sign in sign up
<<
Home , Arend Lijphart, Margaret Levi, Pippa Norris, Robert Keohane, Theda Skocpol

9600

Readings in Comparative

Course Description This course is a graduate-level introduction to . The objective is to expose you to the range of research questions asked in comparative politics, the different theoretical approaches that underlie those questions, and the methodological tools used to answer them. We begin by examining different scholars’ perspectives on the subfield and how it became what it is today. We then examine some of the major theoretical approaches to the study of comparative politics, including political culture, rational choice, and structuralism. We continue with an examination of the diverse methodological approaches used in comparative politics, evaluating the merits and drawbacks of each. The bulk of the course will be an investigation of key substantive topics in comparative politics, such as democratization, , and . By the end of the course, you should have a solid grasp of the major theories and methods of comparative politics, understand how scholars apply them to different research areas within comparative politics, and be able to use those theories and methods in your own comparative research. For those of you seeking a Ph.D. and selecting comparative politics as your major or minor field, this course will give you a considerable head start when preparing for your comprehensive exams.

Course Requirements Your grade in this course will be based on three requirements: participation (20%), weekly analysis papers (50%), and a final exam (30%).

Participation Like almost all graduate-level courses in political science, class sessions in this course are student-led rather than professor-led. This means that all students are responsible for bringing to class thoughts about the readings, and all students must be prepared to respond to these thoughts posed by other students, such that we collectively reflect on and debate the merits of the readings. My role will be to interject where necessary to ensure that discussion stays on track.

To achieve this type of class environment, your attendance, preparedness, and extensive participation in this course are mandatory. I expect a 100% attendance rate from each student. You must complete the readings assigned prior to each class session and come to class every week fully prepared to participate actively in class discussions. Though I have no expectation that discussion will ever wane, you should fully expect to be called on whether you are volunteering or not. I will not accept passive attendance.

To facilitate class discussion and your comprehension of the material, you should take notes on each reading, make record of your critical comments (both positive and negative), and reflect on the relationships among readings in a given week and across weeks. In addition, you should bring to class at least three critical comments or critical questions about the readings to spur class discussion. I do not plan to collect these from you but will institute a policy to do so if it appears that you are not fully prepared for class each week. The types of issues that you should raise are about the theories, methods, and topics of the week, and not questions about things in the readings that you did not understand. The goal of class discussion is to debate the strengths and weaknesses of the week’s topic and the literature on that topic and to formulate independent evaluations of the research area. This level of preparedness will be necessary to sustain the intellectual level of discussion I anticipate for each class session.

Class participation will comprise 20% of your final grade.

Weekly analysis papers Each week you will need to write a 2-3 page analysis of the week’s readings. This is not simply a summary of each reading but a discussion of how the readings relate to one another, what problems or concerns you have with them, and what they tell us about the particular subset of comparative politics they represent. You should look at the last page of this syllabus, on THINKING about political science, as you do the readings and develop your analysis:

Be sure that your analysis is a coherent whole. In other words, you should not haphazardly offer a range of speculative ideas but rather develop a single original argument. You should have an introduction that sets out the thesis or primary argument of your analysis paper, a body that develops your thesis/argument citing the readings as needed to support your points, and a conclusion that rounds out your analysis paper. This is an opportunity to go beyond restating key points from the readings and think intelligently and originally about what they mean, what they tell us about comparative politics, and what concerns you about them. The paper should cite specific texts and page numbers, such that you are wrestling with meaningful content from the texts. The best papers will be those that take up a single point and develop a thoughtful analysis of that point that integrates or compares readings. Do not try to cover too much in the paper.

You should write analysis papers for each week; however, I will only collect six of them on six unannounced dates. I will grade all six, and at the end of the semester, I will drop the lowest grade such that five papers will count toward your final grade. Each graded analysis paper will be worth 10% such that the graded five will comprise 50% of your course grade. The primary goal of the papers is not to earn grades but to provide you with an opportunity to reflect on the readings and develop critical thinking and writing skills. Bring your analysis papers to class each week and feel free to use them as an aid in generating class discussion. Please note that late analysis papers will not be accepted. Final Exam Most of you will be taking comprehensive exams at the end of your third year. To prepare you for this format, and to make sure you have mastered some of the classics in comparative politics, we will have a written exam on the final class session (Dec. 17). To best mimic the comprehensive exams, there will be 2 questions (giving you about as much time per question as during comps). Good answers will draw upon a wide range of course readings and tie them together coherently in a way which advances an answer to the assigned question.

