Politics 521
The Study of Comparative Politics
Fall Term 2010
Professors Mark Beissinger and Amaney Jamal
Princeton University
Thursdays 1:30-4:20
This course surveys the major topics in comparative politics and is intended for Ph.D. students.
Its purpose is to introduce the main theoretical and conceptual building blocks of the sub-field. We will
focus on the intellectual evolution of the field, the dominant debates and controversies, and the variety of
approaches to research within comparative politics. The course develops a shared language and set of
references that will prove useful to you throughout your professional career. It proceeds thematically.
Each week we discuss a subset of the pertinent scholarly literature, usually focusing on a major theme or
theoretical controversy. Key methodological issues in the study of comparative politics are addressed in
context of these substantive and theoretical works, as well as in the written assignments for the class.
The course is meant as a kind of “boot camp” for graduate students in the comparative politics
field. The main objective is to ensure your basic literacy in the field by introducing key questions and
exposing you to classic readings. The focus is on “the canon”—not necessarily on the most current
literature. Inevitably, there is an enormous amount of material that should be on the list but is not, simply
for lack of time. In order to complete your education as a comparativist, you will need to take additional
courses in the field, master the comparative politics general examination reading list, read the recent
journal literature, and learn about the latest research in the field by attending the weekly comparative
politics colloquium.
As part of this course, we also seek to expose you to some of the interesting work that is currently
being done in comparative politics. Thus, one of the requirements of the course is your attendance at the
weekly comparative politics colloquium, which meets immediately after the course on most Thursday
afternoons at 4:30. You are also required to attend the workshop on case-study research sponsored by the
Bobst Center on September 23-24 (This will aid you also in some of your written assignments for the
course). Moreover, two of the speakers in the comparative politics colloquium whose works you will
read this semester will be visiting our seminar for the last 40 minutes of the class to lead a discussion
about the main directions of future research in their area of expertise.
Professors:


Mark Beissinger, mbeissin@princeton.edu; 237 Corwin Hall; Office Hrs: Thursdays, 10:00-12:00
Amaney Jamal: ajamal@princeton.edu; 241 Corwin Hall; Office Hrs: Tuesdays 1:30-3:20 and by
appt
Requirements, Assignments, and Grading:


You will be expected to read ALL of the readings on the syllabus for each week.
You must attend every class meeting, participate actively in class discussions, and attend the
weekly comparative politics colloquium and the Bobst case study workshop: 30% of total grade.
Pol 521_Fall_2010_Beissinger and Jamal
1


You will write ten two-page response papers on the readings each week (for 10 of the 12 weeks in
the semester): 40% of total grade (These are due before class starts via email to both Beissinger
and Jamal. They should be no longer than 2 pages long, double-spaced, with 12-point font).
o Response papers should answer one of the following questions:
 What are the principal differences in the arguments of the works under study?
 What are the central debates in the field on the issue under consideration?
 What are the main empirical strengths and weaknesses of the works under study?
 Have the scholarly disputes/debates on this subject been resolved, and what
remains to be discovered?
One 12-15 page methodology paper: 30% of total grade (The assignments from which you can
choose are given to you at the end of this syllabus. The methodology paper is due on dean’s
date.).
Course Readings:
All course readings are available through Blackboard, with the exception of those starred below (**),
which will be on three-hour reserve at Firestone.
Course Schedule:
Sept. 16. The Modern State
Sept 23. Modernization and Political Development
Sept. 30. Political Institutions
Oct. 7. Political Regimes: Democracy and Democratization
Oct. 14. Authoritarian Regimes
Oct. 21. Political Parties, Elections, and Representation
Oct. 28. Political Culture and Civil Society
Nov. 11. Nationalism and the Politics of Cultural Identity
Nov. 18. Participation and Collective Action
Dec. 2. Violence, Rebellion, and Revolution
Dec. 9. States, Markets, and Prosperity
Dec. 16. Capitalism, Inequality, and the Welfare State
Week 1 (Sept. 16). The Modern State. YOU WILL BE EXPECTED TO HAVE
COMPLETED THESE READINGS PRIOR TO THE FIRST CLASS.
Definitions of the State

Max Weber, “Politics as a Vocation,” in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (eds. H.H. Gerth
and C. Wright Mills). New York: Oxford University Press, 1946, pp. 77-83.

