Contact Details: 2
Course Synopsis: 2
Required Reading 4
Class Schedule 5
Assignments: 6
Assignment 1: Diagnostics (30%) 7
Assignment 2: Analysis of Policy
Options (30%) 8
Assignment 3: Regional Case-Study
Group Presentations (30%) 8
4. Class
Participation (10%) 8
Detailed Schedule,
Readings and Topics 9
Section I 9
Section II 10
Section III 11
Contact Details:
Class
time: Mondays
and Wednesdays 10.10 to 11.30am
Class
place: RG
20
First
class: Wednesday
1st Sept 2010
Last
class: Wednesday
1st Dec 2010
Lecturer:
Pippa
Norris, McGuire Lecturer in Comparative Politics
Office:
Littauer
110, Kennedy School of Government
Office Hours: Tuesdays
2.00-4.00pm (Sign-up sheet on the door)
Fax: (617)
496 2850
Cell: (857)
445 9105
Email: Pippa_Norris@harvard.edu
Class website:
www.pippanorris.com under ‘classes’
Weblog: http://pippanorris.typepad.com/
Course Assistants: Chenie
Yoon
CA email: chenie_yoon@hks11.harvard.edu
Faculty Assistant: Camiliakumari
Wankaner
Office: Littauer
201 Tel: (617) 495 5994 Fax: (617) 496 6372
Email: Camiliakumari_Wankaner@harvard.edu
Assessment: Course
assignments, no exam
Aims
and objectives:
This
course provides insights into why democratic governance matters, discusses
performance indicators and analytical benchmarks, compares strategies used by a
range of development agencies, and applies policy recommendations to specific
cases. It covers the core principles, analytical theories, practical tools, and
applied methods useful for understanding democratic governance.
The primary aims of the
course are policy advocacy, analysis, implementation and evaluation. That is,
you will sharpen your understanding of the core principles and also develop
practical policy recommendations designed to strengthen the institutions and
processes of democratic governance. You will consider how best to implement
these recommendations and also become familiar with benchmarks and indicators
suitable to evaluate the impact of any intervention.
The course will use a broadly comparative
methodology incorporating large-N quantitative econometric and survey evidence,
combined with qualitative evidence from a wide range of case studies of autocracies
and democracies. This class uses discussion exercises and team-based
collective presentations. Shared class datasets are also available as an option
for assignments. There are no prerequisites for taking the class but some
familiarity with Stata or SPSS is highly recommended.
The course is most suitable for those considering
careers in the international development community, whether working in a
foreign affairs or development ministry, consulate or mission for a national
government or bilateral donor agency, an NGO or reform think tank, or with
careers in a multilateral or international organization such as the World Bank
or UNDP.
Context:
In 2000, the world’s governments pledged to achieve the
principles of the Millennium Declaration, including the intrinsic value
of freedom for human development: “Men and women have the right to live their
lives and raise their children in dignity, free from hunger and from the fear
of violence, oppression or injustice. Democratic and participatory governance
based on the will of the people best assures these rights.” The 2005 UN World
Summit outcome document reaffirmed the commitment to “democracy as a universal
value.” As well as an intrinsic development goal, leaders at the global summit
further recognized the instrumental consequences, namely: “…that
good governance and the rule of law at the national and international levels
are essential for sustained economic growth, sustainable development and the
eradication of poverty and hunger.”
Reflecting
these commitments, international organizations and bilateral donors have
collaborated with national stakeholders to strengthen processes and
institutions of democratic governance. This includes UN agencies led by the
UNDP and the World Bank, regional organizations such as the EU, OAS, and
African Union, bilateral donors such as NORAD, CIDA and Dfid, and a host of
NGOs such as International IDEA, Amnesty International, IFES, and NDI.
Agencies
seek to strengthen democratic governance for its own sake, as an integral part
of people determining their own lives in human development, as well as for the
broader impact upon economic development and human welfare. Effective state
institutions reflecting the principles and values of democratic governance,
such as accountability, transparency, and rule of law, are widely thought to
encourage and complement the activities of the private and non-profit sectors,
allowing markets to flourish and people to live healthier, happier lives.
Democratic governance aims to develop institutions and processes that are more
responsive to the needs of ordinary citizens, including the poor, women, and minorities.
