STONYBROOK UNIVERSITY
Department of Political Science
POL SCI 567: Culture, Values, and Public Opinion:
Comparative and Cross-National Approaches
Spring 2012
Tuesdays: 11:20 – 2:10
Office Hours: Thursday: 4-:5:30
or by appointment
Dr. Gallya LAHAV
Office: SBS 755
Tel: (631) 632-7613
Course Description and General Objectives: This course investigates the evolution of values,
cleavages, political space, and issues in cross-national perspective (with particular focus on the
advanced industrialized democracies of the US, Europe, Israel, Japan, and Australia). Placing
our course within a comparative framework of social inquiry, we introduce student to key
concepts, data, methods, measurements and approaches to public opinion. We begin our study
with the analysis of traditional socio-economic cleavages in determining issue positions, and the
‘end of ideology’ theses propounded by comparative political scientists, such as Daniel Bell and
Francois Fukuyama. We then explore the strengths and weaknesses of paradigm shifts to values,
buttressed by public opinion data. Bringing in cultural and neo-institutional explanations of
political behavior and change, the course weds individual level analysis and group behavior
theories with rigorous empirical testing. We examine cross-national and longitudinal data sets
available through World Value Surveys, Eurobarometers, ESS, Pew, and others, to examine
evolving political space stemming from new politics, identity politics and ‘new security’ threats
in a global era.. The third and fourth parts of the course operationalize culture and values by
empirically testing their impact on democracies. Apply the theories to examine the politics of
identity, diversity, and immigration, we explore not only group and individual theories offered by
political psychology about political behavior, but also studies on immigration, racism,
xenophobia and intolerance at the aggregate level. Finally, the course will conclude by looking at
how the different levels of analyses (individual, group, and institutions) and conflicting values
contribute to explain contentious politics, ‘boundary-making (‘us’ and ‘them’), and the ‘politics
of difference’ across cultures.
Texts:
*Russell Dalton: Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial
Democracies, 5th ed. CQ Press, 2008.
(Highly Recommended: available at University bookstore).Good background textbook to read in
entirety. Class will read several chapters through the semester.
*Blackboard packet readings
Course Requirements: Grade breakdown and Due Dates:
1)Readings, Blackboard memos, discussion (25%): Weekly
2)3 short papers, including 2 lab reports (February 9 and April 12), and an article review (30%)
3) Final research paper: Proposal due at end of February (on blackboard); paper due on May 4.
(40%) + (5% proposal and presentation)
1
Requirements:
Each student will be required:
1) To actively participate in class and blackboard discussions based on assigned readings,
and to moderate one topic theme week. (25%)
2) To prepare three short papers (30%)
a) Short paper : Data lab #1: Generate a thesis and compare at least two countries
using the concepts discussed in class, using different original data sources.
b) Short paper, Data lab #2 Generate a thesis and compare at least two countries
using the concepts discussed in class. Your paper should be both descriptive and
analytical.
c) Article/Book review: Choose one of the optional readings on the reading list or
of your moderation week, and write a critique.
3) To submit a research proposal, and conduct a final data-based research paper, which will
also be orally presented during class meeting. (45%)
I. Blackboard Discussions
To facilitate student interaction and to ensure lively class discussion, an electronic blackboard has
been created for our class at the following URL: http://blackboard.stonybrook.edu
Should you have any problem logging into Blackboard, please go to the Main Library Sinc Site
room S1460 or contact site via email: http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu// for help.
All students are required to cover the readings in advance of class, and to participate in weekly
memos to the class (one-page absolute maximum) emailed to the class by no later than the first day
of the week (Monday). Memos should synthesize, integrate, and critique the weekly readings and
relate them to other readings and/or empirical trends where relevant.
Students should provide
overview of the theme articles and the link between them as well as to the session’s theme of the
week. The purpose of this on-going assignment is to develop your academic reasoning and
application, as well as writing skills. It also strives to maintain the dialogue throughout the
semester.
Each student will be required to serve as a (co)discussant for one class. Serving as a discussant
entails both:
a)emailing to the class a 2-page response to the comments they made in their memos, by 10 AM
(without exception) by the class meeting (Thursday); and
b)being co-responsible for leading and moderating class discussion during the topic week.
