Comparative Political Institutions

Fall / Winter Terms 2012 - 2013Department of Public PolicyCentral European University

CEU Credits: 4(ECTS: 8)

This class makes use of the CEU e-learning platform. Please register on the relevant course website and download the up-to-date session schedule as well reading materials.

Faculty:Dr Youngmi Kim, Assistant Professor, DPP (Convenor) kimy@ceu.hu Dr Kristina Irion, Assistant Professor, DPP IrionK@ceu.huDr Luicy Pedroza, Visiting Professor, DPP pedrozal@ceu.hu

Teaching Assistant: Andrey Demidov, Demidov_Andrey-Anatolievich@ceu-budapest.edu

Please see the departmental course schedule for information on dates and time of individual course sessions as they may alter during the term. The class is taught in two groups. For further information on the dates for which individual course topics are scheduled see the session schedule at the end of this outline.

Aims of the course

The course is aimed at analysing the policy process as embedded in a comprehensive legal and institutional framework and providing students with the necessary knowledge and analytical skills to conduct independent research in this field. The course highlights the dual nature of the institutional framework in which politics and policies are made. On the one hand, institutions structure the policy process. Decision-making does not take place within a vacuum but is based on rules and procedures. Some of them even have the character of constitutional rules and principles reflecting the core political and normative values and principles upon which a society is based. On the other hand, the experience of day-to-day decision-making becomes in itself a source of permanent adjustments and refinements of this framework. The practice of decision-making alters the use and meaning of core constitutional concepts. Effective decision-making requires awareness of this inter-relationship between politics, law and public policy. This course takes a comparative perspective and reviews political institutions across countries and different levels of governance. It studies core political institutions and the challenges related to their functioning in an increasingly independent environment at the national and global level. Moreover, a set of short case studies will enable students to see the different institutional dynamics playing out in the context of specific policy episodes.

1

Learning outcomes

With completing the course students will

- be able to apply key concepts in the field of political analysis to political systems other than their home country and across different dimensions of contemporary governance systems (nationally, regionally, globally);

- have a systematic and critical understanding of core concepts and approaches in the field and including their potential conceptual and empirical limitations;

- have the skills necessary to engage and learn through discussion and team work in the field of political analysis;

- be able to engage in independent research in the field using multiple sources including scholarly contributions and empirical information also in areas which are new to them.

Requirements and assessmentPresentation and participation 20%Policy paper 1500 words 40%Final Paper 3000 words 40 %

Active participation in the seminar discussions is a precondition for the success of the course. Students are expected to attend all seminars, to prepare the required readings for each session and to participate actively in the discussion. In addition, each student is encouraged to demonstrate a deeper knowledge of the course topics through consulting the further readings as well as through independent research activity. Missing more than two classes without presenting a written note to the instructor may result in a failing grade.

All students are required to offer one 15 min. seminar presentation. Presentation topics will be allocated during the first session. Presentations must refer to the required readings for the relevant session and additional material deemed necessary by the presenters in order to sustain their contribution. The main aim of the presentation is to present and critically assess the specified readings. A presentation should conclude with clearly identifying points for further discussion in the class. Students are encouraged to make use of presentation techniques such as overhead projectors, Power Point or the flip chart. You should indicate which type of ‘technology’ you want to use for your presentation at least one week before the relevant session. The DPP MA coordinator will help you with ordering the equipment for the respective session unless it is already provided in the classroom. You also have to submit presentation note three days before your presentation to the instructor and teaching assistant.

You will have to submit a policy paper (1,500 words). Sample policy papers will be provided on the e-learning website. A selection of possible topics will be made available during the course.

You are required to complete a final research paper in this course. Students need to register their choice of topic with the course convenor to confirm choice and outline of this essay (see for further information the section “Deadlines and tasks” below). Your work will be judged on the basis of the quality of your presentation of the relevant theoretical literature, as well as on the critical understanding and the intellectual creativity which you demonstrate in using this. Each paper should be approximately 3500 words in length. All papers should be typed (word-processed) and double-spaced. Please leave broad margins on both sides! Essays must

2

be properly referenced, with a standard form of citation used (see MPP Student’s Handbook for further details). You must also include a bibliography of all works consulted. All written contributions need to be original, i.e. produced exclusively by the student who submits the work. References to all other sources must be clearly indicated following accepted academic standards. Any text reproduction, which is not clearly identified will have to be considered as plagiarism and, consequently, the submitted work will be acknowledged with no more than 0% of the mark. For further information, please do not hesitate to consult with the instructor of this course.

Readings

The session schedule (see the end of this outline) indicates the required readings for each course session. These readings need to be prepared by all students. You will find the required readings under “Readings and resources” on the course website at

http://e-learning.ceu.hu

All journal articles which are not included under “Readings and resources” on the course website can be found through the journal databases of the CEU library and need to be downloaded by the course participants.

Team teaching – who does what?

The course is jointly taught by three DPP faculty members. Each faculty member covers a particular part of the course. The class is taught in two cohorts. However, each cohort will attend exactly the same type of sessions and will meet the same instructors.

The convenor of the course is responsible for coordinating the schedule of the course and the main activities throughout the term. Students will need to direct all questions concerning potential absence from class sessions, general enquiries about the class and course requirements, as well as questions about grading and supervision to the convenor. Students will also agree their seminar presentation topics with the convenor during the first session of the class.

Convenor: Dr Youngmi Kim, Assistant Professor, DPPRoom Nador 15 Room 502 kimy @ceu.hu Office hours: Tuesday and Thursday 3:30 -5:10

Please direct all questions related to individual course sessions and the related seminar presentations directly to the responsible instructor. You find the initials of responsible instructor in the session schedule.

