Comparative Political Research

COMPARATIVE POLITICAL RESEARCH

MA course, Winter 2015, 4 CEU credits, 8 ETCS

Instructor Carsten Q. Schneider, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Head of Department Department of Political Science, Central European University FT 903 E-mail: [email protected] Tel.: 327 3086

Classes TBA

Office Hours TBA

Teaching Assistant Bruno de Paula Castanho e Silva Doctoral School of Political Science, Public Policy, and International Relations, CEU E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +36 302790991

TA Office Hours ???

Course Description and Learning Outcomes The aims of this course consist in making students familiar with the basic rules of doing comparative research and introducing the most influential approaches and salient topics in comparative political science. The course, thus, will help students to evaluate the methodological merits of those political science publications that use a comparative approach, to recognize which intellectual tradition they belong to, and to design their own comparative research strategy. During the course work, students are asked to write small position papers, several written exercises, to actively participate during in-class discussions, and to prepare in-class presentations. The position papers are expected to help develop the ability to synthesize the information gathered from the mandatory readings, determine a focus point, and to develop a coherent line of argumentation. The written exercises are expected to improve the ability to generate logical, plausible, and persuasive arguments, to compare and contrast, and to derive theoretical conclusions from comparative empirical observations. The emphasis on in-class participation and in-class presentations is meant to foster the skills of expressing informative reflections 'on the spot' and to decrease potential fears of speaking in Carsten Q. Schneider – Comparative Political Research, Winter 2015 front of others. The course is structured into three parts of different lengths. In the first part, we introduce the basic rationale of comparing in political science. Furthermore, we extensively discuss crucial research design and methodological issues in comparative social research, such as the logic of theory testing, the processes of concept formation and data aggregation, and the question of an adequate selection of cases, and the similarities and differences of so-called qualitative and quantitative research. During the shorter second part, participants will be exposed to the 'meta'-theoretical paradigms in comparative research. In part three, we will deal with some of the major themes in comparative social research, paying specific attention to the most salient political institutions and to the issues of varieties of democracies. The course meets twice a week. Most of the time, the first meeting of each week will be predominantly organized as a lecture, the second predominantly as a seminar.

Course Requirements (1) Students are expected to be actively present at all lectures and seminars. In case you are unable to attend, you need to inform both instructors via email prior to the meeting you are going to miss. During the seminars you are expected to reflect critically on the mandatory readings and to engage in discussions with your fellow students and the instructor(s). Questions and stimulating interaction during the lectures will be positively evaluated as well. As some might be more shy than others and because our class might be bigger than average, everybody is encouraged to send questions, suggestions, and comments via email to the instructors prior to the meetings. These emails will count towards the participation grade. In general, for the grade the quality of participation prevails over its quantity. Feedback on the class performance (including grade) will be provided if and when students sign up for an appointment during the office hours. Unexcused missed classes count with 0 points for participation on that specific day. (2) Each student will have to take part in one 50 minutes presentation in a group of 2-3 persons, depending on the number of participants in the course. The presentation needs to be accompanied by a 1-page(!) handout to be distributed to all course participants. Structure, content, and function of this handout will be discussed in the beginning of the course. The presentation is usually delivered during the second meeting of each week. The presentation needs to be on the topic of the week and should be based on more than the material covered by the mandatory readings. Grade-relevant features of the presentation are: adherence to time limit, meaningful hand-out, coherence between different presenters within group, factually adequate representation of the literature processed, and critical/ innovative/ interesting/ stimulating/ thought-provoking own thoughts. Feedback on the presentation (including a grade) will be provided if and when presenters sign up for an appointment during the office hours. (3) Throughout the course you will have to write two position papers. The position papers should briefly summarize the content of the readings for that particular week (NB: not session!) and then critically reflect on them relying on previous readings and lectures. You are free to choose for which topic to write the position paper, as long as the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) the two papers must be written on topics that stem from two different parts of our course; (b) none of the position papers can be written on the same topic as your presentation; (c) none of the position papers can be written on the same week as your exercise. The position paper must be between 750-800 words and be uploaded to the course's e-learning website prior to the first meeting of the week. As their name suggest, position