Class moderators should review the arguments (and counterarguments), evaluate the
methods and evidence, and provide critique recommending (or not) the articles. The
moderator should briefly summarize and critique the readings, and relate them to each
other. What do they have to contribute to the theme of the week, and how do they relate to
larger class topic as a whole. Place the article in theoretical perspective. Relate the articles
to each other, and to previous discussions. Finally, the moderator should summarize class
responses, and be able generate questions, and provoke class discussion
The goal is to go beyond summary of main points, and to identify elements of the works that you
find particularly stimulating and worthy of discussion.
.
II. a). Article/Book Review and Presentation (10%)
Students will prepare 1 short paper (2-3 pages, approximately 500-750 words) reviewing one of the
Recommended readings (except that of course text). Each student will be expected to present this
review (no more than 5 minutes) to the relevant class (normally the one, they are moderating. Let
me know which article, so that we can avoid duplication, and arrange for a presentation time. The
2
purpose of this assignment is to develop your academic reasoning and writing skills. The paper
should summarize and critique the reading by addressing some or all of the following questions:
a) What is/are the central question(s) addressed by the author?
b) What, if any, hypothesis is explored in this research?
c) What is/are the main argument(s) developed by the author?
d) What, if any, are the dependent and independent variables introduced?
e) On the basis of what kinds of research and evidence has the author developed his/her study?
f) What do you see as the strengths and shortcomings of this piece of research?
Beyond focusing on the main themes and arguments, you should put them into a broader
perspective. Book reviews should go beyond “the book is good/bad’ to flag what you think is new
or enlightening, what is controversial or downright wrong. Be sure to provide evidence for your
own argument (generally from other readings we have done).
II.b). Lab Exercises: (10% each)
Data Lab #1: Review first-hand data sources (e.g., Eurobaromters, ESS, World Value Survey,
SOPEMI, Gallup, Zogby Polls, Pew Studies, Israel Democracy Institute), and identify at least two
variables that may influence public opinion towards an issue of your choice. Develop a hypothesis.
Data Lab #2: Place your hypothesis within the literature, and test it along 2 or more countries.
Provide short analysis supporting your findings.
III). Final Research Paper Due: May 4 (40%)
All students will prepare a research paper on a topic of their choosing (but approved by professor),
consisting of 12-15 double-spaced pages. The paper topic should be comparative in nature
(compare at least 2 countries), and should include tables, bibliography, and footnotes. It should
have theoretical underpinnings, a clear statement of the problem or question you are addressing,
and should clearly demonstrate a familiarity with the literature relevant to our topic. It should
incorporate some outside scholarly sources (than those assigned for class), and discuss data issues
(i.e., difficulty finding material or shortage of literature, etc.). A one-page proposal and preliminary
bibliography will be due early in the semester (by the end of February), to be posted on Blackboard
for class exchange. The final paper is due on May 4. Late papers will lose 5 marks per day.
University Guidelines
Academic Integrity: Each student must pursue his/her academic goals honestly and be personally accountable
for all submitted work. Faculty are required to report any suspected instances of academic dishonesty to the
Academic Judiciary. Plagiarism and cheating are breaches of the standard codes of academic honesty -offenses that will be treated very seriously. Copying or appropriating someone else’s work or handing in
work previously graded constitutes academic dishonesty. They will be pursued with disciplinary action,
and will result in an “F” grade for the course.
For more comprehensive information on academic integrity, including categories of academic dishonesty,
please refer to the academic judiciary website at: http://www.stonybrook.edu/uaa/academicjudiciary/.
Critical Incident Management: Stony Brook University expects students to respect the rights, privileges, and
property of other people. Faculty are required to report to the Office of Judicial Affairs any disruptive
behavior that interrupts their ability to teach, compromises the safety of the learning environment, or inhibits
students’ ability to learn.