April 2012 (TBA)Submission of final research paper. The paper needs to be uploaded to the e-learning plat form!Please note that all deadlines are final. Missing the deadline for the research paper will result automatically in a failing grade. Papers need to be submitted on the calendar day indicated above (before midnight CET). In case of illness you will need to present a medical certificate to the DPP MA coordinator and in form the course convenor.

3

Weekly Overview

WEEK/ Fall

Date Fall Term Instructor

WK 1 17 Sept Intro/ why compare? YKWK 2 Comparative method YKWK 3 Forms of government YKWK 4 Forms of government: Critiques YKWK 5 Political parties Party system institutionalisation YKWK 6 Reading weekWK 7 Civil society, NGOs ADWK 8 Federalism KIWK 9 Independent regulatory agencies KIWK10 Self- and co-regulation, public private KIWK 11 Constitutionalism/ Constitutional Judicial Review MPGWK 12 Limitations of the nation state/ international organizations KIMid December Policy Paper Deadline (TBA)WEEK/ Winter

Date Winter Term Instructor

WK1 Jan Direct Democracy LPWK 2 Electoral systems LPWK 3 Cleavages and conflict lines, dimensions of political

competitionLP

WK 4 Social movements and political opportunity structures LPWK 5 Networked governance/ multi-stakeholder governance ADWK 6 Reading week

WK 7 Political Culture and Trust in Governments and Institutions

LP

WK 8 Applied Institutionalism I: Do Democratic Institutions Promote Economic Growth?

LP

WK 9 Applied Institutionalism II: Does (bicameral) Federalism Make Politics Slow?

LP

WK 10 International Organisations 1 LPWK 11 International Organisations 2 LPWK 12 Review session - understanding political institutions LPMid April Final Paper Deadline(TBA)

4

WEEK 1 Introduction, why compare, what to compare and how to compare? YK

Required readingsHopkin, J. (2010). The Comparative Method. Theory and Methods in Political Science. D. Marsh and G. Stoker. Basingstoke, Palgrave.

WEEK 2 Comparative cases presentation YK

Required readingsHopkin, J. (2010). The Comparative Method. Theory and Methods in Political Science. D. Marsh and G. Stoker. Basingstoke, Palgrave.

Sartori, G. (1970). "Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics." Source: American Political Science Review LXIV(4): 1033-1053.

Further readings

Collier, D. (1993). The Comparative Method. Political Science: The State of the Dicipline II. A. W. Finifter. Washington D. C., American Political Science Association.

WEEK 3 Forms of government YK

Differences in the design of government systems and their impact on the policy process Systems of parliamentary and presidential government compared

Required readingsStepan, A. and C. Skach (1993). "Constitutional Frameworks and Democratic Consolidation: Parliamentarism versus Presidentialism." World Politics 46(1): 1-22.

Elgie, R. (2004). "Semi-Presidentialism: Concepts, Consequences and Contesting Explanations." Political Studies Review 2(3): 314-330.

Further readingsMainwaring, S. (1993). "Presidentialism, Multipartism and Democracy: The Difficult Combination." Comparative Political Studies 26(2): 198-228.

Elgie, R. (2007) Varieties of semi-presidentialism and their impact on nascent democracies. Taiwan Journal of Democracy, 3(2): 53-71.

Linz, J.J. (1990) The virtues of parliamentarism. Journal of Democracy, 1(4): 84-91.Sartori, G. (1994). Comparative constitutional engineering – an inquiry into structures, incentives and outcomes, New York University Press, New York: New York University Press, Ch. 5,6,7.

Laver, M. and N. Schofield (1990). Multi Government: The Politics of Coalition in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

5

Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.

WEEK 4 Forms of government: Critiques YK

Regime survival: Minority government/ divided government Forms of centralised and decentralised systems of government compared and contrasted

Required readingsLinz, J. J. (1990). "The Perils of Presidentialism." Journal of Democracy 1(1): 51-69.

Mainwaring, S. (1993). "Presidentialism, Multipartism and Democracy: The Difficult Combination." Comparative Political Studies 26(2): 198-228.

Cheibub, J. A. (2002). "Minority Governments, Deadlock Situations, and The Survival of Presidential Democracies." Comparative Political Studies 35(3): 284-312.

Further readingsLinz, J. J. and A. Valenzuela (1994). The Failure of Presidential Democracy: The Case of Latin America. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.

Kim, Y. (2008). "Explaining the minority coalition government and governability in South Korea: A review essay." Korea Observer 39(1): 59-84.

Elgie, R. (1999). Semi-presidentialism in Europe. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Elgie, R. (2001). Divided Government in Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tsebelis, G. (1995). "Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartyism." British Journal of Political Science 25: 289-325.

Cheibub, J. A. and F. Limongi (2002). "Democratic Institutions and Regime Survival: Parliamentary and Presidential democracies Reconsidered." Annual Review of Political Science 5: 1551-179.

Cheibub, J. A., A. Przeworski, et al. (2004). "Government Coalitions and Legislative Success Under Presidentialism and Paliamentarism." British Journal of Political Science(34): 565-587.

Colomer, J. M. and G. L.Negretto (2005). "Can Presidentialism Work Like Parliamentarism?" Government and Opposition 40(1): 60-89.

Figueiredo, A. C. and F. Limongi (2000). "Presidential Power, Legislative Organisation, and Party Behavior in Brazil." Comparative Politics 32(2): 151-170.

Kim, Y. (2008). "Intra-party politics and minority coalition government in South Korea." Japanese Journal of Political Science 9(3): 367-398.

