Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education National Research University "Higher School of Economics" Department of Political Science Course syllabus Political Science For the Master Program 41.04.04 "Politics. Economics. Philosophy" Author: Yurii Gaivoronskii (guyvoronskiy@hse.ru) Approved at the meeting of the Department of Political Science Head of the Department Prof. Andrei Y. Melville 2018 Moscow, 2018 This syllabus cannot be used by other University departments and other institutes of higher education without the permission of the department that developed the syllabus
Course description and scope The purpose of this course is to give students basic knowledge about politics. The course consists of seven overarching subfields. The reading material includes both theoretical (methodological) and empirical texts that show the applications of theories in the field. The main focus of the course is on active participation and discussion. The present program established minimum demands of students knowledge and skills. At the same time students are encouraged to read as many of the recommended texts as possible. Learning Objectives to provide students with the knowledge of core concepts and models of politics; to overview of the main political science developments, trends and structures in Europe, East Europe in particular and beyond; to give opportunities to students to apply political theory to analysis of up-to-date debates about political events. Learning Outcomes The students are supposed to adopt the following competences: ability to recognize basic scientific (political) information and its sources; ability to see connection between the creation and development of political science theories and concepts, and the needs for a new understanding of political processes in specific political regimes; ability to apply knowledge of political science, to analyze current policies and political events. Grading System Final grade: Final exam (test)..40%; Participation in the class...60%. Course Plan 1. The Concept of the Political. Politics and Power Required reading: Bachrach, P. and M. Baratz. (1962). Two Faces of Power. The American Political Science Review. Vol. 56, 4. P. 947-952. Dahl, R.A. (1957). The Concept of Power. Behavioral Science. 2(3): 201-215. Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A Radical View. NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Schmitt, K. The Concept of the Political. Weber, M. Politics as Vocation.
Optional; Almond, G. (1996). Political Science: The History of the Discipline. In A New Handbook of Political Science. - Oxford University Press. Doghan, M. (1996). Political Science and the Other Social Sciences In A New Handbook of Political Science. - Oxford University Press. Gunnell, J. (2002). Handbooks and History: Is It Still the American Science of Politics? // International Political Science Review, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Oct., 2002). Pp. 339-354. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1601537 Hauptmann, E. (2004). Local History of ''The Political' // Political Theory. Vol. 32:34. URL: http://ptx.sagepub.com/content/32/1/34 Prewitt, K. (2005). Political Ideas and a Political Science for Policy // The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Vol. 600(14). URL: http://ann.sagepub.com/content/600/1/14 Dahl, R. (1968). Power. In International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Vol. 12. The Macmillan Company and The Free Press. Focault, M. (1995). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. NY: Vintage Books. Peabody, R. (1968). Authority. In International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Vol. 1. The Macmillan Company and The Free Press. 2. Why Do Institutions Matter? The Modern State and Its Evolution North, D. (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. - Washington University Press. March J., Olsen J. Elaborating the «New Institutionalism» // The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions, ed. by R. A. W. Rhodes, S. A. Binder, B. A. Rockman. New York, 2006. P. 3-22. Hobbes, T. Leviathan or The Matter, Form and Power of a Common Wealth Ecclesiastical and Civil. Spruyt, H. 2002. The Origins, Development, and Possible Decline of the modern State. Annual Review of Political Science. Vol. 5. Pp. 127 149. Bourdieu P. 1994. Rethinking the State: Genesis and Structure of the Bureaucratic Field. Sociological Theory, Vol.12 (1): 1-18. Gorski P. 2003. The Disciplinary Revolution: Calvinism and the Rise of the State in Early Modern Europe. Chicago. March J., Olsen J. (1984). The New Institutionalisms: Organizational Factors in Political Life // The American Political Science Review, 78(3). P. 734-749. Spruyt H. 2007. War, Trade, and State Formation Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics / Ed. by Carles Boix and Susan Stokes. Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press. - Pp. 211-235.
Hall P., Taylor R. (1996). Political Science and Three New Institutionalisms. URL: http://www.mpifg.de/pu/mpifg_dp/dp96-6.pdf. 3. Political Behavior: Basic Approaches to Political Participation and Voting Campbell A., Converse P.E., Miller W.E., Stokes D.E. (1960) The American voter. New York: Wiley. Downs, A. (1957) Economic Theory of Democracy. Harper & Row Publishers. Olson, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, Mass. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Goodin, R and Klingemann H.-D. (1996) A New Handbook of Political Science. - Oxford University Press. Ch.3 Dalton, R. and H.-D. Klingemann (2007). Oxford handbook of political behavior. Oxford University Press. Ch 4, 6. Nie, N., Verba, S., and Petrocik, J. (1976). The Changing American Voter. Harvard University Press Norris, P. (1999). Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government. Oxford University Press Page, B. and Shapiro, R. (1992). The Rational Public: Fifty years of Trends in Americans' Policy Preferences. University of Chicago Press. 4. Parties, Party Systems and Dimensions of Their Evolution in the Third Wave of Democratization. Electoral Systems and Their Consequences Duverger, M. (1978). Political Parties. Their Organization and Activity in Modern State. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Sartori G. (1976). Parties and Party Systems: a Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mainwaring S. (1998) Party Systems in the third wave. Journal of Democracy, 9.3, 1998, pp. 67-81. Grofman B., Lijphart A. (2003). Electoral Laws and Their Political Consequences. N.Y. Millard F. (2004) Elections, Parties and Representation in Post-Communist Europe. N.Y. Bielasiak J. (2002) The Institutionalization of Electoral and Party Systems in Postcommunist States // Comparative Politics. Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 189-210. Meleshevich A. (2007). Party Systems in Post-Soviet Countries. A Comparative Study of Political Institutionalization in the Baltic States, Russia, and Ukraine. N.Y.