- 2 - Carsten Q. Schneider – Comparative Political Research, Winter 2015 papers are meant to explain what your position on a specific issue is. Therefore, keep mere summaries to a necessary minimum and spend most effort on developing your own thoughts. Papers that do that will receive a better grade than those that limit themselves to correct summaries of the texts read. (4) Each participant will have to submit two take-home exercises. The exercise aims at testing the student’s mastery of the methodological issues addressed in part one of our course, by applying it to the evaluation of published research. Each consists on a question and an extra reading that will be sent out on Thursday after the class, to be delivered next Wednesday at noon. There are in total five available exercises, as indicated below on the course outline. Of the five, each student must choose two, considering that (a) It cannot be on the same week as your presentation; and (b) it cannot be on the same week that you wrote a position paper. The length should be between 1300 and 1500 words. Students who in an attempt at improving their grades on exercises want to submit more than two exercises face the following rule: if the grade on the extra exercise is higher than on the worst exercise grade, then the former counts only half and the average of the two grades is calculated; if, however, the grade on the extra exercise is lower than the worst exercise grade, then the former counts double and the average over the two grades is calculated.

(1) In-class participation: 15% (2) One group presentation: 25% (3) Two position papers: 30% (4) Two exercises: 40%

The grading follows the standards scale adopted by the Department of Political Science: A: 100-94 A-: 93-87 B+: 86-80 B: 79-73 B-: 72-66 C+ 65-59 F: 58-0

Late submission: In case of late submissions, three grade points from the final grade of the assignment are deducted for every 12 hours of delay. For instance, submitting 15 hours late leads to a deduction of six points. Violation of word limit: For shorter assignments (<1000 words), a violation of word limits consists in writing more words than the upper limit and less words than the lower limit. For longer assignments (< 1000 words), an explicit upper limit and an explicit lower limit of words is stipulated. A violation consists in writing more words than the upper limit or less than the lower limit. In case of violations of word limits, one grade point from the final grade of the assignment is deducted for every 5% of word limit violation. For instance, if the lower limit is 3000 and somebody writes 2400 words (= 20% below word limit), four points are deducted. Use of Laptops and Electronic Devices:

- 3 - Carsten Q. Schneider – Comparative Political Research, Winter 2015

The Use of Laptops and Electronic Devices in the classroom is not allowed. Students who insist in reading and taking notes in electronic format should come and see us and we can accommodate this request. The use of electronic devices for anything else than strictly course related matters will lead to a participation grade of 0 points for the particular session.

Useful Books and Sources of Information The following books are particularly relevant for this course. For publications in brackets the full reference appears at the end of the syllabus Brady, Henry E./Collier, David (eds.) (2010): Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Lanham: Rowman&Littlefield, second edition Collier, David (1991): The comparative method: two decades of change. In Rustow, Dankwart A./Erickson, Kenneth Paul: Comparative Political Dynamics. Global Research Perspectives. Harper Collins, pp. 7-31 (David Collier and Gerring 2008) Daalder, Hans (1997): Comparative European Politics: the Story of a Profession. London: Pinter Elster, Jon (1989): Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Gerring 2012b) (Goertz and Mahoney 2012b) King, Gary/Keohane, Robert O./Verba, Sidney (1994): Designing Social Inquiry. Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press Landman, Todd (2000): Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics. an Introduction. London: Routledge Lichbach, Mark Irving/Zuckerman, Alan S. (eds.) (1997): Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Munck, Gerardo/ Snyder, Richard (2007): Passion, Craft and Method in Comparative Politics. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press Pennings, Paul/Keman, Hans/Kleinnijenhuis, Jan (1999): Doing Research in Political Science. an Introduction to Comparative Methods and Statistics. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Peters, P. Guy (1998): Comparative Politics: Theory and Methods. London: Macmillan (Rohlfing 2012) Ragin, Charles C. (1987): The Comparative Method. Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press Shively, W. Philipps (2001): The Craft of Political Research.(5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Wiarda, Howard (2000): Introduction to Comparative Politics: Concepts and Processes. Fort Worth: Harcourt College Publishers Van Evera, Stephen (1997): Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Itaca: Cornell University Press

- 4 - Carsten Q. Schneider – Comparative Political Research, Winter 2015

Some journals you should regularly look at: American Journal of Political Science - American Political Science Review - Comparative Political Studies - Comparative Politics - European Journal of Political Research – European Political Science Review – Political Studies - Socio-Economic Review - West European Politics - World Politics

- 5 - Carsten Q. Schneider – Comparative Political Research, Winter 2015

COURSE OUTLINE

PART 1. INTRODUCTION AND THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF COMPARING Why do political scientists compare cases? And what are “cases” to start with? In this part of the course we introduce the logic of comparative research and discuss some core issues of such designs, paying particular attention to trade-offs and some common pitfalls and biases. This part will help students to better evaluate published work of applied comparative social research and to perform better designed comparative research of their own.