Moreover, democratic governance is believed to promote international peace and
cooperation, reducing the causes of conflict and violence between and within
states. Rebuilding fragile states emerging from civil war and international
conflict is also thought to reduce the dangers of terrorism and improve human
security.
The
international community has focused its programs on three main areas of
intervention. Assistance has flowed into attempts to foster and expand
inclusive democratic participation in civic society by supporting
processes of free and fair elections, as well as nurturing grassroots
organizations, advocacy NGOs, opposition movements and parties, and the
independent news media. Aid has also been devoted to rebuilding
governance capacity through strengthening the rule of law and independent
judiciaries, effective legislatures, public sector management, and local
governance. Lastly, resources have also been invested in attempts to strengthen
the principles and values of the international community, including human
rights, gender equality and women’s empowerment.
The
diverse range of strategies used to strengthen democratic governance often
involve capacity development - exemplified by providing technical
assistance and financial aid; sharing knowledge about best practices,
international cooperation, and policy expertise; supporting skills training;
and promoting dialogue about political reform and social audits of government
performance. Actors can also deploy the techniques of ‘hard’ power, such as
setting, monitoring, and enforcing standards through international conventions
and legal agreements; allocating development aid based on conditional or
incentive-based criteria; monitoring and enforcing peace-building settlements;
and using security council sanctions, trade sanctions, or military
interventions to prevent human rights abuses or to promote democracy more
aggressively.
In
this regard, the techniques employed by UN agencies, multilateral
organizations, bilateral foreign ministries, international foundations, and by
cause-based international think tanks will vary significantly, depending upon
their roles and resources, as well as the type of regime they are seeking to
influence. For example, what Human Right Watch, the UNDP, and NORAD or CIDA can
each do to shape democratic processes and human rights in Liberia, Benin or the
DRC will be very different, but each can play a complimentary role.
How
far have these development goals been achieved?
Since
the early-1970s, the ‘third wave’ of democratization has seen a substantial
surge in the number of electoral democracies worldwide. Despite significant
gains, many traps remain. The primary challenge facing many states concerns
establishing, deepening, and strengthening the quality of democratic
institutions and processes. This is particularly important at a time when many
observers emphasize that popular disillusionment with the performance of
democratically-elected governments is becoming evident in Central Europe and
Latin America. The international community also needs to counter an active
push-back against human rights and fundamental freedoms by countries such as China,
Russia, and Venezuela. Moreover many autocracies persist, whether
military-backed dictatorships (Burma), authoritarian regimes (Belarus, North
Korea), elitist one-party oligarchies (Zimbabwe, Togo), or absolute monarchies
(Saudi Arabia). Major challenges confront attempts at building peace and stable
nation-states in societies emerging from recent deep-rooted conflict, such as
Afghanistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Sierra Leone,
Time-Leste, and Iraq. The process of political development and democratization
therefore remains deeply flawed and incomplete in many countries.
The structure and organization of the course
To understand these issues, the course divides into
three sections:
Part I (Overview, introduction and advocacy): what are the general factors leading towards democratization? What are the
normative arguments why democratic governance is regarded as an intrinsic
component of human development and what is its instrumental relationship with
economic growth, social welfare, and peace?
Part II (analytics) supplies the analytical
concepts, diagnostic tools, and empirical benchmarks suitable for conducting a
needs assessment evaluating the quality of democratic governance in any state
or region.
Part III (policy options) considers
the underlying reforms available for strengthening democratic governance and the
organizations which have concentrated their resources and programs in each
area. Teams focus upon regional case studies to apply the tools, to analyze the
challenges for democratic governance, and to recommend major options for
institutional reform. The conclusion draws together the core lessons of
democratic governance for the policy community.
You should purchase the following book for the class. Other
articles can be downloaded from the library. No packets will be used from CMO.
Christian W. Haerpfer, Patrick Bernhagen, Ronald F.
Inglehart and Christian Welzel. 2009. Democratization. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. (Referred to afterwards as Haerpfer et al
Democratization). Paperback $43.55 from Amazon. ISBN-10: 0199233020 / ISBN-13: 9780199233021
Pippa Norris. 2008. Driving Democracy: Do
Power-Sharing Institutions Work? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paperback $20.49 from Amazon ISBN-10: 0521694809/
ISBN-13: 978-0521694803.