6

Mainwaring, S. and T. R. Scully (1995). Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America. Stanford, Stanford University Press.

Mainwaring, S. and M. S. Shugart (1997). Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Martin, L. W. and R. T. Stevenson (2001). "Government Formation in Parliamentary Democracies." American Journal of Political Science 45(1): 33-50.

Schofield, N. (1983). "Genetic Instability of Majority Rule." Review of Economic Studies 50(163): 695-705.

Pech, G. (2004). "Coalition Governments Versus Minority Governments: Bargaining Power, Cohesion and Budgeting Outcomes." Public Choice 121(1): 1-24.

Schofield, N. (1993). "Political Competition and Multiparty Coalition Governments." European Journal of Political Research 23(1): 1-33.

WEEK 5 Political Parties and Party system institutionalisation YK

The role of parties in the political system Criticisms of political parties Electoral party systems Party system institutionalisation

Required readingsGunther, R. and L. Diamond (2003). "Species of political parties: a new typology." Party Politics 9(2): 167-199.

Bardy, L. and P. Mair (2008). "The Parameters of Party Systems." Party Politics 14(2): 147-166.

Randall, V. and L. Svåsand (2002). "Party Institutionalization in New Democracies." Party Politics 8(1): 5-29.

Further readingsKatz, R. and P. Mair (1995). "Changing models of party Organization: The emergence of cartel party." Party Politics 1(1): 5-28.

Katz, R. and P. Mair (2009). “The Cartel Party Thesis: A Restatement.” Perspectives on Politics 7(4): 753-766.

Safran, W. (2009). "The Catch-All Party Revisited: Reflections of a Kirchheimer Student." Party Politics 15(5): 543 - 554.

Williams, M. H. (2009). "Catch-All in the Twenty-First Century? Revisiting Kirchheimer`s Thesis 40 Years Later: An Introduction." Party Politics 15(5): 539-541.

7

Katz, R. and P. Mair (1995). "Changing models of party organisation: The emergence of cartel party." Party Politics 1(1): 5-28.

Gunther, R. and L. Diamond, (2001) “Types and functions of parties”, in: Gunther, R. and L. Diamond, (eds.) Political parties and democracy, Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, pp. 3-39.

Daalder, H. (2002) “Parties: Denied, dismissed, or redundant? A critique”, in: Gunther, Richard/ Ramón-Monetro, José/ Linz, Juan J. (eds.) Political Parties. Old concepts and new challenges, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 39-57.

Webb, P. Farrel, D. and Holliday, I. (eds.) (2002) Political parties in advanced industrial democracies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sartori, G. (1976). Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis, Vol. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bielasiak, J. (2002). "The Institutionalization of Electoral and Party Systems in Post communist States." Comparative Politics 34(2): 189-210.

Gingerich, D (2009). "Ballot Structure, Political Corruption, and the Performance of Proportional Representation." Journal of Theoretical Politics 21(4): 509-541.

Hix, S. and H.-W. Jun (2009). "Party Behaviour in the Parliamentary Arena:The Case of the Korean National Assembly" Party Politics 15 (6): 667-694.

Elff, M. (2009). "Social divisions, party positions, and electoral behaviour" Electoral Studies 28(2): 297–308.

Panebianco, A. (1988). Political Parties: organization and power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ware, A. (1996) Political Parties and Party Systems, Oxford: Oxford University Press, Ch.5.

Giannetti, D. and M. Laver (2001). "Party system dynamics and the making and breaking of Italian governments." Electoral Studies 20(4): 529-553.

Laver, M. (2001). "Party system dynamics in Japan and Italy: Introduction." Electoral Studies 20(4): 505-507.

Laver, M. and J. Kato (2001). "Dynamics Approaches to Government Formation and the Genetic Instability of Decisive Structures in Japan." Electoral Studies (20): 509-527.

Lijphart, A. (1994). Electoral Party Systems: A Study of Twenty Seven Democracies, 1945-1990. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rokkan, S. (1970). Citizens, Elections, Parties: Approaches to theComparative Study of Political Development. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

8

WEEK 6 Reading week (National Holiday)

WEEK 7 Civil society, NGOs AD

Required readings:Alexander, J. (2006) The Civil Sphere, Ch. 2, Oxford University press.

Howell, J., Pearce, J. (2001) Civil society and development: a critical exploration. Boulder, Colo. : L. Rienner Publishers (ch 1-3);

Morje Howard, M. (2002), “The Weakness of post-communist civil society”, Journal of Democracy, 13(1), 157-169;

Lane, D. (2010), “Civil society in the old and new member states. Ideology, institutions and democracy promotion”, European Societies, 12(1), 293-315;

Further readings:Kocka, J. (2004), “Civil society from a historical perspective”, European Review, 12(1), 65-79;

Zimmer, A. and Freise, M. (2008) Bringing Society Back In: Civil Society, Social Capital and Third Sector. in W. Maloney and J. W. van Deth (eds) Civil Society and Governance in Europe: from National to International Linkages. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 19-44. (the article is not available but will be sent to students by the TA);

Salamon, L., Anheier, H. (1998), “Social origins of civil society: explaining the nonprofit sector cross-nationally”, Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organisations, 9(3), 213-248;

Salamon, L., Anheier, H., In search of the non-profit sector. The question of definitions (article is not available in the library and will be sent to students by the TA);

Brandsen, T., Pestoff, V. (2006), “Co-production, the third sector and the delivery of public services”, Public Management Review, 8(4), 493-501;

Hall, J.A. (1995) Civil Society: Theory, History, Comparison. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Edwards, M. (2004) Civil society, Malden: MA: Polity Press

