Professor Mark Lichbach Department of Government and Politics

Spring 2011 Thursdays 12:30-3:15 Fridays, 9:30-12:15, 1136 Tydings

GVPT 780: Comparative Politics I. Grand Themes Comparative politics is the core of political science. American politics studies one of its cases. International relations examines the external consequences of its most important cases - states. Political theory raises normative questions about social conflict and political order, justice and power, and economic welfare and the persistence and change of regimes that since Aristotle have been illustrated comparatively. The only field of political science defined by its method, comparative politics equates science with comparative and thereby becomes the science of politics. Ready, willing, and able, comparativists study any politics, anywhere, and at any time. Comparativists compare Africa, North and South America, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. Comparativists also compare the ancient world, medieval world, and the modern world. A sprawling field, comparative politics has been perpetually in search of a center. In 1966, Barrington Moore offered the UrTheory of modern comparative politics: No bourgeoisie, no democracy. Outlasting a hundred qualifications and a thousand equivocations, here was a structural and moral narrative to animate the field. The proposition held implications for what Ira Katznelson (2009) calls the big structures of liberalism: a secular national culture, pluralist civil society, capitalist economic market, procedurally democratic institutions, limited state bureaucracy, and inter-national institutions facilitating peace and trade among states. Since its inception, liberalism, a core political tradition of the West, has been continually under siege. In a competitive multipolar world, major powers have supported alternative modernities that are religious, ethnic, neoliberal, authoritarian, statist, and counter-hegemonic. One reason for Moores enduring success is his vivid descriptions and concrete explanations. Capturing variation in the historical experiences of the early developers in the West England and France he also depicted the diversity of the follow-up experiences of middle-developer Japan and late-developer China. Drawing comparisons to cases not often thought about - America as an early developer and India as a latedeveloper - was a stroke of genius. Not including chapters on Germany and Russia cleverly forced comparativists to ponder the development experiences of these important cases. Moores narratives were also successful because they told and foretold the key political battles of world politics. Believing that the key protagonists were the Crown (bureaucracy and army), aristocracy (landowners), lower classes or ordinary peoples (peasants and workers), and bourgeoisie, he portrayed the strange political bargains that

Page 2 were struck. To capture the state and direct its development, a rising bourgeoisie could ally with an old rural elite, or a peasantry could join a working-class party. Understanding the protagonists as class-bound actors produced somewhat of a fairy tale. Nevertheless, during the 20th and now 21st centuries, contending constellations of historical forces carrier groups and their associated ideas and organizations have indeed attempted to advance alternative domestic and foreign policy agendas. The interstate conflicts and internal wars of the 1920s and 1930s thus involved the clash of democracy, fascism, and communism. In the post WWII period, the old colonial order was opposed by new states seeking national liberation from various empires. During the cold war, states pursuing variations of authoritarian communism fought other states pursuing variations of democratic capitalism. After the Cold War, states in the West attempted to reorganize their democracies and markets. Varieties of liberalism and neoliberalism, conservatism and neoconservatism, found domestic and global champions. Since the Iranian revolution, parts of the postcolonial world have pursued political Islam as an alternative development strategy. After Deng Xiaoping, China showed late-late developers that a communist party could be the vanguard of state-led capitalist economic development. During the 1990s, post-colonial states often did not pursue any recognizable path of development. Predatory and sometimes even genocidal, they often collapsed and bred transnational terrorism. Throughout the years, various transnational political projects have emerged from global civil society. Socialism with a human face, universal human rights, global peace and justice, liberation theology have proposed institutions for global governance that challenge U.S. hegemony. Moore was thus the first to capture the problem situation of modern comparative politics: In competitive international environments, contending social formations (with preferences, beliefs, endowments, and strategies) construct state institutions that produce policy regimes that influence economic outcomes. Modern comparativists propose midlevel theories about the coevolution of the parts of Moore story: Challenges to the state are global; potential governing coalitions that never formed are important counterfactuals, actual ruling coalitions key factuals; world politics is about the conflict among institutional frameworks for constructing and reconstructing states; states pursue policy regimes for economic development; and public policies are evaluated by the economic outcomes they produce. Moore was also successful because his story drew on a long-standing question of social and political theory: How do institutions create conflicts and conflicts create institutions? The tradition of studying the static covariance and dynamic coevolution of institutions and conflicts extends from Plato and Aristotle; to Montesquieu and Machiavelli; to Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau; to Hamilton, Jay, and Madison; to Marx and Weber; to Easton and Almond and Powell; to Linz, Eckstein and Gurr, and Huntington; and beyond Moore to Skocpol, Lijphart, and Horowitz. Moore had understood that domestic battles over state building entail more than disputes about todays decision-making processes and tomorrows allocation strategieswho gets what, when, and where (Laswell 1950). Institutions are long-run patterns of authority over peoples and territories that undergird resource extraction (taxes and conscription) and societal regulation (laws and rules). They create power, or the ability to get

Page 3 someone to do something they wouldnt otherwise do (Dahl 1957). Structures of domestic governance thus become objects of power struggles surrounding paths of development. Following Moore, comparativists could study contentious world politics as the perpetual bargaining in a state over the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force (Weber 1946a: 78, emphasis in original) and the authoritative allocation of scarce values (Easton 1953). Comparativists could thus join social and political theorists in searching for the well-functioning and high-performing structures of politics and government. Following Moore, they could address big questions about how the deep institutional features that lay at the interstices of state building and societal action create patterns of conflict and structures of conflict resolution. Moore thus remains a cornerstone of comparativists continuing interest in political contention surrounding state institutions. The contention affects domestic actors and their associated interests, ideas, and organizations. It creates political demands, defines collective claim making, and constructs patterns of domestic politics. Paraphrasing Charles Tilly (1975, 42), one of Barrington Moores most famous students, internal war made the state and the state made internal war. Political contention thus manifests itself as domestic dissent: Social movements, protests, strikes, riots, terrorism, coups, guerrilla insurgencies, ethnic secessionism, civil wars, and revolutions. Since internal wars over grand strategies of state building produce powerful sovereign states in some places and Hobbesian struggles in others, the contention influences the types of states that prevail in particular historical eras. Causal claims must explore the historical counterfactuals, for example why a German-type authoritarian coalition could not dominate American politics. Finally, Moore was successful because he challenged the never-dying theory of a universal modernity. The only morally-acceptable framework for political thought, its current manifestation is democracy and human rights: the everywhere- and every timeculmination of the millenniums-long moral development of virtue and enlightenment. Instead of a relentless modernist project one grand teleological model of organic, stable, and harmonious development Moore invited us to see bloody battles over science and secularism, nationalism and pluralism, markets and planning, democracy and dictatorship, limited and statist bureaucracies, and international order and global anarchy. Since institutions influence outcomes, the struggles over liberal regimes never end. As the losers recede into history, in good Rikerian fashion new dimensions of conflict are politicized. As the winners claim victory, in good fractal fashion they fragment and new conflicts arise. So here are the grand themes Barrington Moore bequeathed to comparative politics: Alternative modernities and the challenges to liberalism; state building and contentious world politics; and the origins, operations, and outcomes of institutions. Approximately 200 states in todays world find these issues important. Comparativists find them challenging. Graduate students seeking careers find them compelling.

Page 4 As you analyze the many problems, puzzles, concepts, hypotheses, theories, approaches, cases, data sets, and methods in comparative politics, it helps to keep a Big Picture in mind. II. Becoming a Comparativist To become a comparativist, you need to acquire the conceptual language, theoretical ideas, and research methodologies that support two basic research skills. The first is critique. Unlike novels, short stories, plays, and poems, social scientific writing is expository. To grasp an article or book in comparative politics, you wont need detective work to decode the symbolism. Nevertheless, you will have to work hard. Social scientific reading is rereading, discovering the important questions or problems by anticipating what will happen and then by appreciating how the whole was put together. Young scholars often start out reading books outside-in, by moving from the origins (first chapter) and implications (last chapter) to the empirics (the middle chapters). As their skills develop, many come to see the virtues of reading books from the inside-out: from case, comparative, and statistical findings to the motivational glosses authors provide. Understanding the construction of social science writing allows you to become an active reader, analyzing and questioning the material, challenging and criticizing the author. Reading carefully and deeply is the foundation of learning comparative politics. The second skill you need is creativity. After a while, it is all-too-easy to be the critical gadfly, approaching literature in comparative politics with condescension and looking at hard-working comparativists with scorn. Andrew Abbotts Methods of Discovery: Heuristics for the Social Sciences teaches you how to read social science literature without defeating yourself. You will learn how to tackle a classic, like Barrington Moores Social Origins of Democracy and Dictatorship, or an important recent book, like Lisa Wedeens Peripheral Visions, by asking the basic question that motivates practicing comparativists: Can I do better? You will learn how to use the literature as a jumping-off point to identify a new research frontier, recognize the problem, formulate an argument, and design a study to evaluate causal claims. This course thus aims to teach graduate students the business of comparative politics, or how to publish scholarly articles and write academic dissertations. It teaches, in other words, budding academicians and scholars how to motivate a literature review, propose an interesting and important argument, develop a compelling research proposal, and ultimately produce a publishable essay that can be submitted as a journal article and/or used as a chapter in a dissertation. In a word, our goal is professionalization. In a slogan, our aim is to teach you to TTTT Think Things Through Thoroughly. III. Graduate Education at Maryland GVPT 780 is part of Government and Politics first-year course sequence. Its purpose is to provide incoming PhD students in comparative and/or international