Note that the DOI is the static address of articles.
Type this into your browser search and this should link directly to the article
source. You will need to login first to the Harvard system to get full access
and download.
The supplementary
selected bibliography and the list of online resources will be
distributed in the second class as a resource to supplement the core (required)
readings for your assignments. Further copies and all related materials are
available for download via the class website at www.pippanorris.com
Class |
Date |
Topic |
Due dates (i) |
|
|
Part I: Introduction, overview and
advocacy |
|
1 |
Wed 1 Sept |
Introduction: Roadmap of the course |
|
|
Mon 6th Sept |
No class: Labor day |
|
2 |
Wed 8 Sept |
Analytical framework explaining democratization |
|
3 |
Mon 13 Sept |
Applying the framework: Why are there no Arab democracies? |
|
4 |
Wed 15 Sept |
Impact of democratic governance on economic growth
and social welfare |
|
5 |
Mon 20 Sept |
Impact of democratic governance upon peace and
conflict |
|
|
|
Part II: Analytics: Diagnostics,
benchmarks and indicators |
|
6 |
Wed 22 Sept |
Overview: Alternative concepts of democratic
governance |
|
7 |
Mon 28 Sept |
Introduction to using the QoG and shared class
datasets |
|
8 |
Wed 29 Sept |
Measuring democracy: Freedom House and Polity IV |
|
9 |
Mon 4 Oct |
Measuring governance: WBI Kaufmann-Kraay |
|
10 |
Wed 6 Oct |
Utilizing the shared CS-TS class datasets (Applied
Lab session #1)* |
|
|
Mon 11th Oct |
No class: Columbus day |
|
11 |
Wed 13 Oct |
Survey indicators and democratic audits: WVS |
|
12 |
Mon 18 Oct |
Utilizing the shared CS-TS class datasets (Applied
Lab session #2)* |
|
|
|
Part III: Options: reform strategies and
agencies |
|
13 |
Wed 20 Oct |
The role of the UN, regional organizations and
bilateral donors |
#1 |
14 |
Mon 25 Oct |
Constitution-building in peace-building processes:
International IDEA |
|
15 |
Wed 27 Oct |
CASE STUDY GROUP PRESENTATION A |
|
16 |
Mon 1 Nov |
Elections: ACE/International IDEA |
|
17 |
Wed 3 Nov |
Elections: ACE/International IDEA |
|
18 |
Mon 8 Nov |
CASE STUDY GROUP PRESENTATION B |
|
19 |
Wed 10 Nov |
Parliaments, parties, and women’s empowerment: the Inter-parliamentary
Union |
|
20 |
Mon 15 Nov |
Public administration reform, local governance, and
anti-corruption: Transparency International |
|
21 |
Wed 17 Nov |
CASE STUDY GROUP PRESENTATION C |
|
22 |
Mon 22 Nov |
Civil society, social capital and the news media:
Committee to Protect Journalists and the Open Society Institute |
|
23 |
Wed 24 Nov |
Human rights, justice, and rule of law: Amnesty
International |
|
24 |
Mon 29 Nov |
CASE STUDY GROUP PRESENTATION D |
|
25 |
Wed 1 Dec |
Conclusion & wrap up |
#2 |
Scheduling
notes:
No
class will be held on official university holidays on Labor Day (Mon 6 Sept)
and Columbus Day (Mon 11 Oct).
Occasional
guest speakers may be added to the schedule.
*Computer
lab sessions in Taubman (Sign up for group A, B or C for each session). The computer lab
has 20 terminals; you may need to share with a partner. Additional lab sessions
will be scheduled for Tuesday afternoon on 5th and 19th Oct. You need to attend two sessions in total in order to complete the second
assignment. Sign-up sheets will be circulated closer to the date.
General points for all assignments:
· Participants
are expected to keep up with the required readings and to attend classes every
Monday and Wednesday. The number of readings varies across classes; some
are heavier than others.
· The
QoG and the shared class dataset are available for downloading in Excel, Stata
and SPSS formats for quantitative analysis with the second assignment.
· Late
policy: Barring an extraordinary excuse, all late assignments will be marked
down a third of a grade (such as from A to A-) for each day following the due
date. Assignments are due to be handed in at the start of the 10am class on the specified dates.