Mancur Olson, Power and Prosperity. New York: Basic Books, 2000, pp. 1-24.
Pol 521_Fall_2010_Beissinger and Jamal
2
State Formation:

Hendrik Spruyt, “War, Trade, and State Formation,” in Carles Boix and Susan Stokes, eds.
Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics (2007), pp. 211-235.

Charles Tilly. “War Making and State Making as Organized Crime” in Rueschemeyer, Evans,
and Skocpol, eds, Bringing the State Back In. 1985, pp. 44-77.

Charles Tilly. Coercion, Capital, and European States. Cambridge: Blackwell, 1990, pp. 1-3,
16-23, 25-26, 28-32, 71-75, 94-95, 99-103.
States and Societies:

Migdal, Joel. Strong Societies and Weak States, chapters 1, 8.

Jeffrey Herbst. States and Power in Africa. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000,
chapters 2 and 5.

Robert Jackson and Carl Rosberg, “Why Africa’s Weak States Persist: The Empirical and the
Juridical in Statehood,” World Politics, 1982: 1-24.

Scott, James. (1998). Seeing like a State. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 87-102, 182191.

James C. Scott, The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia
(2009), pp. 1-39.

John Meyer, J. Boli, G. Thomas, and F. Ramirez, “World Society and the Nation-State,”
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 103 no. 1 (July 1997), pp. 144-181.
Week 2 (Sept. 23). Modernization and Political Development (Note: Bobst Hosting CaseStudy Workshop to take place on September 23 and 24—students required to attend)
Traditionalism and Modernity:

Daniel Lerner. The Passing of Traditional Society. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1958, chapters 1 and 2.

Karl Deutsch, “Social Mobilization and Political Development,” in Jason Finkle and Richard
Gable, eds., Political Development and Social Change, 1971, pp. 384-401.

Seymour Martin Lipset. Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics. Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday, 1960, chapter 2.
Modernization and Political Institutions:

Huntington, Samuel Political Order in Changing Societies Chapter 1 (partial), pp. 1-77, Chapter
7 (partial); pp. 397-433
Pol 521_Fall_2010_Beissinger and Jamal
3

Hagopian, Frances. “Political Development, Revisited,” Comparative Political Studies. Vol 33,
Issue 6, 2000.
Modernization Theory Revisited:

Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi, “Modernization: Theories and Facts,” World Politics
49, 2 (January 1997) pp. 155-183.

J. Samuel Valenzuela and Arturo Valenzuela, “Modernization and Dependency: Alternative Perspectives
in the Study of Latin American Underdevelopment,” Comparative Politics, 10, 4 (July 1978): 535-552.

Caporaso, James A. 1980. “Dependency Theory: Continuities and Discontinuities in
Development Studies.” International Organization 39 (Autumn), 605-628.

Ronald Inglehart and Wayne Baker. “Modernization, Globalization, and the Persistence of
Tradition: Empirical Evidence from 65 Societies,” American Sociological Review, 65 (2000): 1951.

Susan Strange, The Retreat of the State (1996), pp. 3-15.

Simmons, Beth, Frank Dobbin, and Geoffrey Garrett, “Introduction: the International Diffusion
of Liberalism,” International Organization. (Fall 2006).
Week 3. (September 30) Democracy and Democratization.
Definitions of Democracy:

Robert Dahl. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1971, chapters 1-7 and 10.**
Democratization:

Guillermo O’Donnell and Philippe C. Schmitter, “Negotiating (and Renegotiating)
Pacts,” from Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclusions about
Uncertain Democracies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986.

Samuel Huntington. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century.
Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991, pp. xiii-xv and chapters 1-2.**

Carles Boix, Democracy and Redistribution. New York: Cambridge University Press,
2003, pp. 1-17.

Dankwart Rustow, “Transitions to Democracy,” Comparative Politics, 2:3 (1970), 33763.

Valerie Bunce. 2000. "Comparative Democratization." Comparative Political Studies 33
(6-7): 703-34.
Pol 521_Fall_2010_Beissinger and Jamal
4
The Relationship between Development and Democracy:

Adam Przeworski et. al. Democracy and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2000. Chapter 2.

Carles Boix and Susan Stokes, “Endogenous Democratization,” World Politics,
58, 4 (July 2003): 517-549.

Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson. Economic Origins of Dictatorship and
Democracy. Cambridge University Press. Pages 1-87.

