The George Washington University
Department of Political Science
Fall 2014
Course website: http://blackboard.gwu.edu
Course meets: W 5:10-7:00 Rome 352
Alasdair Bowie
Office: Monroe/Hall of Govt 423
Ph: (202) 994-7370
Em: abowie@gwu.edu
Off hrs: W 1:00-3:00
PSC 6373.10
Political Economy of Industrializing Asia
Seminar Description
This seminar explores the conflicting, cooperative and exchange relations between economic actors
and those wielding political and administrative power in the major industrializing economies of
East, Southeast and South Asia, notably Japan, China and India. It contrasts and compares the
extent to which a desire to be integrated into global trade and investment networks has driven
industrial policy during different policy eras in these different countries, and how different kinds
and degrees of global integration have affected the growth of industry, principally manufacturing,
in these countries, from colonial times to the present.
The course is designed for graduate students pursuing masters or doctoral degrees, primarily in
international affairs and political science. Graduate students in other disciplines and professional
programs, such as public affairs, law, international business, education and human development,
etc., are welcome. In addition, advanced undergraduate students and those who have recently
graduated who can demonstrate a track record of having submitted for a grade high-quality,
academic research papers on topics related to the seminar focus may, with instructor approval, take
the seminar where graduate enrollment is below the cap.
Participants with some background in macro- or micro-economics or international trade theory will
find this seminar particularly rewarding. However, participants are not expected to have a detailed
knowledge of economics or of the geographic regions on which the course focuses. Nevertheless,
participants should be able to comprehend common economic concepts and terms, such as capital
account, balance of trade, and balance of payments. Those who feel they may have holes to fill in
their knowledge of economics might usefully read a basic economics primer (e.g., Todd G.
Buchholz’s From Here to Economy: A Shortcut to Economic Literacy, New York: Dutton, 1995).
Learning Objectives
The learning objectives for this seminar represent the impact that the instructor would like this
course to have on you two to three years into the future. They are the ways in which, having taken
this course, you will differ from those who have not yet taken this (or a similar) course. If you
commit yourself to the seminar readings, sessions and assignments, upon completion of the seminar
you will be able to:
2





Identify, name, select, classify and appropriately apply to empirical reality concepts relating
to the political economy of Asia, such as state, development and modernization; have an
appreciation for the range of differences in how these concepts are represented by empirical
examples across the region;
Write a short paper in response to an assigned focus question (one that asks you to link
concepts and empirical examples) that includes an introduction, main points and a
conclusion and that is logically structured to present and substantiate an hypothesis you
develop in response to the question;
Distinguish, analyze, criticize, synthesize core concepts relating to political economy and
development; describe, analyze and explain relationships between these concepts, as they
have been manifest in real world events in Asia;
Design, illustrate and deliver an oral presentation, in some cases in collaboration with a
small group of other seminar participants, on an assigned topic relevant to the main themes
of the seminar; and
Design, research, structure, compose and produce a graduate research paper appropriate to
the discipline of political science on a question relevant to one or more of the main themes
of the seminar, that you develop in consultation with the instructor.
Format
This course is presented in a discussion-based, seminar format. There are no lectures. Participants
are expected to complete the reading assignment (in some cases exceeding 200 pages in length)
before attending each seminar session. The main vehicle for learning during class sessions is
participants actively contributing to lively discussions involving the instructor and other
participants on the readings, focus question, on-line Discussion Board contributions and oral
presentations. Such participation is the key to participants’ learning in this course (and you cannot
effectively participate if you haven’t read). While the instructor occasionally (mostly early on in the
semester) makes structured presentations on discrete topics, these segments generally claim less
than half of each seminar meeting.
Each 110 minute session begins with a 5-10 minute period during which participants are invited to
raise current events reported in the media relevant to the current topic (or to topics previously
addressed). Participants are encouraged to keep current with developments related to themes of the
course relevant to the region, and to bring to the seminar’s attention pertinent reports, articles,
presentations, seminars, workshops, conferences, etc., past or anticipated, that they might have
heard about. Where participants come across events or urls relevant to a previous conversation,
they may include these in their Blackboard Discussion Board posts for the next session.
Alternatively, they may use the Send Email feature at the Communications link to provide the
instructor and other participants with urls for webpages or attached files containing announcements
of events, where these are relevant to the seminar’s overall themes.
The instructor then reviews, briefly, the scope and subject matter of the assigned reading for the
session and provides some preliminary commentary on the online Discussion Board contributions
received from participants on the topic and focus question.
3
At most seminar sessions there will be an oral presentation by one or more participants on the
session topic and the session’s focus question that leads into an activity, led by the oral presenter(s),
designed to involve as many participants as possible and intended to illuminate some aspect of the
session topic. It minimum, this activity will consist of a discussion revolving around one or more
discussion questions developed by the oral presenter(s). More typically, it will be a role play or
negotiation scenario, in which participants choose to act out certain roles relevant to the session’s
topic.
The remainder of the session comprises a critical and analytical discussion, led by the instructor
and involving all participants, focusing on the assigned readings, the session’s focus question,
online Discussion Board contributions, and ideas stimulated by the oral presenter(s).
At the conclusion of the session, the instructor wraps up the week’s topic by summarizing the
points made during discussion, suggesting what is new that participants might be taking away from
the session, and attempting to reach a “sense of the seminar” position in response to the focus
question. He also previews the next topic, readings and focus question, relating them to previous
session topics and linking them to the overarching questions and themes of the seminar.
What is expected:
Participants:
--share responsibility with the instructor for exploration of ideas and furthering of knowledge
by collective discussion and debate;
--manage their time to ensure completion of the reading assigned for each session before it
begins;
--understand that in-class seminar participation informed by reading is a prerequisite for
learning;
--notify the instructor in advance (where possible) if unable to attend a seminar session;
--meet assignment deadlines with the understanding that grade reductions are applied for late
submission according to the course policy detailed below (see “Course Regulations:
submission”);
--participate in the seminar in accordance with the student responsibilities specified in the
current edition of the "Guide to Student Rights and Responsibilities," available at:
http://gwired.gwu.edu/dos/GuidetoStudentRights/, and, in particular, as specified in the
“Code of Academic Integrity,” which is part of this larger document (participants are
encouraged to familiarize themselves with the content of the “Guide” at their earliest
convenience); and
--honestly and thoughtfully complete evaluation surveys made available online at the course
website or completed in class during the semester.
