David Woodruff
Introduction to comparative politics:
democratization: from developmentalism to
large-n studies (week 4)
Reading questions
Original citation:
Woodruff, D. (2011) Introduction to comparative politics: democratization: from
developmentalism to large-n studies (week 4). [Teaching Resource]
© 2011 The Author
This version available at: http://learningresources.lse.ac.uk/110/
Available in LSE Learning Resources Online: April 2012
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License. This
license allows the user to remix, tweak, and build upon the work even for commercial purposes,
as long as the user credits the author and licenses their new creations under the identical terms.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
http://learningresources.lse.ac.uk/
Przeworski and Limongi, "Modernization..."
1. What two theories of the relationship between development and democracy do
they find in Lipset? Which one do they call "endogenous" and which
"exogenous"? Why do they use these terms in this way? (Google them if you
haven't encountered them.)
2. What makes the endogenous explanation a "modernization" theory?
3. Why would it be that "history gradually accumulates wealthy democracies" on the
exogenous theory, even though wealth does not bring about a transition to
democracy?
4. Why do they agree with Huntington that dictatorships have a "bell shaped pattern
of instability"?
5. Understand why they feel that modernization theory may not only fail to predict,
but even fail to explain cases of countries that got rich under dictatorships and
then democratized, such as South Korea.
6. Are wealthier countries likely to remain democratic?
7. What explanation can they give for the survival of democracy in wealthier
countries [165]?
8. Why was rapid development a threat to democracy, according to Lipset? Was he
right?
9. Is there a middle level of development that tends to lead to the rise of
dictatorships?
10. What differences in patterns do they see between "old" and "new" countries?
11. Why don't the authors think it's a good idea to back wealth-generating
dictatorships?
Ross, “Does Oil Hinder Democracy?”
12. What is a rentier state?(329-330)
13. Why does Ross feel that qualitative studies of the oil-impedes-democracy thesis
have been unsatisfactory? (331)
14. What three questions does his study seek to address? (331)
15. What are the “rentier effect,” “repression effect,” and “modernization effect”
explanations for why oil endowments lead to authoritarianism? Note that some
of these have multiple distinct variants?(332ff.)
16. What processes relevant to the emergence of democracy in Europe did the
availability of oil revenues forestall, according to some scholars?(332,334)
17. How does “modernization” in Rossʼ rendering differ from what Przeworski and
Limogni make of it?(336)
18. Do the three causal mechanisms for the connection between resource wealth
and authoritarianism contradict each other?(337)
GV467 Reading questions for Przeworski & Limongi, Ross, West, Hall. Page 1
Note: On 337-340, Ross describes his statistical model and variables. Do the best
you can with this section, and try in particular to understand what the independent
variables are, but donʼt worry if not everything makes sense.
Note: 340, “time-series and cross-sectional changes in regime types.” Timeseries=change in one country over time (Argentina 1980 vs. Argentina 1990, for
instance). Cross-sectional=differences across different countries at the same
moment in time (the U.S. vs. the USSR in 1980).
Note: Results: 340-346. If this material is difficult for you, focus on understanding
the two figures, which summarise some of the key results.
19. 347: What information does he use to test for the rentier effect?
20. 349f: What information does he use to test for the repression effect?
21. 351f: What information does he use to test for the modernization effect?
22. 356: What advances in knowledge does Ross claim in the conclusion?
GV467 Reading questions for Przeworski & Limongi, Ross, West, Hall. Page 2
Mark West, “Legal Determinants…”
Note: This article is a satire of a very famous series of articles on how different
systems of law (French-inspired civil law vs. British-inspired common law, above all)
affect investor protection (see footnote 1). Here are the abstract and the key results
from LLSV 1997 (“External” in Westʼs footnote 1).
Abstract: Using a sample of 49 countries, we show that countries with poorer
investor protections, measured by both the character of legal rules and the quality of
law enforcement, have smaller and narrower capital markets. These findings apply
to both equity and debt markets. In particular, French civil law countries have both
the weakest investor protections and the least developed capital markets, especially
as compared to common law countries.
La Porta, R., Lopez-De-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A. & Vishny, R. W. (1997) Legal
determinants of external finance. The journal of finance, 52(3), 1131-1150.
GV467 Reading questions for Przeworski & Limongi, Ross, West, Hall. Page 3
23. What are the independent and dependent variables in Westʼs study?
24. How do the first and second regression models (the first and second cases) in
the table on page 4 differ (see page 3)?