Page 5 Relations with the tools needed to read statistical and game theoretic work. One year of course work will not produce methodologists or game theorists. Nevertheless, the firstyear sequence encourages students to become intelligent practitioners, a difficult skill to acquire when methods courses are taken haphazardly during ones graduate career. The course sequence also lays the groundwork for students seeking further training in methods. By requiring the same first-year sequence of all incoming students in comparative politics and international relations, we also hope to create a cohort of students who, by virtue of taking the same courses, build academic and professional relationships that contribute to mutual long-term learning. Finally, we hope to knit the faculties in comparative and international politics more closely together. This will allow us to offer a unique Maryland brand that bridges comparative and international political economy, contentious politics and security studies, and studies of domestic and global civil society. In the fall semester students take GVPT622 and GVPT700. The third course in the Fall semester is the core seminar in international politics, GVPT708a. In addition to the game theory course in the Spring, students enroll in GVPT722 and in this course, GVPT780. In other words, students take one-year sequences of (a) statistics, (b) research design/modeling, and (c) core work in comparative and international politics. Fall Courses GVPT622 Statistics GVPT700 Research Design GVPT708a - International Politics Seminar Spring Courses GVPT722 Regression GVPT831 Game Theory for International & Comparative Politics GVPT780 - Comparative Politics Seminar

After completing their first year, students in comparative and international politics will have the tools necessary to critically evaluate technical articles and books in their substantive areas of interest. They can then begin to make contributions to the literature. Advanced courses in comparative and international politics, for example conflict studies, political economy, or global governance, will allow second- and third-year students to build on the base of knowledge acquired in their first year. For students who have an interest in learning more about statistical or formal theory approaches to comparative and international politics, advanced courses will be offered in the second and third year. Finally, some students who take the first-year sequence will decide that they prefer other approaches to studying politics. We welcome such informed choices and fully support those decisions. All we ask is for 30 weeks of boot camp. Students can then move in various productive directions. IV. Course Structure The course begins by providing graduate students with two sets of tools philosophies of social science (historical problem situations and academic paradigms)

Page 6 and comparative methodologies (case and comparative case studies) - that they can use to critically evaluate and creatively extend work in contemporary comparative politics. It then introduces the grand problems of comparative politics. The course first situates contentious world politics circa 1960. Back then, the debate over modernity and liberal institutions revolved around great revolutions (Moore), political order (Huntington), and stable democracy (Lipset, Dahl, Almond/Verba). The course then updates the debate by 50 years. Circa 2010 the controversies in world politics engage culture and ethnicity, civil society and pluralism, markets and laissez-faire economic growth, democracy and dictatorship, the state and social policy, and global order and international institutions. The course concludes by reflecting on state building and contentious politics. Each weeks assignments consist of core readings that we will discuss in class, required commentaries designed to stimulate your thinking, and additional readings you should know for comps. By reading their reflections on their own work, Barrington Moore, Sam Huntington, Bob Dahl, Theda Skocpol, and a dozen other comparativists come alive. I hope the commentaries lead graduate students to appreciate how comparativists actually think and work. I have emphasized books over articles because books give you a better sense of how to construct your dissertation. Since many of the readings were suggested by our faculty, the course should help you prepare for comps. Finally, the syllabus compiles material that graduate students should find useful. Ive included hand-outs on critical and creative literature evaluations, academic writing, research papers, journal submissions, job talks, and comps. V. Course Requirements Students who take this course must satisfy four basic requirements. 1. Classroom participation (20%) Graduate students are expected to complete each weeks readings and participate in class discussions. Everyone will be called upon to speak at least once each week and will be asked to reflect on the readings. This is an important requirement. Students who repeatedly come to class unprepared to enter into scholarly discussions do not belong in graduate school. Since I will discuss them, bring the readings to class and be prepared to ask and answer questions about the literature at hand. Think of the ritual of the seminar as involving members challenging each others ideas and offering reasons for disagreements. Respectful discourse allows everyone to learn something new. Graduate students will turn out to be your toughest critics and therefore your best friends. 2. Classroom presentations (20%)

Page 7 Students will form working groups that make class presentations examining the weeks readings. They will lead class discussions, asking and answering questions, and employing hand-outs that critically and creatively evaluate the literature. I will listen carefully, sometimes trying to move things along and at other times raising important points that were missed. I will conclude the meeting by connecting the weeks material to the grand themes of the course. 3. Literature Summaries (20%) Youre are a busy person. Whats the most important thing you learned this week? Each week students will hand in brief talking points indicating what they believe to be the most interesting or significant ideas those worth pondering critically and engaging creatively they have encountered. For each reading, write 3-5 sentences describing the core argument (assumptions/concepts and conclusions/findings). In another 3-5 sentences, offer what you believe to be the most important criticism of the reading. And in another 3-5 sentences suggest your most creative extension of the authors work. These talking points should be brief: Stick to the limits. By 12 noon of the day before class, post these brief talking points on the classs on-line discussion BLACKBOARD. You are expected to share your ideas with your classmates: Late posts will be penalized. Check our website daily and look for announcements and follow the discussion threads. As you prepare for comps, these summaries will turn out to be quite valuable. 4. Final Design (40%) Students will write a research proposal for a publishable paper. Guidelines appear at the end of the syllabus. Preliminary designs will be discussed with me at private meetings during the eleventh and twelfth weeks of the course. Final designs, which are limited to ten pages, are due the last day of class. Since this assignment is based on what you can accomplish during the course, extensions will not be granted. Based on these four requirements, I assign grades as follows: A = excellent potential as a comparativist B = good graduate student C = you need to find another line of work VI. Informal Requirement Professors Hanna Birnir and Margaret Pearson organize our Workshop in Comparative Politics. The Workshop, which meets again this semester, is a forum for the discussion of theories and methods, topics and issues, in comparative politics.

Page 8 One week before the meeting, paper presenters submit a work in progress. Assigned critics begin the discussion by offering specific and detailed comments. A general discussion ensues. Participants in our ritual include guest speakers, resident faculty, and graduate students. The graduate students are always given the first couple of questions. Since the Workshop is pluralist in methodology and epistemology, we encourage work from a wide range of perspectives and approaches. All students, faculty, and scholars interested in comparative politics are encouraged to join. Since everyone is welcome, please forward this information to your friends and colleagues, especially to other graduate students in comparative politics, who might be interested. You should sign up on our list server. You can access our web site at: http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/cpworkshop/index.html Most announcements are made via the list serve. Papers for this semester will be available shortly on the web site. Members of this class are expected to attend the workshop. If you are not interested in the weeks topic or methodology, you are still expected to attend the workshop. Why? You just might learn something. VII. Books To Acquire The following books are required reading: Andrew Abbott. 2004. Methods of Discovery: Heuristics for the Social Sciences. New York: W. W. Norton. Mark Irving Lichbach and Alan Zuckerman, Eds. 2009. Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure. 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Henry E. Brady and David Collier. 2010. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. 2nd Ed. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Moore, Barrington, Jr. 1966. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Boston, Ma.: Beacon Press. Lisa Wedeen. 2008. Peripheral Visions: Publics, Power, and Performance in Yemen. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Page 9 Huntington, Samuel (1968). Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven: Yale University Press. Daniel N. Posner. 2005. Institutions and Ethnic Politics in Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kohli, Atul. 2004. State-Directed Development: Political Power and Industrialization in the Global Periphery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Arend Lijphart. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press. Beatriz Magaloni. 2006. Voting for Autocracy: Hegemonic Party Survival and Its Demise in Mexico. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Michael J. Hiscox. 2002. International Trade and Political Conflict: Commerce, Coalitions, and Mobility. Princeton: Princeton University Press. They are available for purchase in the University Book Center. VIII. Course Organization Class meets Thursdays 12:30-3:15 and Fridays 9:30 to 12:15 in Tydings 1136. You can also speak to me in my office, 3140 Tydings. Call me at 301 405 4160 and make an appointment, or drop by and see if Im available. It is important for graduate students to get to know faculty and for faculty to get to know graduate students. I am eager to meet you, so stop by for a chat.

Page 10

Schedule of Meetings Week 1 (January 27, 28). Introduction I. Evaluating Comparative Politics Week 2 (February 3, 4) Historical Problem Situations and Academic Paradigms A. Historical Problem Situations: Modernity, Liberalism, and Democracy Core Readings: Przeworski, Adam. 2009. Self-Government in Our Times. Annual Review of Political Science 12: 71-92. Required Commentaries: Ira Katznelson. 2009. Strong Theory, Complex History: Structure and Configuration in Comparative Politics Revisited. In Mark Irving Lichbach and Alan Zuckerman, Eds. 2009. Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure. 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Readings You Should Know For Comps: Charles Tilly. 2006. Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Adam Przeworski. 2010. Democracy and the Limits of Self-Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. B. Academic Paradigms: Rationality, Culture, and Structure Core Readings: Andrew Abbott. 2004. Methods of Discovery: Heuristics for the Social Sciences. New York: W. W. Norton. Mark Irving Lichbach and Alan Zuckerman, Eds. 2009. Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure. 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Page 11 -- Mark Irving Lichbach and Alan S. Zuckerman. 2009. Paradigms and Pragmatism: Comparative Politics During the Past Decade. -- Mark Irving Lichbach. 2009. Thinking and Working in the Midst of Things: Discovery, Explanation, and Evidence in Comparative Politics. Required Commentaries: Alan S. Zuckerman. 2009. Advancing Explanation in Comparative Politics: Social Mechanisms, Endogenous Processes, and Empirical Rigor. Mark Irving Lichbach and Alan Zuckerman, Eds. 2009. Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure. 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Readings You Should Know For Comps: David D. Laitin. 2002. Comparative Politics: The State of the Subdiscipline. In Ira Katznelson and Helen V. Milner, Eds. Political Science: The State of the Discipline. N.Y.: W.W. Norton. Week 3 (February 10, 11) Comparative Methodologies Core Readings: Henry E. Brady and David Collier. 2010. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. 2nd Ed. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Required Commentaries: David Collier. 2007. David Collier: Critical Junctures, Concepts, and Methods. In Gerardo L. Munck and Richard Snyder, Eds. 2007. Passion, Craft, and Method in Comparative Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Adam Przeworski. 2007. Adam Przeworski: Capitalism, Democracy, and Science. In Gerardo L. Munck and Richard Snyder, Eds. 2007. Passion, Craft, and Method in Comparative Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Readings You Should Know For Comps: Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., Henry E. Brady, and David Collier, Eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Page 12