The instructor:
--creates an environment that encourages participation and discussion. This does not mean,
however, that the instructor will always agree with a participant’s contribution;
--commits to learning from the contributions of all participants;
--provides feedback on participants’ written assignments and oral presentations;
--establishes high expectations for participants and applies the highest of academic standards in
assessing their submitted assignments;
4
--assigns grades so that academic work that is truly superior is clearly distinguished from that
which is, good, satisfactory, barely passing, or unsatisfactory (failing);
--listens and responds to participant concerns expressed about aspects of the seminar on
anonymous evaluation surveys made available for completion during the semester (note:
participant responses to end-of-course Department course evaluations are not made
available to the instructor until after final grades for the course are posted);
--announces anticipated absences with adequate advanced notice and attempts to schedule
make-up sessions to which as large a number of participants as possible can attend; and
--directs the seminar in accordance with the principles established in the current edition of the
"Guide to Student Rights and Responsibilities" (see above).
Course Regulations
--attendance, preparedness and participation are expected. Participants should make every effort
to arrive at the seminar promptly at the specified start time. Participants arriving late are asked to
minimize disruption and distraction occasioned by their late seating.
--religious holidays notification requirements: in accordance with university policy regarding
accommodations for religious holidays, participants seeking accommodation regarding
rescheduling of assignments for the observance of one or more religious holidays must petition
the instructor orally or in writing during the first week of classes. Saturday, August 30, is the
last day to request from the instructor accommodations for religious observance during this
semester. After that day the instructor is under no obligation to grant such a request for
accommodation.
--academic dishonesty policy: participants are expected to familiarize themselves with the
academic dishonesty-related portions of the “Code of Academic Integrity” (see above, under
“What is Expected: participants”) and to abide by the Code. The instructor will follow the
procedures established by the Office of Academic Integrity in responding to any suspected
violations (e.g., cases of suspected cheating, or plagiarism).
Participants should be aware that assignments in this course may be submitted through a
plagiarism-detection tool such as SafeAssign. SafeAssign is a software resource designed to
help participants avoid plagiarism and improper citation. The software encourages original
writing and proper citation documentation practices by cross-referencing submitted materials
with an archived database of student papers, journals, essays, newspaper articles, books, and
other published work. In addition, other methods may be used to determine the originality of
assignments submitted.
--cell phone/IM/email use during class: to facilitate a focused and uninterrupted exploration of
each session’s topic, and as a courtesy to others who might be distracted, participants are asked
to terminate all phone conversations upon entering the classroom. In addition, participants must
turn off or silence ring tones of all cellular devices and, while in the classroom, refrain from
texting, emailing, surfing, using social media or otherwise communicating electronically for the
duration of each seminar session. Electronic devices (e.g. Ipads, laptops, tablets, smart phones,
etc.) may be used, quietly, to take notes or make audio recordings of parts of the seminar, for
personal use only. The content of material the instructor presents in class and the design of the
course and its component parts are the sole copyright of the instructor.
--civil and respectful dialogue: it is possible that occasionally the material which participants and
the instructor address in the seminar may be considered controversial and sensitive to some
5
present. When we discuss such topics, your instructor expects participants to engage them in a
collegial manner, respecting the opinions and ideas of other participants, even when not in
agreement with them. One of the foundations of excellence in higher education in the U.S. is
exploring diverse ideas, beliefs, theories, concepts, etc. without “putting others down.” Should a
participant find a particular topic troublesome, he/she is encouraged to discuss his/her concerns
with the instructor, privately.
--“extra credit”: participants will not have the opportunity to earn “extra credit” for additional
work above and beyond the assignments described in this syllabus.
--submission
Blackboard only: all assignments must be submitted at the appropriate link in the Assignments
section of the course Blackboard website. Submission by email attachment or in hardcopy form
is not permitted. The date and time of receipt for an assignment will be the date and time it is
recorded as received at the course Blackboard website. Participants may confirm that a
submitted assignment has been received and is “awaiting instructor attention” by visiting the My
Grades link. If you encounter technical difficulties with Blackboard @ GW when submitting an
assignment, please contact the Helpdesk at 202-994-4948 or at http://helpdesk.gwu.edu .
Submission formats: all materials, with the exception of bibliographies and the oral
presentation outline (and associated materials), must be submitted in 12-point font, doublespaced, with one-inch margins (left, right, top and bottom margins). All materials must be
submitted in either Word for Office (.doc or .docx) or Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) format.
Late submission: Due dates and times for all assignments are specified in this syllabus. The
grade assigned for any assignment not received at the course website by the due dates/times is
reduced by a split grade (e.g., B+ becomes B; B becomes B-) for each 24-hour period or part
thereof, including holidays and weekends, that it is late. The time period on which the grade
reduction is based begins at the day and time that the work is due and ends at the day and time
that the assignment is recorded as received at the course Blackboard website.
--incompletes: a final grade of incomplete (“I”) can be reported only when a participant has
presented a legitimate and compelling reason, typically beyond the control of the individual, that
has prevented him or her from completing a significant proportion of the course work. The
participant must have been performing at least at a “low pass” level before the event or
circumstances for the “I” to be assigned. The request for the “I” grade for any work during the
period when the seminar is in session (i.e., August 27-December 3, inclusive) must be received
by the instructor on or before 5:00 P.M. on Friday, December 5, 2014. If one or more
assignments has not been submitted and no request for the “I” grade has been received by this
date and time, then the instructor will assign the grade of “F” for the assignment(s). Before an
“I” can be assigned, the instructor and participant must both sign a written agreement that
describes the outstanding work required and specifies when the work will be made up. If a
research paper has not been submitted by the due date for that assignment and no request for the
“I” grade has been received by Friday, December 5, at 5:00 P.M., the instructor will assign the
grade of “F” to the research paper.
Textbooks
The required textbooks listed below all are available for you to purchase at the GW Bookstore. In
some cases, the Bookstore gives you the option to purchase used copies, to rent books, or to pay for
6
digital access. Using the Bookstore is not only the most convenient means for you to obtain the
textbooks you need for this course, it also ensures you get the correct editions of required texts. If
you do not find one of the books listed as “required” below in the Bookstore shelves for this course,
please ask at the help desk. Sometimes textbooks used by multiple courses in different departments
and schools are consolidated in just one location (which might not be the location labelled for this
course).
Corbridge, Stuart, John Harriss and Craig Jeffrey. India Today: Economy, Politics and Society (2nd
ed.). Cambridge, U.K.; Malden, MA, (Dec) 2012.
Kohli, Atul. State-Directed Development: Political Power and Industrialization in the Global
Periphery. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Rivoli, Pietra. Travels of a T-Shirt in the Global Economy: An Economist Examines the Markets,
Power, and Politics of World Trade (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2009.
Vogel, Steven K. Japan Remodeled: How Government and Industry are Reforming Japanese
Capitalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2006.
