Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
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.
(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.
1
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
2
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
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
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
3
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).
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:
4
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.
5
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:
Readings:
6
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).
7
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:
8
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.
9
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:
10
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:
11
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
12
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:
13
**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:
14
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:
15
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).
16
Michaelmas Term Week 7 - Federalism
Aim of the session: To understand the varied origins, forms and effects of federalism.
Discussion topics
Readings:
17
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
18
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.
19
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:
20
(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.
21
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:
Readings:
22
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:
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.
23
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
24
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:
25
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.
26
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.
27
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.
28
Hilary Term Week 6 - Parties and Politics in Post-Authoritarian States
Discussion Topics:
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.
29
Hilary Term Week 7 - Comparative Legislatures
Discussion Topics:
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.
30
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.
31
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:
32
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.
33
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.
34
(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
35
Rovner, Joshua (2011) Fixing the Facts: National Security and the Politics of Intelligence
Skocpol, Theda (1979), States and Social Revolutions
36