Barrington Moore. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. 1968 (see also or as a
reader’s guide: Theda Skocpol, “A Critical Review of Barrington Moore’s Social
Politics and Society, fall 1973) Preface and chapter 7.

Dietrich Rueschemeyer, Evelyne Huber Stephens, and John Stephens. Capitalist Development
and Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992, chapters 1, 2, and 3.
Week 4 (October 7) Authoritarianism.
Definitions and Categorization of Regime Space:

Linz, Juan. “Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes,” in Fred Greenstein and Nelson
Polsby, eds. Handbook of Political Science. Vol 3. (Reading MS: Addison-Wesley Pub
Co. 1975). Pp. 187-196, 364-306, 336-350.

Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy. (1965), pp.
14-29.
The Sources of Authoritarian Persistence:

Magaloni, Beatriz. 2006. Voting for Autocracy: Hegemonic Party Survival and its Demise in
Mexico. New York: Cambridge University Press. Introduction and chapter 1.

Eva Bellin. “The Robustness of Authoritarianism in the Middle East: A Comparative
Perspective,” Comparative Politics, 36, 2 (2004): 139-157.

Myerson, Roger. 2008. “The Autocrat's Credibility Problem and Foundations of the
Constitutional State,” American Political Science Review 102 (February): 125-139. Pages 133137 only.

Wintrobe, Ronald. 1990. “The Tinpot and the Totalitarian: An Economic Theory of
Dictatorship,” American Political Science Review 84 (September): 849-872.

Gandhi, Jennifer. Political Institutions Under Dictatorship. 2010. Introduction and Chapter 1.

Michael Ross, “Does Oil Hinder Democracy?” World Politics, April 2001
Pol 521_Fall_2010_Beissinger and Jamal
5

Dunning, Thad. Crude Democracy. 2008. Conclusion.

Gandhi, Jennifer and Adam Przeworski, “Authoritarian Institutions and the Survival of
Autocrats,” Comparative Political Studies 40:11 (2007).
Mixed Regimes:

Levitsky, S, and L. A. Way. 2002. "The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism." Journal of
Democracy 13 (2):51-65.

Diamond, Larry. “Thinking About Hybrid Regimes,” Journal of Democracy. April, 2002.
Week 5 (October 14). Political Institutions.
Presidents and Parliaments:

Matthew Shugart and John Carey. Presidents and Assemblies. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1992. 1-4, 6-8, and 13.

Juan J. Linz, “Presidential or Parliamentary Democracy: Does it Make a Difference?”
from The Failure of Presidential Democracy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press, pp. 3-48
Constitutions:

G. O’Donnell. “Delegative Democracy,” Journal of Democracy. (1994)

Stepan and Skach. “Constitutional Frameworks and Democratic Consolidation:
Presidentialism versus Parliamentarism,” World Politics, 46 October 1993.
Varieties of Institutional Configurations:

Timothy Hellwig and David Samuels. “Electoral Accountability and the Variety of
Democratic Systems,” British Journal of Political Science 38 (2008): 65-90.

William Riker, Federalism: Origin, Operation, Significance. Boston: Little, Brown,
1964, chapters 1 and 2.

Kenneth McRae, ed. Consociational Democracy: Political Accommodation in Segmented
Societies Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1974, pp. 2-27, 70-106, and 137-149.

Arend Lijphart. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in
Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999, chapters 1-3.
Pol 521_Fall_2010_Beissinger and Jamal
6
The New Institutionalism:

Hall, Peter and Rosemary Taylor (1996). “Political Science and the Three New
Institutionalisms.” Political Studies 44: 936-957.

Weingast, B. 2002. “Rational-Choice Institutionalism,” in Ira Katznelson and Helen
Milner eds. Political Science: The State of the Discipline, Centennial Edition, pp. 660-92.

Williamson, Oliver. “The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead,”
Journal of Economic Literature, 38 (September, 2000).
Week 6 (October 21). Political Parties, Elections, and Representation. Guest
Speaker: Joel Migdal.
Party Systems:

Lipset and Rokkan. “Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments,” in Party
Systems and Voter Alignments. Eds. Lipset and Rokkan. Pgs. 1-64.

Downs, Anthony, 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and
Row. Chaps 7-8.

Peter Mair, ed., The West European Party System. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1990, chapter 1,5, and 24 (Stein & Rokkan).