· For
ALL assignments you need to go beyond the required readings by drawing upon a
wide range of other materials from the research literature to support
claims and arguments. The supplementary bibliography provides an indication of
further resources and many others can be located using Hollis and the ISI Web
of Science Social Science Citation Index. It is not sufficient to use unpublished internet sources.
The first mid-term assignment involves becoming
familiar with using the most common indices and cross-sectional and time-series
datasets which you could use to compare and evaluate the quality of democratic
governance. You are asked to use selected indicators to write a professional
report focused on one world region (such as Latin America and the Caribbean,
Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, North Africa and the
Middle-East) with background material provided in Chapter 18-23 in Haerpfer.
The potential client for your report is a regional
organization, an international agency, or a bilateral donor. Your client has
requested the report to identify the most pressing problems of democratic
governance in the region, to prioritize their work within countries.
What indicators would you use (and why?), what
descriptive trends and summary regional benchmarks would you develop for
comparison, and what additional information would you collect, to evaluate and
measure political priorities in your region? What secondary literature is
available from research journals and monographs to support your argument? As
part of the exercise, you should justify your choice of criteria, measures, and
evidence for a non-technical audience. The QoG and the shared class
datasets provide the following resources, along with many others:
1.
Freedom House index of political rights and civil liberties
2.
Polity IV Project Democracy and Autocracy scales
3.
World Values Survey/Global Barometers Attitudinal surveys
4.
Kaufmann/Kraay World Bank Institute Good governance indicators
Total word length:
2,500-3,000 words (additional Technical Appendices do not count in the total).
Your report should be structured with subheadings as follows.
I. Executive
summary (one page)
· The key challenges
facing democratic governance in the selected region
· The plan for your
report
· Summary of your key
conclusions
II. Brief
summary of the methodology and indicators used in the report, as well as the
reasons for the selection and any caveats
III. Analysis
highlighting the primary challenges facing the region
IV. Conclusions
and implications.
V. Technical
appendix (including longer tables, larger graphs/figures, definitions of
indicators and sources, and any multivariate analysis tables, if used.)
VI. Endnotes:
comprehensive list of literature and references used in the report.
A downloadable shared report template and the
discussions during class will provide some ideas on these topics. You are
encouraged to collaborate with others working on the same region, but each
student should submit his or her own report for an individual grade.
This assignment is designed to be crafted as a
professional report, representing evidence-based policy analysis, rather than
written as personal essays or standard academic papers. The aim is to
produce work which could be published by international agencies, multilateral
organizations, bilateral donors, and national governments, as well as
distributed internally within organizations. You need to consider how your work
would be read and critiqued by representatives from governments and national
stake-holders in the region. It needs to be carefully written and supported by
direct evidence derived from the available datasets and from citations to existing
research.
· Communicate
your argument in a clear, concise and effective manner, designed for a
non-technical readership. These are not academic research papers designed for
journal publication.
· Use
appendices and endnotes to explain more technical matters.
· Use
effective endnote references citing sources from the peer-reviewed research
literature, as suggested from the extensive readings listed in the syllabi and
others related publications. Use endnotes to support any contentious
claims, to provide your client with further sources of evidence, and to
acknowledge any data sources.
· Use
professional graphs, figures and tables to illustrate key points with clear,
short descriptive titles, and with full explanatory notes and data sources
below each one.
· Integrate
short, vivid cases and concrete illustrations to illustrate specific ‘good
practice’ programs and strategies.
· The
standard you should seek to achieve is equivalent to the World Bank Development
Report or the UNDP Human Development Report. Consult these sources to check the
format and writing style.
For your final assignment, select one of
the topics listed in the syllabus from Part III (classes 12-21) eg constitution
building, or electoral reform, or strengthening women’s empowerment etc. Your
essay should summarize, outline and evaluate the key alternative policy options
which are available for strengthening this aspect of democratic governance.
You should compare countries and identify cases of
successful interventions as ‘best practice’.
The essay should draw upon the recommended readings
and research literature on the selected topic listed in the syllabus, as
well as upon any online resources and publications. It is optional whether you choose
to use the QoG dataset for analysis. You can decide to focus by picking a few
country cases, a global region or you can compare the world.
