Comparative Political Research. M.A. course, Winter Instructor Zsolt Enyedi

Transcription

1 Comparative Political Research M.A. course, Winter 2016 Instructor Zsolt Enyedi Teaching Assistant Seraphine Maerz Classes Tuesdays and Thursdays from 9:00 to 10:40 Room 809, Faculty Tower Office hours of Zsolt Enyedi: Tuesdays and Thursdays from 11:00 to 12:00 and by appointment (2 Vigyázó street, room 204) Office hours of Seraphine Maerz: TBA Credits 4 CEU credits, 8 ECTS credits Course description The course has the same function as Comparative Politics had in the Fall semester: to introduce students to the fundamental concepts and findings of comparative politics. As opposed to Comparative Politics, Comparative Political Research places a large emphasis on the role of the historical-cultural dimensions of political processes, and analyzes in depth particular institutional configurations in democracies and in authoritarian systems. Another difference is that the methodological perspectives are incorporated into the discussion of substantive topics, and not treated separately. Course requirements This is a four-credit core course. The course does not presuppose any particular prior knowledge. Students are expected to be present at all lectures and seminars. During the seminars they are expected to reflect critically on the mandatory readings listed below. If one is unable to attend the class, (s)he should signal this via to the lecturer. Activity in the classroom can be complemented with questions, suggestions and comments (maximum 200 words) sent to the lecturer or to the TA 24 hours prior to the meetings or uploaded to the e- learning site after the class discussion. Evaluation (1) Closed book exam (25%) (2) Three 1000 words-long position papers (30%) (3) Class activity (20%) (4) Research proposal (25%) 1

2 The exam covers the material of the first ten weeks. Students will have hundred minutes to answer, based on the readings and on the lectures, five questions. The position papers (1000 words) should summarize the content of the readings for a particular week and comment them relying on previous readings and lectures. The reproductive part (intelligent, selective summary that covers the major claims and techniques of the readings) is supposed to provide about 60 percent of the paper. The rest should consist of original ideas, commenting critically on the readings design, methods or findings. The student decides for which weeks (s)he prepares a position paper, but 1. at least one position paper needs to be submitted during the first three weeks, and 2. the paper must be uploaded to the e-learning site not later than 12 o clock Tuesday. The short research proposal should be about 2500 words long. You should indicate in this proposal how you would study one of the comparative politics problems discussed in the course in either a small (2-5) or a large (over 20) group of countries. As the hypothetical empirical basis of the study you need to identify an existing comparative dataset or you should envisage a new one that can be reasonably collected within a half a year. The proposals are due ten days after the last session of the course. Learning outcomes and their assessment By the end of the course students are expected to understand the institutional and cultural embeddedness of political processes and be aware of the methodological opportunities and dangers involved in comparative research. The position papers are expected to improve the ability to identify the most relevant aspects of a scholarly argument, to establish links between different articles, to discriminate between scholarly and unscholarly arguments, and to channel the knowledge one obtained from sources inside and outside of class-work into the criticism of particular articles. The class activity will center on the readings, helping the students to synthesize information, determine focus points, and discern the main line of argumentation. The obligation to submit a research proposal will focus the attention of students on methodological sophistication and the ability of matching abstract concepts with tangible and measurable social phenomena. The discussion of the readings encourages a multidisciplinary approach to social phenomena and will increase the students ability to master different approaches from various social science disciplines and to see their discipline within a broader social science and humanities context. The final paper improves project management skills: the ability to design, implement and write up a good quality research in a thorough, rigorous and consistent manner; the ability to write research proposals and formulate research questions, and the skill of writing a literature review. All aspects of the class contribute to develop the skill of problem analysis in international context: the ability to understand problems in cross-national comparative perspective and in international context and to discuss them with students of different cultural background 2

