Comparative Party Politics Political Science 196 Spring 2007 Heather Stoll hstoll(at)polsci.ucsb.edu Class Meeting Time: W 12:00 2:50 p.m. Class Meeting Place: HSSB 2201 Office: 3715 Ellison Hall Office Hours: TH 2.00 4.00 or by appointment http://www.polsci.ucsb.edu/faculty/hstoll/classes/polisci196 1 Course Objectives E. E. Schattschneider (1942) wrote that democracy is unthinkable save in terms of parties, a sentiment with which many scholars still agree. This course will investigate one pillar of democracy, political parties, by studying the nature and results of party competition. It is a comparative politics course and as such compares political phenomena across countries, as well as over time. The focus is generally on advanced industrial democracies, e.g. democracies in North America and Western Europe, but students are welcome to apply the material to developing countries. The goals of the course are twofold. First, we will seek to understand how variation in party competition leads to different political outcomes. In particular, the course will focus on the issue of American exceptionalism. Is party politics in the U.S. different from that of other developed democracies and, if so, what are the consequences? Second, we will evaluate arguments about the decline of political parties. Are they in decline, and if so, what are the implications for democracy? The first part of the course will explore how party competition varies across countries. We will initially seek to characterize party systems, with special focuses on both the content of party politics (that is, on the ideological dimensions of competition as well as the positions that parties take on these dimensions) and the structure (that is, on party organization and campaigning). The second part of the course will seek to explain these differences by studying both political institutions and society. We will evaluate various scholars theories in light of recent changes in political competition such as the rise of green parties. The third and most important part of the course will ask why party politics matters. We will examine the role of parties in policy-making and the impact of party competition on a variety of political outcomes generally viewed as significant to peoples lives, from economic performance to accountability to the sustainability of democracy itself. We will also take a closer look at alternatives to parties in this final portion of the course. 2 Course Requirements This course is designed to give you an opportunity to discuss important issues related to representative government in depth. It will also give you a flavor of graduate-level instruction for those who are contemplating pursuit of a graduate or professional degree. Class participation is consequently an important part of the course, as is the case with any seminar. To facilitate participation, you are required to write three short critical response papers to the readings (3 5 double-spaced pages). 1
Guidelines for the papers are available from the course website, but the goals in a nutshell are twofold: to summarize the readings and to critically reflect upon them. One paper must be written for each module of the course, i.e. one in weeks 2 4, one in weeks 5 7, and one in weeks 8 10. Papers are due by 10:30 a.m. on the Wednesday of the appropriate week (either in my mailbox or via e-mail); this is so that I have a chance to skim over the paper prior to class and can thus use your thoughts to help steer discussion. Please e-mail your preference ordering over the weeks of each module to me by Friday, 6 April, and I will shortly thereafter get back to you with assignments. (Every effort will be made to give you your preferred weeks while ensuring that there is at least one student writing a paper each week.) In the weeks that you write papers, you are expected to take an active role in leading class discussion. Other course requirements are a short (and hopefully fun!) midterm project and either a takehome final essay exam or a research paper on a topic of your choice. The midterm project is best thought of as a homework assignment. It is designed to familiarize you with non-us political parties as well as to facilitate mastery of the important initial concepts. It will be handed out in class on 2 May and due in class on 16 May. Please notify me by 16 May as