efe

= =

http://crscomp.wikispaces.com/ = =

= = = = toc =Theory and Great Books=

3 traditions:
1. Briefly outline three major theoretical traditions in the field of comparative and regional studies. What are their similarities and differences? To what extent can they be combined?

2. Briefly present the ontological assumptions of two or three major methodologies currently used in the field of comparative and regional studies. Given these assumptions, to what extent can these different methodological schools be combined and used fruitfully to understand socio-political processes and outcomes?

3. Lichbach and Zudkerman argue that scholars in the field of comparative field of comparative and regional studies employ three types of methodologies: centralist, rationalist, and structuralist. Briefly present the ontological assumptions of these methodologies. Given theses assumptions, to what extend can these different methodological schools be combined and used fruitfully to understand socio-political processes and outcomes.

4. What do theories of postmodernism/poststructuralism contribute to comparative and regional studies? What are their strengths and weaknesses for analyzing concrete instances? Answer with reference to specific authors and empirical referents.

5. What are the principal costs and benefits associated with the use of rational choice theory in the study of comparative politics?

6. What are the principal similarities and differences among rationalist, institutionalist/structuralist and culturalist/discursive methodologies? What are the benefits and pitfalls of using more than one of these methodologies in a single study?

7. To what extent is it (im)possible to integrate the three broad epistemological schools of rationalism, institutionalism and culturalist approaches into a single analysis? Be sure to discuss actual works that exemplify your position.

8. Unlike physics, the study of international relations has multiple methodological approaches to explain socio-political interaction. a) Why are there multiple methodological approaches? b) Pick two and explain their ontologies and epistemologies. c) Is it advisable to use multiple methodological approaches in a single study? Why/Why not?

Middle-range theory:
1. Scholars in the field of comparative and regional studies rank among the most prolific producers of “middle range theory” in the social sciences. a) what is middle range theory? b) what are the strengths and weaknesses of middle range theory in scholarly inquiry? c) have comparative and regional studies in practice delivered in producing the hoped for outcomes of the proponents of middle range theory?

2. Have scholars in the field of comparative and regional studies actually succeeded in advancing our understanding of socio-political phenomena by undertaking “middle range research and aggregating the results? If so, please provide examples of some “settled questions and how they became so. If not please explain why not.

Social science methods: 1. KKV assert that there is a single logic of inference that underlies all good quantitative and qualitative research, namely, the scientific rules of inference (scientific method). Do you agree? First, justify your position. Second, give a brief (but fair) synopsis of an opposing view. Third, explain why you think the opposing view is ultimately not convincing.

2. Traditional comparative techniques attempt to generalize at the level of individual cases, seeking covering-laws that can account for systematic relationships between variables. Charles Tilly has argued that comparative work should instead seek to generalize at the level of causal mechanisms that replicate across cases but appear in different configurations. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each of these comparative approaches.

3. Samuel Barnes has observed, “Many, perhaps most, social science generalizations decay over time.” Do you agree or disagree? Why?

Social Theory
1. Classical social theories – Marx, Weber, and Durkheim – used the comparative method. Critically discuss their uses of comparative inquiry. In what respects did these authors agree and disagree about comparative analysis?

2.Identify the major debate in a social-theory approach to comparative and regional studies. What are the positions of “classical” social theorists in these debates? To what extent do new social theories advance understanding in these debates?

Readings
- Marc I. Lichbach and Alan S. Zuckerman, “Research Traditions and Theory in Comparative Politics: An Introduction,” in Marc I. Lichbach and Alan S. Zuckerman, eds., Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure (Cambridge UP, 1997), chap. 1,.
 * Session 1 (August 23): Qualitative Methods. **

- Gary King, Robert Keohane, and Sidney Verba, Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research (Princeton UP, 1994), pp. 3-230.