Week 1: The Rationales of Comparative Political Research Mandatory readings: Landman, Todd (2008): Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics. an Introduction. 3. edition, London: Routledge, chapter 1 Mair, Peter (1996): Comparative politics: an overview. In Goodin, Robert E./Klingemann, Hans-Dieter: A New Handbook of Political Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 309-335 (Ragin and Becker 1992), chapter 1 Recommended readings: Collier, David (1991): The comparative method: two decades of change. In Rustow, Dankwart A./Erickson, Kenneth Paul: Comparative Political Dynamics. Global Research Perspectives. Harper Collins, pp. 7-31 Ragin, Charles C. (1987): The Comparative Method. Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, chap 3, 4, 5, 9 (Ragin and Becker 1992)

Week 2: Different Methodological Approaches to Comparing As an introduction to Part 3 of our course, this week provides an overview of different approaches to doing comparative social science research. Among the many different ways in which the different practices can be classified, two seem particularly powerful and salient (though sometimes misleading). In the first session, we discuss some contrasts between qualitative and quantitative approaches. In the second session, we learn about the experimental template and how it contrasts with studies based on observational data. Mandatory readings: (Goertz and Mahoney 2012a), chapter 17 (Gerring 2012b), chapter 1

- 6 - Carsten Q. Schneider – Comparative Political Research, Winter 2015

Week 3: Concept Formation and Measurement During this week, we learn about some core ingredients of sound concept formation and measurement. We will pay specific attention to the vices and virtues of “mere description” and the logic of typologies Mandatory readings: (Gerring 2012a) (D. Collier, LaPorte, and Seawright 2012)

 Exercise #1 will be sent out this week.

Recommended readings: Adcock, Robert/Collier, David (2001): Measurement validity: a shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. American Political Science Review, vol. 95, issue 3, pp. 529-546 Collier, David/Adcock, Robert (1999): Democracy and dichotomies: a pragmatic approach to choices about concepts. Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 2, pp. 537-565 Collier, David/Levitzky, Steven (1997): Democracy with adjectives: conceptual innovation in comparative research. World Politics, vol. 49, issue 3, pp. 430-451 Gastil, Raymond Duncan (1991): The Comparative Survey of Freedom: Experiences and Suggestions. In Inkeles, Alex: On Measuring Democracies: Its Consequences and Concomitants. New Brunswick (New Jersey): pp. 21-46 (Gerring 2012b), chapter 5 Goertz, Gary (2006): Increasing concept-measure consistency. In Goertz, Gary: Social Science Concepts. a User's Guide. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 95-127 Munck, Gerardo L./Verkuilen, Jay (2002): Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: evaluating alternative indices. Comparative Political Studies, vol. 35, issue 1, pp. 5-33 Munck, Gerardo. (2009). Measuring Democracy: a Bridge between Scholarship and Politics. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Pennings, Paul/Keman, Hans/Kleinnijenhuis, Jan (1999): Doing Research in Political Science. an Introduction to Comparative Methods and Statistics. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage, pp. 85-113 Sartori, Giovanni (1970): Concept misformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review, vol. 64, issue 4, pp. 1033-1053 Sartori, Giovanni (1984): Guidelines for concept analysis. In Sartori, Giovanni: Social Science Concepts. a Systematic Analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage, pp. 15-85

Week 4: Theories and Hypotheses What are hypotheses? How should they be formulated in order to be testable? What counts as a cause? Mandatory readings: Gerring (2012b), chapter 8 - 7 - Carsten Q. Schneider – Comparative Political Research, Winter 2015

Van Evera, Stephen (1997): Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Itaca: Cornell University Press, chap. 1 Rooduijn, Matthijs, Sarah de Lange, and Wouter van der Brug. “A Populist Zeitgeist? Programmatic Contagion by Populist Parties in Western Europe” Party Politics 20(4): 563-75 Recommended readings: (Coppedge 2007) (Gerring 2012b), chapters 9-12

Week 5: Case Selection Strategies and Multi-Method Designs How do you select cases? What is selection bias and how can it be avoided? What are scope conditions? Mandatory readings: Falleti, Tulia G, and Julia F Lynch. 2009. “Context and Causal Mechanism in Analysis.” Comparative Political Studies 42(9): 1143–66. Lieberman, Evan S. 2005. “Nested analysis as a mixed-research strategy for comparative research.” American Political Science Review 99(3): 435-451.

