown, Archie (2000), ‘Mikhail Gorbachev: Systemic Transformer’ in Leaders of Transition, Martin

Westlake ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press

Campbell, Colin (1983) Governments under Stress: Bureaucrats and Political Leaders in Washington,

London and Ottowa

Capoccia, Giovanni (2001), ‘Defending Democracy: Reactions to Political Extremism in Inter-

war Europe’, EJPR, 39.

33

George, Alexander L (1969), ‘The ‘Operational Code’: A Neglected Approach to the Study of

Political Leaders and Decision-Making’, International Studies Quarterly, 13 (2): 190-222.

Hargrove, Edwin (2004), ‘History, Political Science and the Study of Leadership’ Polity July 36

(4)

Hood, Christopher (1996) ‘Control over Bureaucracy: Cultural Theory and Institutional Variety’

Journal of Public Policy 15 (3): 207-30

Jones, Benjamin F and Benjamin A Olken (2005) ‘Do Leaders Matter? National Leadership and

Growth since World War II’ Quarterly Journal of Economics 120 (3): 835-64

MacGregor Burns, James (2003), Transforming Leadership (an expanded version of a well-

known book first published in 1978)

Machiavelli, Niccolo, The Prince, chapters XII - XIX

McLean, Iain (2001) Rational Choice and British Politics: An Analysis of Rhetoric and Manipulation from

Peel to Blair

McLean, Iain (2002), ‘Review Article: William H. Riker and the Invention of Heresthetic(s)’.

British Journal of Political Science 32, 535-558.

Marable, Manning(1998) Black Leadership

Michels, Robert (1911) Political Parties; a Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern

Democracy. New York, Free Press (many later editions)

Nagel, Jack H. (1993), ‘Populism, Heresthetics and Political Stability: Richard Seddon and the Art

of Majority Rule’, British Journal of Political Science, 23 (2): 139-174.

Neustadt, R E (1961) Presidential Power (many subsequent editions)

Post, Jerrold, Leaders and their Followers in a Dangerous World: The Psychology of Political Behavior,

Ithaca: Cornell University Press 2004, Ch 2

Savoie, Donald (1995) Reagan, Thatcher, Mulroney: In Search of a New Bureaucracy

Selznick, Philip (1957) Leadership in Administration

Thompson, Michael, Richard Ellis and Aaron Wildavsky (1990) Cultural Theory

Weber, Max (1946), ‘Structures of Power’, in H.H. Gerth and C.W. Mills, eds., From Max Weber:

Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Weber, Max (1988), ‘Politics as a Vocation’, in H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, From Max Weber:

Essays in Sociology, London.

Yukl, Gary (2009), Leadership in Organizations, Prentice-Hall (many other editions), Ch 1

(overview of analysis of leadership), and chs on contingency theory and charismatic leadership.

34

Trinity Term Week 2 - Time, History and Narrative in Political Science

Aim of the session: To discuss comparison in time and the use of historical evidence in comparative

politics. That raises questions as to whether there is a well-established historical

method that can be applied to comparative political analysis, what it means to go

from urging political scientists to be ‘historically minded’ or recognize that ‘history

matters’ to making systematic comparisons in time, and how results may be shaped

by the sorts of time comparisons that are chosen.

Discussion topics:

a) What exactly is historical ‘narrative,’ and under what circumstances might the analysis of

historical narrative make a useful contribution to rigorous comparative research? (In answering

this question, you might wish to consider whether ‘narrative’ means the same thing as ‘history,’

who means what by the term ‘narrative’, what if anything cannot be known except through

narrative, and how far the use of narrative can be used for comparison in single-country

research);

b) What if any additional problems of generalizability are posed by comparison across time, rather

than across space? (In answering this question, you might wish to consider what issues inter-

temporal analysis poses for classic methods of comparison, whether the challenges are different

for quantitative and qualitative research, and what are the challenges of combining cross-

national and cross-time comparisons in primary research)

c) How might the problem of testing hypotheses with historical evidence be best approached? (In

thinking about this question, ask yourself which you think the best examples of such historical

hypothesis testing, and why: for example how far have those who call themselves ‘historical

institutionalists’ achieved systematic comparisons over time.)