- James Mahoney, “After KKV: The New Methodology of Qualitative Research,” World Politics 62, no. 1 (January 2010):
 * Critics: **

- John Gerring, “The Case Study: What it is and What it Does,” in Carles Boix and Susan C. Stokes, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics (Oxford University Press, 2007), chap. 4,

- Margaret Levi, “Reconsiderations of Rational Choice in Comparative and Historical Analysis,” in Marc I. Lichbach and Alan S. Zuckerman, eds., Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure, 2nd edition, (Cambridge UP, 2009), chap. 5,.
 * Session 2 (August 30): Rational Choice. **

- Jon Elster, Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences (Cambridge UP, 1989), chaps. --, and ------, pp. 3-41, 71-81 and 91-171.

- Robert H. Bates, “From Case Studies to Social Science: A Strategy for Political Research,” in Carles Boix and Susan C. Stokes, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics (Oxford University Press, 2007), chap. 7,

- Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1968), Introduction and chaps. ,, and , pp. 1-65, 132-167 and 169-178.
 * Example **** : **


 * Critics **** : **

- Donald Green and Ian Shapiro, “Revisiting the Pathologies of Rational Choice,” chap. 2 in, I. Shapiro, The Flight from Reality in the Human Sciences (Princeton UP, 2005),.

- Terry Moe, “Power and Political Institutions,” Perspectives on Politics 3, no. 2 (June 2005):.

** Session 3 (September 13): The New Institutionalism(s). **  - Peter A. Hall and Rosemary Taylor, “Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms,” Political Studies 44 (December 1996),. - Paul Pierson and Theda Skocpol, “Historical Institutionalism in Contemporary Political Science,” in Ira Katznelson and Helen Milner, eds., Political Science: State of the Discipline II, Centennial Edition (NY: W.W. Norton, 2002),. - James G. March and Johan P. Olsen, Retrospective Commentary on, “The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life,” American Political Science Review 100, no. 4 (November 2006), ** Examples **** : ** - Jacob Hacker, “Privatizing Risk without Privatizing the Welfare State: The Hidden Politics of Social Policy Retrenchment in the United States,” American Political Science Review 98, no. 2 (May 2004),. - Douglass C. North, " Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance ,” (Cambridge University Press, 1990), chaps. and, , , pp. 3-10 and 73-104.

** Session 4 (September 20): Culture/Ideas/Identity: Constructivism and Critical Theory. **  - Max Horkheimer, “Traditional and Critical Theory,” in Critical Theory: Selected Essays (New York: Continuum, 1972), pp. 188-243. and - Jürgen Habermas, “On Systematically Distorted Communication,” Inquiry 13 (1970): - Jürgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, vol. II (Boston, Beacon, 1981), selection on “The Uncoupling of System and the Life World.” - Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish (New York: Pantheon, 1977), selections, “Panopticism” and “The Means of Correct Training.” - Michel Foucault, Power/Knowledge (New York: Pantheon, 1972),. - Paul R. Brass, “Foucault Steals Political Science,” in Nelson W. Polsby, ed., Annual Review of Political Science 3 (Palo Alto, Ca: Annual Reviews, 2000):

- Daniel M. Green, “Constructivist Comparative Politics: Foundations and Framework,” chap. 1 in D.M. Green, ed. Constructivism and Comparative Politics (Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe, 2002), pp. 3-59. (TAKEN OUT) - Patrick T. Jackson, Civilizing the Enemy: German Reconstruction and the Invention of the West (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2006), chap. 2, pp. 13-45. and

** Example: ** - Frank Dobbin, “The Social Construction of the Great Depression: Industrial Policy during the 1930s in the United States, Britain and France,” Theory and Society 22, no. 1 (1993), ** Critic **** : ** - Ian Hacking, The Social Construction of What? (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard UP, 1999), chap. 1,