Salamon, L., Anheier, H. (1997) Defining the non-profit sector: a cross-national analysis, New York: Manchester University Press

Handbook on third sector policy in Europe: multi-level processes and organised civil society (ed. By Kendall, J.), Cheltentham: Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2009

Kohler-Koch, B. (2009) “Three worlds of European civil society – what role for civil society for what kind of Europe?”, Policy and society 28, 47-57;

9

Kohler-Koch, B. (2010) “Civil society and EU democracy: ‘astroturf’ representation?”, Journal of European Public Policy, 17(1), 100-116;

Schutter, Olivier. 2002. “Europe in Serach of its Civil Society”, European Law Journal 8 (2):198-217;

Smismans, Stijn. 2006. Civil society and European governance: from concepts to research agenda. In Civil society and legitimate European governance, edited by S. Smismans. Cheltenham: Edwar Elgar Publishing;

Armstrong, Kenneth A. 2002. “Rediscovering Civil Society: the European Union and the White Paper on Governance”, European Law Journal 8 (1):102-132;

WEEK 8 Veto Points: Federalism KI

Required readings

Tsebelis, George, 1995: Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartyism. In: British Journal of Political Science 25: 289–325.

Manow, Philip and Simone Burkhart (2007) “Legislative Self-Restraint under Divided Government in Germany, 1976-2002”. Legislative Studies Quarterly 32(2): 167-191.

Further readings

Immergut, Ellen (1990), ‘Institutions, Veto Points and Policy Results: A Comparative Analysis of Health Care’, Journal of Public Policy 10(4): 391-416.

Tsebelis, George (1999), ‘Veto Players and Law Production in Parliamentary Democracies: An Empirical Analysis’, in: American Political Science Review 93(3): 591-608

Ganghoff and Bräuninger (2006), ‘Partisan Veto Players in Australia, Denmark, Finland and Germany’, in: Party Politics 12(4): 521-539.

Crepaz and Moser (2004), ‘The Impact of Collective and Competitive Veto Points on Expenditures in the Global Age’, in: Comparative Political Studies 37(3): 259-285.

WEEK 9 Independent regulatory agencies KI

An arm's length relationship from politics and stakeholders Institutional autonomy: Knowledge, resources and power Formal and de facto independence

Required readingsThatcher, M. (2005): The Third Force? Independent Regulatory Agencies and Elected

Politicians. In: Governance 18 (3), pp. 347-373.

10

Gilardi, F. (2002): Policy credibility and delegation to independent regulatory agencies. A comparative empirical analysis. In: Journal of European Public Policy 9 (6), pp. 873-893.

Further readingsSmith, W. (1997): Utility Regulators – The Independence Debate. In: Public Policy for the

Private Sector (127), pp. 1-2.Maggetti, M. (2007): De facto independence after delegation: A fuzzy-set analysis. In:

Regulation & Governance, 4 (1), pp. 271-294.Hans Bredow Institute for Media Research et al (2011), "Indicators for independence and

efficient functioning of audiovisual media services regulatory bodies for the purpose of enforcing the rules in the AVMS Directive (INDIREG study)", study for the European Commission, Brussels, 2011. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/docs/library/studies/regulators/final_report.pdf

WEEK 10 Self- and co-regulation KI• Private rule-making• Self-regulation v. co-regulation• Best practices

Required readingsHéritier, Adrienne, and Sandra Eckert (2008). "New Modes of Governance in the Shadow of Hierarchy: Self-regulation by Industry in Europe". Journal of Public Policy (2008), 28 : pp 113-138Bartle, Ian and Peter Vass (2007). “Self-regulation within the regulatory state: towards a new regulatory paradigm?” Public Administration, 85 (4), pp. 885-905.

Further readingsEuropean Parliament (2003). Council and Commission. Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making, Official Journal of the European Union C 321/1 of 31.12.2003.Ofcom (2008). Identifying appropriate regulatory solutions: principles for analysing self- and co-regulation. Statement.Ofcom (2003). Criteria for promoting effective co- and self-regulation. Statement.Marsden, Christopher T. (2011). Internet Co-regulation. European Law, Regulatory Governance and Legitimacy in Cyberspace. Cambridge University Press.

WEEK 11 Constitutionalism/ Constitutional Judicial Review MGPRequired readingsStone-Sweet, A. (2000), Ch. 2 Constitutional Adjudication and Parliamentary Democracy, Ch. 3 Legislating, and Ch. 7 Theory of constitutional politics, in Governing with Judges - Constitutional Politics in Europe, Oxford University Press, 31-91, 195-196.

Further readingsM. Shapiro and A. Stone Sweet (2002), On Law. Politics and Judicialization (Oxford University Press)M. Shapiro (1969), The Supreme Courts and Public Policy (Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman)M. Shapiro (1981). Courts: A comparative and political analysis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press)

11

Sajo, A. (1999) Limiting government: an introduction to constitutionalism (Budapest, Central European university Press)G. van der Schyff (2011) Judicial Review of Legislation: A Comparative Study of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and South Africa (Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law, Springer)T. Ginsburg and r. Dixon (eds) (2011), Comparative constitutional law, (Research Handbook in comparative Constitutional Law, Edgard Edward Publishing)L.Epstein, J. Knight and O.Shvetsova (2001). The Role of Constitutional Courts in the Establishment and Maintenance of Democratic Systems of Government 35/1 Law & Society Review , 117-164, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3185388 A. Stone Sweet and J. Matthews (2008), 'Proportionality balancing and global constitutionalism', http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=alec_stone_sweet

WEEK 12 Limitations of the nation state/ international institutions KI• Multi-level government• International/ European regulatory networks• Private transnational governance

Required readingsWolfgang H. Reinicke (1998). Global Public Policy Governing Without Government?, Brookings Institution Press 1998, Chapter 2: Globalization and Public Policy: An Analytical Framework.Pattberg, Philipp (2005). The Institutionalization of Private Governance: How Business and Nonprofit Organizations Agree on Transnational Rules. Governance Volume 18, Issue 4, pp. 589–610.