25. How do the R-squareds in Westʼs study compare to those in LLSV (see table
above)?
26. What causal mechanisms does West propose for (a) the negative effect of
number of pro soccer players per capita on international soccer success; (b) the
positive effect of French law on international soccer success?
27. Does this study include a measure of substantive significance, or only statistical
significance?
Hall, Peter A. 2003. “Adapting Methodology to Ontology in Comparative
Politics.” The Political Economist 11(1):1-7.
Note: Usually, an ontology is a belief about the ultimate kinds of things that exist in
some realm of study (the world, the universe, social world, etc.) An argument about
ontological status is about whether a thing is real or not, or what kind of thing it is.
Hall uses it in a slightly different way, as a belief about the kinds of causal relations
that exist in the political world.
28. Why does Hall see regression theories as well suited for the age of
modernisation theory?
29. What problem does Hall see with the continued prevalence of regression
techniques and "the comparative method conventionally construed"[i.e., Mill's
methods]?
30. What is unit homogeneity?
31. Note "parismony has lost some of its luster"(4): Parsimonious explanations rely
on a small number of variables to explain outcomes. Posner's reading from the
first week is an example of a very parsimonious theory, relying on just one
variable
32. What are "social mechanisms"?
33. Note "greater efforts to account for the residuals"(5): Recall that the product of a
statistical analysis is a formula--given the values of the independent variable or
variables, the formula predicts the value of the dependent variable. A residual is
the difference between what the formula predicted for some independent variable
or set of variables and the actual value of the dependent variable. Thus, cases
with a high residual are cases where the formula does a bad job of predicting.
34. What is it that Ragin's approach tries to accomplish?
35. How does Hall propose we understand single case-studies and small N
comparisons? What is the difference between a case and an observation? Why
does he think his approach enables dismissal of the charge that "the comparative
method [is] ... a poor substitute for comparative analysis"(6)?
36. What does Hall mean by "systematic process analysis"? What steps are involved
in carrying it out?
GV467 Reading questions for Przeworski & Limongi, Ross, West, Hall. Page 4
37. Why is it important to test several theories simultaneously? What does it mean to
make a theory "brittle"?
Potential discussion questions
1. Does it seem plausible to you that there could be distinct factors contributing to
the origins of democratic government and its persistence? What sort of
arguments along these lines can you come up with besides those offered by
Przeworski and Limongi?
2. Discuss what causal mechanism could explain P&Lʼs results. Does it seem
plausible to you that this causal mechanism would operate in all cases?
3. P & L argue that modernization theory probably fails to explain the trajectory of
countries that got rich under dictatorships, such as South Korea, and
subsequently democratise? Do you agree? Does they have good evidence on
this point?
4. Thinking back to Luebbert, does Luebbert offer an endogenous or exogenous
explanation of democracy (in his study of the not fascist cases) in P&Lʼs terms?
5. Do what P&L and Ross have done suggest that Luebbertʼs sort of study is
meaningless? (Consider, in particular, whether Rossʼ complaints about
qualitative studies on the oil-impedes-democracy thesis would apply to Luebbert.)
Would Luebbert have been better off constructing a democracy scale for as a
dependent variable and studying his cases statistically? Alternatively, would it be
better to have Luebbert-style studies for all the cases that these scholars include
in their statistical analysis? Is there a way that both styles of study could be
useful?
6. How does Ross try to confirm his causal mechanisms? Are you convinced by
them?
7. After reading both Ross and P&L, do you think some version of the
modernization theory of democratization is correct?
8. Satisfy yourself that you understand how to read OLS regression results tables
like the ones in Ross (discussed in lecture) and West.
9. Was it an error in reasoning that allowed West to “prove” a manifestly false
result?
10. What conclusions should one draw from the West piece about statistical studies?
Suppose it were true that one could find a dependent variable—say, share of
situation comedies in prime-time television programming—that Rossʼ
independent variables would explain. Would a West-like satire change your
attitude toward Ross?
11. P&L use a binary dependent variable (democracy or not), whereas the other two
scholars use continuous dependent variables. Do you feel this makes any
difference for the credibility of the studies involved?
12. Do you accept Hall’s arguments against experimental logic and regression
analysis? Why or why not?
GV467 Reading questions for Przeworski & Limongi, Ross, West, Hall. Page 5