Octavio Amorim Neto and Gary W. Cox, “Electoral Institutions, Cleavage Structures,
And the Number of Parties,” American Journal of Political Science, 41, 1 (1997): 149174.
Voting Behavior:

John Aldrich. “Rational Choice and Turnout,” American Journal of Political Science, 37
(1993): 246-278.

Jackman, Robert W. 1987. “Political Institutions and Voter Turnout in the Industrial
Democracies.” American Political Science Review Vol. 81:405-23

Powell, G Bingham. 1986. “American Voter Turnout in Comparative Perspective.”
American Political Science Review Vol. 80 No. 1 (March):17-43.

Campbell, Converse, Miller & Stokes. The American Voter, Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1960, pp. 120-159.
The Impact of Elections

Cox, Gary W. 1997. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World's
Electoral Systems. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press., Chapters 1, 2, 3,
7, 10, 11 (p.1-69, 139-150, 181-224)
Pol 521_Fall_2010_Beissinger and Jamal
7

Philippe Schmitter, “Still the Century of Corporatism?” Review of Politics, 1 (85-128).

Torben Iversen, “Political Leadership and Representation in West European
Democracies: A Test of Three Models of Voting,” American Journal of
Political Science, 38, 1 (1994): 45-74.
Week 7 (October 28). Political Culture and Civil Society. Guest Speaker: Ronald Inglehart
Culture and Political Development

Edward Banfield. The Moral Basis of a Backward Society, pp. 17-24 and 83-109.

Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba. The Civic Culture, Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1963, passim, but especially chapters 1, 5-6, 13 (1, 6, 7, 15 in hardback edition).

Inglehart, Ronald. Culture Shift. Pgs 66-103.
Civil Society, Social Capital and Political Development:

Robert Putnam. Making Democracy Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press. (Skim chap 4
and read chaps 5 and 6)

Tarrow, Sidney. “Making Social Science Work across Space and Time: A Critical
Reflection on Robert Putnam’s Making Democracy Work.” American Political Science
Review (June 1996).

Margaret Levi. “A State of Trust,” in Braithwaite, Valerie and Levi, eds., Trust and Governance.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1998.

Tom R. Tyler. “Trust and Democratic Governance,” in Braithwaite, Valerie, and Levi, eds. Trust
and Governance. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1998.
Critiques and Innovative Applications:

David J. Elkins and Richard Simeon. “A Cause in Search of its Effect, or What Does
Political Culture Explain?” Comparative Politics. (January 1979)

David Laitin. “Political Culture and Political Preferences,” American Political Science
Review. (1988)

Wedeen, Lisa. “Conceptualizing Culture: Possibilities for Political Science.” American
Political Science Review, vol. 96 no. 5 (Dec 2002).
Pol 521_Fall_2010_Beissinger and Jamal
8
Week 8 (November 11). Nationalism and the Politics of Cultural Identity.
Definitions and Origins:

Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism (1983), pp. 8-62.

Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism (new edition, 2006), pp. 1-65, 163-185.

Kanchan Chandra, “What is Ethnic Identity and Does It Matter?” Annual Review of Political
Science, 9 (2006), pp. 397-424.
Cultural Categories and Ethnic Conflict

David D. Laitin, “Hegemony and Religious Conflict: British Imperial Control and Political
Cleavages in Yorubaland,” in Peter Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol, eds.,
Bringing the State Back In (1985), pp. 285-316.

Daniel Posner, “The Political Salience of Cultural Difference: Why Chewas and Tumbukas
are Allies in Zambia and Adversaries in Malawi,” American Political Science Review 98, 4:
529-545.

Miguel, Edward. (2004). Tribe or Nation? Nation Building and Public Goods in Kenya versus
Tanzania, World Politics, 56.

James Habyarimana, Macartan Humphreys, Daniel Posner, and Jeremy M. Weinstein, “Why
Does Ethnic Diversity Undermine Public Goods Provision?” American Political Science
Review 101 (4) (2007), pp. 709-25.
 Fearon, James & Laitin, David. (1996, December). Explaining Ethnic Cooperation, American
Political Science Review, 90, 715-735.
 Steven Wilkinson, Votes and Violence: Electoral Competition and Ethnic Riots in India
(2004), pp. 1-18, 137-171.
Week 9 (November 18). Mobilization, Collective Action, and Social Movements.
Theories of Collective Action:

Ted Robert Gurr, Why Men Rebel (1970), pp. 22-58.

Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups
(1971), pp. 5-52.