Gary King, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press. II. Alternative Modernities and Challenges to Liberal Institutions: 1960 Week 4 (February 17, 18) Great Revolutions Core Readings: Moore, Barrington, Jr. 1966. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Boston, Ma.: Beacon Press. Required Commentaries: Moore, Barrington, Jr. 2007. Barrington Moore, Jr.: The Critical Spirit and Comparative Historical Analysis. In Gerardo L. Munck and Richard Snyder, Eds. 2007. Passion, Craft, and Method in Comparative Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Theda Skocpol. 2007. Theda Skocpol: States, Revolutions, and the Comparative Historical Imagination. In Gerardo L. Munck and Richard Snyder, Eds. 2007. Passion, Craft, and Method in Comparative Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Readings You Should Know For Comps: Skocpol, Theda. 1979. States and Social Revolutions: Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Week 5 (February 24, 25) Political Order and Stable Democracy A. Political Order Core Readings: Huntington, Samuel (1968). Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven: Yale University Press. Required Commentaries:

Page 13 Huntington, Samuel P. 2007. Samuel P. Huntington: Order and Conflict in Global Perspective. In Gerardo L. Munck and Richard Snyder, Eds. 2007. Passion, Craft, and Method in Comparative Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Readings You Should Know For Comps: Jeffrey Herbst (2000). States and Power in Africa. Princeton: Princeton University Press. B. Stable Democracy Core Readings: Lipset, Seymour Martin (1960). Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, chs. 5-7. Dahl, Robert A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, pp. 1-32. Almond, Gabriel A. and Verba, Sidney (1965). The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Boston, Ma.: Little, Brown and Co., chs. 1, 13. Required Commentaries: Gabriel A. Almond. 2007. Structural Functionalism and Political Development. In Gerardo L. Munck and Richard Snyder, Eds. 2007. Passion, Craft, and Method in Comparative Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Robert A. Dahl. 2007. Normative Theory, Empirical Research, and Democracy. In Gerardo L. Munck and Richard Snyder, Eds. 2007. Passion, Craft, and Method in Comparative Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Readings You Should Know For Comps: G. Bingham Powell, Jr. 1982. Contemporary Democracies: Participation, Stability, and Violence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. III. Alternative Modernities and Challenges to Liberal Institutions: 2010 Week 6 (March 3, 4) Culture and Ethnicity

Page 14 Core Readings: Daniel N. Posner. 2005. Institutions and Ethnic Politics in Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Required Commentaries: Kanchan Chandra. 2009. Making Causal Claims about the Effect of Ethnicity. Mark Irving Lichbach and Alan Zuckerman, Eds. 2009. Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure. 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. David D. Laitin. 2007. David D. Laitin: Culture, Rationality, and the Search for Discipline. In Gerardo L. Munck and Richard Snyder, Eds. 2007. Passion, Craft, and Method in Comparative Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Readings You Should Know For Comps: Horowitz, Donald. 1985. Ethnic Groups in Conflict. University of California Press. Laitin, David. 1998. Identity in Formation: The Russian-Speaking Populations in the Near Abroad. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Anderson, Benedict R. 1983. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso Week 7 (March 10, 11) Culture and Constructivism Core Readings: Lisa Wedeen. 2008. Peripheral Visions: Publics, Power, and Performance in Yemen. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Required Commentaries: Marc Howard Ross. 2009. Culture in Comparative Political Analysis. Mark Irving Lichbach and Alan Zuckerman, Eds. 2009. Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure. 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. James C. Scott. 2007. James C. Scott: Peasants, Power, and the Art of Resistance. In Gerardo L. Munck and Richard Snyder, Eds. 2007.

Page 15 Passion, Craft, and Method in Comparative Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Readings You Should Know For Comps: Lisa Wedeen. 2002. Conceptualizing Culture: Possibilities for Political Science. American Political Science Review 96 (December): 713-728. Week 8 (March 17, 18) Civil Society and Pluralism Core Readings: James Habyarimana, Macartan Humphreys, Daniel N. Posner, and Jeremy M. Weinstein. 2009. Coethnicity: Diversity and the Dilemmas of Collective Action. New York: Russell Sage. Lily L. Tsai. 2007. Solidarity Groups, Informal Accountability, and Local Public Goods Provision in Rural China. American Political Science Review 101: 355-372. Required Commentaries: Elinor Ostrom. 2010. A Long Polycentric Journey. Annual Review of Political Science 13: 1-23. Readings You Should Know For Comps: Marc Morj Howard. 2003. The Weakness of Civil Society in Post-Communist Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lily L. Tsai. 2007. Accountability Without Democracy: Solidary Groups and Public Goods Provisions in Rural China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

SPRING BREAK Week 9 (March 31, April 1) Markets and Laissez-Faire Economic Growth Core Readings:

Page 16 Kohli, Atul. 2004. State-Directed Development: Political Power and Industrialization in the Global Periphery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Required Commentaries: Joel S. Midgal. 2009. Researching the State. Mark Irving Lichbach and Alan Zuckerman, Eds. 2009. Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure. 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mark Blyth. 2009. An Approach to Comparative Analysis or a Subfield Within a Subfield? Political Economy. Mark Irving Lichbach and Alan Zuckerman, Eds. 2009. Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure. 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Readings You Should Know for Comps: Tufte, Edward R. 1978. Political Control of the Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Charles Lindblom. 1977. Politics and Markets. N.Y.: Basic Books. Robert H. Bates. 2005. States and Markets in Tropical Africa: The Political Basis of Agricultural Policies. Berkeley: University of California Press. Week 10 (April 7, 8) Democracy and Dictatorship: Paths As Endogenous Institutions Core Readings: Acemoglu, Daron, and James A. Robinson. 2006. Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Required Commentaries: Margaret Levi. 2009. Reconsiderations of Rational Choice in Comparative and Historical Analysis. Mark Irving Lichbach and Alan Zuckerman, Eds. 2009. Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure. 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jonathan Rodden. 2009. Back to the Future: Endogenous Institutions and Comparative Politics. Mark Irving Lichbach and Alan Zuckerman, Eds. 2009. Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure. 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Page 17 Przeworski, Adam. 2004. Institutions Matter? Government and Opposition. 39 (4): 527-540. Robert H. Bates. 2007. Robert H. Bates: Markets, Politics, and Choice. In Gerardo L. Munck and Richard Snyder, Eds. 2007. Craft, and Method in Comparative Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Readings You Should Know for Comps: Boix, Carles. 2003. Democracy and Redistribution. Cambridge University Press. Adam Przeworski, Michael E. Alvarez, Jos Antonio Cheibub, and Fernando Limongi. 2000. Democracy and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bratton, Michael and Nicolas van de Walle. 1997. Democratic Experiments in Africa: Regime Transitions in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ODonnell, G. A., P. C. Schmitter, et al. (1986). Transitions From Authoritarian Rule: Comparative Perspectives. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Samuel P. Huntington. 1993. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. University of Oklahoma Press. Week 11 (April 14, 15) Institutional Paths: Democracy Core Readings: Arend Lijphart. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press. Required Commentaries: Arendt Lijphart 2007. Arendt Lijphart: Political Institutions, Divided Societies, and Consociational Democracy In Gerardo L. Munck and Richard Snyder, Eds. 2007. Passion, Craft, and Method in Comparative Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Philippe P. Schmitter. 2007. Philippe P. Schmitter: Corporatism, Democracy, and Conceptual Travelling. In Gerardo L. Munck and Richard Snyder, Eds. 2007. Passion, Craft, and Method in Comparative Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Page 18 Readings You Should Know for Comps: Lipset, Seymour Martin and Rokkan, Stein (1967). Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments: An Introduction. In Seymour Martin Lipset and Stein Rokkan, Eds. Party Systems and Voter Alignments. N.Y.: Macmillan. Sartori, Giovanni (1976). Party and Party System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. William H. Riker. 1982. The Two-Party System and Duverger's Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science. American Political Science Review 76, No. 4 (Dec., 1982): 753-766. Jos Antonio Cheibub. 2007. Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scott Mainwaring and Timothy R. Scully. 1995. Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America. Stanford, Ca.: Stanford University Press. Przeworski, A. and J. D. Sprague (1986). Paper Stones: A History of Electoral Socialism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cox, G. W. (1987). The Efficient Secret: The Cabinet and the Development of Political Parties in Victorian England. New York: Cambridge University Press. Panebianco, A. (1988). Political Parties: Organization and Power. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lijphart, Arend. 1977. The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands. Berkeley: University of California Press. Week 12 (April 21, 22) Institutional Paths: Dictatorship Core Readings: Beatriz Magaloni. 2006. Voting for Autocracy: Hegemonic Party Survival and Its Demise in Mexico. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Required Commentaries: Guillermo ODonnell. 2007. Guillermo ODonnell: Democratization, Political Engagement, and Agenda-Setting Research. In Gerardo L. Munck and