Materials on Reserve Readings will either be available on Blackboard or Ellis library (online). In addition, the next page of this syllabus lists some books which we will read some of and which you may wish to purchase.

Academic Integrity: Academic integrity is fundamental to the activities and principles of a university. All members of the academic community must be confident that each person's work has been responsibly and honorably acquired, developed, and presented. Any effort to gain an advantage not given to all students is dishonest whether or not the effort is successful. In this course, you are expected to submit original work and behave in a respectful manner toward both the professor and other students in the class. Breaches of the academic integrity rules are extremely serious matters. Sanctions for such a breach range from instructor-imposed academic sanctions, such as a failing grade for the course, to University-imposed disciplinary sanctions, such as probation or expulsion. If you have questions, please consult the University's academic integrity website, http:// academicintegrity.missouri.edu/, and the University M-book, www.missouri.edu/~mbook.

ADA Statement If you need accommodations because of a disability, please inform the professor immediately. In addition, students must register with the Office of Disability Services (http://disabilityservices.missouri.edu), S5 Memorial Union, 882-4696, to request academic accommodations for a disability. It is the campus office responsible for reviewing documentation provided by students requesting academic accommodations, and for accommodations planning in cooperation with students and instructors, as needed and consistent with course requirements. For other MU resources for students with disabilities, click on "Disability Resources" on the MU homepage.

If you have any questions about any of these policies, please feel free to ask me.

Books you should strongly consider buying

While all the readings are available in other formats, any serious student of comparative politics prefers to have these books in her or his hands. You can order these books from Amazon.com or other places.

Books from which we will read at least half of the chapters

Mancur Olson, 1965, The Logic of Collective Action , 1979, States and Social

Revolutions Shugart, Matthew Soberg and John M. Carey, 1992, Presidents and Assemblies:

Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics Dietrich Rueschemeyer, Evelyne Huber Stephens, and John Stephens, 1992, Capitalist Development and

Books from which we will only read a chapter or so, but which are fundamental books in the field and well worth reading, including for comprehensive exams

Huntington, S. H. (1968). Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven, Press, chapter 1, 1-92.

Samuel P. Huntington, 1993, The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century

S. Steinmo, K. Thelen and F. Longstreth, eds. Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis

Arend Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy Przeworski, A., M. E. Alvarez, et al. (2000). Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950-1990.

Scott, James C., 1985, Weapons of the Weak * Asterisk implies the text is on blackboard + The plus symbol implies the text is on JSTOR ^ The hat symbol implies the text is a paper copy that I will loan out for copying

Week 1 (8/24) - Course Introduction Read the syllabus closely and let me know if you have any questions.

I. Concepts and Methods

Week 2 (8/31) – Evolving Topics and Methods

*Lane, Ruth. 1997. The Art of Comparative Politics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. (1-23) *Ronald Rogowski, “Comparative Politics,” in Ada W. Finifter, ed., Political Science: The State of the Discipline (1993), 431-50. *David D. Laitin, “Comparative Politics: The State of the Subdiscipline,” in and Helen V. Milner, Political Science: The State of the Discipline (2002). +Gerardo L. Munck and Richard Snyder, “Debating the Direction of Comparative Politics: An Analysis of Leading Journals,” Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 40, #1, January 2007, 5-31). +James Mahoney, “Debating the State of Comparative Politics: Views from ,” Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 40, #1, January 2007, 32-38. +Erick Wibbels, “No Method to the Comparative Politics Madness, Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 40, #1, January 2007, 37-44.

Professionalization Topic: Comparative Politics Journals and Books *Garand, James C. et al., 2009. “Political Science Journals in Comparative Perspective: Evaluating Scholarly Journals in the , Canada, and the United Kingdom” PS: Political Science, October 2009: 695-171. *Goodson, Larry P., Bradford Dillman, and Anil Hira. 1999. "Ranking the Presses: Political Scientists' Evaluations of Publisher Quality." PS: Political Science & Politics June: 257-62.

Recommended:

Todd Landman, Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics, 2nd edition This is a helpful undergraduate-level introduction to the field of comparative politics. It provides background knowledge within which you can think about the more advanced texts that we will focus on in this course.