Further readingsCoen, David and Thatcher, Mark (2008). “Network governance and multi-level delegation: European networks of regulatory agencies”. Journal of Public Policy, 28 (1). pp. 49-71Knill, Christoph, and Dirk Lehmkuhl (2002). "Private Actors and the State: Internationalization and Changing Patterns of Governance". Governance, Jan2002, Vol. 15 Issue 1, pp. 41-63.Benner, Thorsten, Wolfgang H. Reinicke and Jan Martin Witte (2004). "Multisectoral Networks in Global Governance: Towards a Pluralistic System of Accountability", Government and Opposition, Volume 39, Issue 2, pages 191–210, Spring 2004.Abbott, W. Kenneth, and Duncan Snidal (1998), “Why States Act through Formal International Organizations”. Journal of Conflict Resolution 1998, 42 (3), pp. 3-31.

12

Comparative Political InstitutionsWinter Term, academic year 2012-2013 Instructor: Dr. des. Luicy Pedroza

Week 1 Direct Democracy

Required readings:Mudde, Cas. 2004. "The Populist Zeitgeist." Government and Opposition 29: 541-563.

Barr, Robert R. 2009. “Populists, Outsiders, and Anti-Establishment Politics.” Party Politics 15(1): 29-48.

Arditi, B. 2003. "Populism, or Politics at the Edges of Democracy." Contemporary Politics 9(1): 17-31.

Further readings:Bowler, Shaun and Todd Donovan. 2006. "Direct Democracy and Political Parties in America." Party Politics 12(5): 649-669.

Donovan Todd and Jeffrey A. Karp. 2006. "Popular Support for Direct Democracy." Party Politics 12(5): 671-688.

Kriesi, Hanspeter. 2008. "Political Mobilization, Political Participation and the Power of the Vote." West European Politics 31(1): 147-168.

Abts, Koen and Stefan Rummens. 2007. "Populism Versus Democracy." Political Studies 55: 405-424.

Papadopoulos, Yannis. 2001. "How Does Direct Democracy Matter? The Impact of Referendum Votes on Politics and Policy-Making." West European Politics 24(2): 35-58.

Rydgren, Jens. 2005. "Is Extreme Right-Wing Populism Contagious? Explaining the Emergence of a New Party Family." European Journal of Political Research 44: 413-437.

Canovan, M. 1999. "Trust the People! Populism and the Two Faces of Democracy." Political Studies XLVII: 2-16.

Arditi, Benjamin. 2004. "Populism as a Spectre of Democracy: A Response to Canovan." Political Studies 52: 135-143.

Canovan, M. 2002. Talking politics to the people: populism as the ideology of democracy. Democracies and the Populist Challenge. Y. Mény and Y. Surel. Houndmills, Palgrave.

Taggart, P. 2002. Populism and the Pathology of Representative Politics. Democracies and the Populist Challenge. Y. Meny and Y. Surel. New York, Palgrave: 62-80.

Taggart, P. 2004. "Populism and Representative Politics in Contemporary Europe." Journal of Political Ideologies 9(3): 269-88.

13

Zaslove, A. 2008. "Here to Stay? Populism as a New Party Type." European Review 16(3): 319-336.

Week 2 Electoral Systems

Required readings:Norris, P. 1997. "Choosing Electoral Systems: Proportional, Majoritarian and Mixed Systems." International Political Science Review 18(3): 297-312.LeDuc, L., Niemi R. and P. Norris. 2010. “Introduction: Building and Sustaining Democracy.” In Comparing Democracies 3 London: Sage.Boix, C. 1999. “Setting the Rules of the Game: The Choice of Electoral Systems in Advanced Democracies.”The American Political Science Review , 93(3): 609-624.

Karp Jeffrey A. and Susan A. Banducci. 2002. “Issues and Party Competition Under Alternative Electoral Systems.” Party Politics 8(1): 217-234.

Further readings:Lijphart A. 1997. “Unequal Participation: Democracy's Unresolved Dilemma“, The American Political Science Review , 91(1): 1-14. Mozaffar, S., J. R. Scarritt, et al. 2003. "Electoral Institutions, Ethnopolitical Cleavages and Party Systems in Africa's Emerging Democracies." American Political Science Review 97(3): 379-390.

Benoit, Kenneth. 2007. “Electoral Laws as Political Consequences: Explaining Origins and Change of Electoral Institutions.” Annual Review of Political Science 10: 363-390.

Benoit, Kenneth and Jacqueline Hayden. 2004. “Institutional Change and Persistence: The Evolution of Poland’s Electoral System, 1989-2001. Journal of Politics 66(2): 396-427.

Iversen, Torben and David Soskice. 2006. “Electoral Systems and the Politics of Coalitions - Why Some Democracies Redistribute More than Others”. American Political Science Review 100(2): 165-181.

Karp, Jeffrey A. and Susan A. Banducci. 2008. “Political Efficacy and Participation in Twenty-Seven Democracies: How Electoral Systems Shape Political Behaviour.” British Journal of Political Science 38: 311-334.

Lijphart, Arend. Electoral systems and party systems. A study of twenty-seven democracies 1945-1990, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1994.

Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy. Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. Yale University Press, Chapter 8.

Norris, Pippa. 2004. Electoral engineering. Voting rules and political behavior, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Ch 2, 3.

Karp, J. A. and S. A. Banducci. 2002. "Issues and Party Competition Under Alternative Electoral Systems." Party Politics 8(1): 123.

14

Monroe, B. L. and A. G. Rose. 2002. "Electoral Systems and Unimagined Consequences: Partisan Effects of Districted Proportional Representation." American Journal of Political Science 46(1): 67-89.

Cox, G.W. 1997.Making votes count: strategic coordination in the world's electoral system. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ch. 3.

Hoffman, A.L. 2005. Political parties, electoral systems and democracy: A cross-national analysis. European Journal of Political Research, 44, 231-242.

Sartori, G. 1994. Comparative constitutional engineering – an inquiry into structures, incentives and outcomes, New York: New York University Press, Ch. 3.

Lijphart, A. 2004. Electoral systems and party systems. A study of twenty-seven democracies 1945-1990, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1994.

Norris, P. 2004. Electoral engineering. Voting rules and political behavior, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Ch 2, 3.

Bowler, S., D. J. Lanue, et al. 1994. "Electoral Systems, Party Competition, and Strength of Partisan Attachment: Evidence from Three Countries." The Journal of Politics 56(4): 991-1007.

Christensen, R. V. and P. E. Johnson. 1995. "Toward a Context-Rich Analysis of Electoral Systems: The Japanese Example." American Journal of Political Science 39(3): 575-598.

Gunther, R. 1989. "Electoral Laws, Party Systems, and Elites: The case of Spain." The American Political Science Review 83(3): 835-858.

Mather, J. 2001. "The European Parliament- a model of representative democracy?" West European Politics 24(1): 181-201.

Monroe, B. L. and A. G. Rose. 2002. "Electoral Systems and Unimagined Consequences: Partisan Effects of Districted Proportional Representation." American Journal of Political Science 46(1): 67-89.

Stratmann, T. and M. Baur. 2002. "Plurality Rule, Proportional Representation, and the German Bundestag: How Incentives to Pork-Barrel Differ across Electoral Systems." American Journal of Political Science 46(3): 506-514.

Week 3 Cleavages, conflict lines and dimensions of political competition

Required readings:Rokkan, S.1970/2009. Citizens, Elections, Parties – Approaches to the Comparative Study of the Processes of Development. Chapter 3 (Nation-Building, Cleavage Formation and the Structuring of Mass Politics).Further readings:Kriesi, H. 2010. ‘Restructuration of Partisan Politics and the Emergence of a New Cleavage Based on Values’, in: West European Politics 33(3): 673-685.

15

Bartolini and Mair 1990/2007: Identity, Competition and Electoral Availability – The Stabilization of European Electorates 1885-1985, Chapters 2-4.Kriesi, H. 1998. ‘The Transformation of Cleavage Politics – The 1997 Stein Rokkan Lecture’, in: European Journal of Political Research 33(2): 165-185.Achterberg, P. 2006, ‘Class Voting in the New Political Culture: Economic, Cultural and Environmental Voting in 20 Western Countries’, in: International Sociology 21(2):237-261.Ufen, A. 2012. “Party Systems, Critical Junctures, and Cleavages in Southeast Asia.” Asian Survey, 52(3): 441-464.

Norris, Pippa. 2008. Driving Democracy: Do Power‐sharing Institutions Work? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Albright, J. (2010), ‘The Multidimensional Nature of Party Competition’, in: Party Politics 16(6): 57-72.

Week 4 Social movements and political opportunity structures

Required Readings:Edwards, Bob and John D. McCarthy. 2004. “Resources and Social Mobilization.” In: The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, edited by David A. Snow et al. pp. 116-152.Koopmans, Ruud. 2004. “Protest in Time and Space: The Evolution of Waves of Contention.” In: The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, edited by David A. Snow et al. 19-46.

Further Readings:Piven, Frances Fox and Richard A. Cloward. 2000. “Power Repertoires and Globalization.” Politics & Society 28(3): 413-430.Jenkins, J. Craig. 1983. “ Resource Mobilization Theory and the Study of Social Movements.” Annual Review of Sociology 9: 527-553.McCarthy, John D. and Mayer N. Zald. 1977. “Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory.” American Journal of Sociology 82(6): 1212-1241.McAdam, Doug and Dieter Rucht. 1993. “The Cross-National Diffusion of Movement Ideas.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 528: 56-74.Gamson, William and Gadi Wolfsfeld. 1993. “Movements and Media as Interacting Systems.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 528: 114-125.Cinalli, Manlio and Katharina Füglister. 2008. “Networks and Political Contention over Unemployment: A Comparison of Britain, Germany, and Switzerland.” Mobilization 13(3): 259-276.Polletta, Francesca and James M. Jasper. 2001. “Collective Identity and Social Movements.” Annual Review of Sociology 27: 283-305.Giugni, Marco and Sakura Yamasaki. 2009. “The Policy Impact of Social Movements: A Replication Through Qualitative Comparative Analysis.” Mobilization 14(4): 467-484.Kitschelt, Herbert. 1993. “Social Movements, Political Parties, and Democratic Theory.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 528: 13-29.Lipsky, Michael. 1968. “Protest as A Political Resource.” American Political Science Review 62(4): 1144-1158.