As you are aware, there are a variety of alternative sources for book purchase. For example, new or
used titles are available from www.amazon.com, www.barnesandnoble.com, eBay, Half.com (an
eBay subsidiary) or directly from the websites of book publishers. However, when using these
alternative sources, be sure that the textbooks you order are going to reach you by the time you
need to use them for class (see the Detailed Listing of Class Sessions below). Even if your
textbooks arrive late, you are still responsible for the required readings for each weekly session at
the class meeting for which they are relevant. Therefore, you will have to find alternative means—
e.g., lending from Gelman Library or from one of the WRLC consortium libraries, or borrowing
from a friend—to access the course readings for each week, until your textbooks arrive.
Required readings that are not from the required textbooks can be accessed using: databases
accessible through the Gelman Library home page (gelman.gwu.edu); the course Blackboard
website (links: Electronic Reserves; Electronic Resources); and on-line sources.
Requirements
Note: There is no final exam for this course.
Attendance at seminar sessions is a basic requirement of the seminar. Participants do not receive
course “credit” for meeting this requirement. Participants are asked to make every effort to attend
every scheduled session and are expected to complete the assigned reading before coming to class.
In addition, a commitment to active, informed oral participation at seminar sessions by every
participant is essential for achieving the learning objectives of the seminar. Active participation
means each participant contributes questions and observations that are the product of his/her
considered evaluation of the focus question and the reading assignment and engages in debate and
discussion with others about theoretical, empirical and policy issues raised by the instructor and by
fellow participants.
7
The grade each participant receives for the course is compiled from a number of components (listed
here in the order they are typically submitted):

Weekly, brief (1-2 paragraphs) Discussion Board posts submitted online, starting week 2
(no post required week 12)--with lowest grade dropped. Worth 15% of your overall course
grade;
 One short seminar paper submitted online. Worth 20% of your overall course grade;
 One oral seminar presentation and activity, or participation in a group presentation and
group activity. Worth 10% of your overall course grade; and
 One Graduate Research Paper submitted online, comprising three related and to some extent
overlapping components (due at different times), worth collectively 55% of your overall
course grade:
--Preliminary Bibliography (5%)
--Research Paper Question Proposal (10%)
--Finished Research Paper itself (40%)
In Blackboard, My Grades aggregates the letter grades assigned to different components into a
weighted total for purposes of determining your overall course grade. How the letter grade for each
component is converted to points, on a 0-100 scale, in order to calculate the weighted total of all
grades is described here. My Grades uses the following numerical conversions. The letter grade is
converted to its 0-4.0 equivalent according to GW regulations: A=4.0; A-=3.7; B+=3.3; B=3.0; etc.
Then the numerical figure is scaled up (multiplied) by a factor of 25. I.e., 4.0 x 25 = 100; 3.7 x 25 =
92.5; 3.3 x 25 = 82.5; 3.0 x 25 = 75. For each component of your overall grade, this scaled up
number is then multiplied by the appropriate weight (see above for the percentage of the overall
grade assigned to each component). Then these weighted numbers are added together to get a single
weighted total (on a 0-100 scale), and this number is converted to a single letter grade. Where the
weighted total lies between the numerical figures mentioned above, the tipping points (the number
where the next highest letter grade is assigned) are: A-A 96.25; B+A- 87.5; BB+ 78.75; etc.
Participants seeking further clarification of the My Grades letter grade-numerical conversion
schema used for this seminar are invited to consult with the instructor.
--Online weekly Discussion Board posts: participants are required to post to the course website
(link: Discussions; at Discussion Board, choose Online Discussions, and then the relevant
session) concise responses (worth, collectively, 15% of the overall grade) to: the focus question
(link: Focus Questions); the readings assigned; and/or other participants’ posts (if your post is a
reply or rejoinder to another participant’s post, click on the “reply” button at the end of that
participant’s post). Each post should be roughly 1-2 paragraphs in length. It is due by 10:00
A.M. on the day the seminar meets. In assessing these contributions, the instructor looks for
thoughtful responses based upon a careful reading of the assigned reading and considered,
concise responses to the focus question and/or other participants’ posts. Exceedingly long posts
will receive low assessments. Participants who choose to respond well in advance of the
deadline have considerable leeway as to what they wish to respond on, whereas participants
responding later need to contribute something new to the discussion (not simply reiterate or
endorse what has already been submitted by earlier posters) or respond directly to a point made
by another participant. Each contribution is assessed as follows: excellent (“A”); good (“A-”);
fair (“B+”); or unsatisfactory (“B” or lower). The posts contribute equally to the overall
8
Discussion Board grade (the lowest grade is dropped). To count towards the Discussion Board
grade, a submission must be posted to the Discussion Board by the due day/time. Later
submissions are accepted, including “follow ups” following class discussion, but these only
contribute to the participant’s grade for the session’s posting if an original post for that week is
received by the above deadline. The instructor does not actively moderate the threads, except
where they are inappropriate or posted in error (participants do not have the ability to remove a
post once it has been submitted). On occasion, the instructor responds online to a post. But his
responses to online posts will usually be given during seminar discussion. He may call upon the
authors to reiterate or elaborate on the content of their posts at that time. Before coming to the
seminar, participants should review all posts for the session (preferably bring hardcopy to refer
to at the seminar).
--Session topic/question sign-up: each participant signs up for one session topic that will be the
principal focus of his/her short seminar paper and oral seminar presentation. Participants sign up
for their topics on a sign-up sheet circulated at the second session of the seminar.
The paragraphs that follow outline the objectives, nature, requirements and timing of the remaining
assignments. More details may be found at the course website (link: Assignments).
--Short seminar paper: the participant submits online (link: Assignments) a short seminar paper
(worth 20% of the overall grade) due by 10:00 A.M. on Wednesday, one week (seven days) after
the seminar session at which the participant made his/her oral contribution (or contributed to a
group oral presentation). The primary purpose of this short paper (minimum 750 words,
maximum 1,250 words, or approximately 3-5 pages, double-spaced [the appended, singlespaced bibliography does not count against this word count]) is to provide a response to the
focus question assigned for the session at which the author contributed to the oral presentation
(link: Focus Questions). The focus question is designed to guide participants to what to look for
in the session's required readings. The author crafts his/her response to the focus question based
primarily upon a careful reading of the required readings (note that some of these readings will
be more relevant to the focus question than others). The paper should also compare the assigned
readings with one another, in terms of what they say that is relevant to the focus question. The
author should assume that the paper’s readers have participated in the seminar and are very
familiar with the content of the session’s readings, as well as with readings and discussions from
previous sessions of the seminar.
The short seminar paper is written in a formal academic style. Page numbers are required. It
begins with the focus question, which must appear at the top of the first page (in lieu of a title).