Americans with Disabilities Act If you have a physical, psychological, medical or learning disability that
may impact your course work, please contact Disability Support Services, ECC (Educational
Communications Center) Building, room 128, (631) 632-6748. They will determine with you what
accommodations are necessary and appropriate. All information and documentation is confidential. For
procedures and information, go to http://www.ehs.sunysb.edu/fire/disabilities/asp
3
Introduction: Comparing Political Behavior and Public Opinion
26 January: Overview of course structure and substance
We review key concepts and major debates (especially between structuralists and
culturalists; cultural theory vs. rational choice), as well as interdisciplinary approaches to
public opinion and culture (e.g., political psychologists, sociologists institutionalists,
anthropologists).
I. Comparative Methods: Art and Science of Public Opinion Research
2 February: Using Cross-National Data: Lab Exercise
This week, we will discuss differences between individual and aggregate data, and review
data sources available to researchers of public opinion. We will identify the type of data and
questions available for empirical analysis, as well as their limits and strengths. Students
will also have the chance to work with RA in the data lab to conduct simple statistical
analysis.
Readings:
 Anthony Heath, Stephen Fisher, and Shawna Smith (2005). “The Globalization of Public
Opinion Research” Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2005. 8:297–333
doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.090203.103000
 World Values Survey, www.worldvaluessurvey.org See cultural map of the world
(Inglehart and Norris)
 Michael Bratton Democratic Attitudes and Political Participation: An Exploratory
Comparison across World Regions http://www.globalbarometer.net/publication.htm
Examine and prepare to discuss some comparative public opinion sources (See some
suggested on-line resources below): Pew, World Values Survey, Eurobarometer, etc.
Identify the following of each: mission, reach, audience, funding agencies, and longitudinal
scope. Describe one of the strengths and weaknesses of these data bases for examining
comparative public opinion.
Optional
 Heath, Anthony, Martin J., and T. Spreckelsen (2009). “Cross-National Comparability of
Survey Attitude Measures,” International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 21 (3):
293-315.
Feb. 9: # 1st Data Lab Assignment due
Write up a research question with a thesis to be tested for comparative analysis.
9 February Comparative Study of Public Opinion
We consider scientific methods and logic of cross-national research on public opinion and
strategies for case selection.
Readings:
 Dalton chap. 1-2
 Dalton, “Citizen Attitudes and Political Behavior,” Comparative Political Studies, 33
(August-Sept 2000): 912-940
 Prezworski, Adam and H. Teune, “The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry,” NY
Wiley (read chapter 2: Research Design)
http://bss.sfsu.edu/sguo/Renmin/June1_logic/The%20Logic%202_Prezworski.pdf
4
Optional:
 Norris, Pippa (2008). “The Globalization of Comparative Public Opinion Research,”
Sage Handbook of Comparative Politics, eds., Neil Robinson and Todd Landman.
London: Sage Publications.
 King, Keohane and Verba, (1994) Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in
Qualitative Research, Princeton.
 Marc Howard Ross, “Galton’s problem in cross-national research” World Politics 29
(1976), pp. 1-28.
 Lichbach and Zuckerman (chap. 5)
II. Cross-National Concepts and Measures of Public Opinion
16 February: Does Culture Matter? Perspectives on Political Culture:
We trace the history of cultural explanations in political science from national character
studies to the renaissance of political culture. We explore contributions, limitations,
criticisms, measurement issues, and applications.

Gabriel Almond, The Intellectual History of the Civic Culture Concept (pp. 16-30) in
Almond and Verba (eds.) The Civic Culture Revisited (Little Brown, 1980).
 Inglehart, Ronald, “The Renaissance of Political Culture APSR 82, 4, 1988, 1203-1230.
 Seligson, Mitchell 2002. “The renaissance of political culture or the renaissance of the
ecological fallacy?” Comparative Politics 34 (3) 273
 David J. Elkins and Richard E.B. Simeon, “A Cause in Search of Its Effect, What Does
Political Culture Explain?” Comparative Politics, 11 (January 1979), pp. 127-146.
 Jackman, Robert W. and Ross A Miller. “A Renaissance of Political Culture?” American
Journal of Political Science 40 (1996), pp. 632-659.
Optional



Riesinger, W. “Renaissance of a Rubric: Political culture as concept and theory,”
Internaitonal Journal of Public Opinion Research (1995) 7: 328-352
Marc Howard Ross in Lichbach and Zuckerman (chap. 3)
Gastil, J. et al., (2011). The Cultural Orientation of Mass Political Opinion” in PS:
Political Sciece & Politics, APSR Symposium on “A Culture Theory of Politics,” Vol.
