Courses and Syllabi

PLCP 768 -- Spring 2004

The Politics of Advanced Industrial Societies

Introduction

This seminar provides an overview of the major theoretical approaches and empirical findings in the study of advanced industrial societies, one of the most influential subfields in comparative politics. Our work is organized into four major segments. The first weeks of the semester explore long-term change in modern capitalism at the same time that they take stock of developments in historical institutionalism. We next turn to rational choice approaches and applications to the study of government coalitions in parliamentary democracies. In the third, longest, and in some ways most diverse section of the semester, we examine political parties, party competition, and electorates. Our last two sets of readings address accountability and representation and are designed to serve as capstones for the course as a whole.

The course is obviously and necessarily selective in focus. Its readings invite reflection on many of the most prominent approaches and methods that have been used in studying politics in advanced industrial societies. The substantive topics the course treats have received much attention from analysts of the area. The field, however, is vast. The seminar aims not to compile an inventory of all of its contents but to stimulate and guide further inquiry.

Course Requirements

30 percent -- weekly journal (11 entries total). Each seminar member is required to keep a weekly journal of reactions to, and reflections on, each week's set of readings. The structure and content of journal entries will vary somewhat from week to week and from student to student; nonetheless, all journal entries should include (but not be limited to) a brief statement of the major argument(s) in the reading, a brief discussion of the kinds of evidence used, and one question about the reading that the student would like to explore. Entries should approximate 3 (three) carefully written pages per week. Journal writing is due Wednesdays by 8 a.m. at the latest; submissions via e-mail or the class Toolkit website (assignments function) are fine but not required.

25 percent -- Critical review essays (two total). Each student will write two critical review essays on the seminar readings. The review essay may expand on a journal entry or strike off in a new direction; it may develop a theme common to several readings, evaluate one work in light of another, or reflect on one week's works in light of another week's. Whereas the journal entries provide you with the opportunity to communicate your "rapid response" to a reading, the critical review essay is intended to invite students to take a broader perspective as they assess the assigned readings. Each essay should be about 10 or 12 pages long. The first essay is due Mar. 5, and the second is due on any date the student prefers between Apr. 14 and May 7.

5 percent -- proposal for the research paper and
25 percent -- research paper. Each student will also write a 20-25 page research paper that further investigates a problem considered collectively in class. We will devote one class meeting (Mar. 3) to the tasks of developing research questions and designing a research project. A research proposal of 3-4 pages (with preliminary bibliography) is due Mar. 5. The paper is due May 5 and students will discuss their preliminary research findings in class on Apr. 21.

In all written work they submit, students must rigorously follow rules of proper citation. See the Appendix to this syllabus on such rules. Be forewarned: Failure to adhere to rules of proper citation on any piece of written work will result in failure in the course.

15 percent -- Participation. Students will also be evaluated on the contributions they make to the collective enterprise of seminar discussions. Each week, every member of the class should be prepared to take an active role in discussion. Entries in the weekly journal are intended to equip students for participation in seminar discussion.

Readings

The following books are available at the U.Va. Bookstore:

• Erik Bleich, MRace Politics in Britain and France. Cambridge 2003.
• Mark Blyth, Great Transformations. Cambridge 2001.
• Russell Dalton and Martin Wattenberg, eds., Parties Without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford 2002.
• Peter A. Hall and David W. Soskice, Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford,2001.
• Evelyne Huber and John D. Stephens, Development and Crisis of the Welfare State: Parties and Policies in Global Markets. Chicago 2001.
• John D. Huber and Charles R. Shipan, Deliberate Discretion?: The Institutional Foundations of Bureaucratic Autonomy. Cambridge 2002.
• Michael Laver and Norman Schofield, Multiparty Government: The Politics of Coalition in Europe. Michigan 1998.
• Peter Mair, Party System Change: Approaches and Interpretations. Oxford 1999.
• Adam Przeworski, Susan Stokes, and Bernard Manin, eds., Democracy, Accountability, and Representation. Cambridge 2003.
• Paul M. Sniderman, Pierangelo Peri, Rui J.P. De Figeuiredo, and Thomas Piazza, The Outsider: Prejudice and Politics in Italy. Princeton, 2002.
• George Tsebelis, Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton 2002.

Before late March, several article-length readings are assigned per week in addition to the chief book-length assignment. You can download the articles from our Toolkit class website, as indicated below by the [W] symbol. Beginning on March 31, I deliberately limit reading assignments to one book per week, in light of your preparation of the research paper and the second critical review essay.