The paper must include citations (preferably in foot- or end-notes, but in-text citations using
parentheses are acceptable). Each of the required readings must be mentioned at least once in the
text. In addition, the participant may choose to refer in the body of the short seminar paper to
sources other than the required readings, but this is not required. Citations to the specific page
numbers for relevant sections from the required readings must be included (as is the case with
page references for any other sources used in preparing the paper). The author must append to
his/her paper a short bibliography comprising full entries for the readings assigned for that week
and entries for at least three (3) relevant works that do not yet appear in the syllabus for any
week and have not been used (in the case of urls or visual materials such as DVDs) for any
9
seminar session of this seminar. Such sources are not limited to print sources and need not have
been referenced in the body of the paper.
Good short seminar papers are structured to respond directly to each part of the focus question.
They highlight relevant theoretical insights and selected empirical examples from the readings
that are appropriate to answering the question. They also draw upon related ideas from readings
and discussions in previous sessions of the seminar. They are concise and to the point. They
avoid lengthy background or historical preambles. Poor short seminar papers summarize the
content of the assigned readings, “book report” style (it is unnecessary to do this as the reader is
assumed already to be familiar with the assigned readings). Their structure is unrelated to the
parts of the focus question. The empirical material they include does not appear to support
arguments that respond to parts of the focus question. They refer to the readings sequentially but
omit explicit comparisons between them (or leave such comparisons to the very end). Their
bibliographies omit the three additional sources required.
--Oral seminar presentation and activity: the objective of the oral seminar presentation (worth
10% of the overall grade) is to develop participants’ abilities to speak concisely within relatively
tight time constraints on an assigned question (focus question) with reference to the contents of a
short list of relevant (required) readings and (where the presentation is made by a group) in
collaboration with other presenters. Part of the grade for the oral seminar presentation reflects
the written outline used for the remarks (see more on the written outline below). The oral
presenter makes a short (maximum 10-minute) oral presentation on the focus question and
required readings for the session. He/she follows this with an activity that is related to some
aspect of the session’s topic (the presenter has discretion to decide which aspect that will be) and
that is designed to involve all participants. Creativity is encouraged!
Where the presentation is made by more than one participant, the group collectively is
responsible for coordinating to ensure that there is a single outline and a single, seamless,
coherent presentation. A good way to do this is to have each participant respond to a different
aspect of the focus question. A poor way of doing this is to divide up the assigned readings and
have each presenter present one (or more) of the readings.
The presenter provides an interesting and stimulating presentation on the focus question and
readings that responds, in addition, to the online Discussion Board contributions of some of the
other seminar participants. The oral presenter should not: read aloud from the drafts of his/her
short seminar paper; summarize the content of the assigned readings for that week, “book
report” style; nor indulge in textual critiques of the writing styles of the authors of the assigned
readings.
Presentation materials: the oral presentation is to be accompanied by an outline, which is both
distributed in hardcopy form to the instructor and participants at the start of the presentation (this
hardcopy version may be supplemented with an overhead display) and submitted in electronic
form at the oral presentation item (link: Assignments) by the same day and time as the short
seminar paper is due (see above). Where the presentation is by a group, only one of the oral
presenters from the group needs to submit the outline at the oral presentation link. It is further
required that any other materials or resources that were displayed or circulated during the oral
10
presentation and the activity (see below) must also be submitted at the oral seminar presentation
link (link: Assignments) by one presenter by the above-mentioned due day and time. Such
materials or resource might include, for example, a powerpoint presentation, maps, tables,
graphs, urls for websites or video presentations, such as those accessed at www.YouTube.com
or www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/, and search terms used, e.g., in GoogleVideo, to find
video clips. Material not originally available in digital form should be scanned (use .pdf format)
before submission. Grade reductions will apply to the oral presentation grade for the oral
presenter (or for all members of the group, if the presentation is by a group), if the outline and
these materials are not submitted by the due day and time.
Activity: following the presentation--or interspersed with it--the presenter(s) provide seminar
participants with one or more activities or discussion topics (for pairs, small groups, or the
plenary session of the seminar as a whole) related to the topic for the seminar session. When two
or more participants are signed up to present at the same session, they are responsible for
developing a single, coordinated lesson plan and for collaboratively leading the
activity(ies)/discussion for the seminar as a whole.
Assessment: the oral presentation is evaluated based on the extent to which it includes: a clearly
stated purpose and scope for the presentation, including a statement of its relationship to the
session topic and to the session’s focus question; a clear outline presented verbally and in
hardcopy form to those attending the session; cues to orient the listener during the presentation
to specific items on the outline; and a clear summary statement that revisits the purpose of the
presentation, the main points made, and the principal message to be left with the audience. The
presentation should be clearly spoken and easily followed. The presenter should establish eye
contact with the audience and present the material to them, rather than read from notes or speak
to the screen (for example, when using a powerpoint display). Use of relevant visual materials
that enhance seminar participants’ comprehension of the presentation is encouraged. The
instructor’s assessment of the oral presentation includes an evaluation of how well the presenters
designed and how effectively they implemented the class activity.
Where a group is presenting, a single grade will be assigned for the collective components of
the oral presentation and the activity. Presenters receive the grade for the oral presentation and
activity at the My Grades link. The instructor provides comments online to the presenter who
submitted the outline and related presentation materials. That presenter is responsible for
distributing these instructor comments to other group members.
--Research paper
Each participant undertakes an extended individual research project during the semester on a
comparative question (the comparison may be across countries; across regions within the same
country; across regions within different countries; comparing the same country or subnational
region[s] at different time periods; across sectors; etc.) culminating in the submission of a
graduate research paper. In some cases, the comparative question chosen by a participant may be
broadly relevant to the weekly topic on which he/she has made (will make) an oral
presentation/activity and submitted (will submit) a short seminar paper. The first step towards
completing the research paper assignment involves proposing a potential research paper question
that is broadly relevant to the core topics of the seminar and proposing a short list of
authoritative sources relevant to the question.
11
--Research paper preliminary bibliography: the overall objective of the preliminary bibliography
is to encourage your early exploration of a potential research question for your research paper,
and an initial survey of authoritative (preferably scholarly) sources that might be available to
answer the question. For some, this first, “baby step” towards the research paper may appear to
come at too early a stage in the semester. For others, the opportunity to start trying out ideas for
the research paper question with the instructor, and researching whether sources exist that could
answer this question, is a welcome early beginning, with relatively limited down-side (the
assignment is worth 5% of the overall grade).