44, no. 1 Oct. 2011
February 23: Defining and Measuring Values
We review and distinguish key concepts (e.g., attitudes, beliefs attitudes, values) intrinsic to
understanding cultural differences of public opinion. We question the structure, level of stability,
consistency and universality of values and values systems.




Feldman, Stanley (1988). “Structure and Consistency in Public Opinion: the Role of
Core Beliefs and Values,” American Journal of Political Science, 32: 416.
Schwartz, S. H. (2006). Value orientations: Measurement, antecedents and consequences
across nations. In R. Jowell, C. Roberts, R. Fitzgerald, & G. Eva (Eds.), Measuring
attitudes cross-nationally - lessons from the European Social Survey. London: Sage.
Hofstede, Geert (2001) Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors,
Institutions and Organizations Across Nations, Sage.
Silver, Brian and K. Dowley, (2000) “Measuring Political Culture in Multi-Ethnic
Societies: Reaggregating the World Values Survey” Comparative Political Studies, 33
(May): 517-550.
5
Optional
 Schwartz, Shalom (1994). “Are There Universal Aspects in the Structure and Contents
of Human Values?:Journal of Social Issues. Vol. 50. No- 4. pp. 19-45
 Geert Hofstede, Culture and Organization: Software of the Mind
 de la Garza, F. and Garcia (1996). « Will the real Americans please stand up: Anglo and
Mexican-American support for core American political values, » American Journal of
Political Science, 40” 335-351.
III. Longitudinal and Comparative Determinants of Public Opinion
1 March: Social Determinants and Cross- Cultural Cleavages: Ideology and
Partisanship
In this section, we consider social cleavages, and focus on traditional socio-economic
cleavages which may be ordered along the left-right or liberal-conservative continuum. We
then consider how to conduct comparison of ideology cross-nationally over space and time.
Readings:
 Dalton, chaps,6, 8
 Klingemann, Hans-Dieter. (1979). "Measuring Ideological Conceptualizations." in
Political action : mass participation in five Western democracies, edited by S. H. Barnes
and M. Kaase. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.
 Huber, John (1989). “Values and Partisanship in Left-Right Orientations: Measuring
Ideology,” European Journal of Political Research¸17: 599-621.
Optional
 Barnes, Samuel H., & Kaase, Max. (1979). Political action: Mass participation in five
Western democracies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
 Mair, Peter “Left-Right Orientations” in Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior (2007)
See more Optional Reviews (in back)
8 March: Is Ideology Relevant?
As a sequel to last week’s theme, we will consider the relevance of ideology in organizing
political conflict. We will evaluate the debates and evidence in the field, and consider what
other cleavages (e.g., religion, ethnicity, culture) may be useful if at all to organize issue
positions?

Bell, Daniel “The End of Ideology Revisited”, Government and Opposition, 23 (Spring
and Summer, 1988): 131-150; 321-328.
 Fukuyama, Francis “The End of History,” The National Interest” (Summer 1989): 3-18.
(see book, The End of History (1992)
 Samuel Huntington, (1993). “Clash of Civilizations?” Foreign Affairs,72, 3 (Summer):
22-49 (or see Clash of Civilization and the Remaking of the World Order. NY: Schuster,
1996).
Optional
 Bell, Daniel, The End of Ideology: On the Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the Fifties,
rev. ed. (NY: Collier Books, 1961).
 Franklin, Mark. (1992). The decline of cleavage politics. In Mark Franklin, T. Mackie,
&Henry Valen (Eds.), Electoral change: Responses to evolving social and attitudinal
structures in Western countries (pp. 324-356). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
6

Dalton, Russell J., Flanagan, Scott C. & Beck, Paul Allen. (1984). Electoral change in
advanced industrial democracies: Realignment or dealignment? Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
15 March: Changing Values: Post-Materialism and New Politics
The topic of this week is values and value change. We will discuss some issues of
measurement, and examine several key questions in debate. Continuing the discussion from
last week, we will consider the relevance of ideology or new cleavages in a global world.