Readings:

Read at least one of (a) and (b), and at least two of (c)

(a) ‘Narrative’ and ‘History’

Corfield, Penelope (2001), ‘The State of History’, Journal of Contemporary History, 26 (1): 153-161

Elton, G.R. and Richard J. Evans (2002 [1969]), The Practice of History

Evans, Richard J (2000), In Defense of History, available online from the project ‘Continuous

Discourse: History and Its Postmodern Critics,’ Evans’ replies to critics are available at

http://www.history.ac.uk/projects/discourse/index.html

Fairburn, Miles, (1999), Social History: Problems, Strategies and Methods

Fischer, David H (1971), Historians’ Fallacies

Frankel, Charles (1957), ‘Explanation and Interpretation in History’ Philosophy of Science 24 (2):

137-55

Gaddis, John L (2002), The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past

Hull, David L (1975), ‘Central Subjects and Historical Narratives’ History and Theory 14 (3): 253-74

(narrative as presupposing the continuity of the ‘central subject’)

Plumb, J. H (1969), The Death of the Past, NUF open shelf D13.P

McNeill, William H. (1998), ‘History and the Scientific Worldview’ History and Theory 37: 1-13

White, Hayden (1984), ‘The Question of Narrative in Contemporary History’ History and

Theory 23 (1): 1-33.

35

(b) Generalizations over time

Bartolini, Stefano (1993), ‘On Time and Comparative Research’ JTP 5 (2): 131-67.

Buthe, T (2002) ‘Take Temporality Seriously: Modeling History and the Use of narratives as

Evidence,’ APSR 96 (3): 481-494.

Fearon, James (1991), ‘Counterfactuals and Hypothesis Testing in Political Science’ WP 43

King, D S and R M Smith (2005), ‘Racial Orders in American Political Development,’ APSR 99:

75-92.

Nelson, C. and C. Plosser (1982), ‘Trends and Random Walks in Macroeconomic Time Series,’

Journal of Monetary Economics 10, 139-162

Orren and Skowronek (1996), ‘Institutions and Intercurrence: Theory Building in the Fullness of

Time,’ ch. 4 in Nomos XXXVII, Political Order, edited by Ian Shapiro and Russell Hardin.

Pierson, Paul (2003), ‘Big, Slow-Moving, and…Invisible: Macrosocial Processes in the Study of

Comparative Politics’, from Mahoney and Rueschmeyer (eds), Comparative Historical Analysis

in the Social Sciences

Roberts, Alasdair (2012) American’s First Great Depression: Economic Crisis and Political Disorder after

the Panic of 1837: Conclusion

Thelen, Kathleen (2003), ‘How Institutions Evolve: Insights from Comparative Historical

Analysis’, from Mahoney and Rueschmeyer (eds), Comparative Historical Analysis in the

Social Sciences OR

Thelen, Kathleen (2004), How Institutions Evolve, Ch 1.

(c) Examples of historical work on politics, and hypothesis testing using historical evidence

Ashton, N. J. (1997), ‘A Microcosm of Decline: British Loss of Nerve and Military Intervention in

Jordan and Kuwait, 1958 and 1961’ The Historical Journal 40 (4)

Baldwin, Peter (1999), Contagion and the State

Bates, Robert et al (eds) (1998), Analytic Narratives

Ekelund, Hebert and Tollison (2002), ‘An Economic Analysis of the Protestant Reformation’,

Journal of Political Economy 110 (3)

Ferejohn, John (1991), ‘Rationality and Interpretation: Parliamentary Elections in Early Stuart

England’, in Renwick Monroe (ed), The Economic Approach to Politics

EITHER Ferguson, Niall ed. (1997), Virtual History: Alternatives and Counterfactuals OR Ferguson,

Niall (1998), The Pity of War

Fogel, Robert W. and Dora Costa (1997), ‘A Theory of Technophysio Evolution, With Some

Implications for Forecasting Population, Health Care Costs, and Pension Costs’ Demography 34(1):

49-66. (February)

Gaddis, John Lewis (1998), We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History

Garon, Sheldon (2012) Beyond Our Means: Why America Spends While the World Saves, esp Chs 1, 2

and 12

Grief, Milgrom and Weingast (1994), ‘Coordination, Commitment and Enforcement: The Case of

the Merchant Guild’, Journal of Political Economy 102 (4)

King, Desmond (1999), In the Name of Liberalism, Chs 3 and 4 (comparing US and UK

immigration policy)

Lodge, M (2002) On Different Tracks: Designing Railway Regulation in Britain and Germany

(comparing UK and German railway regulation policies over time)

North, Douglass, and Barry Weingast (1989), ‘Constitutions and Commitment: Evolution of

Institutions Governing Public Choice in 17th Century England’, Journal of Economic History 49 pp

803-832

36

Rovner, Joshua (2011) Fixing the Facts: National Security and the Politics of Intelligence

Skocpol, Theda (1979), States and Social Revolutions