 Exercise #2 will be sent out this week.

Recommended readings: Ahram, A. I. (2011). Concepts and Measurement in Multimethod Research. Political Research Quarterly, 1–12. doi:10.1177/1065912911427453 Brancati, D. (2009) Peace by Design: Managing Intrastate Conﬂict through Decentralization, Oxford University Press, especially pages 17-23 Collier, David/Mahoney, James/Seawright, Jason (2004): Claiming too much: warnings about selection bias. In Brady, Henry E./Collier, David: Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Lanham: Rowman&Littlefield, pp. 85-102 Geddes, Barbara (2003): Paradigms and Sand Castles. Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, pp. 89- 129 King, Gary/Keohane, Robert O./Verba, Sidney (1994): Designing Social Inquiry. Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press, chap 4 Selbin, Eric. (1997). Revolution in the Real World: Bringing Agency Back In. In J. Foran (Ed.), Theorizing Revolutions (pp. 123–136). London: Routledge. Skocpol, Theda. (1979). States and Social Revolutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ziblatt, Daniel. (2009). Shaping Democratic Practice and the Causes of Electoral Fraud: The Case of Nineteenth-Century Germany. American Political Science Review, 103(01), 1

- 8 - Carsten Q. Schneider – Comparative Political Research, Winter 2015

Week 6: Potential Pitfalls, and Trade-Offs We discuss research design issues such as Galton’s problem and ecological fallacy/individualistic fallacy. As some sort of conclusion of Part 3, we also revisit the trade- offs that comparative social scientists unavoidably encounter when trying to design their research.

Mandatory readings: (Landman 2008), chapter 2

Recommended readings: Braun, Dietmar/Gilardi, Fabrizio (2006): Taking Galton’s problem seriously. towards a theory of policy diffusion. Journal of Theoretical Politics, vol. 18, issue 3, pp. 298-322 Brinks, Daniel/Coppedge, Michael (2006): Diffusion is no illusion. neighbor emulation in the third wave of democracy. Comparative Political Studies, vol. 39, issue 7, pp. 1-23 Christin, Th. and S. Hug (2003) Federalism and Conﬂict Resolution: Considering Selection Biases, Paper prepared for presentation at the ECPR General Conference Marburg, September 18-21, 2003 (Gerring 2012b), chapter 2 Jahn, Detlef (2006): Globalization as "Galton's Problem": the missing link in the analysis of diffusion patterns in welfare state development. International Organization, vol. 60, pp. 401-430 Naroll, Raul (1965): Galton's problem: The logic of cross cultural research. Social Research, vol. 32, pp. 428-451 (Padgett and Ansell 1993) Seligson, Mitchell A. (2002): The renaissance of political culture or the renaissance of the ecological fallacy. Comparative Politics, vol. 34, issue 3, pp. 273-292 Barbara Geddes, “How the Cases You Choose Affect the Answers You Get: Selection Bias in Comparative Politics,” Political Analysis, Vol. 2, No. 1 (1990), pp. 131-150

PART 2. META-APPROACHES This part introduces the major meta-theoretical paradigms in comparative social research, discusses their core assumptions, strengths, and weaknesses and possibilities for combining approaches.

Week 7a: Functionalism Mandatory readings: Almond, Gabriel A. (1960): Introduction: a functional approach to politics. In Almond, Gabriel A./Coleman, James C.: The Politics of Developing Areas. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 3-64

Recommended readings: - 9 - Carsten Q. Schneider – Comparative Political Research, Winter 2015

Almond, Gabriel Abraham/Verba, Sidney (1963): The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes in Five Nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 1-44 Easton, David (1968): The new revolution in political science. American Political Science Review, vol. 63, pp. 1051-1061 Inglehart, Ronald (1997): Modernization and Postmodernization Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press (Kaase 2010) Parsons, Talcott (1964): Essays in Sociological Theory. New York: Free Press Pharr, Susan J./Putnam, Robert D./Dalton, Russell J. (2000): A quarter-century of declining confidence. Journal of Democracy, vol. 11, issue 2, pp. 7-25