Howard Wiarda, “Introduction: New Directions in Comparative Politics,” in his New Directions in Comparative Politics, 1-15. Week 3 - (9/7)

*** No Class - Labor Day ***

Week 4 (9/14) - Methods

+Giovanni Sartori. Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics. APSR 64:4 (Dec. 1970), pp. 1033-1053. *Bates, Robert H. 2008. “From Case Studies to Social Science: A Strategy for Political Research” in The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics. Carles Boix and Susan C. Stokes, eds. (172-185) +. Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method. APSR 65:3 (Sept. 1971), pp. 682-693. *Gary King, , and . Designing Social Inquiry (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1994), pp. 3-33. +James Mahoney, “Qualitative Methodology and Comparative Politics,” Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 40, #2, February 2077, 122-0144. +Gerring, J. (2004). "What is a and What is it Good For?" American Political Science Review 98(2): 341-354. *Wood, Elisabeth. 2008. “Field Research” in The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics. Carles Boix and Susan C. Stokes, eds. (123-146) +Lieberman, Evan S. 2005. “Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research” American Political Science Review 99(3):435-452.

Professionalization Topic: The Importance of Fieldwork in Comparative Politics +Hertel, Shareen, Matthew M. Singer, Donna Lee Van Cott. 2009. “Field Research in Developing Countries: Hitting the Road Running” PS: Political Science and Politics 42(2): 305-309. *Comparative Politics Organized Section. 2005. "Symposium: Should Everyone Do Fieldwork?" APSA-CP Newsletter 16 (2):8-18.

Recommended:

Adam Przeworski & Henry Teune. The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry (Malabar, FL: Krieger, 1982), pp. 3-57. Gary King, Robert Keohane, and Sydney Verba, Designing Social Inquiry Collier, D. (1993). “The Comparative Method.” Political Science: the State of the Discipline II. A. W. Finifter. Washington, American Political Science Association. Charles Ragin. Diversity-Oriented Research. Chap. 1 of Fuzzy-Set Social Science (: Pr., 2000), pp. 21-42. David Collier and James Mahon. Conceptual "Stretching" Revisited. APSR 87:4 (December 1993), pp. 845-855. Jackman, R. (1985). "Cross-National Statistical Research and the Study of Comparative Politics." American Journal of Political Science 29(1): 161-182. Collier, D. and J. Mahoney (1996). "Insights and Pitfalls: Selection Bias in Qualitative Research." World Politics 49: 56-91. Eckstein, H. (1975). Case Study and Theory in Political Science. Strategies of Inquiry. F. I. Greenstein and N. W. Polsby. Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. 7: 79-137. George, A. L. and D. Bennett (2004). Case Studies and Theory Development. Cambridge, MIT Press. Gerardo Munck. Tools for Qualitative Research. In Henry Brady and David Collier, eds. Rethinking Social Inquiry (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Lijphart, A. (1975). "The Comparable-Cases Strategy in Comparative Research." Comparative Political Studies 8(2): 158-177. Mahoney, J. and D. Rueschemeyer (2003). Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Ragin, C. C. (1987). The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley, University of California. Skocpol, T. and M. Sumers (1980). "The Uses of Comparative History in Macrosocial Inquiry." Comparative Studies in Society & History 22(2): 174-197.

II. Theoretical Approaches

Week 5 (9/21) - Rational Choice

*Mark I. Lichbach and Alan S. Zukerman, 1997, “Research Traditions and Theory in Comparative Politics: An Introduction” *, “A Model, A Method, and a Map: Rational Choice in Comparative and Historical Analysis,” in Lichbach and Zuckerman. *Geddes, Barbara. 1995. "The Uses and Limitations of Rational Choice." In Latin America in Comparative Perspective: New Approaches to Method and Analysis, ed. P. Smith. Boulder: Westview Press, 81-108. ^Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action, chaps. 1-2 and either 3, 4, or 5.

Professionalization Topic: Academic Writing *Scott, Gregory M. and Stephen M. Garrison. 2006. The Political Science Student Writer’s Manual, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Chapter 2 (1-24).

Recommended:

James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, 1962, “A Generalized Economic Theory of Constitutions,” in Buchanan and Tullock, The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 63-84. Samuel L. Popkin, The Rational Peasant: The Political Economy of Rural Society in Vietnam Margaret Levi, 1988, Of Rule and Revenue, Berkeley: University of California Press Mancur Olson, 1982, The Rise and Decline of Nations, Yale University Press. Barbara R. Hardin, Collective Action, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press Geddes, 1994, Politician’s Dilemma: Building State Capacity in Latin America, Berkeley: University of California Press.