Katz, R. and P. Mair (1995). Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Democracy: The Emergence of the Cartel Party. Party Politics Vol 1. No.1.pp.5-28. Colomer J. (2005). It's Parties That Choose Electoral Systems (or, Duverger s Law Upside Down). Political Studies, 53. P. 1-21. Bowler S. (2006). Electoral Systems. In thethe Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions, ed. by R. A. W. Rhodes, S. A. Binder, B. A. Rockman. New York, 2006. P. 577-594. 5. Democracies and Autocracies. Regime Changes in the Post-Communism Geddes B. What Do We Know About Democratization After Twenty Years? Annual Review Political Science, 1999, 2. Hadenius A., Teorell J. (2007) Pathways from Authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy, Volume 18, Number 1. Melville A. Y., Stukal D., Mironyuk M. G. (2013) Trajectories of Regime Transformation and Types of Stateness in Post-communist Countries. Perspectives on European Politics and Society. Vol. 14. No. 4. P. 431-459. Przeworski, A. (1991) Democracy and The Market. Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Cambridge. Schmitter P., Karl T. (1991) What Democracy Is... And Is Not // Journal of Democracy. Summer: 67-73. Brooker P. (2009) Non-Democratic Regimes. NY.: Palgrave Macmillan. Gandhi J., Przeworski A. (2007) Authoritarian institutions and survival of autocrats. Comparative political studies. 2007. Vol. 40. 11. P. 1279 1301. Levitsky S., Way L. (2002) The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy, 13(2): 51-65. Linz J. and Stepan A. (1996) Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press (Part 1, Chapter 3). Mainwaring S., O Donnell G., Valenzuela J.S. (1992) Issues in Democratic Consolidation. Notre Dame. Munk G., Leff C. (1999) Modes of Transitions and Democratisations: South America and Eastern Europe in Comparative Perspective / Transitions to Democracy. Ed.: Anderson L. Columbia University Press. Stammer O. (1968) Dictatorship. In International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Vol. 4. The Macmillan Company and The Free Press. Transitions from authoritarian rule: tentative conclusions about uncertain democracies (1996) Ed. by O'Donnell G., Schmitter Ph.C. Baltimore. 6. Comparative Political Studies. What s New? Quality of Institutions, Fiscal Federalism and Subnational Political Regimes
Diaz-Cayeros A., Estevez F., Magaloni B. (2007) From Clientelism to Entitlements: The politics of social transfers in Mexico, 1989-2006 / Chapter for discussion at the Comparative Politics Workshop UCLA. Gervasoni C. (2010) A Rentier Theory Of Subnational Regimes: Fiscal Federalism, Democracy, and Authoritarianism in the Argentine Provinces // World Politics, Vol.62, 2. P.302-340. Melville A. Y., Mironyuk M. G. (2015) Bad enough governance : state capacity and quality of institutions in post-soviet autocracies // Post-Soviet Affairs, Vol. 21 -.P. 1-20. Snyder, R. (2001) Scaling Down: The Subnational Comparative Method. Studies in Comparative International Development, Volume 36, Issue 1, pp 93 110. Giraudy A. Varieties of Subnational Undemocratic Regimes: Evidence from Argentina and Mexico // Studies in Comparative International Development. - 2013. Vol.48. - 2. P. 51-80. Gibson E. Boundary Control: Subnational Authoritarianism in Democratic Countries // World Politics. 2005. Vol.58. P.101-132. Montero A. (2007) Uneven Democracy? Subnational Authoritarianism in Democratic Brazil. Paper presented at the 2007 Latin American Studies Association meeting, Montréal, Canada, September 5-7. Gervasoni C. Measuring Variance in Subnational Regimes: Results from an Expert-Based Operationalization of Democracy in the Argentine Provinces // Journal of Politics in Latin America. 2010. - 2. P.13-52. Hale H.E. Explaining Machine Politics in Russia s Regions: Economy, Ethnicity, and Legacy // Post-Soviet Affairs. 2003. - Vol. 19, N 3. - P. 228 263. Herrmann J. (2010) Neo-Patrimonialism and Subnational Authoritarianism in Mexico. The Case of Oaxaca // Journal of Politics in Latin America, 2. Р. 85-112. Lankina T. (2010) Regional democracy variations and the forgotten legacies of western engagement // Gel'man V. (ed.) The Politics of Subnational Authoritarianism in Russia. Ashgate, 2010. McMann K. (2006) Economic autonomy and democracy: hybrid regimes in Russia and Kyrgyzstan. Cambridge. 7. Political Ideologies Berlin, I. (1958) Two Concepts of Liberty. In Isaiah Berlin (1969) Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burke, E. Reflections on the Revolution in France. Knight K. (2006) Transformations of the Concept of Ideology in the Twentieth Century. The American Political Science Review. Vol. 100. 4. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27644391 Mannheim K. Ideology and Utopia.
Freeden, M. (2006) Ideologies and political theory: A conceptual approach. Oxford. Green, E. (2012) Ideologies of Conservatism: Conservative Political Ideas in the Twentieth Century. Oxford. Moore, M. (2003) The Ethics of Nationalism. In Moore M. The Ethics of Nationalism. Oxford. Langston, T. (2012) Ideology and Ideologues in the Modern Presidency // Presidential Studies Quarterly. Vol. 42. 4. P. 730-753. URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-5705.2012.04015.x/pdf