Page 19 Richard Snyder, Eds. 2007. Passion, Craft, and Method in Comparative Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Juan Linz 2007. Juan Linz: Political Regimes and the Quest for Knowledge. In Gerardo L. Munck and Richard Snyder, Eds. 2007. Passion, Craft, and Method in Comparative Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Readings You Should Know for Comps: Ken Jowitt. 1993. New World Disorder: The Leninist Extinction. Berkeley: University of California Press. Journal of Democracy, Special Issue on Hybrid Regimes (2002) Dan Slater. 2010. Ordering Power: Contentious Politics and Authoritarian Leviathans in Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jennifer Gandhi. 2008. Political Institutions Under Dictatorship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way. 2010. Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jason Brownlee. 2007. Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Week 13 (April 28, 29) The State and Social Policy Required Readings: Boix, Carles. 2001. Democracy, Development, and the Public Sector. American Journal of Political Science 45 (January): 1-17. Rodrik, Dani. 1998. Why Do More Open Economies Have Bigger Governments? Journal of Political Economy. 106(5): 997-1032. Huber, Evelyne and John D. Stephens. 2000. Partisan Governance, Women's Employment, and the Social Democratic Service State. American Sociological Review. 65(3): 323-342 Huber, Evelyne, John D. Stephens and Charles Ragin. 1993. Social Democracy, Christian Democracy, Constitutional Structure and the Welfare State. American Journal of Sociology, 99 (3): 711-749.

Page 20

Required Commentaries: Isabela Mares. 2009. The Comparative Political Economy of the Welfare State by Mark Irving Lichbach and Alan Zuckerman, Eds. 2009. Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure. 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Readings You Should Know for Comps: Gsta Esping Anderson. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Franzese, Robert J. 2002. Macroeconomic Policies of Developed Democracies, chapters 1-3. Week 14 (May 5, 6) Global Order and International Institutions Core Readings: Michael J. Hiscox. 2002. International Trade and Political Conflict: Commerce, Coalitions, and Mobility. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Required Commentaries: Etel Solingen. 2009. The Global Context of Comparative Politics. Mark Irving Lichbach and Alan Zuckerman, Eds. 2009. Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure. 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Readings You Should Know For Comps: Etel Solingen. 2007. Pax Asiatica versus Bella Levantina: The Foundations of War and Peace in East Asia and the Middle East. American Political Science Review 101 (November): 757-780. Keck, Margaret and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Gourevitch, Peter. 1986. Politics in Hard Times: Comparative Responses to International Economic Crises. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Bates, Robert H. 1998. Open-Economy Politics: The Political Economy of the World Coffee Trade. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Page 21 Rogowski, Ronald. 1989. Commerce and Coalitions: How Trade Affects Domestic Political alignments. Princeton: Princeton University Press. IV. State Building and Contentious Politics Week 15 (May 12, 13) Conflict Studies Core Readings: Mark Irving Lichbach. 1995. The Rebels Dilemma. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Chapters 1 and 2. Doug McAdam, Sidney Tarrow, and Charles Tilly. 2009. Comparative Perspectives on Contentious Politics. Mark Irving Lichbach and Alan Zuckerman, Eds. 2009. Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure. 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. James D. Fearon and David D. Laitin. 2003. Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War. American Political Science Review 97 (1): 1-17. Required Commentaries: Mark Lichbach. 2010. Charles Tillys Problem Situations: From Class and Revolution to Mechanisms and Contentious Politics. Perspectives on Politics 8: 543-549. Mark Lichbach. 2009. Internal Wars Over the State: Rational Choice Institutionalism and Contentious Politics. In Manus I. Midlarsky, Ed. Handbook of War Studies III: The Intrastate Dimension. pp. 100-154. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Mark Lichbach. 2008. Modeling Mechanisms of Contention: McTTs Positivist Constructivism. Qualitative Sociology 31 (December): 345-54. Mark Lichbach. 2005. How to Organize Your Mechanisms: Research Programs, Stylized Facts, and Historical Narratives. In Christian Davenport, Hank Johnston, and Carol Mueller, Eds. Repression and Mobilization, pp. 227-43. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Mark Lichbach. 1998. Contending Theories of Contentious Politics and the Structure-Action Problem of Social Order. Annual Review of Political Science 1: 401-24. Mark Lichbach. 1997. Contentious Maps of Contentious Politics. Mobilization 2 (March): 87-98.

Page 22

Readings You Should Know For Comps: Kalyvas, Stathis. N. 2006. The Logic of Violence in Civil War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Elisabeth Jean Wood. 2003. Insurgent Collective Action and Civil War in El Salvador. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ted Robert Gurr. 1970. Why Men Rebel. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffler. 2004. Greed and Grievance in Civil War. Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 56(4, October): 563-595. Doug McAdam, Sidney Tarrow, and Charles Tilly. 2001. Dynamics of Contention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Page 23 HOW TO CRITICALLY AND CREATIVELY EVALUATE THE LITERATURE The rule is: Dont summarize, critically and creatively evaluate. In other words, rather than recapitulate what you read, talk about its importance and significance. You should assume that the class knows what is contained in the readings and hence you should restate only those parts of the authors arguments which motivate your discussion. Do not lose perspective on the goal of critique: To discuss what the study attempted and to show how it could have been improved. Constructive criticism is expected rather than demonstrations of the authors incompetence or stupidity. More specifically, you need to think about four important issues. Begin with description. Discuss the specific research domain that the author investigates. What is the empirical context - the central empirical problem, puzzle, or question - that the author tries to address? Consider the authors explanation. What general research tradition, community, or theory does the author draw upon to address the empirical problem he or she finds interesting? Does the author provide an adequate theoretical context for the work? Does he or she draw upon the best literatures? Explore the deduction of pivotal ideas. Is the theoretical statement of assumptions, things, and mechanisms precise enough to allow the deduction of interesting and testable hypotheses? In other words, does the author support his or her principal assertions and do his or her hypotheses follow from the theory? Make sure to discuss the specific causal statements, empirical hypotheses, or statistical models that the author derives from his or her theory. Are they central to the theory (i.e., their refutation would disconfirm the theory) or peripheral? Do these propositions have policy relevance, or are they politically trivial and unimportant? Think about whether the author sees all the crucial implications of his or her ideas. Are there other important conclusions which the author does not state? Finally, think about the evaluation of the key ideas. Address the research design issue: How does the author examine his or her argument? Are the core hypotheses disconfirmed by empirical tests? There are several sub-issues to consider. The first is the operationalization of key variables. Are the important concepts operationally defined? Are the measurements valid and reliable? The second is the sampling of cases. Are the observations drawn from an appropriate spatial-temporal domain? The third is statistical methods. What specifically was done to examine the evidence? Are the methods and tests used appropriate for the hypotheses being tested? Are the methods correctly applied? Are the inferences drawn warranted? After you consider these three sub-issues, think about what an alternative research design different measurements, samples, or statistical procedures would show. Would future work along these lines have greater theoretical or policy relevance?

Page 24 INTRODUCTORY HANDOUT: ASSESSING THE STRENGTHS/WEAKNESSES OF BASIC RESEARCH (Paul Huth) WHAT ARE THE ATTRIBUTES OF STRONG THEORETICAL WORK? 1. Clear statement/description of any assumptions or basic concepts 2. Logical consistency in development of argument 3. Parsimonious causal explanation of decisions by political actors 4. Broad scope of generalization across time and space 5. Robustness of theoretical conclusions to small changes in assumptions WHAT ARE THE ATTRIBUTES OF COMPELLING EMPIRICAL TESTS OF HYPOTHESES? 1. Close fit between theoretical concepts and variables in a hypothesis and the operational measurement of variables with actual data. 2. Case selection is representative of population of cases and therefore one has confidence in generalizability of empirical findings (high external validity of results). 3. Consideration of alternative explanations. 4. Empirical findings are robust despite some changes in the measurement of variables or the selection of cases analyzed. 5. Demonstration that decisions and actions of individuals or groups were shaped by variables in hypothesis (high internal validity of results).

Page 25 HEURISTICS FOR CRITICISM AND CREATIVITY Abbott on Philosophy of Social Science Methodological Debates Positivism/Interpretivism Debates about Social Ontology Behaviorism/Culturalism Individualism/Emergentism Realism/Constructivism Contextualism/Noncontextualism Debates about Problematics Choice/Constraint Conflict/Consensus Debates about Types of Knowledge Transcendent Knowledge/Situated Knowledge Lichbach on Social Theories Rationality Culture Structure Lichbach on Philosophy of Science Discovery Big Problems Thorny Puzzles Core Difficulty Explanation Big Concepts Mechanisms Institutions Middle Range Causal Arguments Evidence Stylized Facts Designs for Establishing Causality Analytic Narratives

Page 26

Seven-Step Program to Social Science (Spreadsheet Social Science) 1. dependent variable 2. independent variable 3. control variable 4. hypothesis 5. cases 6. regression equation 7. fix error term

Causal Social-Scientific Thinking: (Stinchcombe) 1. distance or difference 2. mechanism 3. context: boundaries and scope 4. causal statement/explanatory sketch 5. unit of analysis 6. observable implications of research and null hypotheses 7. learn from error

Page 27 HOW TO WRITE A RESEARCH PAPER If you look closely at articles that appear in scholarly journals in the social sciences you will discover that most of the articles follow a similar style. There are six parts to the typical research paper. Part No. 1: Introduction The first part of a research paper typically explores what you are studying and why. Here are some questions that you should try to address. 1. What is your general goal? a. What subject do you wish to explore? b. What problem do you wish to investigate? c. What topic do you wish to study? 2. What is your specific purpose? a. What puzzle is to be resolved? b. What issue is to be confronted? c. What is your particular point of view? i. The theme of this paper is ... ii. The argument to be investigated is ... iii. I aim to ... iv. I would like to demonstrate the point that ... v. My solution to the problem of ... is ... 3. Why are there issues worthy of investigation? a. What motivates your analysis? c. What justifies your interest? d. What makes the subject important? e. What contributions will your study make? Your introduction, in short, should contain a clear motivation and a well-defined thesis statement. Part No. 2: Literature Review The second part of a research paper typically discusses what is known and unknown, settled and debated, about the subject under study. Here are some questions that you should try to address. 1. What is the current state of our knowledge? a. How does your problem relate to existing scholarship? b. What does the research record on your problem look like?