to your choice of either the take-home final or research paper option. Guidelines and suggested topics for the approximately 15 page research paper (standard font and double-spaced) are available from the course website. Students who choose this option are encouraged to consult with me about their topic. We will devote some class time in the last few weeks of the quarter to discussing the projects. Students who choose the exam option will receive the two essay questions on the last day of class, 6 June. Each essay should be approximately 4 and 6 pages (standard font and double-spaced). Both the paper and exam are due on Friday, 15 June by 4:30 p.m. in my mailbox. No late papers or exams will be accepted except in cases of documented personal or medical emergencies. 3 Grading Grades for the course will be calculated as follows. Three 3 5 page response papers. (30%) Class participation. (30%) A short midterm project due on 16 May. (10%) A take-home final exam or a research paper. Both are due on 15 June. (30%) 4 Required Reading Materials There is no required text. Readings available in hard copy from the reader are marked [R]; the few that are available online are marked [E]; and items that are available from the Reserve Book Service (usually for copyright reasons) are marked [RBS]. Reserve Book Service items can be obtained electronically from http://eres.library.ucsb.edu/ using the password supplied in class. Links to the items available online, usually from JSTOR, can be found on the course website although you will only be able to access the items from a UCSB computer. 2
5 Syllabus 4 April: Organizational Session (Week 1) PART I: VARIANCE IN PARTY COMPETITION (WEEKS 2 4) 11 April: Introduction: Why Parties, the Decline Thesis, and Characterizing Party Competition (Is America Exceptional?) Aldrich, John. 1995. Politics and Parties in America (Chapter 1, p. 3 27) [R], Founding the First Parties: Institutions and Social Choice (Chapter 3, p. 68 97; only skim p. 82 92) [R], and Jacksonian Democracy: The Mass Party and Collective Action (Chapter 4, p. 97 125) [RBS]. In Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dalton, Russell. 2002. Chapter 7 [in part], p. 125 131. Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies, 3rd Edition. New York: Chatham House. [RBS]. Dalton, Russell J. and Martin P. Wattenberg. 2000. Unthinkable Democracy: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies (Chapter 1, p. 3 16). In Russell J. Dalton and Martin P. Wattenberg, eds., Parties without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. New York: Oxford University Press. [R] The Economist. 1999. Politics Brief: Is There a Crisis? 15 July. [R] The Economist. 1999. Politics Brief: Empty Vessels? 22 July. [R] The Economist. 2003. From Sea to Shining Sea. 6 November. [R] LaPalombara, Joseph and Myron Weiner. 1990. The Origin of Political Parties (Chapter 1, p. 25 30). In Peter Mair, ed., The West European Party System. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [R] Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1997. Introduction (Chapter 1, p. 17 28). In American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. [RBS] Mair, Peter. 1997. Party Systems and Structures of Competition [in part], p. 199 214 (Chapter 9). In Party System Change: Approaches and Interpretations. New York: Oxford University Press. [R] 18 April. A Closer Look at the Content of Party Politics Abramowitz, Alan and Kyle Saunders. 2005. Why Can t We All Just Get Along? The Reality of a Polarized America. The Forum 3 (2): 1 19. [E] Budge, Ian, Hans-Dieter Klingemann, Andrea Volkens, Judith Bara, and Eric Tanenbaum. 2001. Introduction (p. 1-16), and Finally! Comparative Over-Time Mapping of Party Policy Movement (Chapter 1, p. 19-50). In Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945-1998. New York: Oxford University Press. [R] Cohen, Roger. 1999. Triumphant, the Left Asks What Else It Is. The New York Times. 21 November, p. 5. [R] The Economist. 1999. Europe s Right: Displaced, Defeated, and Not Sure What To Do Next. 23 January. [R] 3