Week 7b: Rational Choice, Game Theory, and Comparative Politics Mandatory readings: Munck, Gerardo L. (2001): Game theory and comparative politics: new perspectives and old concerns. World Politics, vol. 53, issue 2, pp. 173-204 Recommended readings rational choice and game theory: Blossfeld, Hans-Peter/Prein, Gerald (eds.) (1998): Rational Choice Theory and Large- Scale Data Analysis. Boulder: Westview Press Dowding, Keith (1994): The compatibility of behaviouralism, rational choice and 'new institutionalism'. Journal of Theoretical Politics, vol. 6, issue 1, pp. 105-117 Elster, Jon (1989): Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 13–41 Frye, Timothy (1997): A politics of institutional choice: Post-Communist presidencies. Comparative Political Studies, vol. 30, issue 5, pp. 523-552 Hechter, Michael (1998): The future of rational choice theory and its relationship to quantitative macro-sociological research. In Blossfeld, Hans-Peter/Prein, Gerald: Rational Choice Theory and Large-Scale Data Analysis. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 281-290 (Kiser 1996) Mahoney, James (2000): Rational choice theory and the comparative method: an emerging synthesis. Studies in Comparative International Development , vol. 35, issue 2, pp. 83-94 Peters, B. Guy (1999): Institutional Theory in Political Science: the 'New Institutionalism'. London: Pinter, chap 3 Riker, William H. (1990): Political science and rational choice. In Alt, James E./Shepsle, Kenneth A.: Perspectives on Positive Political Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 163-181 Scharpf, Fritz W. (1997): Games Real Actors Play. Boulder: Westview Press (Tsebelis 1990), especially chapters 1+2

Week 8: Institutionalism Mandatory readings: Hall, Peter A./Taylor, Rosemary C. R. (1996): Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, vol. 44, issue 4, pp. 936-957 - 10 - Carsten Q. Schneider – Comparative Political Research, Winter 2015

 Exercise #3 will be sent out this week

Recommended readings: Becker, S., Boeckh, K., Hainz, C., & Woessmann, L. (forthcoming). The Empire is Dead, Long Live the Empire! Long-Run Persistence of Trust and Corruption in the Bureaucracy. The Economic Journal. Immergut, Ellen M. (1998): The theoretical core of the new institutionalism. Politics & Society, vol. 26, issue 1, pp. 5-34 (Makay, Kenny, and Chappell 2010) March, James G./Olsen, Johan P. (1984): The new institutionalism: organizational factors in political life. American Political Science Review, vol. 78, pp. 734-749, Peters, B. Guy (1999): Institutional Theory in Political Science: the 'New Institutionalism'. London: Pinter, pp. 1–24 Pierre, Jon, Guy Peters, and Gerry Stoker. 2008. Debating Institutionalism. Manchester: Manchester University Press. http://us.macmillan.com/debatinginstitutionalism (Accessed October 26, 2010). Pierson, Paul (2000): Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics. American Political Science Review, vol. 94, no. 2, 251-267 Sartori, Giovanni (1994): Comparative Constitutional Engineering: an Inquiry into Structures, Incentives and Outcomes. London: Macmillan

PART 3. CORE POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS AND THEIR CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES This part of the course aims at familiarizing students with the debates on the most important institutional variations among democratic political systems and the consequences they may trigger.

Week 9: Executive Formats and Types of Parliaments Mandatory readings: Blondel, Jean (1995): Comparative Government: an Introduction .(second edition ed.). London: Prentice-Hall, pp. 248-266 and 267-297 (Elgie 2005)

Recommended readings: Baylis, Thomas A. (1996): Presidents versus prime ministers. shaping executive authority in Eastern Europe. World Politics, vol. 48, issue 3, pp. 297-323 (Cheibub 2007), chapter 6 Cheibub, J. A. and F. Limongi (2002), Democratic Institutions and Regime Survival: Parliamentary and Presidential Democracies Reconsidered, Annual Review of Political Science (5)