Page 28 c. What do existing studies on your topic tell us? 2. What does the journal literature look like? (You must track down journal articles as well as books. Much of the good empirical work in our discipline occurs in the journals and not in books.) 3. What do we know about your a. Research program? b. Theories? c. Hypotheses? d. Methodologies? c. Evidence? 4. What are the literatures major limitations? a. Is there progress or stagnation in this field? b. What are the shortcomings in theory and method? c. What are the major roadblocks to progress? d. What are scholars fighting about (i.e., what dont we know)? e. What do scholars agree upon (i.e., what do we think we know)? 5. What are the literatures major themes? a. What are the Big Questions that scholars are asking? b. What are the key issues scholars are debating? Your literature review, in short, should be based on a carefully compiled sample of the professional literature. You then need to reflect upon that literature. Summarize thematically and avoid summarizing article by article. If your refer to theories, methods, or data, you must cite specific sources. Part No. 3: The Theory To Be Tested The third part of a research paper typically states the theoretical arguments to be explored. Here are some questions that you should try to address. 1. What is the research program under which you are working? a. What are its core assumptions? b. What are its operating rules? 2. For each hypothesis that you derive from that research program: a. What is the bivariate linkage among the variables? i. Can you offer a verbal statement of the causal argument? ii. Can you offer a formal statement, an if-then hypothesis? b. What do you want to explain? i. What is your dependent variable? ii. How do you define it?

Page 29 c. What is your explanation? i. What is your independent variable? ii. How do you define it? d. Under what conditions is the hypothesis true? i. What are your control variables? ii. What is the context under which the relationship holds? iii. Where and when are the independent and dependent variables related? e. Why do you believe that the hypothesis is true? i. What assumptions lead you to propose the hypothesis? ii. Why is the hypothesis plausible? iii. What is the reasoning behind the hypothesized relationship? Your theory section, in short, should contain clearly stated ideas. You may or may not choose to put your ideas in terms of hypotheses, independent variables, dependent variables, etc. However, you must be precise about what you are trying to explain and how you are trying to explain it. Part No. 4: The Research Design The fourth part of a research paper typically proposes a research design to probe the theoretical arguments you have advanced. Here are some questions that you should try to address. 1. What methodological guidelines will you follow? a. What is your study design or research plan? i. How will you confront the issues you raised? ii. How will you answer the questions you posed? b. How does your research design address the problem? i. Why have you chosen your approach to the problem? ii. How would you justify your research choices and decisions? 2. How will you choose cases to examine? a. Why were your cases selected? b. Why were other cases not selected? c. What type of sample are your drawing? i. Individual level data or aggregate data? ii. Cross-sectional or time series data? 3. How will you choose your indicators? a. What is your measurement strategy? b. Will you use nominal, ordinal, or interval variables? c. What sources of evidence will you use? i. Survey research - questionnaires, interviews ii. Fieldwork - participant and non-participant observation iii. Secondary analysis of statistical sources

Page 30 iv. Content analysis of archives and historical records 4. How will you eliminate plausible rival hypotheses? a. What test implications lend support to your hypotheses? b. What test implications lead to the rejection of your hypotheses? c. What challenges to falsification exist? Your research design, in short, should contain clear procedures. You should state how you will evaluate your ideas. Part No. 5: Findings The fifth part of a research paper typically discusses and interprets findings. Here are some questions that you should try to address. 1. What was your purpose in analyzing the data? a. Why present the data? b. Why conduct the analysis? 2. What speculations follow from the data? a. Where do the results lead us? b. What do the results tell us about the hypotheses? b. What indirect implications can be drawn? c. What is the larger importance of your findings? This part of your paper is the punch line. You must demonstrate that all your careful preparation paid off. Explore your evidence. Think about what you have found. Part No. 6: Conclusions The final part of a research paper typically evaluates the research. Here are some questions that you should try to address. 1. What is a succinct summary of your paper? a. Purposes? b. Arguments? c. Methods? d. Findings? e. Implications? 2. What has your research accomplished? a. So what? b. How would you assess your work? c. Did you satisfy your original motives and purposes?

Page 31 d. What was the significance of your investigation? 3. What are the limitations of your analysis? a. How adequate was your work? b. What self-criticisms would you raise? c. How firm were your conclusions? d. What shortcomings exist? e. What problems remain? 4. What does your research imply about future work? a. What new theoretical speculations should be investigated? b. What new policy recommendations should be developed? c. What new research strategies should be explored? In sum, the final section of your paper allows you to move beyond the data. You can offer a mini-research agenda for your upcoming honors thesis. The Specific Requirements Your papers must be done professionally. They must be written as if you were going to submit them to a professional journal in political science, such as the American Political Science Review. More specifically, your papers must meet the following requirements: 1. Typed (presumably on a word processor) 2. Stapled (no clips) 3. Double-spaced 4. Cover sheet (no plastic research covers) 5. Title page contains - name - date - title - who the paper is submitted to - course name and number 6. 8-l/2 x ll paper 7. 1.5 margins on top and bottom, left and right 8. Pages numbered 9. APSA (American Political Science Association) referencing style

Page 32 On Writing You must do more than get the form right. You must write clearly and effectively. Social scientists who write well get their ideas across. Social scientists who write poorly tend to have their ideas ignored. I can offer two suggestions for improving your writing skills. First, take a few days off and read a couple of books on writing and composition. 1. Some References on How to Write a Research Paper: University of Chicago Press (1969). A Manual of Style. Chicago, Il.: University of Chicago Press. Mullins, Carolyn J. (1983). A Guide to Writing and Publishing in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. 3rd. Ed. New York: Wiley. 2. Some References on How to Compose Readable Prose: Strunk, William Jr. and White, E. B. (1972). The Elements of Style. 2nd Ed. New York: Macmillan. Flesch, Rudolf (1949). The Art of Readable Writing. New York: Collier Barrass, Robert (1978). Scientists Must Write: A Guide to Better Writing for Scientists, Engineers and Students. London: Chapman and Hall. Tichy, H. J. (1966). Effective Writing For Engineers, Managers, Scientists. New York: Wiley. Van Leunen, Mary-Claire (1992). A Handbook for Scholars. New York: Oxford University Press. Second, try using a grammar checker. Many are available as an auxiliary tool that supplements your word processor. You should know, however, that some people like grammar checkers and others hate them. My view is that grammar checkers are not perfect but do assist the novice writer by forcing him or her think about sentence structure and paragraph construction. As your writing improves, grammar checkers tend to slow you down and generally become a hindrance. One final note. If you use a word processor, you should think about using its related tools: a speller, thesaurus, and bibliographic compiler. You should at least run a spell check on your papers. A paper with numerous typos and other spelling errors is unprofessional.

Page 33

The Review Process at Refereed Journals

Professor Jim Gimpel, Editor APR

Double-Blind
Author Reviewer 1

Decisions: Reject 80-85%

Reviewer 2

EDITOR

R&R Major 10-14% R&R Minor Accept 4-5% <1%

Reviewer 3

The review process is double-blind: editors know who the reviewers are, and the identity of the author, but the authors and the reviewers do not know each others identities. It is not a perfect system, but it probably produces better work, on average, than any other system in place.

Page 34 Reviewer Selection Criteria: 1. Scholars the author cites in the bibliography. 2. Scholars not in the bibliography but who know the subject area well. 3. Scholars who are willing to do reviews for the journal. 4. Scholars who represent the readership/audience for the journal. Timeliness of Reviews: 1. Simultaneous submissions to more than one journal are not allowed. 2. The first-round review process can take from two-months to eight months, depending primarily on the editors management style. Most journal editors are responsible enough not to leave you hanging for longer than that. 3. You have the right to withdraw your submission if reviews have not been returned in a timely manner.

Page 35 Editorial Decisions The editor will render a judgment on the basis of two, three, or more, reviews. The decisions are usually as follows: 1. Reject The modal response. 80-95% depending on the journal 2. Revise and Resubmit, with major revisions. 3. Revise and Resubmit, with minor revisions. 4. Accept without revisions, or technical formatting changes. Editors are not strictly bound by the reviewer reports, but they find it difficult to go against uniformly positive reviews, or uniformly negative reviews. The editor is not to blame for your negative reviews. Editors do wield discretion and power. In marginal cases, they will be the deciding factor. Revising and Resubmitting 1. Follow any editorial instructions, and attempt to please the reviewers to the letter. 2. The editor will request a memo be attached to your resubmission that will detail the changes you have made in response to the referee reports. In this memo, you can explain how you dealt with conflicting advice, or any other difficulties. 3. You are not required to accept the invitation to revise-and-resubmit. Some R&Rs are just too difficult, or not worth the additional time and effort. 4. Editors and reviewers are not required to positively review, much less accept your revised manuscript. At the most highly selective journals, only 25-35 percent of resubmissions are actually accepted for publication.