Your report should be structured with subheadings to
cover the following topics:
I. The
executive summary of the plan of your essay and the major conclusions;
II. Summary
of the core topic;
III. Outline
of alternative policy options
IV. Selected
cases illustrating effective interventions and ‘best practice’ on this topic
V. Assessment
of the pros and cons of alternative options;
VI. Conclusions
and recommendations;
VII. Technical
appendix (including longer tables, larger graphs/figures, definition of
indicators and sources, and any multivariate analysis tables, if used.)
VIII. Endnotes:
comprehensive list of literature and references used in the report.
The discussions
during class will provide some ideas on these topics and you are encouraged to
work collaboratively with others, but each student should submit his or her own
essay for an individual grade. The report should be about 2,500-3,000 words in
length. This assignment is designed to be more like a standard academic paper
rather than a professional report.
You are asked to join a small workgroup which will make
a collective 10-minute power-point presentation to the class followed by a
15-20 minute Q&A based on explaining the institutional structure,
key actors and contemporary challenges of democratic governance facing a
global region: Pick ONE regional overview to for core readings selected from
Chapter 18-23 in Haerpfer.
The aim is to apply the major conceptual frameworks,
analytical techniques, and general lessons from the class to specific regions. You are recommended to focus your work by selecting two or three cases to
contrast within your region.
Workgroups should make an appointment to meet me during
office hours a week before the presentation to discuss the plan. Groups
will present to class during one of the scheduled slots, with the order decided
by lot. The power-point report and accompanying briefing notes should be
submitted after class and a collective grade will be awarded to each workgroup
based on the quality of the overall presentation.
Lastly, everyone
will be expected to participate in class, including through brief class
exercises. Sessions will involve discussing the readings, group exercises,
report presentations, case studies, and debates about controversial issues.
Detailed schedule,
readings and topics
Class: 1 |
Introduction:
Roadmap of the course |
Required readings: |
None for the first class |
|
|
Class: 2 |
Analytical
framework explaining democratization |
Discussion topics: |
· Many factors are thought to contribute towards
processes of democratization, including social divisions, colonial legacies,
religious traditions, modernization, international conflicts, elite pacts,
institutional arrangements, modernization, and culture (Welzel). In general
which of these do you regard as most and least important for explaining
regime change during the third wave era in the cases of Benin and Togo, and
why?
· How would you apply the analytical framework provided
by Welzel to help sort out the most relevant factors and evidence for
explaining regimes in the Arab region? |
Required readings: |
(1) Haerpfer et
al Democratization Ch 6 pp74-88
(2) Pippa Norris.
2008. Driving Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press. Chapter
1. |
Class: 3 |
Applying
the framework: Why are there no Arab democracies? |
Discussion topics: |
· What are the most important reasons why there are no
Arab democracies?
· “There is, then, an economic basis for the absence of
democracy in the Arab world. But it is structural. It has to do with the ways
in which oil distorts the state, the market, the class structure, and the
entire incentive structure.” Diamond (2010) p98. Do you agree? |
Required readings: |
(1) Larry
Diamond. 2010. ‘Why are there no Arab democracies?’ Journal of Democracy 21( 1): 93-104 DOI: 10.1353/jod.0.0150 http://muse.jhu.edu.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/journals/journal_of_democracy/v021/21.1.diamond.html
(2)Haerpfer et al Democratization Ch 21.pp321-336 |
Class: 4 |
Impact
of democratic governance upon economic growth and social welfare |
Discussion topics: |
· Do governance institutions generate economic
growth?
· Does democracy improve social welfare for the poor in
developing societies? Why or why not? |
Required readings: |
(1)Rodrik,
Dani, Arvind Subramanian, and Francesco Trebbi. 2004. ‘Institutions
rule: The primacy of institutions over geography and integration in economic
development.’ Journal of Economic Growth 9 (2):
131-165. DOI: 10.1023/B:JOEG.0000031425.72248.85
(2) Ross, Michael. 2006. ‘Is democracy
good for the poor?’ American Journal of Political Science 50(4):
860-874. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4122920 DOI:
10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00220.x
(3) Siegle,
Joseph T., Michael Weinstein and Morton Halperin. 2004. ‘Why
democracies excel.’ Foreign Affairs 83(5):57-72. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20034067 Permalink: http://ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mth&AN=14348325&site=ehost-live&scope=site |
Class: 5 |
Impact
of democratic governance upon peace and conflict |
Discussion topics: |
· Does democratic governance bring a ‘peace dividend’
or increase risks of instability?