Week 6 (9/28) - Political Culture

+David Elkins & R. Simeon. A Cause in Search of its Effects, or: What Does Political Culture Explain? Comparative Politics 11:2 (January 1979), pp. 127-145. +Mishler and Rose, 2001. “What are the Origins of Political Trust? Testing Institutional and Cultural Theories of Post-Communist Socities.” Comparative Political Studies 34 (1): 30-63. +, 1998. “The Renaissance of Political Culture?” American Journal of Political Science 82: 1203-30. +Robert Jackman and R.A. Miller, 1996. “A Renaissance of Political Culture?” American Journal of Political Science 40: 632-59. ^Scott, James C. Weapons of the Weak, Chapters 1, 2, and 5.

Recommended:

Pippa Norris, ed. Critical Citizens (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1999), pp. 1-99, 169-272 [you don't need to read chs. 2-4 as carefully as the rest]. Donald Green and Ian Shapiro. Pathologies of (Yale UP, 1994), ch.3, pp. 33-46. Robert Bates et al. Introduction. In Analytic Narratives (Princeton UP, 1998), pp. 3-22.

Week 7 (10/5) – Structuralism and Institutionalism

*Thelen, Kathleen, and Sven Steinmo. 1992. "Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Perspective." In Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis, ed. S. Steinmo, K. Thelen and F. Longstreth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-32. +James March & Johan Olsen. The . APSR 78:3 (Sept.1984), pp. 734-749. *Theda Skocpol, “Bringing the State Back In,” In Peter Evans et al., eds. Bringing the State Back In (Cambridge UP, 1985), pp. 3-37. ^Theda Skocpol, States and Social , chaps 1-4 and conclusion

Professionalization Topic: Building a Bibliography *Scott, Gregory M. and Stephen M. Garrison. 2006. The Political Science Student Writer’s Manual, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Chapter 4 (58-76).

Recommended:

Paul Pierson. Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics. APSR 94:2 (June 2000), pp. 251-267. JSTOR Peter Hall and Rosemary Taylor. Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms. Political Studies 44:5 (December 1996), pp. 936-957. Kenneth Shepsle. Studying Institutions: Some Lessons from the Rational Choice Approach. Journal of Theoretical Politics 1:2 (April 1989), pp. 131-47. Sven Steinmo, , and Frank Longstreth, eds., Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis (1992), Cambridge. Steven Krasner, Defending the National Interest, (1998), Princeton. Peter Evans et al., eds. Bringing the State Back In (Cambridge UP, 1985) Theda Skocpol, 1979, States and Social Revolutions Steven Krasner, “Approaches to the State: Alternative Conceptions and Historical Dynamics, “ Comparative Politics, 16: 223-46. Midgal, Joel, 1998, Strong States and Weak Societies: State-Society Relations and State Capacities in the Third World Joel S. Migdal, Atul Kohli, Vivienne Shue, 1993, eds., State Power and Social Forces: Domination and Transformation in The Third World

III. Major Research Areas

Week 8 (10/12) – Wealth and Democracy

+, “Some Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy, American Political Science Review 52: 69-105, (1959). *Larry Diamond, 1992, “Economic Development and Democracy Reconsidered,” in Gary Marks and Larry Diamond, eds., Reexamining Democracy. +Przeworski & Limongi, 1997, “Modernization: Theories and Facts,” World Politics, January 1997 +Epstein, David L. et al. 2006. “Democratic Transitions” American Journal of Political Science 50(3):551-569.

Recommended:

Przeworski & Limongi, 1997, “Modernization: Theories and Facts,” World Politics, January 1997 Barrington Moore, The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy Week 9 (10/19) - Democratization ^Dietrich Rueschemeyer, Evelyne Huber Stephens, and John Stephens. Capitalist Development and Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), read pp. 1-154. ^Samuel P. Huntington, The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century (1993), chaps. 1 and 2. +Kevin Narizny, 2012. “Anglo-American Primacy and the Global Spread of Democracy: An International Genealogy, World Politics, 64 (2): 341-373.