The preliminary bibliography should be headed with the wording of your proposed research
question. Following this, a minimum of seven and a maximum of ten bibliographical entries
should be provided (arrange them alphabetically, by last name of principal author). These are
sources that you should have accessed (not merely seen listed) and reviewed/scanned (although
not necessarily read in any detail). They might include: books accessed at Gelman Library or
through the WRLC consortium; scholarly articles accessed through the numerous databases to
which Gelman Library subscribes, or in hardcopy form from the Gelman periodicals stacks;
webpages at the websites of authoritative institutions (e.g., the American Enterprise Institute
[AEI], Brookings, the Carnegie Endowment, CSIS, the Peterson Institute for international
Economics; the Wilson Center); and/or media items produced by authoritative sources (e.g.,
PBS’ Frontline series). They should be the best that you can find, relevant to the proposed
research question you have chosen.
For formatting, use any standard citation format (e.g., MLA, Chicago, etc.), but use it
consistently. Single-space the entries, with a blank line separating each entry. See the
Submission Formats instructions under the Course Regulations section of this syllabus for
further guidance about format and submission. This preliminary bibliography (approximately 12 pages in length) is to be received by 10:00 A.M. on Monday, October 06 (link: Assignments).
--Research paper question proposal: the overall objective of the research paper question proposal
(worth 10% of the overall grade) is to develop and begin to firm up ideas about a research paper
question (building upon instructor feedback on the preliminary bibliography submitted earlier).
The proposal uses a very specific format. Please pay close attention to the description of each
individual component of the proposal below. Instructor approval (“green light”) of the research
paper question contained in the research paper question proposal is required before a participant
may proceed with researching his/her research paper.
The research paper question proposal includes, in this order: the proposed research question
(this question, which is likely an amended version of the question earlier submitted with the
preliminary bibliography, must appear at the top of the first page, in lieu of a title); a literature
review; a justification for the research question; an hypothesis that responds directly to the
proposed research question; an annotated outline for the proposed paper; and a bibliography
(whose items may differ from those earlier submitted with the preliminary bibliography). This
proposal (roughly 750-1,250 words, or approximately 3-5 pages, double-spaced, in length, not
including the bibliography) is to be received by 10:00 A.M. on Monday, October 13 (link:
Assignments).
The proposed research question. This question must be both comparative and analytical,
involving a causal relationship, rather than being merely descriptive. A descriptive question
12
might ask: “how did Vietnam’s response to the SARS crisis differ from China’s?” This question
can be answered by describing, sequentially, Vietnam’s and China’s responses. In contrast, an
analytical question concerning a causal relationship might be: “did characteristics of the
government information systems in Vietnam and China make it more or less difficult for those
countries to respond effectively to the SARS crisis?” In this case, the hypothesized causal
relationship links aspects of the government information system in each country with their
responses to the SARS crisis.
The question is explicitly comparative. Answering the question, in the case of the VietnamChina example, requires a comparison of the impact of the government information systems in
the two countries. The proposed research question must include the countries/regions and
specific time periods that will be compared in the research paper. The comparison must involve
more than one country and/or more than one region, area or sectors within one country. The
comparison can involve countries/regions in the same time period or in different time periods.
The literature review section identifies 7-10 authoritative sources (preferably in-depth studies in
published books, analytical articles and reports), establishes their relevance to the proposed
question, and then, focusing on a subset of these, perhaps 3-5, identifies and characterizes the
gaps (things that are not explained, and/or not empirically covered) that are apparent in the
existing studies related to the proposed research question. One of the most common reasons for
a participant being asked to submit a revised version of the proposal is that the proposal paid
insufficient attention to the literature review requirements (usually, too few appropriate sources
researched, and insufficient detail provided on each source to establish its relevance to the
proposed research question).
The justification section identifies gaps in the existing literature (on the research question) that
has been sketched out in the literature review section, and justifies the writing of the research
paper in terms of how it will fill these gaps. It explains how a comparison of these particular
empirical cases over these particular time periods will best answer the proposed research
question. A common weakness in the justification section is overlooking justifying the particular
empirical cases and time periods specified in the question.
In the hypothesis section, the proposal provides a tentative answer to the proposed research
question, based upon the participant’s preliminary review of the existing literature. The research
paper will not be evaluated according to whether or not this preliminary assessment is ultimately
sustained, once the research is done. The purpose of the hypothesis is to begin with a “best
guess.” Completed research papers that conclude that, on the basis of the empirical research
performed by the participant, the hypothesis is not sustained are as likely to be favorably
assessed as those that conclude that their hypotheses are supported by the empirical research.
The annotated outline section lists the proposed main headings and sub-headings that the
participant anticipates will be used in his/her research paper and explains (by means of
annotations—a phrase, a sentence, or two--appended to each heading and sub-heading): how
they respond to the different aspects of the proposed research question; what kinds of
information and analysis will be included under each heading and sub-heading; and from which
specific authoritative sources (see literature review) such information will be drawn. Typically,
this section is three-quarters of a page to one-page in length. Weak proposals (those that
13
necessitate subsequent submission of a revised proposal) typically devote insufficient attention
to the annotated outline section. In such proposals, this section consist of a single paragraph of
just 8-10 lines, without annotations or reference to specific authoritative sources.
The proposal’s appended bibliography includes full entries for each of the sources mentioned in
the literature review as well as any others that are relevant to the proposed research paper. The
sources listed here will probably overlap to some extent with those included in the preliminary
bibliography submitted earlier. They are unlikely to be identical. For formatting examples of
how to correctly format a bibliographical entry using one of the standard academic style guides
(e.g., MLA, Chicago, etc.), see the bibliographies of one or more of the course textbooks,
consult the Gelman Library website (“How do I…” cite sources), or consult with a Gelman
Library librarian.
Instructor approval of this research paper question proposal is a requirement, before you can go
on to actually write your research paper. If the instructor so requests, you may be required to
submit a revised proposal. In this case, the instructor will provide a short window (typically
days, rather than a week or more) within which the participant is asked to submit the revised
version. The revised version does not receive separate credit (that is, the grade recorded for this
assignment is the grade assessed for the original proposal submission). However, late
submission of the revised version will result in the grade of the original submission being
reduced, in accordance with the Submission requirements of the Course Regulations section of
this syllabus (see above).
--Research paper small group meetings: the overall objective of the small group meetings with
the instructor is to help you recognize and address commonalities in the challenges associated
with researching and writing the research paper you and the other seminar participants are
undertaking. The small groups meetings take place during one of the regular seminar meetings.
Sign ups for the small group meetings (the groups composition will not be the same as for the
oral presentation groups) will be available towards the middle of the semester, and the finished
schedule for these meetings will be posted in advance at the course website (Files link). Each of
the groups will meet with the instructor for 20-30 minute sessions. Participants are expected to
devote the remaining time that would have been spent in a regular seminar session to individual
research and writing for the research paper.
