DPI-413

Challenges of Democratization

Syllabus Spring 2010

DPI-413

Challenges of Democratization

Pippa Norris

Class website: www.pippanorris.com

Contact Details:

 Class time:             Mondays and Wednesdays 1.10 to 2.30pm

Class place:            RG-20

First class:              Monday 25^th January 2010

Last class:              Wednesday 28^th April 2010

Lecturer:                 Pippa Norris, Maguire Lecturer in Comparative Politics

Office:                    Littauer 110, John F. Kennedy School of Government

Office Hours:         Mondays 3.00-4.30pm (Sign-up sheet on the door)

Tel:                         (857) 445 9105

Fax:                         (617) 496 2850
Email:                     Pippa_Norris@harvard.edu

http//:                    www.pippanorris.com

Class website:       www.pippanorris.com under ‘classes’

Assistant:               Camiliakumari Wankaner 

Office:                    Littauer 201

Tel:                         (617) 495 5994 Fax:  (617) 496 6372

Email:                     camiliakumari_wankaner@Harvard.Edu

Assessment:          Course assignments

Course Synopsis:

This course covers the basic principles, theories, conceptual tools, and comparative methods useful for understanding the challenges of democracy. Attempts at state-building in Afghanistan and Iraq have highlighted concern about democracy promotion in the U.S. foreign policy agenda, although this is far from a new issue. Since the early-1990s, the international development community has increasingly focused attention on the challenges of facilitating the transition from autocracy and the consolidation of democratic states, with the understanding that effective democratic governance encourages and complements the activities of the private and non-profit sectors, allowing markets to flourish and people to live healthier, happier lives. The process of democratization develops institutions and processes that are more accountable and responsive to the needs of ordinary citizens, including the poor. Moreover, democratic governance is also believed to promote international peace and cooperation, reducing the causes of conflict and violence between and within states. For Amartya Sen, human development is about expanding choices, including opportunities to select rulers and laws. Moreover the challenges of deepening and broadening democracies exist for all states, not simply developing societies.

The international development community, multilateral organizations, and national stakeholders have used multiple strategies to promote this process. Many resources have been devoted to strengthening the capacity of political institutions, notably through encouraging multiparty competitive elections, independent judiciaries, and effective legislatures designed to curb and counterbalance strong executives, as well as decentralization strategies, anti-corruption drives, and public sector reforms. Democratic assistance has flowed into attempts to foster and expand civic society by nurturing grassroots organizations, advocacy NGOs, and the news media. And aid has been invested in attempts to expand economic growth, peace-building, and sustainable development, as an indirect route to democratic governance.

Despite the substantial expansion of ‘third-wave’ democracies since the early 1970s, many military-backed dictatorships, autocratic regimes, elitist oligarchies, and absolute monarchies persist, particularly in much of the Middle East and North Africa. Many ‘electoral authoritarian’ states exist, such as Zimbabwe, Russia and Pakistan, with multiparty elections but lacking the full panoply of human rights. Many states have also seen only partial or unstable steps towards elections, and reverses, for example in Thailand, Bangladesh, Nigeria, and Venezuela. Major problems of transition confront attempts at building stable nation-states, beyond establishing free and fair elections, in Afghanistan and Iraq, Haiti and Timor Leste. Some commentators note a push-back against democracy and human rights in recent years, or a democratic recession. The process of further democratization therefore remains deeply flawed, incomplete or uncertain in many countries.

To understand these issues, Part I provides and overview by examining trends and developing methods and analytical tools suitable for comparative research into democratic governance; Part II considers the underlying power-sharing institutions most conducive to strengthening processes of democratization; Part III focuses upon political culture and civil society. The conclusion draws together the core lessons of democratic governance for the policy community.

Course Objectives: 

There are many stages in the cyclical process of policy advocacy, policy analysis, policy implementation, and policy evaluation. Although useful for each of these, the course is focused upon the second stage, policy analysis. That is, you will sharpen your understanding and also develop practical policy recommendations about the main options which reformers could adopt to strengthen the process of democratic governance.  The course will use a broadly comparative methodology incorporating evidence from a wide range of case studies, including developed and developing societies. Compared with DPI403, which is designed primarily for MPA/ID students, this course adopts a more theoretical focus.  There are no prerequisites for taking the class. Some visiting speakers will be arranged and announced during the course of the semester.