Page 36 Ten Co mmon Reasons Papers are Rejected (by Reviewers) Reviewer patience and tolerance is a finite resource. You are only allowed to make a certain number (though variable across journals) of mistakes before the reviewer recommends rejection. 1. The paper doesnt add sufficiently to the existing body of knowledge. You have failed to move our understanding, or sell your results to the reviewers. 1a. Simple replications are seldom published. 1b. Unexciting findings, or null findings, are seldom published. 1c. Dull writing about exciting findings is a common problem of bad salesmanship. 1d. Overselling weak results is also a problem, but less often than 1c. 2. The empirical work (the data analysis part) is undertheorized. 2a. The scholar found an intriguing collection of data, typically a survey, but has no theory to underpin the results. 3. The theory and data analysis do not mesh well. 3a. The theory sets up hypotheses that your data cannot test. 3b. The data and hypothesis tests tell a story, but not the one your theory suggests. 3c. Your data analysis does not answer the question you pose up front. 3d. Your data analysis is framed by the wrong literature and theory. These are exceedingly common problems and ones that I struggle with in my own work even after 17 years in the business. You must ensure that your theory and your data fit well together. 4. You have omitted important elements of the literature pertaining to your topic. 5. Your methods are inappropriate, incorrect, or not up-to-date.

Page 37

5a. Often authors have a technique in search of a topic, rather than the other way around. 5b. Sometimes authors do not correctly use methodological techniques. 5c. Sometimes a better technique exists than the one employed in the analysis. 6. Poor writing and bad organization of the paper. patience with bad writing. Reviewers easily lose theory

7. Too much data data overkill. This can be distracting to readers. Think of and data as a ratio that must be kept in appropriate balance. 8. Data analysis decisions and coding of variables are poorly described, confusing.

unclear, or

9. Measures of key constructs (independent and dependent variables) are inappropriate, unconvincing, or just wrong. 10. Topic of study is too narrow, not interesting to specific journal readership.

Page 38 General Organization of the Journal Article Like it or not, there are pretty standard conventions that govern the structure and writing of journal articles. You might want to do it differently, but experience has shown that going against the grain only makes it difficult to get your work into print. Here are some general guidelines for standard, empirically oriented papers (not methods papers). Page length for each section is approximate, but not far from what is commonly expected. 1. Statement of the question of the research and 2-3 paragraphs on why its important. Page 1. 2. Previous literature and theory that guides expectations and hypothesis formation for your study; pages 2-9. 3. Data used in your research; pages 10-11. 4. Methods used in your research; pages 11-13. 5. Presentation and description of research findings; pages 13-16. 6. Discussion of research findings, implications, and what they tell us thats new; pages 17-21. 7. Concluding summary; pages 21-22. 8. Sources (Bibliography); pages 22-23. 9. Tables; Figures, other back matter; pages 23-29.

Page 39 Additional Reminders and Rules-of-Thumb from Editorial Experience 1. Avoid going over 40 pages. Some journal editors will return work review if it exceeds 40 pages. without

2. Dont present your data before page 6, or after page 16. If you begin presenting data before page 6, you probably dont have a theory. If you present the data after page 16, youve droned on too long. 3. Reviewers have a variable but finite amount of patience for detail. Stick to the big picture, and emphasize the parts of your analysis that highlight your contribution. 4. Avoid presenting more than 4 tables. Reviewer fatigue sets in after 4 tables of results. If you have more than 4 tables, you might have more than one paper! 5. If you have figures, maps or graphs, dont go overboard. They take up space, and they are also subject to fatigue and impatience on the part of reviewers. 6. Probably better to err on the side of overselling your results rather than underselling them. Far more papers are rejected because reviewers cannot see your contribution than are rejected because the contribution has been overstated or exaggerated. 7. Having mentioned 6, do remember the limitations of your research, and be honest about them at the conclusion of the paper in a few sentences. 8. Shorter is commonly better. Dont resent editors/reviewers who ask you to cut length. They are often doing you a favor.

Page 40

Tips for the Job Talk by Axelrod

Robert Axelrod, Tips for an Academic Job Talk, in PS Politic Science and Politics 18:3 (1985): 612-3.

Before the Talk

1. Ask about the format of the talk so that you will know how much time you will have. 2. If possible, schedule the talk early in the visit. This will make the individual meetings more productive. 3. Practice your talk, even if it is in front of just a few friends. This will help you be realistic about the timing, get the phrasing down, and learn what parts are unclear. 4. Try to get a half-hour to yourself just be the talk to review your notes.

During the Talk

5. Start by giving the title. 6. Next, ask people to hold their questions until the end (except for brief questions of clarification). Otherwise you are likely to get interrupted and never finish the talk. If you are interrupted, and you cant give a very short answer in a single phrase, ask the person to save the question until the end. 7. Be sure to explain near the beginning why a nonspecialist might be interested in your work. 8. Be realistic about the time it will take to give your talk. Be ruthless with yourself in planning what you will be ale to say, and what youll have to leave out. If you are running short of time during the talk, it is better to cut a pre-planned optional section in the middle than to be prevented from giving the conclusion. 9. Near the end, be sure to explain why your substantive conclusions are of importance beyond the immediate topic of the work. 10. A good talk, like a good musical, has a theme that people can whistle to themselves on the way out. 11. For most speakers, it is better to use a detailed outline than a script. If you do read talk, be sure that you do not read too fast, that you dont use a monotone, and that you maintain eye contact. 12. Use a blackboard to help focus attention and to have a common reference point with the audience. Use handouts if the material is too detailed to put on the blackboard. Be sure the handouts are not too complex and are well labeled. Have plenty of copies of the handouts with the pages stapled together.

Page 41

After the Talk

13. The hardest task is to appreciate what a questioner is getting at. Ask for clarification if you are no sure, for example, by restating the question in your own words and if that is what was meant. 14. It is not a crime to pause before you reply. It might even make you look thoughtful. 15. It is not a crime to take notes on the remarks from the audience, especially on an interesting point tht you hadnt thought of. It might even make you look like you care. 16. It is not a crime to say I dont know or my data arent decisive about that but Ill be glad to speculate. 17. If a few people are dominating the questioning (which often happens), say Id like to call on the person in the back of the room now who hasnt had a chance to ask a question yet.

Page 42

COMPARATIVE POLITICS FIELD EXAM QUESTIONS January 2007 This comprehensive examination is intended to test your knowledge of the field of comparative politics and your ability to formulate compelling responses to questions and statements. You will be expected to answer THREE questions in total, one from Part I and two from Part II. Each of your responses should be approximately 8 pages (doublespaced, 12-point) in length. Your responses should reflect both your command of major works in comparative politics and your ability to be an independent and critical thinker. Part I Respond to ONE question. 1.) You have been asked to contribute to a proposal for a compendium volume on Comparative Politics: the State of the Discipline. You need to provide a compelling reason why the three areas you are proposing should be included in the volume. In making your case, you should discuss what the guiding questions, theoretical concerns, and methodological debates in relation to these three sub-fields of the comparative politics field are. You should also indicate what some of the remaining unanswered questions or inadequately understood concepts in these subfields are that require further work. 2.) Develop a testable hypothesis related to a widely used concept in comparative politics. Explain the reason you have developed this hypothesis and the method you will use to test your hypothesis. Why have you selected this method over other methods?

Page 43

Part II Respond to TWO questions. 1.) Is it possible to identify patterns in how and why states democratize? How about for states that initially appeared to be democratizing but then failed to achieve democratic consolidation? What hypotheses can you offer for why some states have successfully democratized while others have not? 2.) Institutions are a central concept in political science. Define what is meant by the term. How and why do historical institutionalists and rational choice institutionalists differ in their approach to studying institutions? Which approach do you find more compelling, and why? 3.) What are the differences in the meaning of terms such as civil society, interest groups, social movements, social movement organizations, non-governmental organizations, nonprofit organizations, transnational non-governmental organizations, social networks? Why has such a plethora of terminology emerged, and is it a good thing?

4.) The study of political parties and party systems is a major aspect of comparative politics. Is there anything about political party systems in democratic societies that might explain why in some countries extremist parties of the right have emerged while in others they have not?

Page 44

COMPARATIVE POLITICS FIELD EXAM QUESTIONS August 2007 Section I (More analytic, conceptual, and methodological questions) Write an essay on one of the following questions. 1. Some might contend that, in comparative politics, rationalists prefer large-n statistical analyses, structuralists favor comparative case studies, and culturalists study one particular case. Do you accept this mapping of method to explanatory variable? Explain drawing on cases.

2. Most political scientists are neither purely deductive nor purely inductive theorists but use inductive insights to construct falsifiable theories. What is inductive versus deductive theorizing and what are the benefits and drawbacks of each method? Using one or more key concepts in comparative politics, describe the proper way of testing deductive theories that are based on inductive insights with a particular emphasis on the principal pitfalls.

3. What have been the most important methodological developments of comparative politics in the post Cold War era? Can these newer developments be said to usefully supersede the core developments in comparative politics in the post-World War II period?

4. "All cross-national statistical work is inherently bound in space and time. Statistical models based on pure universalisms are a myth." Citing specific sources and examples from the field of comparative politics, argue for or against this position.

