Seminar in Comparative Politics
3700: 620
Professor Karl Kaltenthaler
Office: Olin 214
Tel: 330-972-8060
E-mail: [email protected]
Office hours: Mondays and Wednesdays 1-3
Course Description
This course examines some the major issues and theories of comparative politics.
Because comparative politics is such a vast field, we will only be able to sample a portion
of what comparativists have been studying over the past several decades.
The aim of the course is to educate graduate students about comparative politics by
critical examination of much of the salient literature in the sub-field as well as learning
through doing. Students will construct their own comparative study during the course of
the semester that will help them hone their skills of comparative inquiry.
The Way the Course Will Run
This course will be run as a seminar, which entails a great deal of student input into
discussions of the course material and minimal lecturing on my part. Every week, a
group of five students must be prepared to lead the class discussion. Each student is
required to prepare class discussion on a reading or set of readings assigned to each of the
five students for a particular week. Students will be assigned readings to prepare in
alphabetical order. The readings are listed in the syllabus. The students who are to lead
class discussion on a particular reading(s) will be known as a rapporteur. Each
rapporteur will give a presentation on his/her assigned reading that will last between ten
and fifteen minutes. The students’ presentations will focus on the following questions
related to each reading:
-What is the central question the work addresses?
-What are the principal theoretical arguments (hypotheses) made by the work?
- What are the empirical findings of the work, if any?
- What are the empirical strengths and weaknesses of the work?
- What are the broader implications of the work for the study of comparative politics?
Ten minutes of discussion led by myself will follow each of the rapporteurs’
presentations.
Following the presentations and the discussion, we will take a ten minute break. When
we return from the break, I will lead a lecture/discussion on the topic of discussion for the
week. This will take up the remainder of the class time each week.
Research Presentations and Papers
Students will be required to create and present a comparative study of some aspect of
politics in two countries. The students will pick one of the possible research topics from
the list provided by the instructor. Students are to pick the countries themselves.
Possible topics (not an exclusive list):
-Why does country x have a two party system and country y has a multi-party system?
-Why does country x have a stable form of coalition government but country y has
unstable coalitions?
- Why does country x have a high inflation rate but country y has low inflation?
- Why has country x developed economically but country y has not?
- Why does country x have a great deal of corruption but country y does not?
- Why is the government in country x popular but the government in country y is not?
- Why is country x democratic but country y is not?
- Why does country x have a great deal of political violence but country y does not?
- Why is the citizenry in country x opposed to abortion but not in country y?
- Why does the government of country x abuse the rights of its citizens but not in country
y?
Each research project must focus on the following questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
What is the dependent variable?
Why is this an important dependent variable?
Why study these cases?
Is it a most similar systems or most different systems study?
What are the hypotheses?
Which theories support the hypotheses?
Does the empirical evidence found support or refute the hypotheses?
Does the set of findings weaken or strengthen a particular line of thinking in
comparative politics theory?
9. What modifications could be made to the theory that would strengthen it?
10. What other research questions are raised by the study?
Each student will both present the study verbally as well as hand it in as a research paper.
The presentation will come toward the end of the semester. The paper will be handed in
the last day of class.
The presentation will last twenty-thirty minutes for each student, followed by twenty
minutes of questions and feedback from the rest of the class. The presentation is
meant to give students the opportunity to practice the important art of a professional
presentation, but also, it gives the student the chance to get insightful and corrective
feedback on their research that they can incorporate into their research paper. The
research paper is an important opportunity to learn comparative politics by doing as well
as fine-tuning one’s writing skills. The paper is to be 18-22 pages long. Students will
be assigned times to present in reversed alphabetical order.
Course Requirements and Grading
It is expected that each student will do all of the assigned readings by the date of
assignment. Although discussions will cover the readings, they may also cover material
that is not in the readings; the student is responsible for the material in both the readings
and the lectures. As participation in the class is 50% of the grade, be prepared to add to
class discussion. This means coming to each class having read the material and being
able to offer your input. The class participation grade is based on attendance,
evidence of having done the reading, frequency of participation, and cogency of
class comments.
Your participation grade will be given as one of four possible grades. A student can get
an A (which equals a percentage score of A (93%) for outstanding participation, B (83%)
for good participation, C (73%) very little participation, and D (63%) no active
participation. There are just these four grades for participation.
Each unexcused absence will lead to an automatic five percent drop in the student’s final
percentage score. Leaving class during break will be counted as an absence.
Papers will be graded according to their addressing the questions outlined in this
syllabus. Also, they must be cogent, clear, concise, and the signified length. Short
papers will be docked by three percentage points for every page they are above or
below the allowed range. Late papers will not be accepted!
Presentations must also follow the questions outlined in the syllabus and must be cogent,
concise and stick to the time limits. Presentations above or below the time limit of 20-30
minutes will be penalized one percentage point for every minute the presentation is
above or below the time limits. Missed presentations cannot be made up!
Rapportuering will be graded on the student’s performance in terms of addressing the
questions outlined above, making a coherent presentation, and sticking to the time limit.
The grade breakdown is as follows:
Participation: 50%
Paper: 20%
Presentation: 20%
Rapportuering: 10%
NOTE BENE: It is the responsibility of the student to notify the instructor, beforehand,
if they are unable to complete any of the class responsibilities at the assigned time.
Presentations must be done on the assigned day at the assigned time unless the
student is too ill to do ir or their has been a death in the family. No rescheduling
because of travel plans!