While there is no formal course credit for participation in a small group meeting (there is no
requirement to circulate materials to group members in advance), the meeting does give you the
opportunity to solicit and receive constructive suggestions from the instructor and other group
participants on questions related to your approach to your research.
--Research paper submission: the objective of the graduate research paper assignment (worth
40% of the overall grade) is to help you hone your skills at research and at writing a polished
piece of graduate-level research over an extended period of time and within relatively flexible
length requirements (see below). The research paper is submitted online, to be received by 10:00
A.M. on Monday, December 01 (link: Assignments).
The wording of the approved research question must appear at the top of the first page of the
paper. The research paper must respond directly to this question.
14
Although not prescriptive, the rough page length of the paper should be in the range 15-25 pages
(double-spaced, minimum 12-point font, one-inch margins, not counting space devoted to tables,
graphs, footnotes [if used] appendices, or to the required bibliography [single space the entries,
separate them with a space]).
While the research paper question proposal is intended as an important intermediate step in
preparation of the paper, the structure of the finished paper need not follow in lock-step the
annotated outline included in the original proposal. With the exception of the research question,
the various parts of the proposal may be incorporated or not, depending upon how appropriate
you feel they are to the finished version of your research paper.
Participants who have “submitted” each of these items at the course website (link: Assignments) do
not have the opportunity to resubmit. To verify that an item submitted has been received,
participants may visit the My Grades link to see the appropriate icon indicating “needs grading”
(click on “icon legend” for icon explanations).
Detailed Seminar Schedule
This section lists the session topics, assigned readings and assignment due dates. The instructor
reserves the right to amend, reorder, substitute for, supplement or delete session topics and assigned
readings during the course of the semester, with reasonable notice. Those readings (apart from
textbooks—see above) that are available full-text through the WRLC Catalog or Gelman Library’s
electronic databases (e.g., Ebrary) are indicated by an asterisk (*). Readings available at the course
Blackboard website (link: Electronic Reserves) are indicated by the “at” symbol (@). Readings also
available in hardcopy in the Gelman Library Reserves collection (access at the Circulation Desk)
are indicated by the “+” symbol. The abbreviations used below for the course textbooks are:
Co=Corbridge; K=Kohli; R=Rivoli; V=Vogel; and tba=to be assigned.
In general, readings drawn from edited volumes are listed below under the name(s) of the editor(s)
and title of the volumes, and then by the titles of the chapters and the individual authors of those
chapters. When searching the WRLC catalog or electronic databases available through the Gelman
Library webpage, such as ArticlesPlus, for chapters in edited volumes, start with the names of both
the volume editor(s) and the chapter author(s) and, failing that, search using the title of the volume
and the title of the chapter.
If an assigned reading is temporarily unavailable at the location indicated below, please be aware
that there are usually multiple sources from which readings assigned for this seminar may be
accessed. These include: hardcopy (books and bound journals) in the regular stacks at Gelman
Library; materials available for borrowing from other member libraries in the WRLC consortium
(request from the catalog entry for the title; expect material to be available in 24-48 hours); interlibrary loan (takes 7-21 days); and, for articles, the many, full text databases available via the
Gelman Library home page (find e-journals by searching at the Journals tab at the Gelman Library
home page).
15
Supplementary readings for each session topic are included in a “Further Reading” file available at
the course website (Files link). These supplementary readings are voluntary. They are intended as
ideas, starting points, for participants interested in digging deeper into a particular session topic,
perhaps in preparation for choosing a research paper question related to this topic. In some cases,
such items may not be available through the WRLC catalog or through electronic databases
available via Gelman Library’s home page. Alternative means, such as Inter-Library Loan, will
need to be used to access such sources.
Aug 27
1. Introduction to the course
Sep 03
2. Late Industrialization in Historical Perspective: the industrial revolution, colonialism &
nationalism
Required Reading:[195]
@+Karl Polanyi. The Great Transformation: the Political and Economic Origins of Our Time.
Boston: Farrar & Rinehart, 1944. Ch 5 (“Evolution of the Market Pattern”) 56-67
@Alexander Gerschenkron. Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective. Cambridge,
MA: Belknap Press, 1962. Ch 1 (“Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective”) 5-30
*Chibber, Vivek. Locked in Place: State-Building and Late Industrialization in India. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006. Ch 2 (“Late Development and State-Building”)(part)
13-17.[available full-text via WRLC database EBSCOhost eBook or directly, as Shared
Electronic Book from WRLC catalog entry. Note: WRLC catalog entry incorrectly lists book
title as “Locked in Place: State-Building and Capitalist Industrialization in India”]
*Chalmers Johnson. "The People Who Invented the Mechanical Nightingale." Daedalus 119:3
(Summer 1990)(part) 71-77.[available, full text, in WRLC databases JSTOR, ProQuest and
LION Literature Online]
K ch 1 (“The Colonial Origins of a Modern Political Economy: the Japanese Lineage of Korea’s
Cohesive-Capitalist State”) 27-61
@ Robert Wade. Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East
Asian Industrialization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003, c1990. Ch 4 (“Stateled Industrialization, 1930s to 1980s”[Taiwan])(part) 73-78
@Alasdair Bowie. Crossing the Industrial Divide: State, Society, and the Politics of Economic
Transformation in Malaysia. New York: Columbia University Press, 1991. Ch 2 (“Colonial
and Precolonial Malaya”)(part) 32 (bottom)-52
K Part III (“Slow but Steady: India”) ch 6 (“Origins of a Fragmented-Multiclass State and a
Sluggish Economy: Colonial India”) 221-56
Sep 10
3. Japan: the era of high-speed growth
Required Reading:[74]
V ch 1 ("The Japanese Model and Institutional Change”)(part) 8-10 [2]
@*Stiglitz, Joseph E., and Shahid Yusuf, eds. Rethinking the East Asian Miracle. Oxford, UK;
Washington, DC: Oxford University Press and the World Bank, 2001. Ch 8 (“The
Government-Firm Relationship in Postwar Japan: the success and failure of bureau
16
pluralism” [Tetsuji Okazaki]) 323-40.[13][Also available, full-text, through WRLC Catalog
entry and in WRLC database World Bank e-Library]
@Scott Callon. Divided Sun: MITI and the Breakdown of Japanese High-Tech Industrial Policy,
1975-1993. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995. Ch 3 (“Turf Wars: MITI against other
Japanese bureaucracies”) 31-54.[23]
@Richard J. Samuels. “Rich Nation, Strong Army:” National Security and the Technological
Transformation of Japan. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1994. Ch 2 (“The Ideological
Basis of Japanese Technonationalism”)(part) 68-78.[10]
@*Katz, Richard. Japan, the System That Soured: The Rise and Fall of the Japanese Economic
Miracle. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1998. Part Two (“The Success and the Souring”), ch 5
(“The Politics of Japanese Economic Policy”) 75-106.[26][The entire book is available, fulltext, through WRLC Catalog entry and in WRLC database EBSCOhost. IE browser
recommended to view this item online]
Sep 17
4. Japan: the bubble bursts, years in the wilderness, and patterns of contemporary reform
Required Reading:[176]
V ch 1 (part) 1-7, 10-21; ch 2; ch 3 (part) 51-63; ch 4; ch 5 (part) 115-43; chs 6 & 7
Sep 24
5. South Korea & Taiwan
Required Reading:
@Evans, Peter B. Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1995. Chs 1, 2 (part) 28-32, 36-42, ch 3 (part) 47-59, ch 4 (part)
74-84, 86-98
*Chibber, Locked in Place, chs 3, 7 (part) 164-70, & Epilogue (part) 244-48
K chs 2-3
Wade, Robert. Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East
Asian Industrialization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003, c1990. Introduction
to the 2003 Edition (available at http://press.princeton.edu/titles/4724.html in [HTML] or
[PDF])
@*Stiglitz & Yusuf ch 9 (“Miracle as Prologue: the State and the Reform of the Corporate
Sector in Korea” [Meredith Woo-Cumings]).[Also available, full-text, through WRLC
Catalog entry and in WRLC database World Bank e-Library]
@Woo, Meredith Jung-En, ed. Neoliberalism and Institutional Reform in East Asia: A
Comparative Study. Basingstoke, UK; New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Ch 4
(“Re-engineering the Developmental State in an Age of Globalization: Taiwan in Defiance of
Neoliberalism” [Yun-han Chu])
Oct 01
6. Other “high-performing” Asian economies: Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam and citystates/territories: Hong Kong SAR; Singapore
Required Reading:
@*World Bank. The East Asian Miracle: Economic Growth and Public Policy. Oxford, New
York: Oxford University Press for World Bank, 1993. “Overview: The Making of a Miracle."