Shared Datasets

As an optional addition, two shared class datasets are available under ‘data’ from my website www.pippanorris.com for those who would like to use these for assignments. The cross-national dataset contains more than 700 variables for 191 nations worldwide, with the most recent year of data available. There is also a cross-sectional time-series dataset from 1972-2007 for all countries worldwide.

The University of Gothenburg Quality of Governance Institute website and dataset is also available for analysis at http://www.qog.pol.gu.se/. All datasets can be downloaded in Spss and Stata formats. These resources will be discussed in more detail during class.

 
Class Schedule:

Note university holidays: No class will be held on President’s Day (M 15^th Feb), during spring break (13-21^st March), or on 29^th and 31^st March (due to a prior engagement). (i) Assignments are due to be handed in at the start of the class on these dates.  Occasional visiting speakers will be added to the schedule.

Required Readings:

Books can be ordered direct from the publishers, or from Amazon.com  Wordsworth's books  or Barnes and Noble . The total cost of the required books should be around $112. Further online resources are listed under each week’s topic for downloading. The books are available on reserve at the Kennedy School library. There is no CMDO packet for this class.

Assignments:

All students will be expected to keep up with the required readings and to attend classes every Monday and Wednesday.  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.

Report Part 1 (20%) Comparative democratization

You can choose to answer one question out of any of those topics listed in the syllabus from classes 1-7. The report should be about 2000 words in length. Your report should be structured with subheadings as follows.

I.              The selected question and the plan of your paper

II.             Summary of the core theoretical framework you have selected

III.            Review of the literature and evidence

V.             Conclusions and implications.

VI.            Endnotes: comprehensive list of literature and references used in the report.

Each student should submit his or her own report for an individual grade.

Report Part 2 (20%)  Democratic institutions

You can choose to answer one question out of any of those topics listed in the syllabus from classes 9-14. The report should be about 2000 words in length. Your report should be structured with subheadings as follows.

I.              The selected question and the plan of your paper

II.             Summary of the core theoretical framework you have selected

III.            Review of the literature and evidence

V.             Conclusions and implications.

VI.            Endnotes: comprehensive list of literature and references used in the report.

Each student should submit his or her own report for an individual grade.

Report Part 3 (20%) Political culture and civic society

You can choose to answer one question out of any of those topics listed in the syllabus from classes 16-23. The report should be about 2000 words in length. Your report should be structured with subheadings as follows.

I.              The selected question and the plan of your paper

II.             Summary of the core theoretical framework you have selected

III.            Review of the literature and evidence

V.             Conclusions and implications.

VI.            Endnotes: comprehensive list of literature and references used in the report.

Each student should submit his or her own report for an individual grade.

Regional case-study workgroups (30%)

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 key challenges of democracy facing one major global region, selected from the following: Latin America, post-Communist Europe and post-soviet Russia, the Middle East and North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia. The aim is to apply the major lessons from the class to one world area. Workgroups will meet with me a week before the presentation to discuss and groups will then present to class each month during one of the scheduled slots, with the order determined by lot. The power-point report will be submitted after class and a collective grade will be awarded to each workgroup based on the quality of the presentation. The starting point for your reading preparation should be the relevant regional chapter in Part 4 of Christian Haerpfer et al 2009. Democratization. Oxford University Press.

Class Participation (10%)

Finally the quality of your contributions to the discussions and the short exercises in class will also contribute towards your final grade.

Discussion Topics & Readings per Class

Part I: Comparative democratization

Class 1 Introduction: Road Map of the Course

Class 2 Haerpfer: Democratic and undemocratic states

Topics:

·         How do we define and classify democratic states?

·         Is the concept of ‘regime transitions’ still useful to understand changes in democratization?

·         What is meant by the concept of ‘electoral autocracy’? Discuss the essential features of this type of regime using three illustrative cases from one region.

Required Reading:

Christian Haerpfer, Patrick Bernhagenm Ronald F. Inglehart and Christian Welzel. 2009. Democratization. Oxford University Press. Ch 2 (by Richard Rose) pp10-21

LeDuc, Lawrence, Richard Niemi and Pippa Norris. 2010. Comparing Democracies 3. Sage Publications. Introduction: Building and sustaining democracy. (Case studies of Ghana, Belarus and Venezuela)

Recommended readings:

Armony, Ariel C.  and Hector E. Schamis. 2005. ‘Babel in democratization studies.’   Journal of Democracy 16 (4): 113-128.