=Contentious Politics/Revolutions=

Questions
** Spring 2003 ** The first and most prominent examples and analyses of "contentious politics" were almost exclusively centered on North Atlantic democracies. Is the concept of contentious politics a useful analytical lens when it is applied outside of its "home" region? Why/Why not? ** Fall 2003 ** McAdam, Tilly and Tarrow claim that a revolution is merely one form of "contentious politics." How do they justify this claim? Do you agree? To what extent is McAdam, Tilly and Tarrow's contention compatible with the work of either Jack Goldstone or Theda Skocpol? (Pick one). ** Summer 2004 (same as Spring 2003) ** The first and most prominent examples and analyses of "contentious politics" were almost exclusively centered on North Atlantic democracies. Is the concept of "contentious politics" a useful analytical lens when applied outside this region? Why/Why not?? ** Fall 2004 ** Using at least two theories of revolution that you have learned, is it likely that we will see more, fewer or the same number of revolutions in the future that we have seen in the past? ** Fall 2005 ** Some scholars claim that civil disobedience, revolutions and strikes are all examples of a larger phenomenon that they call contentious politics. Others treat these as analytically separate forms of human social action. Assess the strengths and weaknesses of each? ** Spring 2006 (same as Fall 2004) ** Is it likely that we will see greater, lesser or roughly the same frequency of revolution in the future as we have experienced in the past. Be sure to discuss at least two theories of revolution when making your argument. ** Spring 2007 (same as Fall 2003) ** McAdam, Tilly and Tarrow claim that a revolution is merely one form of "contentious politics." How do they justify this claim? To what extent is McAdam, Tilly and Tarrow’s contention compatible with the work of Theda Skocpol and at least one other prominent theorist of revolution?

Readings
- Jack A. Goldstone, “Toward a Fourth Generation of Revolutionary Theory,” in Nelson W. Polsby, ed., Annual Review of Political Science 4 (Palo Alto, California: Annual Reviews, 2001), - Charles Tilly and Sidney Tarrow, Contentious Politics (Boulder, Co.: Paradigm, 2007), entire. - This is a book. - Carles Boix, “Economic Roots of Civil Wars and Revolutions in the Contemporary World,” World Politics 60, no. 3 (April 2008),

=Democratization=

Questions
Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the leading contending explanations for the uneven spread of democratization throughout the world.

Is representative democracy a universal means of governance that can take root successfully in any part of the world?

Does the internal organization or external alignment of political parties affect the character and depth of democracy?

Representative democracy has spread, albeit unevenly, as a system of governance. Assess the leading scholarly explanations for the expansion and for the uneven distribution of representative democracy. Assess the likelihood that representative democracy will ultimately become the universal system of governance.

Define democracy and explain its relationship to the level of economic and political development.

The dynamics of economic reform are often represented by a J-curve. The J-curve capture how in state socialist and Import Substitution Industrialization economies, already in decline, the opening of trade and the deregulation of prices deepens that recession further. It is only in a second stage that these economies adjust to a new competitive environment, resources begin to be allocated efficiently, and recovery eventually follows. In other words, things get worse before they get better. This dynamic, however, poses serious challenges to the sustainability of these economic policy reforms, particularly in newly democratizing contexts, characterized by volatile electoral coalitions and fragile institutions. On this account, students of political economy have suggested different solutions to the J-curve conundrum. With references to at least two countries, and discussing relevant literature, first, assess the logic of the J-curve and, then, discuss possible ways of resolving this intertemporal problem.

Are state formation and democratization inimical? Be sure to ground your answer in the literature of both subfields.

Why do many of the new democracies from post-communist countries and the global south fall short along several standard measures of democratic performance? Are there two types of democracy, old and established versus new and diminished? What are the intellectual costs and benefits of such a bifurcation? What are the strengths and weaknesses intellectually of using qualifying adjectives (e.g., "illiberal," "delegative" and "hybrid") or other classifications (e.g., old and established versus new and not fully formed) to describe these states, as some authors do in the democratization literature?

Why has democratization taken place? What does the scholarship tell us about the timing of individual democratic transitions, democratic consolidation and the likelihood that ultimately all countries will adopt representative democracy?

Who is the driving force behind the creation of democracies, the elites or the masses?