What evidence is there for values change in industrialized liberal democracies? Is there good
evidence supporting Inglehart’s claims of a substantial value shift among the younger
generation in affluent societies?Do economic priorities or generational shifts provide a more
satisfactory explanation of value change?
Readings:
 Dalton, ch. 5
 Inglehart, R. and Christian Welzel (2004). Modernization, Cultural Change, and
Democracy (Cambridge University Press), chaps. 1-2
 Davis, Darren and Christian Davenport (1999). “Assessing the Validity of the
Postmaterialsm Index,” American Political Science Review, 93 (September): 649-664.
 Flanagan, Scott, and Aie-Rie Lee (2003). “The New Politics, Culture Wars, and the
Authoritarian-Libertarian Value Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies,
Comparative Political Studies, 36, 3 (April): 235-270.
Optional:
 Inglehart, Ronald (1990). Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton U. Press
**22 -29 March: Preliminary data reporting of thesis (Research Paper)
2-7 April Spring Break!
IV: Empirical Applications of Culture for Democracy: Politics of identity and diversity.
In this section we operationalize the cultural variable, and explore its impact on issues of
pluralism and democracy. What factors condition support for democracy, and its correlates?
We apply these notions specifically to politics of diversity, immigration, and racism. Does value
change drive democratization, tolerance, or development?
April 12: Data Lab #2 Due: Conduct a short (500-750) paper on preliminary findings.
12 April: How does Culture Matter? Modeling political culture for Democracies
Consider impact of cultural variables on values, public support for democracy and democratic
institutions, regional integration, gender inequality. What are the advantages and disadvantages
of quantitative index of democratization? What explanatory power does political culture have for
understanding the emergence of democracy and stability?
Readings:
 Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel: (2003). Political Culture and Democracy:
Analyzing Cross-Level Linkages, Comparative Politics, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Oct., 2003), pp.
61-79
 Fukuyama, Francis “Confuscianism and democracy,” Journal of Democracy (1995)
7



Norris, Pippa and R. Inglehart, “Islamic Culture and Democracy,” Comparative
Sociology (2002): 1: 235-262.
Yun-han Chu, Michael Bratton, Sandeep Shastri, Marta Lagos, Mark Tessler “Public
Opinion and Democratic Legitimacy” http://www.globalbarometer.net/06_19.2chu.pdf
Landes, D. (2000). “Culture Makes Almost All the Difference” Harrison and Huntington,
Culture Matters (Chap. 1).
Optional
 Inglehart and Christopher Welzel (2010). “Changing Mass Priorities: the Link between
Modernization and Democracy,” Perspectives on Politics 8 (2): 551-567.
 Norris and Inglehart 2012. ‘Mecca or oil? Why Arab states lag in gender equality.’
Global Cultural Change edited by Russell Dalton and Christian Welzel. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
 Pye, Lucien (2000) “Asian Values”: From Dynamos to Dominoes?” in Culture Matters
(Harrison and Huntington)
 Arian et al., (2010). Auditing Israeli Democracy: Democratic Values in Practice
Israel Democracy Institute.
 Freedom House, http://www.freedomhouse.org/research
19 April: Identity, Diversity, and Social Capital: trust and support for democracy
In gauging the effects of civic engagement, we try to test the civic culture model, which sees
participation as essential to democracy. Does public opinion reveal that social trust is in
decline, and does it even matter for democracy to flourish? Does Putnam’s theory of social
capital hold true cross-culturally?
Readings:
 Dalton, chap. 12
 Putnam, R. (1995). “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital,” Journal of
Democracy 6: 65-78.
 Putnam, Robert (2007). “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twentyfirst century: the 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture.” Scandinavian Political Studies
30(2):137-174
 Stolle, Dietlind and Marc Hooghe (2004). “Review Article: Inaccurate, Exceptional,
One-Sided or Irrelevant? The Debate about the Alleged Decline of Social Capital and
Civic Engagement in Western Societies, BJPS 35: 149-167.
Optional:
 On-line: http://www.globalbarometer.net/
 Wollebaeck et al. (2012). “After Utøya: How a High-Trust Society Reacts to Terror:
Trust and Civic Engagement in the Aftermath of July 22,” PS: Political Science and
Politics, January: 32-37.