Alternatively, read the 34-page Summary report to this volume, published separately.
17
@*Stiglitz & Yusuf ch 12 (“Rethinking the Role of Government Policy in Southeast Asia” [K.S.
Jomo]).[Also available, full-text, through WRLC Catalog entry and in WRLC database
World Bank e-Library]
@*Doner, Richard F., Bryan K. Ritchie, and Dan Slater. “Systemic Vulnerability and the
Origins of Developmental States: Northeast and Southeast Asia in Comparative Perspective.”
International Organization 59:2 (April 2005), 327-61
@Hayton, Bill. Vietnam: Rising Dragon. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010. Ch 1 (“The
Communist Capitalist Playground”)
*Fuller, Thomas. “Widening Wealth Gap in Vietnam Is Challenging Leaders' Message of
Equality.” New York Times September 2, 2012 (A06).[available, full text, in WRLC
databases Factiva, Nexis-Lexis, etc.]
@*Gittings, John. The Changing Face of China: From Mao to Market. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press, 2006. Ch 11 (“The Door Opens Wide: China and the World Economy”)
208-22.[The entire book is available, full-text, through WRLC Catalog entry and in WRLC
database EBSCOhost]
*Steve Zwick. “Hong Kong and Singapore: Rising Asian Stars.” Futures 39:11 (Nov 2010;
online 21 October, 2010) 58-60.[available, full text, in WRLC database Factiva]
** Research Paper Preliminary Bibliography due Monday, Oct 06, by 10:00 A.M. (submit at
course website; link: Assignments)**
Oct 08
7. China: post-1978 political economy
Required Reading:
@*Gittings, John. Changing Face… Ch 6 (“Economics in Command: the Modernization of
China”), 9 (“The Party under Pressure: Reform and Reaction”).[The entire book is available,
full-text, through WRLC Catalog entry and in WRLC database EBSCOhost]
@*Scott Kennedy, ed., Beyond the Middle Kingdom: Comparative Perspectives on China's
Capitalist Transformation. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2011. Ch 3 (“Developmental
Dreams: Policy and Reality in China’s Economic Reforms” [Arthur R. Kroeber]) 44-65 [22];
& ch 4 (“Crossing the River by Feeling for Stones or Carried Across by the Current?”
[Andrew Wedeman])(part) 66-82 [17][The entire book is available, full-text, as a GW
electronic book through WRLC Catalog entry]
@Tseng, Wanda, and David Cowen, eds. India's and China's Recent Experience with Reform
and Growth. Houndsmills, Basingstoke, UK and Washington, DC: Palgrave Macmillan and
International Monetary Fund, 2007. Ch 7 (“Trade Liberalization and Its Role in Chinese
Economic Growth” [Nicholas R. Lardy])
@*Stiglitz & Yusuf chs 6 (“Industrial and financial Policy in China and Vietnam: A New Model
or a Replay of the East Asian Experience?” [Dwight H. Perkins]) & 7 (“Government Control
in Corporate Governance as a Transitional Institution: Lessons from China” [Yingyi
Qian])(part) 295-99
*Lin, Yi-min. Between Politics and Markets: Firms, Competition, and Institutional Change in
Post-Mao China. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Introduction
(“Economic Market and Political Market”) & chs 1 (“Chinese Industrial Enterprises: a
Bird’s-Eye View”) & 2 (“Central Planning and its Decline”).[Entire book available, full text,
via WRLC Catalog entry and in WRLC database EBSCOhost]
18
@Schell, Orville, and David Shambaugh, eds. The China Reader: The Reform Era. (New York:
Vintage Books, 1999). Ch VI (“Building an Economic Superpower” [Barry Naughton, HangSheng Cheng])(part) 299-321
** Research Paper Question Proposal due Monday, Oct 13, by 10:00 A.M. (submit at course
website; link: Assignments)**
Oct 15
8. China: a quarter century of reform; evolving prospects
Required Reading:
@Jean C. Oi, et al, eds., Growing Pains: Tensions and Opportunity in China's Transformation.
Stanford: Shorenstein APARC (distributed by Brookings Institution Press), 2010.
Introduction (“Irresolvable Contradictions or Growing Pains? Perspectives on China’s
Challenges” [Andrew G. Walder]) xiii-xxv
*Gittings, John. Changing Face… Ch 13 (“Into the New Millennium”)
“Growing Concerns in China about Inequality, Corruption: Overview.” Pew Global Attitudes
Project, October 2012 report (and data) at http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/10/16/growingconcerns-in-china-about-inequality-corruption/
*Osnos, Evan. [Letter from China] “Boss Rail: The disaster that exposed the underside of the
boom.” The New Yorker (October 22, 2012).[available, full-text, through WRLC database
ProQuest Research Library Plus, and others, or directly at
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/10/22/121022fa_fact_osnos ]
@Jean C. Oi, et al, eds., Growing Pains..., ch 1 (“Political Crosscurrents in China’s Corporate
Restructuring” [Jean C. Oi]) 5-20
R ch 7 (“Sisters in Time”)
@Chan, Anita, Richard Madsen, and Jonathan Unger. Chen Village: Revolution to
Globalization (3rd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press, (April) 2009. Ch 13
(“Globalization and Transformation”) 330-53
R ch 12 (“45 Years of ‘Temporary’ Protectionism End in 2009—Now What?”)