· Is there a sequential order in the process of
state-building and holding transitional elections? |
Required readings: |
(1) Mansfield, Edward D. and Jack Snyder. 1995. Democratization and
the Danger of War International
Security 20 (1): 5-38. http://links.jstor.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/stable/pdfplus/2539046.pdf?acceptTC=true
(2)
Cederman, Lars-Erik, Simon Hug and Andreas Wenger. 2008. ‘Democratization and
War in Political Science.’ Democratization 15(3):509-524 DOI:
10.1080/13510340801972247
(3)
Fukuyama, Francis. 2007. ‘Liberalism versus state-building.’ Journal
of Democracy 18 (3):10-13. DOI:10.1353/jod.2007.0046
(4)
Carothers, Thomas, 2007. ‘The "sequencing" fallacy.’ Journal
of Democracy 18(1): 12-27. DOI:10.1353/jod.2007.0002 |
|
|
Class: 6 |
Overview: Alternative concepts of
democratic governance |
Discussion topics: |
· What are the core components of liberal democracy for
Schumpeter and Dahl?
· Does deliberative democracy provide alternative
opportunities for civic engagement at national level?
· What is democracy? |
Required readings: |
(1)
Munck, Geraldo L. and Jay Verkuilen. 2002. ‘Conceptualizing
and measuring democracy - Evaluating alternative indices.’ Comparative Political Studies. 35 (1): 5-34. DOI:
10.1177/001041400203500101
(2)
Haerpfer et al Democratization Chapter 2 pp10-23 |
Class: 7 |
Introduction to using the QoG and shared
class datasets |
Discussion topics: |
· What are indicators?
· What are the pros and cons of rule-based and
outcome-based indicators of good governance? |
Required readings: |
(1) Sören Holmberg, Bo Rothstein, Naghmeh Nasiritousi. 2008. ‘Quality
of Government: What You Get. QoG Working Paper
Series:21. DOI:
10.1146/annurev-polisci-100608-104510 http://arjournals.annualreviews.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-polisci-100608-104510
(2) The Quality of
Governance dataset and codebook. The Quality of Governance Institute,
University of Gothenburg, Sweden. May 2010. Check also the general resources
here. |
Class: 8 |
Measuring democracy:
Freedom House and Polity IV |
Discussion topics: |
· What criteria should be used to evaluate measures of
democracy?
· How far are the Freedom House measures of democracy
reliable, comprehensive, and accurate? How would you improve the Index?
· What are the advantages of minimalist measures of
democratization? What are their limits? |
Required readings: |
(1)
Freedom House 'Freedom
in the World’ (under Publications). Read
especially ‘Essays’, ‘Tables and Charts’ and ‘Methodology’. (latest year
available)
(2)
Haerpfer et al Democratization Chapter 3 pp24-40
(3)Elkins,
Zachary. 2000. ‘Gradations
of Democracy? Empirical tests of alternative conceptualizations’ American
Journal Of Political Science 44 (2): 293-300. Permalink: http://ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=2888948&site=ehost-live&scope=site
(4)
Collier, David and Robert Adcock. 1999. ‘Democracy
and dichotomies: A pragmatic approach to choices about concepts.’ Annual Review of Political Science 1: 537-565. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.537
(5)
Pippa Norris.
2008. Driving Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chapter 3 pp54-78. |
Class: 9 |
Measuring good governance: WBI
Kaufmann-Kraay |
Discussion topics: |
· What are advantages and limitations of using the
Kaufmann-Kraay’s indicators of good governance?
· Are the Kaufmann-Kraay indicators reliable,
comprehensive, and valid?
· What are the major changes in ‘good governance’ as
indicated by the Kaufmann-Kraay dataset from 1996 to date?
· How would you explain the challenges to governance in
Sub-Saharan Africa, as documented by indices of rule of law, corruption and
conflict?