 Cifti, Sabri (2010). “Modernization, Islam or Social Capital: what Explains Attitudes
toward Democracy in the Muslim World?”, Comparative Political Studies, 43(11): 14421470.
 Horowitz, D. (1993). “Democracy in Divided Societies,” Journal of Democracy, 3: 1838.
26 April: Politics of Immigration and Xenophobia
Anti-immigration sentiment exists in many forms across the industrialized liberal democracies,
including public opinion, extreme-right politics, electoral campaigns, social movements, etc.
This week we will consider cross-national differences in empirical manifestations of extremism
(e.g. anti-immigrant sentiment), and focus on diffuse public opinion towards boundary-making and
8
the politics of ‘us’ and ‘them’. What influences public opinion towards immigration and ethnic
minorities and does it matter?
Readings.
 Fetzer, Joel. 2000. Public Attitudes toward Immigration in the US, France and Germany,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read chaps 1, 5, 9
 Lahav, 2004, “Public Opinion toward Immigration in the EU,” Comparative Political
Science, vol. 37, no.10: 1151-1183 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0010414004269826
 Citrin, Jack and John Sides. 2007. “Public Opinion about Immigration: the Role of
Identities, Interests and Information,” British Journal of Political Science, 37(3)477-504
 Paul M Sniderman, Louk Hagendoorn, and Markus Prior, 2004. Predispositional Factors
and Situational Triggers: Exclusionary Reactions to Immigrant Minorities”, American
Political Science Review, 98: 35-50.
Optional:
 Chandler, Charles, Yung-mei Tsai, (2001). “Social Factors influencing Immigration
Attitudes: an Analysis of Data from the General Social Survey, “the Social Science
Journal, 38: 177-188.
 Citrin, J. D. Green, C. Muste and C. Wong (1997). “Public Opinion toward Immigration
Reform: the Role of Economic Motivations,” Journal of Politics, 59, 3 (August): 858881.
 Lahav, Gallya (2004). The Politics of Immigration and the New Europe, Cambridge
University Press.
3 May: Framing Values when Values Collide: Does Context Matter?
Working towards a conclusion, we use some of the framing literature to consider the interactive
effects of values, ideology and culture on public opinion, particularly regarding democratic
stability. We review patterns and peculiarities, and consider the evolving political landscape of
global conflict. Is support for democracy a universal and/or long-term value? Is there an
American exceptionalism?
Readings:
 Davis, Darren and Brian Silver (2005). “Civil Liberties vs. Security: Public Opinion in
the Context of Terrorist Attacks on America,” American Journal of Political Science, 48.
 Lahav, G. and M. Courtemanche, 2011. “Ideological Effects of Framing Threat on
Immigration and Civil Liberties Political Behavior (February 6) DOI 10.1007/s11109011-9171-z
 Posner, Daniel N. 2004. The Political Salience of Cultural Difference: Why Chewas and
Tumbukas Are Allies in Zambia and Adversaries in Malawi. APSR 98(4): 529-45.
 Gibson, James (2007). “Political Intolerance in the Context of Democratic Theory,” in
Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior.
Optional
 James L. Gibson (1992). “The Political Consequences of Intolerance: Cultural
Conformity and Political Freedom,” The American Political Science Review
Vol. 86, No. 2 (Jun., 1992), pp. 338-356
 Thomas E. Nelson and Donald Kinder. 1996. Issue Frames and Group-Centrism in
American Public Opinion” The Journal of Politics 58(4): 1055-78.
 Citrin, Jack, Beth Reingold and Donald Green (1990). “American Identity and the
Politics of Ethnic Change,” Journal of Politics, 52: 4: 1124-1153.