*Schneider, Howard. “Brazil’s Burgeoning Farm Belt Challenges U.S. in World Markets.” New
York Times November 12, 2012, A01.[available, full text, in WRLC databases Factiva,
Nexis-Lexis, etc.]
@Yang, Dali L. Remaking the Chinese Leviathan: Market Transition and the Politics of
Governance in China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2004. Ch 1 (“Economic
Transition and the Problem of Governance in China”)(part) 1-21
Oct 22
9. India: background and reforms of the 1980s and 1990s
Required Reading:
*Chibber, Locked in Place, ch 4 (part) 85-88, chs 5-6, & ch 7 (part) 161-63, 170-92
K Part III (“Slow but Steady: India”) ch 7
Co ch 2 (“When and Why Did India Take Off?”)
@Evans, Peter B. Embedded Autonomy... Ch 3 (part) 66-73, [review (skim) ch 4, 75-76, 86-93],
ch 5 (part) 105-06, 111-16, 126-27, and ch 6 (part) 129-35
Oct 29
19
10. India: patterns of contemporary reform of the political economy, prospects
Required Reading:
Co chs 3-7, & 8 (part) 158-68 [101]
*Chibber, Locked in Place, chs 1 (“Introduction”), 8 (“Locked in Place: Explaining the NonOccurrence of Reform”), 9 (“Conclusion”), & Epilogue (“The Decline of Development
Models”)(part) 248-54 [63]
@*Evans, ch 7 (“The Rise of Local Firms”) (part) 156-57, 168-73 and 178-80; ch 8 (“The New
Internationalization”) (part) 181-85, 190-96 and 203-06; & ch 10 (“Rethinking Embedded
Autonomy”) (part) 243-50 [28]
@Tseng & Cowen, eds. India's and China's Recent Experience… ch 10 (“Understanding India’s
Services Revolution” [James Gordon & Poonam Gupta])
Nov 05
11. Energy, the environment and global warming
Required Reading:
[Update these readings from 6336s14syl]
@Dewey & LeBoeuf, LLP (for the National Foreign Trade Council), “China’s Promotion of the
Renewable Electric Power Equipment Industry: Hydro, Wind, Solar, Biomass,” Washington,
DC, March 2010. Executive Summary, I. Introduction, II. China’s Surging Energy
Requirements,” III. “National Measures Promoting Renewable Energy Equipment
Production” (part) 15-18, IV. “The Promise and Limits of Hydropower,” V. “Development of
China’s ‘New Renewables’ Sectors,” and VI. Conclusion. Available at:
http://www.nftc.org/default/Press%20Release/2010/China%20Renewable%20Energy.pdf
@Chikkatur, Ananth P., “Coal Initiatives Reports: A Resource and Technology Assessment of
Coal Utilization in India,” Pew Center on Global Climate Change, October 2008. Available
at: http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/india-coal-technology.pdf
@Sun, Guodong, “Coal Initiatives Reports: Coal in China: Resources, Uses and Advanced Coal
Technologies,” Pew Center on Global Climate Change, March 2010. Available at:
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/coal-in-china-resources-uses-technologies.pdf
*Bradsher, Keith, “A Union Accuses China of Illegal Clean Energy Subsidies,” New York
Times, September 10, 2010, p. B1.[www.nytimes.com; Also available, full text, in WRLC
databases Factiva, Lexis/Nexis Academic Universe, and Biography in Context]
United Steelworkers (USW), “Steelworkers Applaud Obama Administration Acceptance of
Trade Case.” United Steelworkers News, October 15, 2010. Includes summary of the USW
Petition under Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act (1974), filed September 9, 2010. Available
at: http://www.usw.org/media_center/releases_advisories?id=0335
Nov 12
12. Research paper small group meetings
--in lieu of one seminar meeting
--small groups convene for 20-30 minute sessions with instructor to discuss research and writing
for individual research papers
--meeting schedule and location to be posted in advance at course website
--you should use the remaining time that you would have been spent in the seminar session that
week working on your research paper research
20
Nov 19
13. Regime type, governance and development in an era of decentralization
Required Reading:
@Bowie, Alasdair, "Governance: a Development Perspective." In Joanna Spear and Paul D.
Williams, eds, Security and Development in Global Politics: A Critical Comparison,
Georgetown: Georgetown University Press, 2012, 131-48
@+Rodrik, Dani, One Economics, Many Recipes: Globalization, Institutions, and Economic
Growth, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007. Ch 5 (“Institutions for High-Quality
Growth”)[An earlier version of this chapter appeared as the article, “Institutions for HighQuality Growth: What They Are and How to Acquire Them,” Studies in Comparative
International Development 35:3 (Fall 2000), 3-31. This article is available, full text, in
WRLC databases: Academic Search Complete, Business Source Complete, International
Security & Counter Terrorism Reference Center, SpringerLink, ABI/Inform Complete Plus,
ProQuest Research Library Plus, and Social Science Journals.]
*Lin, Yi-min. Between Politics…. Ch 3 (“The Rugged Terrain of Competition”)
Co 8 (“Is Government in India Becoming More Responsive?)(part) 168-76
*Evans ch 10 (“Rethinking Embedded Autonomy”) (part) 234-40 [Kerala]
*Devika, J. “Egalitarian Developmentalism, Communist Mobilization, and the Question of
Caste in Kerala State.” Journal of Asian Studies 69:3 (August 2010), 799-815.[Available, full
text, in WRLC databases: Cambridge University Press Journals; ABI/Inform Complete Plus;
ProQuest Asian Business & Reference; and ProQuest Research Library Plus]
@Grindle, Merilee S., Going Local: Decentralization, Democratization, and the Promise of
Good Governance, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009. Ch 1 (“Going Local:
Governance on the Line”)
Nov 26 Thanksgiving break (no class)
** Research Paper to be submitted (link: Assignments) by Monday, Dec 01, 10:00 A.M. **
Dec 03
14. Conclusion; participant research paper colloquium
Required Reading:
K Conclusion (“Understanding States and State Intervention in the Global Periphery”)(part—
“III. Concluding Reflections”) 408-25