1 PS 507/PAP 614: CONTEMPORARY GOVERNANCE Dr. Melody Ellis Valdini Spring 2012 E-mail: mev@pdx.edu Tuesday: 4-6:30 Office: 650-M URBN Room: CLY 101 Office Hours: Thursday 10-12 (or by appt) Website: http://web.pdx.edu/~mev/ Objectives and Approach: This course examines the performance, capabilities, and overall function of governments worldwide. Studies in comparative governance can focus on analyzing specific regions and countries, but they can also develop theories and concepts that cross borders and can explain general trends across the world. While actual cases will certainly be a part of the course, this class will be focused on the latter: an advanced analysis of theories and concepts in comparative politics. Specifically, there will be two theoretical branches that we will engage: first, institutional theories, which will discuss the effects of political institutions on the functionality, representativeness, and effectiveness of government; and second, theories on the relationship between the state and society, with particular focus on explanations for state-formation. Course Assignments and Grading: 15%= Discussion & Participation in Class 10%= Discussion Paper One 10%= Discussion Paper Two 30%= Midterm 35%= Final Paper Discussion & Participation In Class: Class attendance is required, and you are expected to do the reading for each week and be prepared to discuss the reading in class. In addition, there will be periodic in-class assignments based on the readings, and those grades will be included in this category as well. A word of warning: this will be an extremely challenging course. It is absolutely necessary that everyone keeps up with the reading and attends class regularly. Falling behind is easy to do and difficult to overcome. Midterm: The midterm will be on May 8, will be in essay format, and will only cover material from classes before that date (i.e., the reading for May 8 will not be on the Midterm). Final Paper: The final paper will be explained in detail by week 3. A short summary: you will select one issue that was discussed in our readings and take it further. That is, find a topic that you like, and then develop a research question that is not answered (or perhaps answered incorrectly) by the readings. This research question must be original, and the paper must include a coherent argument and a method of testing as well. This paper should be at least 25 pages, double-spaced. Discussion Papers One & Two: These papers should be submitted at the beginning of lecture (no emailed papers accepted) and should engage the readings of the day that it is submitted. On the first day of class, each student will sign up for a paper due date/presentation day, and this schedule must be adhered to. Each paper should accomplish the following goals: 1. Provide brief but coherent summaries of at least 2 of the readings assigned for the day that you are focusing on. The summary section of your paper should be
2 no more than 3-4 pages- make sure to note the main points of the readings as well as the testing methodologies. 2. Present a brief summary of a reading NOT assigned for our class but which directly relates to the readings of that day. This could be a reading that supports a theory advanced in our readings, or directly contradicts it- it is up to you. The goal is to do a bit of research outside of our course readings on this subject, and to find a reading that relates back. This reading must be an academic journal article (www.jstor.org is a great resource, and our librarians have many others). 3. Apply a theme, question, or issue drawn from the above readings to an actual, real life case in the world. That is, find a country that illustrates or contradicts what the theory predicts, or perhaps goes beyond the theory- maybe there is another complicating factor in a real world case that the theory does not account for. For example, let s say you choose to discuss readings on coalition formation in parliamentary regimes. After completing the summaries discussed above, you would want to find a country (probably using newspapers as your main resource) that is going through/went through coalition formation. Discuss that case in detail and clearly state how it relates/illustrates the readings, and then answer questions such as Did your real world case perform as the theories expected? If not, is your case an anomaly, or is the theory just wrong? Each discussion paper should be at least 10 pages, and will include a presentation element as well (presentation should be approximately 10 minutes). Please note: There are no allowances for late discussion papers, and discussion papers that are simply a summary of the assigned reading will be considered weak and will receive substantially fewer points. Due Dates for Paper One: (choose one) April 10: Institutions/Constitutions OR Executive Branch April 17: Elections & Party Systems April 24: Policy May 1: Nationalism and Ethnicity Due Dates for Paper Two: (choose one) May 15: Culture & Political Attitudes May 22: Rise of the Sovereign State May 29: Political Instability & Social Revolutions June 5: Globalization and Decentralization Academic Honesty: Fair and effective education requires academic honesty, and any violation is a very serious matter. PSU rules concerning academic dishonesty are spelled out in the General Catalog. Unless otherwise indicated, all assignments in this course are individual, and no collaboration with any other person is permitted. These rules will be strictly enforced. Any academic dishonesty will without exception be reported to the student's dean for disciplinary action.
3 Readings: Books: The following books have been ordered by the PSU bookstore- all readings are required. 1. Spruyt, Hendrik. 1996. The Sovereign State and Its Competitors. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 2. Putnam, Robert. 1994. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 3. Przeworski, Adam, Susan C. Stokes, and Bernard Manin. 1999. Democracy, Accountability, and Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 4. Skocpol, Theda. 1979. States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 5. Anderson, Benedict. 2006. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (second edition). London: Verso. 6. Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press. 7. Huntington, Samuel P. 1968. Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven: Yale University Press. 8. Brubaker, Rogers. 2004. Ethnicity Without Groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. **In addition, there will be articles online. You can access these articles via my website, or via any computer with a PSU connection. (hereafter referred to as WEB ) Class Schedule: Tuesday, April 3: Introduction and logistics Tuesday, April 10: Institutions: Constitutions & Executive Branch Chapters 1 & 4. b. WEB: Ellen Immergut. 1992. The Rules of the Game: The Logic of Health Policy-Making in France, Switzerland, and Sweden, in Steinmo, Thelen, and Longstreth, eds. Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. c. Bernard Manin, Adam Przeworski, and Susan C. Stokes. 1999. Introduction, in Manin, Przeworski, and Stokes, eds. Democracy, Accountability, and Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Executive Branch Chapters 6 & 7. b. WEB: Mainwaring, Scott and Matthew S. Shugart. 1997. Juan Linz, Presidentialism, and Democracy: A Critical Appraisal. Comparative Politics, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 449-471. c. Manin, Przeworski, and Stokes, eds. 1999. Chapter 9: Government Accountability in Parliamentary Democracy, in Democracy, Accountability, and Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. d. WEB: Kaare Strom and Stephen Swindle. 2002. Strategic Parliamentary Dissolution American Political Science Review, Vol. 96, No. 3. pp. 575-591.