3 Week 1: The State in a Historical Perspective Mandatory reading: Acemoglu, Daron and James A. Robinson Why nations fail: the origins of power, prosperity and poverty. London: Profile, Fukuyama, Francis The Origins of Political Order. From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution. London: Profile, 80-94, , , , Week 2: Political Culture, Political Attitudes Mandatory readings: Fukuyama, Francis The Origins of Political Order. From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution. London: Profile, , , Norris, Pippa and Ronald Inglehart Cosmopolitan communications: cultural diversity in a globalized world. Cambridge University Press, Week 3: Democratization Fukuyama, Francis Political Order and Political Decay. From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. London: Profile, Ansell, Ben and David Samuels Inequality and Democratization: A Contractarian Approach. Comparative Political Studies, 43(12): Week 4: The New Institutionalism, Informal Institutions, Institutions in Authoritarian Settings Hall, Peter A., and Taylor, Rosemary C. R Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44 (5): Helmke, Gretchen; Steven Levitsky Informal Institutions and Comparative Politics: A Research Agenda. In: Perspectives on Politics, 2 (4): Gandhi, Jennifer, and Adam Przeworski Authoritarian Institutions and the Survival of Autocrats. Comparative Political Studies, 40 (11):

4 Week 5: The Comparative Study of Authoritarianism Geddes, Barbara What Do We Know About Democratization After Twenty Years? Annual Review of Political Scienc, (2): Hadenius, Axel, and Jan Teorell Pathways from Authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy 18 (1), Week 6: Presidents, Governments, Parliaments Fiorina, Morris P. and Kenneth S. Shepsle Formal Theories of Leadership: Agents, Agenda Setters, and Entrepreneurs, in Bryan D. Jones (ed.), Leadership and Politics: New Perspectives in Political Science, University Press of Kansas, 1989, Andeweg, Rudy On Studying Governments. In: Governing Europe. ed. by Jack Hayward and Anand Menon. Oxford: OUP, Lijphart, Arend (ed.) Parliamentary Versus Presidential Government, Oxford University Press, , (Excerpts from articles by Juan J. Linz, Donald L. Horowitz and Seymour M. Lipset). Week 7: Parties and society Kitschelt, Herbert Political Parties in Theory and Practice. In: Comparing Democracies. Elections and Voting in a Changing World, ed. by Lawrence LeDuc, Richard G Niemi, Pippa Norris, Larsen, Stein Ugelvik The Freezing Thesis. Stability of party systems in democratic states. In: Theory and methods in political science: the first steps to synthesize a discipline. Boulder: Social Science Monographs, Knutsen, Oddbjorn The "Criss-Cross" Thesis On the crossing of conflict lines and organizational Membership, In: Theory and methods in political science: the first steps to synthesize a discipline. Boulder: Social Science Monographs,

5 Week 8: Parties and institutions Kuhnle, Stein Duverger's Law Majoritarian electoral systems lead to two-party systems. In: Theory and methods in political science: the first steps to synthesize a discipline. Boulder: Social Science Monographs, Gallagher, Michael Electoral Institutions and Representation. In: Comparing Democracies. Elections and Voting in a Changing World, ed. by Lawrence LeDuc, Richard G Niemi, Pippa Norris, Rahat, Gideon, Reuven Y. Hazan and Richard S. Katz Participation, Competition and Representation: On the Uneasy Relationships between Democracy and Political Parties Party Politics, 14, 663 Week 9: Beyond Representative Democracy Saward, Michael Reconstructing democracy: current thinking and new directions, in Government and Opposition, 36 (4), Seta la, Maija Referendums and Democratic Government. Normative Theory and the Analysis of Institutions, Macmillan Press, Week 10: Conflict Resolution, Consensualism and Veto Politics Jung, Jai Kwan Power-Sharing and Democracy Promotion in Post-Civil War Peace Building. Democratization 19 (3): Tsebelis, George Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartyism. British Journal of Political Science, 25 (3), Cohen, Frank S Proportional versus Majoritarian Ethnic Conflict Management in Democracies, Comparative Political Studies, 30 (5),

6 Week 11: Accountability and Representation and in-class exam Thomassen, Jacques Empirical Research into Political Representation: Failing Democracy or Failing Models? In M. Kent Jennings and Thomas E. Mann. (eds.) Elections at Home and Abroad. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, Schmitter, Philippe C The ambiguous virtues of accountability. Journal of Democracy, 15 (4), Week 12: Constitutional design and democratic performance Foweraker, Joe and Todd Landmann Constitutional Design and Democratic Performance, Democratization, 9 (2), Doorenspleet, Renske and Huib Pellikaan Which Type of Democracy Performs Best? Acta Politica, 48 (3),