- 11 - Carsten Q. Schneider – Comparative Political Research, Winter 2015

Lijphart, Arend (ed.) (1992): Parliamentary Versus Presidential Government . New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 118–27., 203–211. Linz, Juan José (1990): The perils of presidentialism. Journal of Democracy, vol. 1, issue 1, pp. 51-69 Linz, Juan José (1990): The Virtues of Parliamentarism. Journal of Democracy, vol. 1, issue 1, pp. 84-91 Mainwaring, Scott/Shugart, Matthew S. (1997): Juan Linz, presidentialism, and democracy. a critical appraisal. Comparative Politics, vol. 29, issue 4, pp. 449-471 Mainwaring, S. (1993), Presidentialism, Multipartism, and Democracy: A Difficult Combination, Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 26, No. 2, 198-228 Mainwaring, S. (1997), Multipartism, Robust Federalism and Presidentialism in Brazil, (p. 55-110), in S. Mainwaring and M. S. Shugart (eds.) Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America, Cambridge University Press Powell, G. Bingham Jr. (1982): Contemporary Democracies: Participation, Stability and Violence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 74–132 Siaroff, Alan (2000): Comparative European Party Systems. New York: Garland Publishing Siaroff Alan (2003): Varieties of parliamentarianism in advanced industrial democracies. International Political Science Review, vol. 24, issue 4, pp. 445-464 Taras, Ray (1997): Separating powers: keeping presidents in check. In Taras, Ray: Post- Communist Presidents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 15-37, pp. 15-37

Week 10: Territorial Organizations of State Power Mandatory readings: Brancanti, Dawn (2006): Decentralization: fueling the fire or dampening the flames of ethnic conflict and secession? International Organization, vol. 60, issue 3, pp. 651-685 Lijphart, Arend (1999): Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, CT; London: Yale University Press, pp. 185-215

Recommended readings:

O’Neil, Kathleen (2003): Decentralization as an electoral strategy. Comparative Political Studies, vol. 36, issue 9, pp. 1068-1091 Rodden, Jonathan (2004): Comparative federalism and decentralization. on meaning and measurement. Comparative Politics, vol. 36, issue 4, pp. 481-500 Schneider, Aaron (2003): Decentralization: conceptualization and measurement. Studies in Comparative International Development , vol. 38, issue 3, pp. 32-56 Stepan, Alfred (1999): Federalism and democracy: beyond the U.S. model. Journal of Democracy, vol. 10, issue 4, pp. 19-34 Watts, Ronald L. (1998): Federalism, federal political systems, and federations. Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 1, pp. 117-137

- 12 - Carsten Q. Schneider – Comparative Political Research, Winter 2015

Week 11: Electoral Systems Mandatory readings: Blais, André/Massicotte, Louis (1996): Electoral systems. In LeDuc, Lawrence/Niemi, Richard/Norris, Pippa: Comparing Democracies. Elections and Voting in a Global Perspective. London: Sage Publications

 Exercise #4 will be sent out this week

Recommended readings: Duverger, Maurice (1984): Which is the best electoral system? In Lijphart, Arend/Grofman, Bernard: Choosing an Electoral System. Issues and Alternatives. New York et al.: Praeger, pp. 31-39 Lijphart, Arend (1994): Electoral Systems and Party Systems. a Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies, 1945-1990. Oxford: Oxford University Press Lijphart, Arend (1984): Trying to have the best of both worlds: semi-proportional and mixed systems. In Lijphart, Arend/Grofman, Bernard: Choosing an Electoral System. Issues and Alternatives. New York et al.: Praeger, pp. 207-215 Singer, M. M. (2013). Was Duverger Correct ? Single Member District Election Outcomes in Fifty three Countries. British Journal of Political Science, 43(1), 201– 220.

Week 12: Party Systems Mandatory readings: (Horowitz and Browne 2005) Sartori, Giovanni (1990): A typology of party systems. In Mair, Peter: The West European Party System. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 316-349

 Exercise #5 will be sent out this week

Recommended readings: Aldrich, John (1995): Why Parties? the Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press , pp. 28-61. (Bielasiak 2002) Bertoa Casal, Fernando, and Peter Mair. 2010. “Two Decades on: How Institutionalized are Post-Communist Party Systems?” Social Sciences. (Bochsler 2012) Colomer, Josep Maria. 2005. “It’s Parties that Choose Electoral Systems (or, Duverger's Laws Upside Down).” Political Studies 53: 1-21. (Jones 2005) Kitschelt, Herbert. 1992. “The Formation of Party Systems in East Central Europe.” Politics and Society 20(1): 7-50.