4 Tuesday, April 17: Elections & Party Systems Chapters 5 & 8. b. WEB: Geys, Benny. 2006. Explaining voter turnout: A review of aggregatelevel research, Electoral Studies, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 637-663. c. WEB: Orit Kedar. 2005. When Moderate Voters Prefer Extreme Parties: Policy Balancing in Parliamentary Elections, American Political Science Review, Vol. 99, No.2, pp. 185-199. d. Bernard Manin, Adam Przeworski, and Susan Stokes. 1999. Chapter 1: Elections and Representation and Chapter 2: Electoral Accountability and the Control of Politicians: Selecting Good Types versus Sanctioning Poor Performance in Democracy, Accountability, and Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. e. WEB: Shugart, Matthew, Melody Ellis Valdini, and Kati Suominen. 2005. Looking for Locals: Voter Information Demands and Personal Vote-Earning Attributes of Legislators under Proportional Representation. American Journal of Political Science, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 437-449. f. WEB: Robbins, Joseph W. 2010. The Personal Vote and Voter Turnout, Electoral Studies, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 661-672. Tuesday, April 24: Policy a. WEB: Steinmo, Sven. 1989. Political Institutions and Tax Policy in the United States, Sweden, and Britain, World Politics Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 500-535. b. WEB: George Tsebelis. 1995. Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartism, British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 289-325. c. WEB: Morgan, Kimberly J. 2003. The Politics of Mothers' Employment: France in Comparative Perspective. World Politics, Vol.55, No.2, pp. 259-289. d. WEB: Joppke, Christian. 1998. Why Liberal States Accept Unwanted Immigration. World Politics, Vol. 50, No. 2, pp. 266-293. Tuesday, May 1: Nationalism and Ethnicity a. Anderson, Benedict. 2006. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (second edition). London: Verso. Chapters 1-3, 5 & 6. b. Brubaker, Rogers. 2004. Ethnicity Without Groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Chapters 1, 4, 5, & 6. c. WEB: James Fearon and David Laitin. 1996. Explaining Interethnic Cooperation, American Political Science Review, pp. 715-35. Tuesday, May 8: Democratic & Authoritarian Regimes First half of class: **MIDTERM** Then, for second half of class: a. WEB: Diamond, Larry. 2002. Thinking about Hybrid Regimes. Journal of Democracy Vol.13, no. 2 pp. 21-35. b. WEB: Schedler, Andreas. 2002. Elections Without Democracy: The Menu of Manipulation. Journal of Democracy Vol. 13, no.2, pp. 36-50.
5 Tuesday, May 15: Culture & Political Attitudes a. Putnam, Robert D., with Leonardi, Robert, and Nanetti, Raffaella Y. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Chapters 1-4, & 6. b. WEB: Lawson, Chappell and James A. McCann. 2005. Television News, Mexico's 2000 Elections and Media Effects in Emerging Democracies. British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 35, pp 1-30. c. WEB: Ross, Michael L. 2008. Oil, Islam, and Women American Political Science Review Vol. 102, pp. 107-123. d. WEB: Eagly, Alice and Steven J. Karau. 2002. Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice Toward Female Leaders. Psychological Review Vol.109, no. 3, pp. 573-598. Tuesday, May 22: Rise of the Sovereign State a. Hendrick Spruyt. 1994. The Sovereign State and Its Competitors. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Chapters 3, 4, 7, & 8. b. Huntington, Samuel P. 1968. Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven: Yale University Press. Chapters 1, 2, 3, & 7. Tuesday, May 29: Political Instability & Social Revolutions a. Skocpol, Theda. 1979. States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapters 1-4. b. WEB: Carey, Sabine. 2006. The Dynamic Relationship between Protest and Repression Political Research Quarterly Vol. 59, No. 1, pp. 1-11. c. WEB: Rasler, Karen. 1996. Concessions, Repression, and Political Protest in the Iranian Revolution American Sociological Review Vol. 61, No. 1, pp. 132-152. Tuesday, June 5: The End of the Sovereign State? Globalization and Decentralization a. WEB: Guiraudon, Virginie and Gallya Lahav. 2000. A Reappraisal of the State Sovereignty Debate: The Case of Migration Control Comparative Political Studies Vol. 33, no. 2, pp.163-195. b. WEB: Ribot, Jesse. 2003. Democratic decentralisation of natural resources: institutional choice and discretionary power transfers in Sub-Saharan Africa Public Administration and Development Vol. 23, No.1, pp.53-65. c. WEB: Guillen, Mauro. 2001. Is Globalization Civilizing, Destructive or Feeble? A Critique of Five Key Debates in the Social Science Literature Annual Review of Sociology Vol. 27, pp. 235-260. d. WEB: Brancati, Dawn. 2006. Decentralization: Fueling the Fire or Dampening the Flames of Ethnic Conflict and Secessionism? International Organization Vol. 60, No. 3, pp. 651-685.