Recommended:

Valerie Bunce, 2000, “Comparative Democratization: Big and Bounded Generalizations, Comparative Political Studies, 33(6/7): 703-34. Larry Diamond, 2002, “ without Democracy: Thinking about Hybrid Regimes,” Journal of Democracy 12, 21-35 Doh Chull Shin, 1994, “On The Third Wave of Democratization: A Synthesis and Evaluation of Recent Theory and Research," World Politics 47 (October), 135-70. Stephan Haggard and Robert Kaufman, The Political Economy of Democratic Transitions

Week 10 (10/26) - Democracy and Economic Performance

+Gasiorowski, Mark J. 2000. “Democracy and Macroeconomic Performance in Underdeveloped Countries: An Empirical Analysis” Comparative Political Studies, 33(3):319-349. +Baum, M. A. and D. A. Lake (2003). "The Political Economy of Growth: Democracy and Human Capital." American Journal of Political Science 47(2): 333-347. +Przeworski, A., M. E. Alvarez, et al. (2000). Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950-1990. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, chapter 2, 78-141. +Jonathan Krieckhaus, 2006, “Democracy and Economic Growth,” British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 51, #1, pp. 317-340.

Week 11 (11/2) - Political Protest and Instability

^Huntington, S. H. (1968). Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven, Yale University Press, chapter 1, 1-92. +Arce, Moises, and Paul T. Bellinger. 2007. "Low-Intensity Democracy Revisited: The Effects of Economic Liberalization on Political Activity in Latin America." World Politics 60 (1):97-121. +Herbert P. Kitschelt, 1986. “Political Opportunity Structures and Political Protest,” British Journal of Political Science 16: 57-85. +, Stefaan Walgrave, and Peter Van Aelst, 2005. “Who Demonstrates?” Comparative Politics 37: 189-205

Recommended: Popkin, Samuel. 1979. The Rational Peasant: the Political Economy of Rural Society in Vietnam. Berkeley: University of California Press (chapter 1, 1-31 and chapter 6, 243-267). Timothy P. Wickham-Crowley, 1992, Guerrillas and in Latin America: A Comparative Study of Insurgents and Regimes since 1956, Princeton. Doug McAdam, Sidney Tarrow, and , “Toward and Integrated Perspective on and Revolution,” Lichbach and Zuckerman, eds., Comparative Politics, 142-173. Samuel Huntington, 1968, Political Order in Changing Societies, 264-343. Manus I. Mildarsky and Kenneth Roberts, “Class, State, and Revolution in Central America: Nicaragua and El Salvador Compared,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 29 (June 1985), 163-93. Mark Lichbach, “Rethinking Rationality and Rebellion: Theories of Collective Action and Problems of Collective Dissent,” Rationality and Society 6 (January 1994), 8-39.

Week 12 (11/9) – Democratic Institutions ^Shugart, Matthew Soberg and John M. Carey. 1992. Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics. New York: Cambridge University Press. (entire book). ^Arend Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy, chaps 1-4 (1-61) & 14-17 (243-309).

Recommended

G. Bingham Powell, Jr.., Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions (2000), chaps. 1-2, 3-43. Reign Taagepera, “Arend Lijphart’s Dimensions of Democracy: Logical Connections and Institutional Design,” Political Studies 51 (March 2003), 1-19. Arend Lijphart, “Debate: Measurement Validity and Institutional Engineering – Reflections on Reign Taaggepera’s Meta Study,” Political Studies 51 (March 2003), 20-25. Kenneth McRae, “Contrasting Styles of Democratic Decision-Making: Adversarial versus Consensual Politics,” International Political Science Review 18 (July 1997), 279-95. Christopher J. Anderson and Christine A. Guillory, “Political Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy: A Cross-National Analysis of Consensus and Maroritarian Systems,” American Political Science Review 91 (March 1997), 66-81. Andre Kaiser, “Types of Democracy: From Classical to New Institutionalism,” Journal of Theoretical Politics 9 (1997), 419-44. Giovanni Sartori, 1997, Comparative Constitutional Engineering, 2nd ed.

Week 13 (11/16) – Party Systems ^Maurice Duverger, Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State (1954), pp.203-280. *Seymour Martin Lipset & Stein Rokkan, Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments. In iidem, eds. Party Systems and Voter Alignments (New York: Free Press/Macmillian, 1967), pp.1-64. *Boix, Carles. 2007. “Emergence of Parties and Party Systems” in Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics. Carles Boix and Susan Stokes, eds. (499-521) *Russell Dalton et al., eds. Electoral Change in Advanced Industrial (Princeton UP, 1984), chap. 15. +Amorim Neto, Octavio and Gary W. Cox. 1997. "Electoral Institutions, Cleavage Structures, and the Number of Parties." American Journal of Political Science, 41(1): 149-174.