Page 45

Section II (Questions emphasizing substantive knowledge of theories, concepts, regions and issue-areas) Write essays on two of the following questions. 1. Different theorists have argued that political violence is an essential problem for humankind. Identify three distinct approaches to resolving political violence and how they are handled in comparative politics. 2. Identify and discuss the defining characteristics of democracy, autocracy and anocracy. Are these distinctions still useful in comparative politics? 3. How do institutions such as executive structure and selection and legislative electoral system affect outcomes such as personalism, clientelism, and corruption? To what extent should those outcomes be seen as distinct? 4. Political scientists have often suggested constitutional engineering, both of the territorial and partisan distributions of power, as a means of reducing conflict in ethnically divided societies. Discuss a case each of relatively "successful" and "unsuccessful" institutional change in divided societies, drawing on the broadly comparative and theoretical literature to explain success and failure in those cases. 5. "Seeing like a state", in James C. Scott's approach, means the effort to impose certain utopian blueprints as means to transform and organize political space. What are the main problems with such efforts? 6.Repression and dissent have been found to influence one another in very complex ways. Please identify what influences they have, and what scholars are associated with these different relationships. Then provide a research question and design for improving this body of work. 7. Democratization was a dominant theme in the study of comparative politics during the 1990s. Is democratization today best understood as an ongoing systemic trend, a tendency that has largely run its course, a mislabeling of more complex trends and tendencies, a fundamentally flawed conceptualization, or none of the above?

Page 46

COMPARATIVE POLITICS FIELD EXAM QUESTIONS January 2008 Section I (More analytic, conceptual, and methodological questions) Write an essay on one of the following questions. 1. Where have scholars in comparative politics 'gone wrong' in the past 20-30 years? In other words, what analyses (by specific authors, or following particular methodologies) have not proven to be fruitful? 2. Assess the current and potential contributions, and limitations, of rational-actor models to inquiry in Comparative Politics. To what topics or issues are they bestsuited? To which do they appear least relevant? 3. Have the most important theoretical and/or methodological developments in Comparative Politics in the past twenty years come from within the subfield of Comparative, or from outside of it? Describe the importance of the development(s) and explain whether the endogenous or exogenous source bears any importance for the field of Comparative Politics.

Page 47 Section II (Questions emphasizing substantive knowledge of theories, concepts, regions and issue-areas) Write essays on two of the following questions. 1. What is the role of force in comparative politics? 2. Institutional analysis has flourished in comparative politics in recent years, with institutions serving as both independent and dependent variables. What explains the resurgence of institutional analysis? What value has it added and what shortcomings remain? 3. Develop a testable hypothesis related to the concept of civil society. Explain the reason you have developed this hypothesis and the method you will use to test your hypothesis. Why have you selected this method over other methods? 4. Political scientists have often suggested constitutional engineering, in terms of both territorial and partisan distributions of power, as a means of reducing conflict in ethnically divided societies. Discuss a case each of relatively "successful" and "unsuccessful" constitutional change in divided societies, drawing on the broadly comparative and theoretical literature to explain success and failure in those cases. 5. Nationalist passions and ideas are often seen as inimical to a democratic order and a decent society. What is the relationship between nationalism, modernity, and liberal democratic values? Examine the relationship with reference to at least two cases. 6. In DYNAMICS OF CONTENTION, McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly make two bold claims: That a wide array of phenomena can be understood through a unified logic of "contentious politics" and that much of accumulated social movement theory needs fundamental rethinking. What are the strengths and weaknesses of their arguments? Should we seek a unified field theory of contentious politics, and must we transcend social-movement perspectives in order to do so effectively? 7. Democratization was a dominant theme in the study of comparative politics during the 1990s. Is democratization today best understood as an ongoing systemic trend, a tendency that has largely run its course, a mislabeling of more complex trends and tendencies, a fundamentally flawed conceptualization, or none of the above?

Page 48

COMPARATIVE POLITICS FIELD EXAM QUESTIONS August, 2008 This comprehensive examination is intended to test your knowledge of the field of comparative politics and your ability to formulate compelling responses to questions and statements. You are expected to answer three questions, one from Part I and two from Part II. Each of your responses should be approximately 8 pages (double-spaced, 12point font) in length. Your responses should reflect both your command of major works in comparative politics, which should be cited in your bibliography, and your ability to be a critical and creative thinker. Mere reviews of the literature will not suffice for a passing mark. Your answers should confront the questions directly and should contain coherent arguments and/or positions supported by logical reasoning and facts. Section I (More Analytical, conceptual, and methodological questions) Write an essay on one of the following questions. 1. What is the theoretical and empirical role of context in comparative politics and how has the emphasis on context changed over time? Illustrate your answer with examples from some of the major works in comparative politics. 2. The New Institutionalism in political science is in universal agreement that institutions matter. There are, however, significant disagreements amongst institutionalists regarding the proper approach to the study of institutionalism. Briefly outline the dominant approaches to institutionalism (historical, sociological, rational choice, others) and after defining the approach discuss each approaches strengths and weaknesses using major works in comparative politics. 3. Many comparativists now employ mechanisms as explanatory tools. What are mechanisms and how are they currently used in inquiry? What are the connections among theories, hypotheses, models, and mechanisms?

Page 49 Section II (Questions emphasizing substantive knowledge of theories, concepts, regions, and issue-areas) Write essays on two of the following questions. 1. Many individual scholars work on the comparative politics of India and China. Why are these regions not more well-integrated into mainstream comparative politics? 2. For a long time, most of the core questions in comparative politics were generated by the study of Western Europe. Then, studies of the developing world became more prominent. What contribution can studies of Western Europe continue to make to understanding the big questions of comparative politics? 3. Following democratic transitions in Latin America and Southern Europe as well as the revolutions of 1989, there was a widespread sentiment that authoritarian dictatorships were compromised and liberal values and institutions will prevail worldwide. Discuss the main strengths and weaknesses of this approach. Focus on the rise of illiberal democracies and examine the theories of competitive authoritarian regimes. 4. Nationalism and modernity have often been seen as either natural allies or antagonistic rivals. Examine the relationship between nationalism, liberal values, and political modernity, focusing on at least one case study. 5. How has the paradigmatic shift from primordialism to constructivism changed the study of ethnic politics? Illustrate your argument with examples from the early and more recent literature. 6. In the field of comparative politics, the study of contentious politics has not been well integrated into studies of political economy, public policy, democratization, and voting and elections. Comment.

Page 50

COMPARATIVE POLITICS FIELD EXAM QUESTIONS January, 2009 This comprehensive examination is intended to test your knowledge of the field of comparative politics and your ability to formulate compelling responses to questions and statements. You are expected to answer three questions, one from Part I and two from Part II. Each of your responses should be approximately 8 pages (double-spaced, 12point font) in length. Your responses should reflect both your command of major works in comparative politics, which should be cited in your bibliography, and your ability to be a critical and creative thinker. Mere reviews of the literature will not suffice for a passing mark. Your answers should confront the questions directly and should contain coherent arguments and/or positions supported by logical reasoning and facts. Section I (More Analytical, conceptual, and methodological questions) Write an essay on one of the following questions. 1. Comparativists often draw on work in psychology, history, economics, sociology, and anthropology. Choose two important books or articles written by comparativists that borrow from other disciplines and critically evaluate these contributions. Have comparativists simply borrowed ideas and methods, or have they also made original contributions to the core ideas of these disciplines? 2. What is the "area studies versus social science" debate, and how does it differ from the "quantitative versus qualitative methods" debate? As we attempt to understand the social and political world, under what conditions will "area studies" yield particularly significant returns, and under what conditions will "social science" yield particularly significant returns? 3. Is there a combination of logic of inquiry, methods, and substance that distinguishes Comparative Politics from other subfields in political science?

Page 51

Section II (Questions emphasizing substantive knowledge of theories, concepts, regions, and issue-areas) Write essays on two of the following questions. 1. Studies of civil war have not been much influenced by the field of contentious politics. Why? Has it mattered? 2. In your judgment, what is the best theory in the Comparative subfield of terrorism studies? Why do you think it's a better theory than its two or three principal competitors? 3. What are the major social psychological approaches to the study of ethnic politics, and what are the major rationality approaches? On what points do they overlap and on what points do they diverge, and how can we reconcile them? 4. Is there a real difference between liberal (civic) nationalism and illiberal forms of nationalism? What are the main features of a liberal nationalism? Is nationalism a homogenous ideological and politic project? 5. "Democratization" has been a hot topic in comparative politics for the past decade or more. How (if at all) has the more recent era of democratization studies furthered our knowledge compared to what came before? Be sure your answer includes discussion of both theory and empirics. 6. Why have studies of Western Europe, Latin America, and Africa been the venues for much comparative theory, whereas East Asia and the Middle East have not? Is this likely to change in the future?

Page 52

COMPARATIVE POLITICS FIELD EXAM QUESTIONS August, 2009 This comprehensive examination is intended to test your knowledge of the field of comparative politics and your ability to formulate compelling responses to questions and statements. You are expected to answer three questions, one from Part I and two from Part II. Each of your responses should be approximately 8 pages (double-spaced, 12point font) in length. Your responses should reflect both your command of major works in comparative politics, which should be cited in your bibliography, and your ability to be a critical and creative thinker. Mere reviews of the literature will not suffice for a passing mark. Your answers should confront the questions directly and should contain coherent arguments and/or positions supported by logical reasoning and facts. Part I: Theory and Methods Write an essay on one of the following questions. 1. A classic article by Arend Lijphart (1970) critiques small-N comparative analyses and single-case studies. What are the comparative advantages and the methodological limitations of such research designs, and what strategies can comparativists employ to overcome the limitations? 2. What distinguishes the comparative method from other approaches of political analysis and what are the relative advantages and drawbacks of the comparative method? Within comparative analysis how should a researcher select the particular form (statistical, formal, content, survey, network analysis etc.) for her inquiry? 3. The study of comparative politics is rife with discussion of mechanisms. What are mechanisms and how are they adequate as explanatory tools? With reference to specific examples, discuss how mechanisms help to further the integration of theories, hypotheses, and methodology, and help us produce better political science.