Class Meeting Topics and Reading Assignments

Jan. 14.  Introduction.

Varieties of Historical Political Economy

 Jan. 21.  Approaches to the Evolution of Modern Capitalism. 

• Peter Gourevitch, Politics in Hard Times: Comparative Responses to International Economic Crises (Cornell 1986), Chs. 1 and 6, pp. 17-34, 221-240, endnotes at pp. 241, 259-260. [W]
• Peter A. Hall, ed., The Political Power of Economic Ideas:  Keynesianism across Nations (Princeton 1989), Ch. 14, pp. 361-391. [W]
• Blyth, Great Transformations, all.

 

Jan. 28.  Historical Institutionalism, Organized Interests, and Public Policy. 

• Kathleen Thelen, "Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics," Annual Review of Political Science, June 1999, Vol. 2, pp. 369-404. [W]
• Hall and Soskice, eds., Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage, all.

 

Feb. 4.  Welfare States:  Growth, Variants, and Recent Change.

• Paul Pierson, Dismantling the Welfare State? Reagan, Thatcher, and the Politics of Retrenchment (Cambridge 1994), Introduction and Ch. 7, pp. 1-9, 164-182, endnotes at pp. 183-184, 208-210. [W]
• Carles Boix, Political Parties, Growth and Equality: Conservative and Social Democratic Strategies in the World Economy (Cambridge 1998), Chs. 1 and 10, pp. 1-15, 219-231, endnotes at pp. 232-234, 252-254.  [W]
• Huber and Stephens, Development and Crisis of the Welfare State, all.

The Study of Individual and Collective Choice

Feb. 11.  Recent Contributions to Rational Choice.

• Norman Schofield, "Constitutional Political Economy: On the Possibility of Combining Rational Choice Theory and Comparative Politics," Annual Review of Political Science, June 2000, Vol. 3, pp. 277-303. [W]
• Stephan Haggard and Mathew D. McCubbins, eds., Presidents, Parliaments, and Policy (Cambridge 2001), Chs. 1 and 2, pp. 1-17, 21-63. [W]
• Tsebelis, Veto Players, all.

 

Feb. 18.  Theories of Coalition and Applications to Multiparty Government.

• Laver and Schofield, Multiparty Government, all.
• Michael Laver and Kenneth A. Shepsle, Making and Breaking Governments: Cabinets and Legislatures in Parliamentary Democracies (Cambridge 1996), Chs. 1 and 4, pp. 3-17, 61-78. [W] 
• Carol Mershon, "Contending Models of Portfolio Allocation and Office Payoffs to Party Factions: Italy, 1963-79," American Journal of Political Science, September 2001, Vol. 45, pp. 277-293. [W]
• Lanny Martin and Georg Vanberg, "Policing the Bargain: Coalition Government and Parliamentary Scrutiny," American Journal of Political Science, January 2004, Vol. 48, pp. 13-27.  [W]
• Not required:  For brief prose explications of concepts in formal theory, see Carol Mershon, The Costs of Coalition (Stanford 2002), Glossary, pp. 229-235. If you have questions about the Laver-Shepsle model, see Ibid., pp. 14-16, endnotes at pp. 238-239.  [W]

Parties, Party Competition, and Electorates

Feb. 25.  Change in Political Parties.

• Dalton and Wattenberg, eds., Parties Without Partisans, all.
• Geoffrey Evans, "The Continued Significance of Class Voting," Annual Review of Political Science, June 2000, vol. 3, pp. 401-417. [W]

 

Mar. 3.  Workshop on Framing Research Questions. 

The reading is short (since review essays are due Mar. 5) but crucial.  Review past class notes and readings in order to define a research question for your paper. Be prepared to present your paper ideas to fellow seminar participants.

• W. Phillips Shively, The Craft of Political Research, 4^th ed., Prentice Hall 1998, Chs. 1 and 2. [W]
• Robert H. Bates, "Area Studies and the Discipline: A Useful Controversy," PS: Political Science and Politics 1997, Vol. 30, pp. 166-169. Available at www.jstor.org
• David Collier, "Building a Rigorous, Disciplined Center in Comparative Politics," APSA-CP, Newsletter of the Organized Section in Comparative Politics of the American Political Science Association, Summer 1999, 1-2, 4.
• Sidney Tarrow, "Expanding Paired Comparison: A Modest Proposal," APSA-CP, Summer 1999, 9-12. 

Both Collier and Tarrow are available at: http://www.nd.edu/%7Eapsacp/pdf/APSA-CP20Summer201999.pdf . 