Recommended:

Russell Dalton, Parties without Partisans (2000), chaps 1 & 12, 3-16; 261-85 Robert Dix, “Cleavage Structures and Party Systems in Latin America,” Comparative Politics 22 (1989), 23-37. Samuel Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies (1968), chap.7, 397-496. Robert Michels, “The Iron Law of Oligarchy,” in Brown, ed., Comparative Politics, 291-304. Peter Mair, ed., The West European Party System (1990), chaps. 3, 5, 11-16, & 22. John Aldrich, Why Parties?: The Origins and Transformation of Party Politics in America (1995), 3-61. Minion K.C. Morrison, “Political Parties in Ghana through Four Republics: A Path to Democratic Consolidation,” Comparative Politics, 36: 421-42. Kenneth Roberts and Erik Wibbels, “Party Systems and Electoral Volatility in Latin America: A Test of Economic, Institutional, and Structural Explanation,” American Political Science Review 93 (1999), 575-590. Giovanni Sartori, Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis (1976), chaps. 5 & 6. Gunther, Richard, et al., Political Parties; Old Concepts and New Challenges (2002)

*** Thanksgiving Break *** Week 15 (11/30) – Economics and Voting +Anderson, Christopher J. 2007. The End of Economic Voting? Contingency Dilemmas and the Limits of Democratic Accountability. Annual Review of Political Science 10:271-296. +Remmer, Karen. 1991. “The Political and Economic Impact of Economic Crisis in Latin America in the 1980s.” American Political Science Review 85:777-800. +Laron K. Williams and Guy D. Whitten, 2014. “Don’t Stand So Close to Me: Spatial Contagion Effects and Party Competition,” American Journal of Political Science, April 2014. +Powell, G. Bingham, and Guy D. Whitten. 1993. A Cross-National Analysis of Economic Voting: Taking Account of the Political Context. American Journal of Political Science 37 (2):391-414. +Nadeau, Richard, Richard G. Niemi, and Antoine Yoshinaka. 2002. A Cross-National Analysis of Economic Voting: Taking Account of the Political Context across Time and Nations". Electoral Studies 21 (4):403-423.

Week 16 (12/7) - Final Exam How to THINK about political science readings

To do research in political science you need to not only understand the published literature but also evaluate it. You need to develop the ability to distinguish between good research and bad research, and you need to develop the ability to determine what is important in a book or article and what is merely fluff. Ultimately, only you can be the judge of the materials you read, but here are some hints on how to develop your evaluative skills.

1. Constantly seek to determine an author’s main argument. Books and articles contain thousands of words, but their contribution can usually be summed up in a paragraph or two. You need to constantly ask yourself what the main points are and only focus on details in so far as they pertain to these main points.

2. Who is the author talking to? One of the most important mental transitions you can make as a graduate student is to stop focusing on a reading per se and learn to interpret it within the more general literature. Why did the author write this piece? Who is he or she trying to convince, and why are they trying to convince them? What is it that the author finds problematic about the current literature, and does the author adequately add to or criticize this literature? In short, what has the author contributed to the literature?

3. Is this contribution an important one? Why or why not?

4. What do you think of the author’s theoretical framework? Is it a new framework? If so, how does it differ from existing frameworks? Is this new framework an improvement? Why or why not?

5. What do you think of the empirical support for the author’s argument? How many different sorts of evidence does the author bring to bear? What do you think of the methodology employed? Does the evidence actually pertain to the argument or is it tangential?

6. What limitations to the author’s argument would be noted by analysts working in rival political economy traditions, or by analysts working with theories of ideology or culture? More generally, what are the primary weaknesses of the text? All texts have weaknesses, regardless of how prominent the author may be, and you must learn to identify these weaknesses. Only then can you determine whether the weaknesses are sufficiently serious to substantially undermine the author’s main point(s).

7. After thinking about these issues, write up two paragraphs for each course reading. The first should briefly summarize the main point(s). The second should briefly evaluate this reading. Is it a valuable contribution? Why or why not?