· What is the relationship between notions of ‘good
governance’ and theories of democratic governance? |
Required readings: |
(1)
Grindle, Merilee S. 2007. ‘Good
enough governance revisited.’ Development Policy
Review 25 (5): 553-574. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-7679.2007.00385.x
(2)
Kaufmann, Daniel and Aart Kraay. 2008. ‘Governance
indicators: Where are we, where should we be going?’ The World Bank Research Observer 23(1):1-30. DOI:
10.1093/wbro/lkm012
(3)
Back, Hanna, and Axel Hadenius. 2008. ‘Democracy and
state capacity: Exploring a J shaped relationship.’ Governance 21(1): 1-24. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0491.2007.00383.x |
Class: 10 |
Utilizing the shared class datasets
(Applied lab sessions #1) |
Discussion topics: |
Lab Exercise Meet Taubman Lab |
Required readings: |
(1) Quality of Governance Codebook The
Quality of Governance Institute, University of Gothenburg, Sweden. May 2010.
Check also the general website resources here. |
Class: 11 |
Survey indicators and democratic audits:
WVS |
Discussion topics: |
· Is support for democratic ideals a universal value?
· What are the advantages and disadvantages of using
democratic audits to debate the quality of democracy in any state?
· What does survey evidence suggest about the
relationship between cultural attitudes towards democratic governance and
democratic performance, as monitored by aggregate indicators? |
Required readings: |
(1)
Haerpfer et al Democratization Chapter 9 pp126-144
(2)
Inglehart, Ronald and Christian Welzel. 2010. ‘Changing
Mass Priorities: The Link between Modernization and Democracy.’ Perspectives on Politics. 8(2):551-567. DOI: 10.1017/S1537592710001258 |
Class: 12 |
Utilizing
the shared CS-TS class datasets (Applied lab sessions #2) |
Discussion topics: |
Class exercises in lab |
Required readings: |
(1) Quality of Governance Codebook University of Gothenburg: The Quality of Government Institute |
|
|
Class: 13 |
The
role of the UN, regional organizations and bilateral donors |
Discussion topics: |
· Which strategies are most common and which most
effective for multilateral agencies seeking to strengthen democratic
governance: external pressures such as publishing ranked indices,
international observer missions, and annual reports (TI, Amnesty
International, OSCE); external incentives through conditionality
criteria (eg EU membership, MCA, Community of Democracies); or long-term
capacity building with local stakeholders for national ownership (eg
UNDP)? |
Required readings: |
(1) Haerpfer et al Democratization Chapter 7 pp92-103. |
Class: 14 |
Constitution-building
in peace-building processes: International IDEA |
Discussion topics: |
· Is there a single best set of democratic institutions?
· What are the key contrasts between ‘consensus’ or
‘majoritarian’ democracies; compare and contrast two developing countries
exemplifying each type.
· Do we know enough about the impact of political
institutions to engage in successful ‘constitutional engineering’?
Compare the outcome of constitutional peace settlements in two societies to
consider these issues. |
Required readings: |
(1) Samuels,
Kirsti. 2006. Constitution
building processes and democratization: A discussion of twelve case studies. International
IDEA. (Select any two cases for comparison)
(2) Pippa Norris.
2008. Driving Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press. Chapter
1 pp22-31.
(3) Elkins, Zach.
2010. ‘Diffusion and the
Constitutionalization of Europe.’ Comparative Political Studies 43(8-9): 969-999. DOI: 10.1177/0010414010370433 |
Class 15 |
CASE
STUDY GROUP PRESENTATION A.’ |
Required readings: |
Haerpfer
et al Democratization Relevant regional chapter 18-23 |
Class: 16 and 17 |
Elections: ACE/International IDEA |
Discussion topics: |
· In considering debates about electoral reform, list
the five most important normative values that any electoral system should
meet, and give detailed reasons justifying your choices.
· What are the major distinctions between plurality
first-past the-post, the alternative vote, the single transferable vote,
combined/ mixed, and party list electoral systems? Discuss with illustrations
of recent elections held under each type of rules.
· Are mixed member (combined) electoral systems the
best of all possible worlds?
· Compare two countries and discuss the primary
advantages and disadvantages of proportional or majoritarian/plurality
electoral systems for each state.
· Do proportional electoral systems generate fragmented
or extreme multiparty systems?
· What are the consequences of majoritarian/plurality
electoral systems for the representation of women and ethnic minorities, and
why do these effects occur? |
Required readings: |
(1)
Pippa Norris. 2008. Driving Democracy. New York: Cambridge University
Press. Chapter 5.