Week 5 Networked governance/ multi-stakeholder governance AD• 'New' modes of governance• Multi- stakeholderism• Public private policy partnerships

16

Required readingsTorfinga, Jacob (2005). "Governance network theory: towards a second generation". European Political Science (2005) 4, pp. 305–315.Robinson, Scott E. (2006). “A Decade of Treating Networks Seriously”, Policy Studies Journal 2006, 34 (4), pp. 589-598.

Further readingsJordan, Andrew, Rüdiger K. W. Wurzel and Anthony Zito (2005). "The Rise of ‘New’ Policy Instruments in Comparative Perspective: Has Governance Eclipsed Government?" Political Studies, Volume 53, Issue 3, pp. 477–496.Sorensen, Eva, and Jacob Torfing (2005), “Network Governance and Post-Liberal Democracy”, Administrative Theory and Praxis 2005, 27 (2), pp. 197–237.Héritier, Adrienne, and Dirk Lehmkuhl (2011), "New Modes of Governance and Democratic Accountability", Government and Opposition, Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 126–144Smismans, Stijn (2008). "New Modes of Governance and the Participatory Myth". West European Politics. Volume 31, Issue 5, 2008, pp. 874-895Keith G. Provan, H. Brinton Milward (2001), “Do Networks Really Work? A Framework for Evaluating Public-Sector Organisational Networks”, Public Administration Review 2001, 61 (4), pp. 414-423.De Leon, Peter, Danielle M. Varda (2009), “Toward a Theory of Collaborative Policy Networks: Identifying Structural Tendencies”, Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 37, N. 1, 2009, pp. 59-74. Pauline Vaillancourt Rosenau (Ed.: 2000). Public-Private Policy Partnership. Cambridge, MASS, MIT Press.

LinkNew Modes of Governance project http://www.eu-newgov.org/

Week 6 Reading week

Week 7 Political Culture and Trust in Government and Institutions LP

Required Readings: Newton, K. 2007. “Social and Political Trust.” In: The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior, edited by: Russel J. Dalton et al. 342-361.Catterberg, G. and A. Moreno. 2005. “The Individual Bases of Political Trust: Trends in New and Established Democracies.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 18(1): 31-48.Norris, Pippa. 2009. “Political activism: New challenges, new opportunities“. In Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics Ed. by Carles Boix and Susan Stokes, Oxford University Press.

Further Readings: Elkins, D. and R. Simeon. 1979. “A Cause in Search of Its Effect, or What Does Political Culture Explain?”, Comparative Politics, 11(2): 127-145.

Pye, L. 1991. “Political Culture Revisited” Political Psychology, 12(3): 487-508.

17

Somers, M. 1995. “What’s Political or Cultural about Political Culture and the Public Sphere? Toward an Historical Sociology of Concept Formation”. Sociological Theory 13 (2): 113–144.

Ji-Young Kim. 2005. "Bowling Together" Isn't a Cure-All: The Relationship between Social Capital and Political Trust in South Korea, International Political Science Review, 26(2): 193-213.

Rosenberg, S. W. Ed. 2007. Deliberation, participation and democracy: can the people govern? Palgrave Macmillan.

Rothstein, Bo and Eric M. Uslaner. 2005. “All for All: Equality, Corruption and Social Trust.” World Politics 58(1): 41-72.Zmerli, Sonja and Kenneth Newton. 2008. “Social Trust and Attitudes Toward Democracy.” Public Opinion Quarterly 72(4): 706-724.Newton, Kenneth. 2006. “Political Support: Social Capital, Civil Society and Political Economic Performance.” Political Studies 54(2): 846-864.Rainer, Helmut and Thomas Siedler. 2009. “Does Democracy Foster Trust?” Journal of Comparative Economics 37: 251-269.Bjornskov, Christian. 2006. “Determinants of Generalized Trust: A Cross-Country Comparison.” Public Choice 130(1): 1-21.Fowler, James; et al. 2008. “Genetic Variation in Political Participation.” American Political Science Review 102(2): 233-248.Hug, Simon and Franziska Spörri. 2010. “Referendums, Trust, and Tax Evasion.” European Journal of Political Economy forthcoming.Karp, Jeffrey A. and Susan A. Banducci. 2007. “Party Mobilization and Political Participation in New and Old Democracies.” Party Politics 13(2): 217-234.

Week 8 Applied Institutionalism I: Do Democratic Institutions Promote Economic Growth?

Required readings:Olson, M. 1993. “Dictatorship, Democracy and Development”. American Political Science Review 87(3): 567-576.Gerring, John, et al. 2005. “Democracy and Economic Growth: A Historical Perspective.” World Politics 57(3): 323-364.Ross, Michael. 2006. “Is Democracy Good for the Poor?” American Journal of Political Science, 50(4): 860-874.Further readings:Przeworski, A. and Limongi, F. 1993. “Political Regimes and Economic Growth”, Journal of Economic Perspectives 7(3): 51-69.Przeworski, A., M. E. Alvarez, J. A. Cheibub and F. Limongi. 2000. Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well‐Being in the World, 1950‐1990. Chapters 2, 3.

Savoika, Antonio, et al. 2010. “Inequality, Democracy, and Institutions: A Critical Review of Recent Research.” World Development 38(2): 142-154.Fidrmuc, Jan. 2003. “Economic Reform, Democracy and Growth During Post-communist Transition”. European Journal of Political Economy 19: 583-604.Krieckhaus, Jonathan. 2006. “Democracy and Economic Growth: How Regional Context Influences Regime Effects.” British Journal of Political Science 36(2): 317-340.

