University of Oslo
The Faculty of Social Sciences
Oslo Summer School in
Comparative Social Science Studies 2017
Democracy and Democratization
Lecturer: Professor David Samuels
Department of Political Science
University of Minnesota, USA
Main disciplines: Political Science,
Political Economy
Dates: 24 – 28 July 2017
Course Credits: 10 pts (ECTS)
Limitation: 25 participants
Objectives
This course explores one of the oldest--and arguably the most important--question in
comparative politics: What explains variation in political “regime type” - democracy
and dictatorship - across time and space? What makes some political regimes durable
while others are fragile? The course has no geographic focus and pays little attention to
the question of the consequences of democracy or dictatorship. It focuses instead on
defining and “measuring” democracy; the macro- and micro-political logics of regime
change; the possibility of democratic “deepening” or consolidation; and the recent
emergence of “hybrid” or “illiberal” democracies.
Specific requirements
All students must obtain and read this book in advance of the course, and in particular
chapters 1-3, 5-6.

Ben Ansell and David Samuels. 2014. Inequality and Democratization: An EliteCompetition Approach. Cambridge University Press.
University of Oslo
The Faculty of Social Sciences
Course outline
Lecture 1: Political Philosophy and “Empirical Democratic Theory”
This lecture explores how social scientists have defined democracy, and how we
distinguish between democracy and non-democracy. In particular it focuses on the
principles of the “realist” or “minimalist” theory of democracy, and then contrasts these
principles with other theories of democracy, and considers the conceptual, theoretical
and empirical advantages and/or disadvantages of using the minimalist theory as a
basis for comparative research.
Required Readings:




John Dunn, 1979. “Democratic Theory.” In Western Political Theory in the Face
of the Future, pp. 1-28.
Joseph Schumpeter, 1942. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. Ch. 21-22
Robert A. Dahl, 1977. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. pp 1-16.
Adam Przeworski, 1999. “Minimalist Democracy: A Defense.” In Ian Shapiro and
Casiano Hacker-Cordón, Democracy’s Value.
Lecture 2: Research on Regime Change: Vague Theories + Messy Data = ???
This lecture explores the different ways scholars have measured the distinction between
democracy and dictatorship, as well as “gradations” of each type of regime. We will
compare and contrast “dichotomous” versus “continuous” measures, and assess the
conceptual and theoretical challenges all empirical research confronts, and the
advantages and disadvantages of different approaches to “operationalizing” the
distinction between democracy and dictatorship.
Required Readings:



Adam Przeworski, et al. 2000. Democracy and Development. Chapter 1.
Gerardo Munck and Jay Verkuilen. 2002. “Conceptualizing and Measuring
Democracy: Evaluating Alternative Indices,” CPS 35: 5-34.
Michael Coppedge, 2013. Democratization and Research Methods, Ch. 2.
P age 2 o f 7
Lecture 3: The Class-Conflict Approach and Macro-Historical Analysis
This lecture introduces students to classic “macro-historical” approaches to explaining
regime change. It first explains what we mean by “structuralism” in social science,
explores how scholars consider the relationship between “structures” (whether
ideational or material) and political “agency,” and compares and contrasts different
approaches to understanding who the important actors are and why they fight for
regime change. It asks under what conditions might democratization be considered a
“mass” or “elite” project, and explores the relevance of such “classic” theories for
understanding more recent cases of transition in non-western contexts.
Required readings:



Karl Marx. 1852. The 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon. Chs. 1 & 7. Available online at www.marxists.org.
Barrington Moore Jr. 1967. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Ch. 1
Dietrich Rueschemeyer et al., 1992. Capitalist Development and Democracy. Chs.
1-2.
Lecture 4: Modernization Theory - Democracy and Economic Development?
This lecture asks students to ponder the posited causal connection(s) between economic
change and political change – to attempt to identify the precise hypotheses of
modernization theory. It asks students to attempt to identify the theory’s causal
arguments, weigh the available evidence for different time-periods and regions of the
world, and consider where research on this question might head in the future.
Required Readings:



Adam Przeworski et al, 2000. Democracy and Development. Ch. 2.
Carles Boix and Susan Stokes, 2003. “Endogenous Democratization.” World
Politics.
Michael Coppedge, 2013. Democratization and Research Methods, Ch. 9.
P age 3 o f 7
Lecture 5: Democratization as Redistributive Threat from the Poor?
This lecture explores the recent shift away from modernization theory’s emphasis on the
alleged political impact of growth in GDP per capita (“average” income) and towards the
alleged political impact of different relative distributions (equal or unequal) of income
or wealth. We explore the strengths and weaknesses of “redistributivist” theories of
regime change, focusing on the median-voter theory itself and the purported connection
between the relative mobility of a country’s economic assets and the likelihood of
democratization.
Required Readings:


Carles Boix. 2003. Democracy and Redistribution. Chs. 1-2 (skip appendices)
Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson. 2006. Economic Origins of Dictatorship
and Democracy. Chs. 1-2
Lecture 6: Democratization as Threat of Expropriation from the State?
In this lecture we contrast Ansell & Samuels’ retort to redistributivist theories of regime
change, focusing on the theoretical differences between “fear of redistribution” and “fear
of expropriation.” The lecture will consider the core differences between “median voter”
and “elite competition” models of democratization.
Required Reading:

Ben Ansell and David Samuels. 2014. Inequality and Democratization: An EliteCompetition Approach. Chs. 1-3, 5-6
P age 4 o f 7
Lecture 7: Democratic Attitudes and Regime Change
This lecture explores the idea that mass political attitudes measured at the individual
level are important sources of the emergence, survival, and/or quality of democracy, or
all of the above. We start with classic arguments and explore how this approach has
evolved over the years. In particular the lecture explores the relationship between core
ideas of modernization theory and the importance of mass attitudes. We then consider
the ways in which this research agenda has responded or adjusted to theoretical and/or
methodological critiques.
Required Reading:



Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel, 2005. Modernization, Cultural Change,
and Democracy. Chs. 1, 7-8.
Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel, 2010. “Changing Mass Priorities: The
Link between Modernization and Democracy.” Perspectives on Politics 8(2): 551567.
Edward Muller and Mitchell Seligson, 1994. “Civic Culture and Democracy: the
Question of Causal Relationships.” APSR 88(3): 635-652.
Lecture 8: International Factors
This lecture explores the main supra-national mechanisms alleged to be driving regime
change, and then considers which is most convincing in terms of theory and evidence. It
then attempts to weigh the relative importance of domestic versus supra-national
factors, returning to the discussion of “endogenous” democratization and “waves” of
regime change.
Required reading:





Samuel Huntington. 1991. The Third Wave. Chapters 1-2.
Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way. 2006. “Linkage versus Leverage.” Comparative
Politics
Daniel Brinks and Michael Coppedge. 2006. “Diffusion is No Illusion: Neighbor
Emulation in the Third Wave of Democracy” Comparative Political Studies 39(4)
John Freeman and Dennis Quinn. 2010. “The Economic Origins of Democracy
Reconsidered.” APSR 106(1): 58-80.
Carles Boix, 2011. “Democracy, Development, and the International System.”
APSR 105(4)
P age 5 o f 7
Lecture 9: Democratic “Consolidation?”
The lecture first explores the definition of a “consolidated” democracy, and questions
whether any democracy ever fits that definition. It then asks on what basis we might
confidently affirm that a democracy is “consolidated,” considering the importance of
institutions, economic development and inequality, and other factors alleged to
contribute to regime stability. In particular we focus on Przeworski’s claim that
economic growth and inequality are unrelated to transitions to democracy but
important for the durability of democracy.
Required readings:




Guillermo O’Donnell. 1996. “Illusions about Consolidation.” J. Democracy 7: 3451.
Adam Przeworski et al. 1996. “What Makes Democracies Endure?” J. Democracy
7: 39-55.
Andreas Schedler. 2001. “Measuring Democratic Consolidation.” Studies in
Comparative International Development 36(1): 66-92.
Adam Przeworski, 2005. “Democracy as an Equilibrium,” Public Choice 123: 253273.
Lecture 10: Illiberal Democracies - or a Reverse Third Wave?
In the final lecture we consider recent world events, and ask whether evidence suggests
a “reverse” third wave is likely in the near future. Which democracies are the most
vulnerable to collapse into full-blown dictatorship? Which democracies are likely to
remain “stuck” as illiberal, rather than liberal democracies? What are the sources of
“illiberalism” in contemporary democracies? Are different factors working “against”
democracy today than in previous eras? What are the prospects for further erosion or
consolidation of democracy around the world?
Required readings:





Fareed Zakaria. 1997. “Illiberal Democracy.” Foreign Affairs.
Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way. 2002. “Elections Without Democracy: The Rise
of Competitive Authoritarianism.” Journal of Democracy 13(2): 51-66.
Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way. 2015. “The Myth of Democratic Recession.”
Journal of Democracy
Roberto Foa and Yascha Mounk. 2016. “The Democratic Disconnect.” Journal of
Democracy 27(3): 5-17.
Ronald Inglehart. 2016. “How Much Should We Worry?” Journal of Democracy
27(3): 18-23.
P age 6 o f 7
The lecturer
David Samuels is Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Political Science. He
received his Ph.D. from the University of California at San Diego in 1998. His research
and teaching interests include Brazilian and Latin American politics, US-Latin
American relations, and democratization.
Professor Samuels currently serves as co-editor of Comparative Political Studies. His
most recent book, Inequality and Democratization: An Elite-Competition Approach
(with Ben Ansell) (Cambridge University Press, 2014), won the American Political
Science Association's Woodrow Wilson Foundation award for "best book on politics,
government, or international affairs," as well as the William H. Riker best book prize
from the Political Economy Section of the American Political Science Association. He is
also the author of Presidents, Parties, and Prime Ministers (with Matthew Shugart)
(Cambridge University Press, 2010), Ambition, Federalism, and Legislative Politics in
Brazil (Cambridge University Press, 2003), and the co-editor of Decentralization and
Democracy in Latin America (University of Notre Dame Press, 2004). His introductory
undergraduate comparative politics textbook, Comparative Politics and countrycasebook Case Studies in Comparative Politics, are available from Pearson Higher
Education.
Professor Samuels has published articles in the American Political Science Review, the
American Journal of Political Science, Comparative Politics, Comparative Political
Studies, Legislative Studies Quarterly, and the British Journal of Political Science,
among others. He has received funding from the National Science Foundation (in 1996
and 1999) and the McKnight Foundation (in 2001), and was awarded Fulbright
Fellowships in 2004 and 2013.
P age 7 o f 7