Pamela Oliver and Gerald Marwell, The Critical Mass in Collective Action: A Microsocial
Theory (1993), pp. 1-13, 38-57.

Albert Hirschman. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970,
chapters 1-4.
Pol 521_Fall_2010_Beissinger and Jamal
9
Mobilization and Opportunity:

Sidney Tarrow, Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics (1998, 2nd
ed.) pp. 29-42, 71-105, 141-160.

Herbert Kitschelt, “Political Opportunity Structures and Political Protest: Anti-Nuclear
Activism in Four Democracies,” British Journal of Political Science (1986), pp. 57-85.

James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance (1990), pp. 17-69, 183-201.**

Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in
International Politics (1998), pp. 1-38.

Mark Beissinger. Nationalist Mobilization and the Collapse of the Soviet State. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2002, pp. 1-32, 104-146.
Week 10 (December 2). Violence, Rebellion, and Revolution.
Theories of Revolution

Theda Skocpol, States and Social Revolutions (1979), pp. 3-43.

Jack A. Goldstone, “Toward a Fourth Generation of Revolutionary Theory,” Annual Review
of Political Science (2001), pp. 139-187.

Jeff Goodwin, No Other Way Out: States and Revolutionary Movements, 1945-1991 (2001),
pp. 3-64.:

Steven Pincus. 2007. “Rethinking Revolutions: A neo-Tocquevillian Perspective.” In Carles
Boix and Susan Stokes, eds. Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics. Oxford University
Press. Chapter 17.

Timur Kuran, Private Truths, Public Lies: The Social Consequences of Preference
Falsification (1995), pp. 45-59, 247-288
Civil War

Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffler, “Greed and Grievance in Civil War,” Oxford Economic
Papers 56(4) (2004), pp. 563-595.

Stathis Kalyvas, The Logic of Violence in Civil War (2006), pp. 146-209.

Elisabeth Jean Wood, Insurgent Collective Action and Civil War in El Salvador (2003), pp.
226-256.

Jeremy Weinstein, Inside Rebellion: The Politics of Insurgent Violence (2007), pp. 27-60.
Pol 521_Fall_2010_Beissinger and Jamal
10
Week 11 (December 9). States, Markets and Prosperity.
Markets and Institutions

Robert Bates. Markets and States in Tropical Africa. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1981. Pgs 11-118.

Douglass North. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pages 1-69.

Charles Lindblom. Politics and Markets. New York: Basic Books, 1977, pgs 131-188.
Political Determinants of Economic Growth:

Rueschemeyer, Dietrich; Evelyne Huber Stephens, and John D. Stephens. 1992. Capitalist
Development and Democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Chs. 5-7.

Robert J. Barro. Determinants of Economic Growth. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1997,
Chapter 1.

Atul Kohli. State-Directed Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2004, introduction.

Peter Evans. Embedded Autonomy. or “Predatory, Developmental, and Other Apparatuses,”
Sociological Forum, 4:4: 561-87.

Daron Acemoglu, James A. Robinson and Simon Johnson. “The Colonial Origins of
Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation.” The American Economic Review.
2001.

Alexander Gerschenkron, Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective. (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1962) Pp. 5-30.
Week 12 (December 16). Capitalism, Inequality, and the Welfare State
Origins and Development of the Welfare State:

Esping-Ander, Gosta. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. (Princeton University Press)
Chaps 1-3.

Iversen, Torbin and John Stephens. “Partisan Politics, The Welfare State, and Three Worlds of
Human Capital Formation,” Comparative Political Studies. 20:10 (2008).

Pepper Culpepper. “Institutional Change in Contemporary Capitalism: Coordinated Financial
Systems since 1990. World Politics Jan 2005.
Pol 521_Fall_2010_Beissinger and Jamal
11

Evelyne Huber and John Stephens. Development and Crisis of the Welfare State. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2001. chapts. 1-3 and 6 and 7.

Isabela Mares. 2004. "Wage Bargaining in the Presence of Social Services and Transfers,”
World Politics, 57(1), 99-142.

Matthew E. Carnes and Isabela Mares, “The Welfare State in Global Perspective,” in Carles Boix
and Susan Stokes, eds. Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics (2007), pp. 868-885.
The Politics of Inequality:

Karl Ove Moene and Michael Wallerstein. “Earnings Inequality and Welfare Spending,” World
Politics 55(2003):485-516.