 

Both critical review essays and paper proposals are due Fri., Mar. 5, at 5:00 p.m.   Submit both hard copies and electronic versions; the electronic copies may be sent via e-mail or the Toolkit.

 

Mar. 17.  Change in Party Systems.

• Mair, Party System Change, all.
• Gary Cox, "Electoral Rules and Electoral Coordination," Annual Review of Political Science, June 1999, Vol. 2, pp. 145-161. [W]  (This article is based on Cox’s magisterial Making Votes Count.)
• Michael Laver and Kenneth Benoit, "The Evolution of Party Systems between Elections," American Journal of Political Science, April 2003, Vol. 47, pp. 215-233. [W]
• William B. Heller and Carol Mershon, "Switching in Parliamentary Parties," unpublished manuscript.  [W]

 

Mar. 24.  Newly Diverse Societies: Implications for Party Competition and Public Policy.  

• Sniderman, et al., The Outsider, all.
• Bleich, Race Politics in Britain and France.  All students should read Chs. 1, 7, and 8.  Each student should choose to read, in addition, either Chs. 2-4 (on Britain) or Chs. 5-6 (on France).

 

Mar. 31.  Old and New Clientelism:  Implications for Representation and Policy.

• Piattoni, ed., Clientelism, Interests, and Democratic Representation, all.

Accountability and Representation in Advanced Industrial Democracies

Apr. 7.  Delegation from Politicians to Bureaucrats:  Accountability and Representation, Part I.

• Huber and Shipan, Deliberate Discretion, all.

 

Apr. 14.  Accountability and Representation, Part II.

• Przeworski, Stokes, and Manin, eds., Democracy, Accountability, and Representation, all.

 

Apr. 21.  Conclusions.

No reading assignment.  This class meeting has two related goals: (a) discussion and comparison of in-progress research papers; and (b) discussion of conclusions for the semester as a whole.  To prepare for (a), write a paper abstract of no more than 150 words, and list the two or three most important challenges that you envision as you proceed to wrap up work on the research paper.  To prepare for (b), reflect on the links between your research paper and the collective work of the class, and review notes from past class readings and class discussions.   

Research papers are due 5:00 p.m., Wed., May 5.  Submit both a hard copy and an electronic version.

Note:  This class, of course, adheres to all college-wide deadlines and policies regarding adds, drops, and so forth.

 

Important Guidelines: Plagiarism vs. Proper Citation

Under the Honor System at this University, plagiarism warrants expulsion. Obviously, you should never plagiarize. According to the pamphlet, Academic Fraud and the Honor System, published by the University of Virginia (no date given): "Plagiarism is the use of the distinctive ideas or words belonging to another person without adequate acknowledgment of that person's contribution." Taking responsibility for your own intellectual work and giving credit to others for their work go to the heart of what we do at a university. To repeat: You should never, under any circumstances, plagiarize.

The U.Va. English Department places acts of plagiarism into three categories: "failing to cite quotations and borrowed ideas; failing to enclose direct quotations in quotation marks; failing to put summaries and paraphrases in your own words" (quotation from http://www.engl.virginia.edu/wctr/plagiarism.html). Avoid all three sorts of pitfalls.

If I identify an instance of plagiarism in any assignment submitted by a student, that student will earn the grade of F on the assignment.

How do you make sure you understand proper rules of citation vs. acts of plagiarism? Consult such classic style manuals as The Chicago Manual of Style (University of Chicago Press, 14th ed., 1993) and William Strunk, Jr., and E. B. White, The Elements of Style (Macmillan, 3rd ed., 1979). The following URLs are also likely to be helpful:

• http://www.engl.virginia.edu/wctr/plagiarism.html This excellent site gives examples of proper citation and proper paraphrasing, and thus clarifies what constitutes plagiarism. Check references too.
• http://plagiarism.phys.virginia.edu Includes a wealth of related links.
• http://trc.virginia.edu/Resources/Online.htm Resources on cheating and plagiarism from the U.Va. Teaching Resource Center.
• http://www.academicintegrity.org From the Center for Academic Integrity. Rich source, well worth investigating.
• http://www.duke.edu/web/HonorCouncil/citation.htm Excellent Duke webpage on proper citation, with extremely helpful links.
• http://www.rbs2.com/plag.htm Superb site on why plagiarism is wrong and what it is. One of the few sites to discuss plagiarism as a legal issue.
• http://www.georgetown.edu/honor/plagiarism.html Useful site, though in my view not as good as the Duke one.