Office Hours
I strongly encourage you to discus anything related to the class in my office hours. My
office hours are 1-3 on Mondays and Wednesdays. I am also happy to meet you in
outside of my posted office hours. If you cannot meet me during my office hours,
please e-mail me and make an appointment. This will ensure you ample time with
me to speak.
IMPORTANT: Readings with bullets next to them are required for all students to
read for class.
Class Schedule
Jan 11: Introduction: What is Comparative Politics?
Jan 18: Theoretical Approaches
•David Collier. 1993. “The Comparative Method;” In The State of the Discipline II
Edited by Ida Finifter.
•Comparative Politics. 1993. “Comparative Politics.” In The State of the Discipline II
Edited by Ida Finifter.
Mattei Dogan and Dominique Pelassy. 1990. “The Choice of Countries.” In How To
Compare Nations. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
•James Bill and Robert Hargrave. 1981. Chp.1 in Comparative Politics: The Quest for
Theory.
Robert Bates, Chalmers Johnson, and Ian Lustick. 1997. “Controversy in the Discipline:
Area Studies and Comparative Politics.” PS: Political Science and Politics 30 (2): 16679.
Jan 25: Political Culture
•Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba. 1963. Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and
Democracy in Five Nations. Chps 1 and 2;
Next Person Almond and Verba Chps 3 and 12.
•Gabriel Almond and Sideny Verba. Eds. 1980. The Civic Culture Revisted. Chps.
1,3,5,7.
Ronald Inglehart. 1988. “The Renaissance of Political Culture.” American Political
Science Review. 82 (4) 1203-30.
David Elkin and Richard Simeon. 1979. “A Cause in Search of Effect, or What Does
Political Culture Explain?” Comparative Politics 11(2): 127-146.
Feb 1: Party Systems
•Philip Converse. 1964. The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and
Discontent, ed. David Apter. New York Free Press, 206-261.
•Anthony Downs. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy., Chps 3-4.
Lijphart, Arend. 1990. “The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws, 1945-85.”
American Political Science Review 84 (2): 481-496.
•Seymour Lipset and Stein Rokkan. 1967. “Party Systems and Voter Alignments,” In
Seymour M. Lipset and Stein Rokkan, eds., Party Systems and Voter Alignments. New
York: Free Press, pp. 1-64.
Bradley Richardson. 1991. “European Party Loyalties Revisited.” American Political
Science Review. 85(3): 751-775.
Feb 8: Democratization
•Seymour Martin Lipset. “Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic
Development and Political Legitimacy.” American Political Science Review. 53 (1): 69105.
Edward Muller and Mitchell Seligson. 1994. Civic Culture and Democracy: The
Question of Causal Relationships.” American Political Science Review. 88 (3): 635-652.
Arend Lijphart. 1996. “The Puzzle of Indian Democracy: A Consociational
Interpretation.” American Political Science Review. 90 (2): 258-268.
Ross Burkhart and Michael Lewis-Beck. 1994. “Comparative Democracy: The Economic
Development Thesis.” American Political Science Review 88(4): 903-10.
•Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi. 1997. “Modernization: Theories and Facts.”
World Politics 49 (2): 155-183.
Feb 15: Politics of Economic Development
•W. W. Rostow. 1971. Politics and the Stages of Growth. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 54-97.
•Mancur Olson. 2000. Power and Prosperity. New York: Basic Books, pp. 89-100.
•Douglass North. 1981. Structure and Change in Economic History. New York: Norton.,
pp. 45-58.
Karl Polyani. 1944. The Great Transformation. Pp. 33-67.
Jim Granato, Ronald Inglehart, and David Leblang. 1996. “The Effects of Cultural
Values on Economic Development: Theory, Hypotheses, and Some Empirical Tests.” In
Mitchell Seligson and John Passé Smith.
Feb 22: Civil Unrest
Christian Davenport. 1996. “Constitutional Promises’ and Repressive Reality: A Crossnational Time Series Investigation of Why Political and Civil Liberties are Suppressed.
Journal of Politics 58 (3): 627-654.
Ted Gurr and Will Moore. 1997. “Ethnopolitical Rebellion: A Cross-Sectional Analysis
of the 1980s with Risk Assessments for the 1990s. American Journal of Political Science
41 (4): 1079-1103.
•Havard Hegre, Tanja Ellingsen, Scott Gates, and Nils Petter Gelditsch. 2001. “Toward a
Democratic Civil Peace? Democracy, Political Change, and Civil War, 1816-1992.
American Political Science Review 95(1): 33-48.
•Ronald Francisco. 1993. “Theories of Protest and Revolution of 1989.” American
Journal of Political Science. 73 (3): 663-680.
Leonard Weinberg. 1991. “Turning to Terror.” SAIS Review. 11 (2): 423-438.
Feb 29: Social Capital
•Robert Putnam. 1995. “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital” Journal of
Democracy. 6.1: 65-78.
•Eric Uslaner. 2000-1. “Producing and Consuming Trust” Political Science Quarterly.
115 (4): 569-590.
Bo Rothstein and Eric Uslaner. 2005. “All for All: Equality, Corruption, and Social
Trust” World Politics. 58: 41-72.
Alberto Alesina and Eliana La Ferrara. 2002. “Who Trusts Who?” Journal of Public
Economics. 85: 207-234.
March 7: Discussion of Preparations for Presentations
March 14: No Class (Spring Break)
March 21: Presentations
March 28: Presentations
April 4: Presentations
April 11: Presentations
April 18: Presentations
April 25: Presentations (if needed)
May 2: Paper due in my mailbox at 12 pm