Comparative Politics – EPS
A.Y. 2012-13
Marco Giuliani - marco.giuliani@unimi.it
Department of Social and Political Sciences – room 201
Office hours: Thursday: 9.30-12.30
Aims and objectives
The comparative method, in its widest meaning, represents the mainstream method for testing
hypotheses in the field of political science. Comparisons may be both implicit or explicit, employ
different techniques and range from intensive within case study analysis to complex multivariate
quantitative models. The course aims at introducing the student to the major topics of the current
debate in the field of comparative politics and will provide a detailed understanding of how the main
political processes operate within democratic countries. Methodological issues will be approached in
the first part of the course, followed by a review of the major hypotheses regarding the functioning of
political institutions and organizations and by a series of empirical researches exemplifying the different
“styles” of comparative analysis.
Prerequisites and assessment
Although there aren’t any formal prerequisites, having already passed one or two introductory
courses in political science and comparative politics are highly recommended. In their absence, the
handbook already suggested for the admission interview is a good way to fill the gaps.
Attendance: 10%
Presentation and discussion: 30%
Intermediate exam: 30%
Final exam: 30%
Timetable
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
10.30-12.15
10.30-12.15
10.30-12.15
R22
R22
R22
Students have to follow at least 80% of the lectures (i.e. you can miss no more than 6 lectures)
Course outline and syllabus
The course is organized around four topics for a total amount of 30 lectures. Each reading is
compulsory, and has to be completed before the lecture. The updated reading list will be regularly
provided on the web pages of the course (www.socpol.unimi.it/corsi/compol) and students are more
than warmly invited to have a look at it. Issues in grey imply the active presentation from behalf of the
students. Readings with a star * means that they cannot be retrieved among the electronic resources
available in the university (I do have hardcopy originals, or I’ll try to link digital copies).
Topic 1. Methodology
1. Course presentation (Mon 8 Apr.)
2. Explaining through comparisons (Tue 9 Apr.)
* H. Brady, Causation and explanation in social science, in J. Box-Steffensmeier, H. Brady and D.
Collier (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, Oxford, Oxford UP. 2008, pp. 217-249.
3. Still on causation (Wed 10 Apr.)
J. Gerring, Causation. A unified framework for the social sciences, in “Journal of Theoretical Politics”,
2005, 17(2): 163-198.
4. Case-oriented and variable-oriented research (Mon 15 Apr.)
* D. Della Porta, Comparative analysis: case-oriented versus variable-oriented research, in D. Della Porta
and M. Kating (eds.), Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences A Pluralist Perspective,
Cambridge, Cambridge UP, ch. 11
5. Quals vs. Quans? (Tue 16 Apr.)
G. Goertz and J. Mahoney, Methodological Rorschach Tests: Contrasting Interpretations in Qualitative and
Quantitative Research, in “Comparative Political Studies”, 2013, 46(2): 236-251. (Alessandro
Magri)
H.E. Brady, Do Two Research Cultures Imply Two Scientific Paradigms?, in “Comparative Political
Studies”, 2013, 46(2): 252-265. (Valentina Rusconi)
6. Beyond the qual-quan divide? (Wed 17 Apr.) (feat. A. Damonte)
C. Ragin, Making comparative analysis count, http://www.compasss.org/wpseries/Ragin2003b.pdf
7. Between description and prediction (Mon 22 Apr.)
* C. Tilly and R. Goodin, It depends, in R. Goodin and C. Tilly (eds), The Oxford Handbook of
Contextual Political Analysis, Oxford, Oxford UP 2006, pp. 3-32. (Mario Luca)
* R. Taagepera, Making Social Sciences More Scientific. The Need for Predictive Models, Oxford, Oxford
UP 2008, ch. 1 and 4 (Stefano Acuto)
Topic 2. Democracy
8. What do we know about democratization (Tue 23 Apr.)
* B. Geddes, What causes democratization?, in C. Boix and S.C. Stokes (eds), The Oxford Handbook of
Comparative Politics, Oxford, Oxford UP 2007, pp. 317-339.
9. Testing models of democratization (Wed 24 Apr.) (feat. A. Damonte)
* B. Rihoux and C. Ragin (eds.), Configurational Comparative Methods, London, Sage, ch. 1 and 3
10. Measuring democracy (Mon 29 April)
H. Munck and J. Verkuilen, Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy. Evaluating alternative Indices, in
“Comparative Political Studies”, 2002, pp. 5-34.
Indices presentation:
 Freedom House
 Polity 4
 Index of effective democracy (Welzel&Inglehart)
 Economist Democracy index
 Vanhaven index of democracy
 ACLP: Alvarez,Cheibub, Limongi & Przeworski
 Coppedge & Reinicke Polyarchy
11. Democracy: type or continuum? (Tue 30 Apr.)
D. Collier and R. Adcock, Democracies and dichotomies: a pragmatic approach to choices about concepts, in
“Annual Review of Political Science”, 1999, 2, pp. 537-565.
M. Bogaards, Measures of democratization: From degree to type to war, in “Political Research
Quarterly”, 2010, 2, pp. 475-488
Topic 3. Electoral and party systems
12. What do we know about electoral systems? (Mon 6 May)
* R. Taagepera, Electoral systems, in Boix and Stokes (2007), pp. 678-702.