Kenneth Scheve and David Stasavage (2009). Institutions, Partisanship, and Inequality in the
Long Run. World Politics, 61, pp. 215-253

Jonas Pontusson. Inequality and Prosperity: Social Europe versus Liberal America. Cornell
University Press, 2005. Chapters 1, 2, 7

Lane Kenworthy and Jonas Pontusson. “Rising Inequality and the Politics of Redistribution in
Affluent Countries,” Perspectives on Politics, 3(2005):449-471.
Pol 521_Fall_2010_Beissinger and Jamal
12
METHODOLOGY PAPER ASSIGNMENTS FOR POLITICS 521
Choose ONE of the following paper assignments. Your paper should be 12-15 pages in length
(double-spaced with 12-point font). The paper is due on dean’s date.
PAPER ASSIGNMENT #1. Is “the comparative method” an effective means for drawing
inferences in social science, and what should be its role in empirical research? Use at least
four of the following works in answering the question.
John Stuart Mill. “How We Compare,” in A System of Logic, Book VI, chapter
10, New York: Harper, 1846
David Collier, “Comparative Politics and Comparative Method,” in Dankwart
Rustow and Kenneth Paul Erickson, eds., Comparative Political Dynamics
Arthur L. Stinchcombe. “The Logic of Scientific Inference” from Constructing
Social Theories. Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc. New York, pp. 15-38.
Adam Przeworski and Henry Teune. “Comparative Research and Social Science Theory” from
The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New York: Wiley Scientific, 1970, pp. 17-30.
Gary King, Robert Keohane and Sidney Verba, Designing Social Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1994.
Jon Elster. Explaining Social Behavior: More Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences,
Cambridge University Press, 2007, “Explanations,” “Mechanisms,” and
“Interpretation,” pp. 7-66 and “Explanation by Consequence and Natural Selection” pp.
271-286.
Daniel Little Varieties of Social Explanation: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Social
Science (Westview Press, 1991).
Przeworski, Adam. (2007). Is the Science of Comparative Politics Possible? In Boix, Carles &
Stokes, Susan C. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics. New York: Oxford
University Press.
PAPER ASSIGNMENT #2. Choose a recent comparative politics article from a major
political science journal (APSR, World Politics, Comparative Political Studies, or
Comparative Politics). Indicate what you believe to be the problems involved in the
research design of the article, and provide what you believe to be an improved research
design . In providing your research design, use at least four of the following sources to
inform your discussion.
Giovanni Sartori, “Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics,” APSR, 64:4: 1033-53.
Pol 521_Fall_2010_Beissinger and Jamal
13
Charles Judd, Eliot Smith, and Louise Kidder, “Maximizing Construct Validity” and
“Measurement: From Abstract Concepts to Concrete Representations,” in Research
Methods in Social Research.
Donald Green and Ian Shapiro, Pathologies of Rational Choice, chapter 5.
Adam Przeworski and Henry Teune. “Research Designs,” from The Logic of Comparative Social
Inquiry. New York: Wiley Scientific, 1970, pp. 31-47.
Stephen van Evera. Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science, Ithaca: Cornell
University Pres, 1997, chapter one.
Donald Campbell and Julian Stanley, Experiments and Quasi-Experimental Designs for
Research, pp. 1-22 and 34-61. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1963 reprinted.
Earl Babbie. Survey Research Methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1990. Chapters 2-5.
John Gerring. “Research Design: General Criteria,” pp. 155-199 in Social Science Methodology:
A Critical Framework. Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Evan S. Lieberman, "Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research,"
American Political Science Review 99 (August 2005), 435-452
Alexander L. George and Andrew Bennett. Case Studies and Theory Development
In the Social Sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005, at least chapter 1, Part II, and
chapter 8.
Clifford Geertz. “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture,” in
Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books: 3-30.
Gary King, Robert Keohane, and Sidney Verba. Designing Social Inquiry..
Barbara Geddes, “How the Cases You Choose Affect the Answers You Get: Selection
Bias in Comparative Politics,” in Political Analysis, edited by James Stimson,
v. 2 Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1990: 131-149. (optional)
David Collier, James Mahoney, and Jason Seawright. “Claiming Too Much: Warnings
About Selection Bias,” in Henry Brady and David Collier, eds., Rethinking
Social Inquiry. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004, pp. 85-86, 88-92, 94-5, 100-101.
Edward Schatz, ed., Political Ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009.
Pol 521_Fall_2010_Beissinger and Jamal
14