Please assess the following assertion: “Perhaps the most common generalization linking political systems to other aspects of society has been that democracy is related to the state of economic development. The more well-to-do a nation, the greater the chances that it will sustain democracy.” – Seymour Martin Lipset

Readings
- Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson, “Paths of Economic and Political Development,” in Barry R. Weingast and Donald A. Wittman, eds., Oxford Handbook of Political Economy (Oxford UP, 2006), chap. 37,   - Barbara Geddes, “What Causes Democratization?” in Carles Boix and Susan C. Stokes, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics (Oxford UP, 2007), chap. 14,   - Adam Przeworski, “Self-Enforcing Democracy,” in Barry R. Weingast and Donald A. Wittman, eds., Oxford Handbook of Political Economy (Oxford UP, 2006), chap. 17,    - Charles Tilly, Democracy (Cambridge University Press, 2007), entire, pp. 1-205. - This is a book. =Political Culture=

Questions
Discuss whether/how the study of political culture improves our understanding of socio-political phenomena. Some scholars praise the importance of "social capital" in maintaining a viable representative democracy and promoting economic affluence, whereas others dismiss it. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the major conceptualizations of social capital as they have been debated in the literature. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the project of political culture scholars (e.g., Ronald Inglehart) to survey "world values" and then to arrange them on a two dimensional continuum? Assess the research in the subfield of political culture. What are some of the major arguments? To what extent do you find them convincing? How strong is the evidence supporting the claims? Are political culture and democracy related? Must one precede the other? Can democratization succeed without a compatible political culture? Can an open and pluralistic political culture fail to produce democratic governance? The literature on political culture as a crucial component for establishing and maintaining a stable democratic polity. Discuss the extent to which evidence (dis)confirms this claim.

Readings
- Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel, Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence (Cambridge University Press, 2005), chaps. 1-8, 13 and Conclusion, pp. 1-209 and 285-300. - This is a book. - James S. Coleman, Foundations of Social Theory (Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 1990), chap. 12,    -Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000), chaps. ,, , , and : pp. 15-28, 148-180, 183-188, 277-84, 287-95 and 350-63. - Robert W. Jackman and Ross A. Miller, “Social Capital and Politics,” in Nelson W. Polsby, ed., Annual Review of Political Science 1 (Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, 1998),

=Ethnicity/Nationalism=

Questions
Nationalism continues to thrive as an important phenomenon. Evaluate two arguments to explain the existence and persistence of nationalism. (Fall 2010) Where does nationalism come from? Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of three prominent theories of nationalism. (Spring 2009) Taking from the theories of at least three scholars on nationalism, discuss the possibility a "global nationalism." Must nationalism have an "other" to exist? How does the "primordial" argument fit into this possibility? (Fall 2007) Theorists of nationalism argue over the degree to which nationalism is a socially constructed product of modernity or a phenomenon that has deeper roots. Assess the arguments in this debate, drawing on the work of at least three prominent scholars of nationalism. (Spring 2007) Draw on three theories of nationalism to discuss the prospects of humanity achieving "global nationalism." (Fall 2006) From various theoretical perspectives in the subfield of nationalism, what are the prospects of humanity ever achieving a "global nationalism"? (Spring 2006) Theorists of nationalism argue over the degree to which nationalism is a product of modernization or something that has deeper roots. a) Assess the arguments in this debate. b) How does recent scholarship on "post modernity" affect this debate and our understanding of nationalism? (Fall 2004) Is nationalism really something that is wholly constructed? Address this proposition drawing on the argumentation of at least three prominent scholars of nationalism. (Fall 2003)