18

Li, Quan. 2009. “Democracy, Autocracy, and Expropriation of Foreign Direct Investment.” Comparative Political Studies 42(2): 1098-1127.Przeworski, Adam, et al. 1996. “What Makes Democracies Endure?” Journal of Democracy 7(1): 39-55.Robert A. Dahl et al. (2003): The Democracy Sourcebook, Cambridge (Mass.)/ London: MIT Press (four definitions of democracy)Boix, Carles. 2003. Democracy and Redistribution (Cambridge: CUP).Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J.A. (2003) ' Chapter 1: Introduction'. In Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J.A. (eds.) Political Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy.

Week 9 Applied Institutionalism II: Does bicameral federalism make politics slow?

Required readings:Brian Galligan. 2006. “Comparative Federalism”. In: The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions, edited by: R. A. W. Rhodes et al. 261-280.Lori Thorlakson. 2003. “Comparing Federal Institutions: Power and Representation in Six Federations”. West European Politics 26(2): 1-22Manow, Philip and Simone Burkhart (2007) “Legislative Self-Restraint under Divided Government in Germany, 1976-2002”. Legislative Studies Quarterly 32(2): 167-191.Further readings:Devas N. and S. Delay. 2006. “Local democracy and the challenges of decentralising the state: An international perspective”, Local Government Studies 32 (5): 677‐695.

Susumu S. and E. Linhart. 2010. “Coalition Formation as a Result of Policy and Office Motivations in the German Federal State”. Party Politics 16(1): 111-130.Tsebelis, G. 1995. “Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartyism”, British Journal of Political Science 25: 289–325.John Uhr. 2006. “Bicameralism”. In: The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions, edited by: R. A. W. Rhodes et. al. 474-494.Börzel, T.and M.O. Hosli. 2003. “Brussels between Bern and Berlin: Comparativie Federalism Meets the European Union.” Governance 16(2): 179-202.On the US: Mayhew, David R., 1991: Divided We Govern. Party Control, Lawmaking, and Investigations 1946–1990. New Haven: Yale University Press.On Germany/ EU: Scharpf, F., 1988: The Joint-Decision Trap: Lessons from German Federalism and European Integration. In: Public Administration 66: 239–278.

Week 10 International Organizations and International Institutions I

Required readings:Rhodes, Binder and Rockman, eds. 2006. The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions: Richard Higgott, "International Political Institutions," ch. 31 John Duffield, "International Security Institutions," ch. 32 Lisa Martin, "International Economic Institutions," ch. 33 Ann Florini, "International NGOs," ch. 34

Koremenos, B., C. Lipson and D. Snidal. 2001. “The rational design of international institutions”, International Organization 55(4): 761–799.

19

Kahler, M. “Organization and Cooperation: International Institutions and Policy Coordination”, Journal of Public Policy, vol. 8 (3-4): 375 - 401

Further readings:Simmons B. and Martin L. 2005. “International Organizations and Institutions”, in Handbook of International Relations, Carlsnaes W., T. Risse and B. Simmons (editors), London: Sage (Chapter 10: 192-211).

Bueno de Mesquita, B. 2010. Principles of International Politics: People's Power, Preferences, and Perceptions, 4th Edition, Washington: CQ Press (Chapter 14: 484-527).

Engerman S. and K. L. Sokoloff, 2008, "Debating the Role of Institutions in Political and Economic Development," Annual Review of Political Science, 11: 119-135.Jacobson H., 2000. "International Institutions and System Transformation," Annual Review of Political Science, 3: 140-166.

J. Jupille and J.A. Caporaso, 1999. "Institutionalism and The European Union: Beyond International Relations and Comparative Politics," Annual Review of Political Science, 2: 429-444.Zürn, M. (2000). Democratic Governance Beyond the Nation—state: The EU and Other International Institutions. European Journal of International Relations, 6: 2, 183—221.

Week 11 International Institutions II

Required readings:

Haas, P. 1992. “Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination”, International Organisation, 46 (1): 1-35.Blyth, M. 2003. "Structures Do Not Come with an Instruction Sheet: Interests, Ideas, and Progress in Political Science" Perspectives on Politics, 1(4): 695-706.Linder, S. and G. Peters. 1989. “Instruments of Government: Perceptions and Contexts”, Journal of Public Policy,9(1): 35 – 58. Further readings:

Lieberman, R. C. 2002. "Ideas, Institutions, and Political Order: Explaining Political Change" American Political Science Review, 96(4): 697-712.Tarrow S. 2001. “Transnational Politics: Contention and Institutions in International Politics”, Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 4: 1-20.Dobbin F, Simmons B., and Garrett G. 2007. “The Global Diffusion of Public Policies: Social Construction, Coercion, Competition, or Learning?”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 33: 449-472.Finnemore, M. and K. Sikkink. 2001. “Taking Stock: The Constructivist Research Program in International Relations and Comparative Politics”, Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 4: 391-416.Reinicke, W. 1999. “The Other World Wide Web: Global Public Policy Networks“, Foreign Policy, No. 117: 44-57.

Week 12 Review Session – Understanding Political InstitutionsAlmond, Gabriel. 1956. "Comparative Political Systems." Journal of Politics 18(3): 391-409.

20

Greif, A. 2006. Institutions and the Path to the Modern Economy: Lessons from Medieval Trade. Cambridge University Press. (Introduction: 3-28). Jahn D. and F. Müller-Rommel. 2010. “Political Institutions and Policy Performance: A Comparative Analysis of Central and Eastern Europe”, Journal of Public Policy, vol. 30. Pp. 23-44. Further readings: Walt, S. 2005. The relationship between theory and policy in international relations, Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 8: 23-48 Timothy Besley and Torsten Persson. “The origins of state capacity: Property rights, taxation, and politics”. NBER Working Paper, 2007

21