9
Suggested on-line resources
EuroBarometer: http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/
European Social Survey: http://naticent02.uuhost.uk.uu.net
Gallup International Voice of the People: www.voice-of-the-peopole.net/
World Values Study: http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/
Pew Global Surveys: http://pewglobal.org
International Social Survey Program: http://www.issp.org
New Europe Barometer: www.cspp.strath.ac.uk
World Public Opinion: http://www.worldpublicopnion.org/
Asia Barometer: www. Eastasiabarometer.org and http://www.asianbarometer.org/
Latinobarometro: www.latinobarometro.org
International IDEA. State of Democracy Project. http:///www.idea.int/democracy/
Israel Democracy Index
Freedom House
Helpful Supplementary Readings: (More to follow)
Culture
 Eckstein, Harry, 1988. “A Culturalist Theory of Political Change, APSR¸ 82: 3 1988
 Werlin, H. and Harry Eckstein, “Political Culture and Political Change,” APSR, 84: 1,
1990.
 Wildavski, Aaron (1987). “Choosing Preferences by Constructing Insitutions: A Culture
Theory of Preference Formation,” APSR, 81:3-21.
 Gastil, J. et al., (2011) The Cultural Orientation of Mass Political Opinion” in PS:
Political Sciece & Politics, APSR Symposium on “A Culture Theory of Politics,” Vol.
44, no. 1 (Oct.).
Cleavage Structures, and Ideology






Lipset, Seymour Martin,&Rokkan, Stein. (1967). “Cleavage structures, party systems and
voter alignments: An introduction. In Seymour M. Lipset & Stein Rokkan (Eds.), Party
systems and voter alignments: Crossnational perspectives (pp. 1-64). New York: Free
Press.
Gabel, Matthew J.,&Anderson, Christopher J. (2002). The structure of citizen attitudes
and the European political space. Comparative Political Studies, 35, 893-913.
Gabel, Matthew, & Hix, Simon. (2002). Defining the EU political space: An empirical
study of the European elections manifestos, 1979-1999. ComparativePolitical Studies,
35, 934-964.
Hix, Simon. (1999a). Dimensions and alignments in European Union politics: Cognitive
constraintsand partisan responses. European Journal of Political Research, 35(2), 69-125
Hooghe, Liesbet, Gary Marks, and Carole Wilson, “Does Left-Right structure party
positions on European Integration? Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 35 No. 8, October
2002 965-989
http://www.unc.edu/~gwmarks/assets/doc/hooghe,%20marks,%20wilson%20%20does%20leftright%20structure%20party%20positions%20on%20European%20integ
ration.pdf
Gary Marks and Marco Steenbergen (2002), “Understanding Political Contestation in the
European Union” Comparative Political Studies 2002; 35; 879 http://cps.sagepub.com
DOI: 10.1177/001041402236297
10

Evans, Geoffrey, ed. (1999) The End of Class Politics? Class Voting in Comparative
Context (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Values
 S. Schwartz and W. Bilsky, (1990). Toward a Theory of the Universal Content and Structure
of Values: Extensions and Cross-Cultural Replications, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 1990. Vol. 58, No. 5.878-89.
 Schwartz, Shalom and L. Sagiv (1995). Identifying Culture Specifics in the Content and
Structure on Values,” Journal of Cros-Cultural Psychology, 26, pp. 92-116.
 Schwartz, Shalom and A. Bardi, “Value Hierarchies across Cultures: Taking a Similarities
Perspective,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 32: 268-290.
Social Capital
 Kittilson, M.K. and R. Dalton, “Virtual Civil Society: the New Frontiers of Social Capital?”,
Political Behavior (2011) 33: 625-644
Immigration and Identity Politics
 Ted Brader, Nicholas A. Valentino, and Elizabeth Suhay. 2008. "What Triggers Public
Opposition to Immigration? Anxiety, Group Cues, and Immigration Threat." AJPS 52 (4).
 Lamont, Michele 2000. The Dignity of Working Men: Morality and the Boundries of Race,
Class, and Immigration, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
 Barth, Frederick (1969). “Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: the Social Organization of Culture
Difference” Boston: Little, Brown and Co., Intro. 9-38.
 Husbands, Christopher (1994). Crises of National Identity as the ‘New Moral Panics:
Political Agenda-Settling about Definitions of Nationhood, New Community, 20 (2): 191-206
 Quillian, Lincoln (1995). “Prejudice as a Response to Perceived Group Threat: Population
Composition and Anti-Immigrant and Racial Prejudice in Europe, American Sociological
Review, 60, 4 (August): 586-611.
11