Readings
† Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, revised ed. (London: Verso, 1991), pp. 1-46 and 67-111. - Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism (Oxford University Press, 1983), chaps. , 5, 7 and 10, pp. 1-7, 53-62, 88-109, and 137-143. - Lloyd Kramer, “Historical Narratives and the Meaning of Nationalism,” Journal of the History of Ideas 58, no. 3 (July 1997):. - Anthony D. Smith, Nationalism and Modernism: A Critical Survey of Recent Theories of Nations and Nationalism (London: Routledge, 1998),  and Conclusion, pp. 8-24 and 170-228 (esp., pp. 187-198 for Smith summarizing himself).  I have no idea where the conclusion is. - Homi Bhabha, The Location of Culture (London: Routledge, 1994), selection on    - Partha Chatterjee, “Whose Imagined Community?” Millennium 20, no. 3 (Winter 1991):. - Ashutosh Varshney, “Ethnicity and Ethnic Conflict,” in Carles Boix and Susan C. Stokes, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics (Oxford University Press, 2007), chap. 12,

=State=

Questions
Is the state the same in its essentials throughout the world? Compare and contrast how scholars of the state have answered this question. Be sure to cover two or three regions in the world in your selection of scholars to assess the extent to which the most prominent theories of the state are universal. Evaluate the major theories of the state. Refer to specific books and authors. For decades scholars have predicted the demise of the state as the preeminent political institution for governance. Assess these arguments. In recent years, has state power become increasingly fluid? And in what respects are civil-society organizations (social movements) contesting the Weberian rationale of the state? To what extent have theorists explained this relationship? Which ones? What are the strengths and weaknesses of their work? Are state formation and democratization inimical? Be sure to ground your answer in the literature of both subfields. Indicate the ways in which varieties of capitalism and forms of the state relate to one another. What explains the uniformities and variation? For decades, scholars have repeatedly predicted the demise of the state as the preeminent political institution of governance. Assess these arguments in light of the literature put forth by theorists on both sides of this debate. What is civil society? Discuss different conceptualizations of the term, and tie these conceptualizations to theories of democratization and the state. Is civil society always good?

Readings
- Robert H. Bates, “The Role of the State in Development,” in B.R. Weingast and D.A. Wittman, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy (Oxford UP, 2006), chap. 39, .   - Hendrik Spruyt, “War, Trade, and State Formation,” in Carles Boix and Susan C. Stokes, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics (Oxford University Press, 2007), chap. 9,    - Charles Tilly, “War Making and State Making as Organized Crime,” in Peter Evans et al., eds., Bringing the State Back In (Cambridge University Press, 1985), chap. 5,    - Tuong Vu, “Studying the State through State Formation,” World Politics 62, no. 1 (January 2010):.

=Government Forms=

Questions
In what ways does the form of government matter? Discuss the impact of governmental performance of democracy vs. authoritarianism, and federalism vs. unitary government. Be sure to specify the dimensions of performance you are considering. What are the strengths and weaknesses that the literature has identified regarding presidential vs. parliamentary forms of government? Can one say that either presidentialism or parliamentarianism is a superior governing form? What are the advantages and disadvantages of federalism as a regime type?

Readings
- Pablo Beramendi, “Federalism,” in Carles Boix and Susan C. Stokes, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics (Oxford University Press, 2007), chap. 31, .   - Gary W. Cox, “The Organization of Democratic Legislatures,” in B.R. Weingast and D.A. Wittman, eds., Oxford Handbook of Political Economy (Oxford UP, 2006), chap. 8,    - John Ferejohn, Frances Rosenbluth and Charles Shipan, ”Comparative Judicial Politics,” in Carles Boix and Susan C. Stokes, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics (Oxford University Press, 2007), chap. 30,    - David Samuels, “Separation of Powers,” in Carles Boix and Susan C. Stokes, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics (Oxford University Press, 2007), chap. 29,    - Stephen Haber, “Authoritarian Government,” in Barry R. Weingast and Donald A. Wittman, eds., Oxford Handbook of Political Economy (Oxford UP, 2006), chap. 38,    - Ronald Wintrobe, “Dictatorship: Analytical Approaches,” in Carles Boix and Susan C. Stokes, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics (Oxford University Press, 2007), chap. 16,