13. Electoral systems and turnout 1 (Tue 7 May)
A. Blais, What affects voter turnout?, in “Annual Review of Political Science”, 2006, (9), pp. 111125.
14. Electoral systems and turnout 2 (Wed 8 May)
P. Selb, A deeper look at the Proportionality-Turnout nexus, in “Comparative Political Studies”, 2009,
(42)4, pp. 527-548.
B. Grofman and P. Selb, Turnout and the (effective) number of parties at the national and district levels: A
puzzle-solving approach, in “Party politics”, 2011, (17)1, pp. 93-117.
15. Datasets (Mon 13 May)
Dataset presentation:
Comparative Study of Electoral Systems
http://www.cses.org/
European Election Studies
http://www.ees-homepage.net/
Party manifestos
https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu/
Expert surveys (eg. Benoit and Laver, Party Policy in Modern Democracies)
http://parlgov.org/stable/documentation/table/view_party.html
16. The political consequences of electoral systems (Tue 14 May)
A. Lijphart, The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws 1945-85, in “American Political Science
Review”, (84)2, 1990, pp. 481-496.
17. Intermediate exam (Mon 20 May)
18. Electoral mechanisms (Tue 21 May)
A. Blais, R. Lachat, A. Hino and P. Doray-Demers, The Mechanical and Psychological Effects of
Electoral Systems: a Quasi-Experimental Study, in “Comparative Political Studies”, 2011, 44(12), pp.
1599-1621
19. Elections and Congruence (Wed 22 May)
A. Blais and M.A. Bodet, Does Proportional Representation foster closer congruence between citizens and
policy makers?, in “Comparative political Studies”, 2006, (39)10, pp. 1243-1262.
G.B. Powell, The ideological congruence controversy, in “Comparative Political Studies”, 2009, 42(12),
pp. 1475-1497
20. What do we know about party systems? (Mon 27 May)
* H. Kitschelt, Party systems, in Boix and Stokes (2007), pp. 522-554.
21. How many parties? (Tue 28 May)
A. Blau, The Effective number of parties at four scales: Votes, Seats, Legislative Power and Cabinet Power, in
“Party Politics”, (14)2, 2008, pp. 167-187.
22. (Wed 29 May)
H. Stoll, Social Cleavages and the Number of Parties: How the Measures You Choose Affect the Answer You
Get, in “Comparative Political Studies”,(41)11, 2008, pp. 1439-1465.
23. Fractionalization, factionalization or polarization? (Mon 3 June)
A.M. Belchior, Explaining Left-Right Party Congruence Across European Party Systems: A Test of Micro-,
Meso- and Macro-Level Models, in “Comparative Political Studies”, (46)3, 2012, pp. 352-386.
R.J. Dalton, The quantity and the quality of party systems. Party system polarization, its measurement, and its
consequences, in “Comparative Political Studies”, (41)7, 2008, pp. 899-920.
Topic 4. Consequences of political and institutional setups
24. Democracy and responsiveness (Tue 4 June)
S. Binzer Hobolt e R. Klemmensen, Government responsiveness and political competition in comparative
perspective, in “Comparative Political Studies”, (41)3, 2008, pp. 309-337.
25. Datasets (Wed 5 June)
Database presentation:
Comparative political datasets (I, II and III)
http://www.ipw.unibe.ch/content/team/klaus_armingeon/comparative_political_data_sets/in
dex_ger.html
Beck et al.
http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH/0,,content
MDK:20649465~pagePK:64214825~piPK:64214943~theSitePK:469382,00.html
Henisz
http://www.management.wharton.upenn.edu/henisz/
Worldwide Governance indicators
http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.asp
Bertelsmannstiftung Transformation index
http://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/cps/rde/xchg/SID-64CED8D643F92735/bst_engl/hs.xsl/52957.htm
Bertelsmannstiftung Sustainable governance index
http://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/cps/rde/xchg/SID-64CED8D643F92735/bst_engl/hs.xsl/52957.htm
26. Models of democracy and performance 1 (Mon 10 June)
* A. Lijphart, Patterns of democracy, Yale Up 2012, ch. 15.
L. Anderson, The implications of institutional design for macroeconomic performance, in “Comparative
Political Studies”, 2001, 34(4): 429-452.
27. Conceptualizing economic performance (Tue 11 June)
B. Vis, J. Woldendorp & H. Keman, Economic performance and institutions: capturing the dependent
variable, in “European Political Science Review”, 2012, 4(1): 73-96
28. Political determinants of distribution and redistribution (Wed 12 June)
M.A. Golden and L. Picci, Pork-Barrel politics in postwar Italy, 1953-1994, in “American Journal of
Political Science”, 2008, (52)2, pp. 268-289.
T. Iversen and D. Soskice, Electoral institutions and the Politics of Coalitions: Why some democracies
redistribute more than others, in “American Political Science Review”, 2006, (100)2, pp. 165-181.
29. Models of democracy and performance 2 (Mon 17 June)
J. Gerring, S. Thacker & C. Moreno, Centripetal Democratic Governance: A Theory and Global Inquiry,
in “American Political Science Review”, 2005, 99(4): 567-581.
30. Final exam (Wed 19 June)