INTL 3300: Introduction to Comparative Politics
Spring 2013
Dr. Shane P. Singh
Office: 303 Candler
Office Hours: Tuesdays, 1:10-3:10
Email: singh@uga.edu
Phone: (706) 542-8422
Course Webpage: http://www.shanepsingh.com/portfolio/Teaching.html
Class Meeting Times: Tuesdays and Thursdays, 5:00-6:15PM
Class Location: 267 MLC
Goal of the Course: This course is designed to introduce the major concepts and issues in
the comparative study of politics and government. By the end of the course, students should
understand why comparing political behavior and institutions across countries matters. In
addition, they should understand the logic of comparative political analysis. This course is
also intended to provide an overview of internal political structures across countries. Thus,
students should also become familiar with the basic varieties of political institutions,
processes, and cultures around the world.
Required Readings:
Dickovick, J. Tyler, and Jonathan Eastwood. 2013. Comparative Politics: Integrating Theories,
Methods, and Cases. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Some journal articles, available online or in the library.
Student Responsibilities:
Readings: Students are required to do the readings for each class period. I expect
everyone to finish the readings for each class ahead of time.
Election Report: There will be a 3-5 page research report in which the student will
compare the recent (2012) U.S. election to a recent (within the last two years)
election in another democratic country. The student will describe the contending
parties and candidates and the main issues in each election. The student will also
discuss the institutions and societal structure of his or her country of choice and
explain the impact of these factors on the election. More details will be provided in a
handout.
Exams: The will be two required in-class exams (a midterm and a final). The format
of each exam will be announced prior to the exam. The final exam is noncumulative.
Participation/Quizzes: I expect you to be attentive and to contribute when
appropriate. There will also be a small number of short, unannounced quizzes that
will cover recent readings and course material. Your completion of/performance on
these will help me assess your participation grade. I also strongly encourage students
to read articles from national and international news sources that are pertinent to
class material. Though I will not take attendance, it is important; you have to be in
class to participate and to take the quizzes!
Grades:
Participation/Quizzes:
Exams:
Election Report:
Grade Scale:
>93%:
90-92.99%:
87-89.99%:
83-86.99%:
80-82.99%:
77-79.99%:
73-76.99%:
70-72.99%:
60-69.99%:
<60%:
10%
70% (35% each)
20%
A
AB+
B
BC+
C
CD
F
Policy on Laptops and Smartphones: The use of smartphones during class is strictly
prohibited, but students may use their laptops to take notes or to refer to the readings.
Students may not, however, browse the web or check their email. Students caught doing so
will lose participation points.
Late/Missed Assignments: Missed assignments will result in a zero without a universityapproved medical excuse or family emergency. Students will be penalized for late
assignments; 20% of the grade for each day late without a university-approved medical
excuse or family emergency. Make-up exams can be arranged with the instructor with a
university-approved medical excuse or family emergency.
As a University of Georgia student, you have agreed to abide by the University’s academic honesty policy, “A
Culture of Honesty,” and the Student Honor Code. All academic work must meet the standards described in
“A Culture of Honesty” found at: www.uga.edu/honesty. Lack of knowledge of the academic honesty policy
is not a reasonable explanation for a violation. Questions related to course assignments and the academic
honesty policy should be directed to the instructor.
2
Readings and Course Schedule: The course syllabus is a general plan for the course; deviations
announced to the class by the instructor may be necessary.
Readings with a “*” in front are optional
WEEK 1
1/8: Introduction and Overview of Comparative Politics
Dickovick and Eastwood, Chapters 1 and 2
1/10: The State
Dickovick and Eastwood, Chapter 3
WEEK 2
1/15: Democracies
Dickovick and Eastwood, Chapter 5
1/17: Nondemocratic States
Dickovick and Eastwood, Chapter 6
WEEK 3
1/22: Legislatures
Dickovick and Eastwood, Chapter 8
1/24: Governments and Bureaucracies
Dickovick and Eastwood, Chapter 9
WEEK 4
1/29: Constitutions and Judicial Power
Dickovick and Eastwood, Chapter 7
1/31: No Class, Away at Conference
WEEK 5
2/5: Electoral Systems
Dickovick and Eastwood, Chapter 8 (again)
2/7: Federalism
Dickovick and Eastwood, Chapter 7, pages 181-186
WEEK 6
2/12: Political Parties
3
Dickovick and Eastwood, Chapter 10, pages 251-256
2/14: Party Systems
Dickovick and Eastwood, Chapter 10, pages 256-276
WEEK 7
2/19: Regions/Subunits
no readings
2/21: Social Movements and Revolutions
Dickovick and Eastwood, Chapter 11
WEEK 8
2/26: Political Culture
Dickovick and Eastwood, Chapter 14
2/28: Political Participation and Voter Turnout
Blais, André. 2006. What Affects Voter Turnout? Annual Review of Political Science 9:111-125.
WEEK 9
3/5: Exam Review
3/7: Midterm Exam
WEEK 10
Spring Break
WEEK 11
3/19: Policymaking
Tsebelis, George. 1995. Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in
Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartyism. British Journal
of Political Science 25 (3):289-325.
3/21: The Welfare State
Dickovick and Eastwood, Chapter 3, pages 58-60 and 68-74
WEEK 12
3/26: The Impact of Public Policies
no readings
4
3/28: Globalization
Dickovick and Eastwood, Chapter 15, pages 385-394
WEEK 13
4/2: The Determinants and Promotion of Democracy
Dickovick and Eastwood, Chapter 5
4/4: Case Study: Peru
Schmidt, Gregory D. 1996. Fujimori’s 1990 Upset Victory in Peru: Electoral Rules,
Contingencies, and Adaptive Strategies. Comparative Politics 28 (3):321-354.
*Crabtree, John. 2010. Democracy without Parties? Some Lessons from Peru. Journal of Latin
American Studies 42 (2):257-382.
WEEK 14
4/9: Case Study: Chile
Bonilla, Claudio A., Ryan E. Carlin, Gregory J. Love, and Ernesto Silva Méndez. 2011. Social
or Political Cleavages? A Spatial Analysis of the Party System in Post-Authoritarian
Chile. Public Choice 146 (1-2):9-21.
*Dow, Jay K. 1998. A Spatial Analysis of Candidate Competition in Dual Member Districts:
The 1989 Chilean Senatorial Elections. Public Choice 97 (3):451-74.
4/11: No Class, Away at Conference
WEEK 15
4/16: Case Study: India
ELECTION REPORT DUE
Lijphart, Arend. 1996. The Puzzle of Indian Democracy: A Consociational Interpretation.
American Political Science Review 90 (2):258-268.
Dickovick and Eastwood, pages 517-530
4/18: Case Study: Australia
Sharman, C., A.M. Sayers, and N. Miragliotta. 2002. Trading Party Preferences: The
Australian Experience of Preferential Voting. Electoral Studies 21 (4):543-560.
*Kaminsky, Jackie, and Timothy J. White. 2007. Electoral Systems and Women’s
Representation in Australia. Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 45 (2):185-201.
WEEK 16
4/23: Case Study: The EU
5
Dickovick and Eastwood, Chapter 15, pages 382-384
4/25: Exam Review
FINAL EXAM
Thursday, May 2, 7:00-10:00PM
6