The Economist. 1999. Fascism Resurgent? 7 October. [R] The Economist. 2001. Greening the Globe. 17 April. [R] The Economist. 2003. Politics as Warfare. 6 November. [R] Lijphart, Arend. 1981. Political Parties: Ideologies and Programs [in part], p. 26 42 (Chapter 3). In David Butler, Howard R. Penniman, and Austin Ranney, eds., Democracy at the Polls: A Comparative Study of Competitive National Elections. Washington, D. C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. [R] Lipset, Seymour Martin and Gary Marks. 2000. An Exceptional Nation [in part], p. 15-21 (Chapter 1), and The End of Political Exceptionalism [in part], p. 269-278 (Chapter 8). In It Didn t Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. [R] Poole, Keith T. 2005. The Decline and Rise of Party Polarization in Congress During the Twentieth Century. Extensions (Fall): 6 9. [E] Ware, Alan. 1996. Chapter 1, p. 17-62, and Chapter 5 [in part], p. 175-183. In Political Parties and Party Systems. New York: Oxford University Press. [R] 25 April. A Closer Look at the Structure of Party Politics Aldrich, John. 1995. The Critical Era of the 1960s (Chapter 8, p. 241 274). In Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [RBS] The Economist. 1999. Politics Brief: You Pays Your Money. 29 July. [R] Epstein, Leon D. 1981. Political Parties: Organization (Chapter 4, p. 52-74). In David Butler, Howard R. Penniman, and Austin Ranney, eds., Democracy at the Polls: A Comparative Study of Competitive National Elections. Washington, D. C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. [R] Farrell, David M. and Paul Webb. 2000. Political Parties as Campaign Organizations (Chapter 6, p. 102 125) In Russell J. Dalton and Martin P. Wattenberg, eds., Parties without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. New York: Oxford University Press. [R] Hindman, Matthew. 2005. The Real Lessons of Howard Dean: Reflections on the First Digital Campaign. Perspectives on Politics 3 (1): 121 127. [E] Katz, Richard S. and Peter Mair. 1995. Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Democracy: The Emergence of the Cartel Party. Party Politics 1, no. 1: 5-28. [E] Scarrow, Susan E. 2000. Parties Without Members? (Chapter 5, p. 79 101). In Russell J. Dalton and Martin P. Wattenberg, eds., Parties without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. New York: Oxford University Press. [R] Ware, Alan. 1996. Chapter 2 [in part], p. 84-92, and Chapter 3 [in part], p. 112-123. In Political Parties and Party Systems. New York: Oxford University Press. [R] 4
PART II: EXPLAINING VARIANCE IN PARTY COMPETITION (WEEKS 5 7) 2 May: Party Behavior, Political Institutions and Communications Technology Chhibber, Pradeep and Ken Kollman. Introduction [in part], p. 1 9 (Chapter 1), and Conclusion [in part], p. 222 233 (Chapter 8). 2004. In The Formation of National Party Systems: Federalism and Party Competition in Canada, Great Britain, India, and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press. [RBS] Downs, Anthony. 1957. Party Motivation and the Function of Government in Society (Chapter 2, p. 21 35). In An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row. [R] Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Chapter 8, p. 143-170. In Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press. [R] Lipset, Seymour Martin and Gary Marks. 2000. The American Party System (Chapter 2, p. 43-83). In It Didn t Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. [RBS] Popkin, Samuel L. 2006. Changing Media, Changing Politics. Perspectives on Politics 4 (2): 327 339. [E] Riker, William. 1982. The Two-Party System and Duverger s Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science. American Political Science Review 76 (4): 753 766. [E] 9 May: No class 16 May: Bringing in Society (and a Little More about Institutions) Dalton, Russell. 2002. Elections and Political Parties [in part], p. 131 143 (Chapter 7). In Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies, 3rd Edition. New York: Chatham House. [RBS]. Downs, Anthony. 1957. The Statics and Dynamics of Party Ideologies (Chapter 8, p. 114-141). In An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row. [R] The Economist. 2003. American Values. Living with a Superpower. 4 January. [R] The Economist. 2003. Survey: A Nation Apart. 6 November. [R] Inglehart, Ronald. 1997. The Rise of New Issues and New Parties [in part], p. 237 252 (Chapter 8). In Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press. [R] Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1997. American Exceptionalism Japanese Uniqueness [in part], p. 211 230, 238 240, 250 261 (Chapter 7). In American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. [RBS] Lipset, Seymour Martin and Gary Marks. 