(2)
Pippa Norris. 2007. Electoral Engineering. New York: Cambridge University
Press. Ch 2-4. Available at www.pippanorris.com under ‘Books’.
(3)
Haerpfer et al Democratization Chapter 15 pp219-233 |
Class 18 |
CASE
STUDY GROUP PRESENTATION B |
Required readings: |
Haerpfer
et al Democratization Relevant regional chapter 18-23 |
Class: 19 |
Parliaments, parties, and women’s
empowerment: the Inter-parliamentary Union |
Discussion topics: |
· Why have quotas for women spread so rapidly in many
countries worldwide and what are the consequences of their adoption?
· What are the primary barriers to achieving gender
parity in elected office?
· What are the main reforms available for strengthening
legislatures to counterbalance the power of the executive? |
Required readings: |
(1) Pippa Norris. 2008. Driving
Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press. At www.pippanorris.com under ‘Books’.
(2) Pippa Norris. 2004. Electoral
Engineering. New York: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 8, at www.pippanorris.com under ‘Books’.
(3) Krook, Mona
L. 2007. Candidate gender
quotas: A framework for analysis European Journal Of Political
Research 46 (3): 367-394. DOI:
10.1111/j.1475-6765.2007.00704.x
(4)
Haerpfer et al Democratization Chapter 10 pp145-157 |
Class: 20 |
Public administration reform,
decentralization and local governance, and anti-corruption: Transparency
International |
Discussion topics: |
· What are the pros and cons of the methodology
employed in TI’s corruption perception index?
· Does decentralization strengthen or weaken good
governance?
· What are the practical policy recommendations that
you would draw from World Bank Diagnostic Tools for strengthening public
sector management and governance decentralization? |
Required readings: |
(1)
Pippa Norris.
2008. Driving Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press. Chapter
7.
(2)
Treisman, Daniel. 2007. ‘What
have we learned about the causes of corruption from ten years of
cross-national empirical research?’ Annual Review Of
Political Science 10: 211-244 2007. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.081205.095418
(3)
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. DOI: 10.1080/03003930600896293 |
Class 21 |
CASE
STUDY GROUP PRESENTATION C |
Required readings: |
Haerpfer
et al Democratization Relevant regional chapter 18-23 |
Class: 22 |
Civil
society, social capital, and the news media: the Open Society Institute |
Discussion topics: |
· Does social capital, including dense social networks
and rich reservoirs of social trust, help to explain why some democratic
governments succeed while others fail?
· What should be the roles of the news media in
governance and development?
· Does social trust matter for democratic governance?
Explain why and why not.
· Compare and contrast any two developing nations to
evaluate whether the central claims in Putnam’s theory of social capital hold
in cross-cultural perspective? |
Required readings: |
(1)
Pippa Norris. 2008. Driving Democracy. New York: Cambridge University
Press. Chapter 8, at www.pippanorris.com under ‘Books’.
(2)
Haerpfer et al Democratization Chapter 11 pp158-167, Ch 12 pp172-185,
and Ch 16 pp234-248 |
Class: 23 |
Human
rights, justice, and rule of law: Amnesty International |
Discussion topics: |
· How far should international human rights
organizations focus on defending economic, social and cultural rights?
Examine the arguments for and against.
· What does a rights-based approach to development
entail and what are its advantages and disadvantages compared with
alternative approaches favoring development? |
Required readings: |
(1)
Nelson, Paul and Ellen Dorsey. 2007. ‘New
rights advocacy in a global public domain.’ European
Journal of International Relations 13 (2): 187-216 JUN 2007 DOI:
10.1177/1354066107076953
(2) Sengupta, A. 2000. ‘Realizing the right to development.’ Development and
Change 31 (3): 553-578 JUN 2000 DOI:
10.1111/1467-7660.00167 |
Class 24 |
CASE
STUDY GROUP PRESENTATION D |
Required readings: |
Haerpfer
et al Democratization Relevant regional chapter 18-23 |
Class 25 |
Conclusions: Lessons for effective
development |
|
Wrap up and evaluation |
****CONSULT THE SUPPLEMENTARY SELECT
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND ONLINE RESOURCES, AVAILABLE AT WWW.PIPPANORRIS.COM, FOR ALL WRITTEN
ASSIGNMENTS****
|