Page 53

Part II: Substantive Areas Write answers to two of the three substantive areas you indicated you would like to be examined in (as noted in brackets). Nationalism/ethnic politics Classical accounts of ethnic politics asserted ethnicity to be a primordial or essential "given," whereas more recent scholarship has argued that ethnicity is socially constructed. To what degree is constructivism a testable theory as opposed to a more nebulous "approach"? Under what conditions, if any, is it defensible to treat ethnicity as if it were given? For what social phenomena are constructivist arguments too central to disregard? Democratization Some authors consider the revolutions of 1989 as the triumph, the revival, the rebirth, or the return, of civil society. Analyze the main approaches to the concept of civil society as a precondition for democratization and a major component of democratic consolidation. Choose two cases to illustrate your argument. Is a dynamic civil society conducive to democratic stability? Institutions Prior to the behavioral revolution in political science, institutions were the core focus of study. After some decades in hibernation, institutions once more emerged as a central focus of study. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the newer version of institutionalism, compared to the old, and have we arrived at the final version of institutionalism? Political Development and CPE Many recent studies of economic development have posited a strong causal role for political institutions, yet many classic and recent studies argue that institutions and development are endogenous. What are the competing arguments for the role of institutions, are the arguments contradictory or complementary, and what empirical strategies are available to disentangle the causality knot?

Page 54

COMPARATIVE POLITICS FIELD EXAM QUESTIONS January, 2010 This comprehensive examination is intended to test your knowledge of the field of comparative politics and your ability to formulate compelling responses to questions and statements. You are expected to answer three questions, one from Part I and two from Part II. Each of your responses should be approximately 8 pages (double-spaced, 12point font) in length. Your responses should reflect both your command of major works in comparative politics, which should be cited in your bibliography, and your ability to be a critical and creative thinker. Mere reviews of the literature will not suffice for a passing mark. Your answers should confront the questions directly and should contain coherent arguments and/or positions supported by logical reasoning and facts. Section I (More Analytical, conceptual, and methodological questions) 1. Choose 3 examples of mixed-methods research published during the last 3 years in comparative politics. How do the qualitative methods contribute to the quantitative methods, and how do the quantitative methods support the qualitative methods? Are the papers stronger for including both types of methods, or did the combination produce little added value? 2. "In contemporary comparative politics, Marxism is dead and dependency theory even deader. Rational choice theories of democracy and markets killed off those literatures and now dominate the field." Do you agree with this assessment? In answering this question, make sure to offer examples of work down within the last 3 years. 3. Selection bias is pervasive in empirical analysis when scholars pick their cases purposively. Describe selection bias and the threats to inference it causes using illustrations from the literature. Explain strategies that scholars have used to minimize the risks of selection bias, particularly in studies using just a few cases. Have they been successful?

Page 55

Section II (Questions emphasizing substantive knowledge of theories, concepts, regions, and issue-areas) 1. Conflict: What do contemporary theories of culture and values have to say about conflict? To address this question, pick three major studies of culture and values done within the last three years and indicate how conflict is a significant part of the analysis. 2. Democratization: Discuss the differences between consolidated liberal democracies, illiberal democracies, and facade democracies. Examine the dynamics of what Way and Levitsky call competitive authoritarian regimes, with at least one case study discussed. 3. Political Institutions: A long time ago (1968) in a galaxy far, far away (Cambridge), Samuel Huntington proposed that, for developing countries, the type of government used was less important than the degree of government. Explain what he meant by that, connecting it to a venerable and on-going debate about the relative importance of regime type and institutional quality for development.

Page 56

COMPARATIVE POLITICS FIELD EXAM QUESTIONS August, 2010 This comprehensive examination is intended to test your knowledge of the field of comparative politics and your ability to formulate compelling responses to questions and statements. You are expected to answer three questions, one from Part I and two from Part II. Each of your responses should be no more than 8 pages (double-spaced, 12-point font) in length. Your responses should reflect both your command of major works in comparative politics (which should be cited in your bibliography) and your ability to think critically and creatively. Mere reviews of the literature will not suffice for a passing mark. Your answers should directly confront the questions posed here, and should contain coherent arguments and/or positions supported by logical reasoning and facts.

Part I (More Analytical, conceptual, and methodological questions) [one answer required of all students] 1. Pick three examples of work in comparative politics that mix quantitative and qualitative methods. For each, indicate how the methods complement each other. In your view, must all research in comparative politics combine both quantitative and qualitative methods? Why or why not?

2. Comparativists have increasingly begun to employ field experiments in their empirical work. Compare the strengths and weaknesses of such an approach to more established, non-experimental field methods. Under what conditions, if any, do field experiments provide viable options for our empirical work?

3. According to Lichbach (1992) nobody cites nobody else. Provide examples and discuss the consequences for the accumulation of knowledge in Comparative Politics? What are some exceptions to this rule and what is the advantage for studies that do build on prior findings?

Page 57

Part II (Questions emphasizing substantive knowledge of theories, concepts, regions, and issue-areas) Conflict 4. How do structure and culture shape the classic arguments in Comparative conflict studies such as those of Moore, Skocpol, and Anderson and what is the role (if any) of structure and culture in current arguments about conflict? Collective Action 5. Collective action theory and bargaining theory are two rational-choice approaches to politics. What are the connections between them? How do they differ? Ethnic Politics and Nationalism 6. Nationalism is often described as an antiliberal, manipulative ideology. Examine the relationship between nationalism and political modernity, focusing on at least one specific case. Institutions 7. The debate in Comparative Politics building on the juxtaposition of Lijpart's and Horowitz' institutional solutions for reducing ethnic conflict has stalled with the idea that consociationalism "makes all politics about ethnicity" and first past the post masks "the underlying conflict." Explaining the debate and, drawing on the work of current scholars, propose a research agenda to move the conversation forward. Democratization 8. Is democratization, as a dependent variable, interesting anymore, or has the literature run its course for the time being? Discuss areas of progress and where major theoretical and empirical holes remain. You should reference empirical cases in your answer.

Page 58

COMPARATIVE POLITICS FIELD EXAM QUESTIONS January 2011 This comprehensive examination is intended to test your knowledge of the field of comparative politics and your ability to formulate compelling responses to questions and statements. You are expected to answer three questions, one from Part I and two from Part II. Each of your responses should be no more than 8 pages (double-spaced, 12-point font) in length. Your responses should reflect both your command of major works in comparative politics (which should be cited in your bibliography) and your ability to think critically and creatively. Mere reviews of the literature will not suffice for a passing mark. Your answers should directly confront the questions posed here, and should contain coherent arguments and/or positions supported by logical reasoning and facts. Part I: (Analytical, conceptual, and methodological questions). 1. A favorite question in job talks is, "How could you have proven your argument wrong?" Discuss the role of counterfactuals and falsification in one quantitative and one qualitative methodology. What do the similarities and differences reveal about methodology in general in today's comparative politics? 2. How does one get inferential leverage from case studies? Distinguish between how to use a single case, a small-n sample and a large-n sample. How does one go about drawing inference differently from the observation of case outcomes and tracing processes within cases? 3. In the last few years, the field of Comparative Politics has become more diverse, more specialized, and less region-dependent. While in the past most academic searches sought region specialists, now they advertise for scholars within sub fields i.e. comparative legislatures, comparative elections, comparative judicial systems, comparative democratization, etc. Is this change representing a shift in how the field is conducting research or is it just a marketing strategy? What is gained (lost) when scholars specialize in particular sub-fields? What are new classics that describe the advantages of each approach?

Page 59

Part II: (Questions emphasizing substantive knowledge of theories, concepts, regions, and issue-areas). Conflict. 1. IR's bargaining theory of war has come to dominate studies of civil war. Has this been a good thing or a bad thing? Your answer should discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the theory as applied to sub-national conflict politics. 2. Charles Tilly has turned out to be one of the most important thinkers in conflict studies. In a career spanning 5 decades, he has made seminal contributions to just about every part of the field. Take any 3 of his arguments and indicate the problems they are designed to address, the assumptions they make, and the evidence for their claims. Democracy/democratization: 1. A positive relationship between development and democracy is one the most significant (and studied) statistical regularities in the Comparative Politics field. After fifty years of scholarly debate seeking to explain the determinants of this remarkable empirical finding, what have we learned? 2. Discuss the theory of competitive authoritarianism in light of previous theories of authoritarianism. What leverage does offer compared to earlier theories of democratization and authoritarianism? Refer to at least two empirical cases of competitive authoritarianism in your answer. Institutions 1. In the field of comparative politics, scholars have variously argued about the relative importance of formal institutions, informal institutions, institutional weakness, and the lack of institutions. Are all of these authors talking about the same issue? Is the difference a matter of institutional substance or a reflection of differences in institutional approaches? Provide important examples in the literature that capture the problems discussed in your answer. 2. The study of political institutions has produced two broad conclusions: (1) that institutions matter and (2) that institutions are endogenous. Discuss the theoretical and methodological problems that arise when studying the effects of institutions when the institutions themselves are endogenous. What theoretical or methodological tools can we use to assess the effects of institutions in light of this endogeneity?