2000. An Exceptional Nation [in part], p. 21-34 (Chapter 1), Immigrants and Socialism [in part], p. 125 137 (Chapter 4), and The End of Political Exceptionalism [in part], p. 261-269 (Chapter 8). In It Didn t Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. [R] Riker, William. 1982. Manipulation and the Natural Selection of Issues: The Development of the Issue of Slavery as a Prelude to the American Civil War (Chapter 9, p. 213 232). In Liberalism against Populism: A Confrontation Between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. [RBS] 5
PART III: POLITICAL OUTCOMES (WEEKS 8 10) 23 May: Who Governs? Representation and Accountability Dalton, Russell. 2002. Political Representation (Chapter 11, p. 215-232). In Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies, 3rd Edition. New York: Chatham House Publishers. [R] The Economist. 2005. Women in Parliament. 21 April. [R] Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Chapter 6, p. 90-115, and Chapter 7 [in part], p. 129-139. In Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press. [R] Powell, G. Bingham. 2000. Chapter 1, p. 3-19 [R], Chapter 3, p. 47-68 [R], Chapter 4, p. 69-88 [R], and Chapter 5, p. 89 114 [RBS]. In Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven: Yale University Press. Randall, Vicky. 1989. Women in Political Elites [in part], p. 93 109 and p. 132 142 (Chapter 3). In Women and Politics, 2nd Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [R] 30 May: Public Policy and the Welfare State Bartels, Larry. 2006. Is the Water Rising? Reflections on Inequality and American Democracy. Political Science and Politics 39 (1): 39 42. [E] Cameron, David. 1984. Social Democracy, Corporatism, Labour Quiescence and the Representation of Economic Interest in Advanced Capitalist Society. In John H. Goldthorpe, ed., Order and Conflict in Contemporary Capitalism, New York: Oxford University Press. [RBS] The Economist. 2004. Why Welfare? 11 March. [R] The Economist. 2007. Green America: Waking Up and Cathing Up. 25 January. [R] Lipset, Seymour Martin and Gary Marks. 2000. The End of Political Exceptionalism: Still Different [in part], p. 278 294 (Chapter 8). In It Didn t Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. [R] Esping-Andersen, Gosta. 1990. Chapter 1, p. 9-34 [R], and Chapter 5, p. 105-138 [RBS]. In Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Pontusson, Jonas. 2006. The American Welfare State in Comparative Perspective: Reflections on Alberto Alesina and Edward L. Glaeser, Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe. Perspectives on Politics 4 (2): 315 326. [E] Schmidt, Manfred G. 1996. When Parties Matter: A Review of the Possibilities and Limits of Partisan Influence on Public Policy. European Journal of Political Research 30, no. 2: 155-183. [R] Steinmo, Sven H. 1994. American Exceptionalism Reconsidered: Culture or Institutions? In Lawrence C. Dodd and Calvin Jillson, eds., The Dymanics of American Politics: Approaches and Interpretations. Boulder: Westview Press. Chapter 5, p. 106-31. [R] 6
6 June: Political Parties, Elections and Democracy Dalton, Russell. 2002. Chapter 3, p. 32 57 [R], Chapter 4, p. 58 74 [RBS], Chapter 9 [in part], p. 180 193 [R], and Chapter 12, p. 235 258 [RBS]. In Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies, 3rd Edition. New York: Chatham House. The Economist. 1998. American Democracy: The Show Is On TV. 27 August. [R] The Economist. 1999. Politics Brief: Ex Uno, Plures. 21 August. [R] The Economist. 2001. A Crisis of Legitimacy. 27 September. [R] The Economist. 2003. Survey: The Internet Society. Power to the People. 23 January. [R] Lupia, Arthur and John G. Matsusaka. 2004. Direct Democracy: New Approaches to Old Questions. Annual Review of Political Science 7: 463 482. [E] Mair, Peter. 1997. Popular Legitimacy and Public Privileges: Party Organizations in Civil Society and the State (Chapter 6, p. 120 154). In Party System Change: Approaches and Interpretations. New York: Oxford University Press. [R] Przeworski, Adam and John Sprague. 1986. Epilogue (p. 181-185). Paper Stones: A History of Electoral Socialism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [R]. TBA, Reading on interest groups. 7