- 13 - Carsten Q. Schneider – Comparative Political Research, Winter 2015

Mair, Peter (1997): What is different about post-communist party systems? In Mair, Peter: Party System Change. Approaches and Interpretations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 175-198 Mair, Peter (1997): Party system and structures of competition. In Mair, Peter: Party System Change. Approaches and Interpretations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 199- 223 Mudde, Cas. (2014): ‘Fighting the System? Populist Radical Right Parties and Party System Change’, Party Politics, 20(2): 217-26 (Randall and Svasand 2002) Sartori, Giovanni. 1976. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Schmitter 2001)

REFERENCE LIST FOR PUBLICATIONS THAT ABOVE APPEAR IN BRACKETS: Bielasiak, Jack. 2002. “The Institutionalization of Electoral and Party Systems in Postcommunist States.” Comparative Politics 34: 189–210. Bochsler, Daniel. 2012. “When Two of the Same Are Needed: A Multilevel Model of Intragroup Ethnic Party Competition.” Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 18(2): 216–41. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13537113.2012.680849 (January 3, 2013). Cheibub, José Antonio. 2007. Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Collier, D., J. LaPorte, and J. Seawright. 2012. “Putting Typologies to Work: Concept Formation, Measurement, and Analytic Rigor.” Political Research Quarterly 65(1): 217–32. http://prq.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/1065912912437162 (November 16, 2012). Collier, David, and John Gerring. 2008. Concepts and Methods in Social Sciences. Giovanni Sartori and His Legacy. London, New York: Routledge. Coppedge, Michael. 2007. “Theory Building and Hypothesis Testing: Large- vs. Small-N Research on Democratization.” In Regimes and Democracy in Latin America: Theories and Methods, ed. Gerardo L. Munck. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 163–78. http://www.nd.edu/~mcoppedg/crd/mpsacopp02.pdf. Elgie, Robert. 2005. “From Linz to Tsebelis: Three Waves of Presidential/parliamentary Studies.” Democratization 12(1): 106–22. Gerring, John. 2012a. “Mere Description.” British Journal of Political Science 42(04): 721–46. http://www.journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0007123412000130 (October 28, 2012). ———. 2012b. Strategies Social Science Methodology. A Unified Framework. second. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goertz, Gary, and James Mahoney. 2012a. A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Qualitative and Quantitative Paradigms. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. ———. 2012b. A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

- 14 - Carsten Q. Schneider – Comparative Political Research, Winter 2015

Horowitz, Shale, and Eric C. Browne. 2005. “Sources of Post-Communist Party System Consolidation: Ideology Versus Institutions.” Party Politics 11(6): 689–706. http://ppq.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/1354068805057605 (July 27, 2012). Jones, Mark P. 2005. The Role of Parties and Party Systems in the Policymaking Process. Kaase, Max. 2010. “Democracy and Political Action.” International Political Science Review 31(5): 539–51. Kiser, Edgar. 1996. “The Revival of Narrative in Sociology: Why Rational Choice Can Contribute.” Politics and Society 17: 489–509. Landman, Todd. 2008. Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics. an Introduction. third. London: Routledge. Makay, Fiona, Meryl Kenny, and Louise Chappell. 2010. “New Institutionalism Through a Gender Lens: Towards a Feminist Institutionalism?” International Political Science Review 5. Padgett, John F, and Christopher K Ansell. 1993. “Robust Action and the Rise of the Medici, 1400-1434.” American Journal of Sociology 98(6): 1259–1319. Ragin, Charles C, and Howard S Becker. 1992. What Is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Randall, Vicky, and Lars Svasand. 2002. “Party Institutionalization in New Democracies.” Party Politics 8: 5–29. Rohlfing, Ingo. 2008. “What You See and What You Get. Pitfalls and Principles of Nested Analysis in Comparative Research.” Comparative Political Studies 41(11): 1492–1514. http://cps.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0010414007308019. ———. 2012. Case Studies and Causal Inference: An Integrative Framework. Houndsmill: Palgrave McMillan. Schmitter, Philippe C. 2001. “Parties Are Not What They Used to Be.” In eds. Larry Diamond and Richard Gunther. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 67– 89. Schneider, Carsten Q., and Ingo Rohlfing. 2013. “Set-Theoretic Methods and Process Tracing in Multi-Method Research: Principles of Case Selection after QCA.” Sociological Methods and Research 42(4): 559–97. Siegel, David A. 2011. “Social Networks in Comparative Perspective.” PS: Political Science & Politics 44(01): 51–54. http://www.journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S104909651000185X (March 2, 2013). Tsebelis, George. 1990. Nested Games: Rational Choice in Comparative Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.

- 15 -