Carothers, Thomas. 2002. ‘The End of the Transition Paradigm.’ Journal of Democracy 13: 5–21;

Dahl, Robert. 1998. On Democracy. Yale.

Dahl, Robert. 1971. Polyarchy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Diamond, Larry. 2002. ‘Thinking about Hybrid Regimes.’ Journal of Democracy 13(2): 21-35;

Diamond, Larry. 2008. ‘The Democratic Rollback: The Resurgence of the Predatory State.’ Foreign Affairs. Mar/Apr.  

Doorenspleet, Renske. 2000. ‘Reassessing the three waves of democratization.’ World Politics 52: 384-406.

Doorenspleet, Renske. 2005. Democratic Transitions: Exploring the Structural Sources during the Fourth Wave, Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Haled, David. 2006. Models of Democracy. 3^rd Ed. Polity Press.

Huntington, Samuel P. 1991. The Third Wave. University of Oklahoma Press.

LeDuc, Lawrence, Richard Niemi and Pippa Norris. 2010. Comparing Democracies 3. Sage Publications. Introduction.

Keane, John. 2009. The Life and Death of Democracy. W.W. Norton.

Levitsky, Steven and Lucan A. Way. 2002. ‘The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism.’ Journal of Democracy 13(2): 51-65;

Schedler, Andreas. (Editor). 2005. Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition. Boulder, Co: Lynne Reinner.

Zakaria, Fareed. 1997. ‘The Rise of Illiberal Democracy.’ Foreign Affairs 76(6): 22-41.

Class 3 Haerpfer: Measuring Democracy and Democratization

Topics:

·         Are the Freedom House and Polity IV measures of democracy reliable, comprehensive, and valid? What are the advantages and disadvantages of using these measures?

·         Is democracy a matter of degree?

·         What are the pros and cons of conducting a democratic audit? Discuss by comparing the approach and the results of the pilot studies conducted by International IDEA.

Required Reading:

Christian Haerpfer, Patrick Bernhagenm Ronald F. Inglehart and Christian Welzel. 2009. Democratization. Oxford University Press. Ch  3

Freedom House 'Freedom in the World’ Read especially the most recent available ‘Essay’ and ‘Tables’ and Freedom in the World, ‘Methodology’. www.freedomhouse.org

Norris, Pippa. 2007. Driving Democracy. Chapter 3. Available at www.pippanorris.com under ‘books’

Recommended Reading:

Beetham, David. 1994. Defining and Measuring Democracy. Sage.

Beetham, David. 2001. International IDEA Handbook of Democracy Assessment. NY: Kluwer.

Collier, David and Robert Adcock. 1999. ‘Democracy and dichotomies: A pragmatic approach to choices about concepts.’ Annual Review of Political Science 1: 537-565.

Elkins, Zachary. 2000. “Gradiations of democracy” American Journal Of Political Science 44 (2): 293-300.

International IDEA. State of Democracy Project. (Read the overview and the reports for any two countries prior to class) http://www.idea.int/democracy/

Class 4 Haerpfer: Long waves and global patterns

Topics:

·         Is the twenty first century an era of continued underlying consolidation, steady state, or a fall-back in democracy and human rights?

·         Do the regional and global trends in autocracy and democracy suggest that Huntington’s notion of distinct ‘waves’ (historical eras) makes sense?

Required Reading:

Christian Haerpfer, Patrick Bernhagenm Ronald F. Inglehart and Christian Welzel. 2009. Democratization. Oxford University Press. Ch 4 and 5

Recommended readings:

Class 5: Haerpfer: Theories of democratization

Topics:

• What structural factors within each society favor or impede democratization?

• How important are colonial legacies, industrialization, class cleavages, religious traditions, and international conflicts to processes of democratization? Discuss by comparing the role of these factors in one global region.

Required readings:

Christian Haerpfer, Patrick Bernhagenm Ronald F. Inglehart and Christian Welzel. 2009. Democratization. Oxford University Press. Ch  6

Norris, Pippa. 2008. Driving Democracy. Cambridge University Press. Chapter 1. (Case studies of Togo and Benin).

Recommended readings:

Acemoglu, Daron and James A. Robinson. 2006. Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Barro, Robert J. 1999. ‘Determinants of democracy.’ Journal of Political Economy 107(6-2): 158-183.

Class 6 Haerpfer: International context

Topics:

·         What are most effective external drivers in the spread of democratic governance since the early-1970s? What are the policy implications for the international community, multinational organizations, bilateral donors, and national stakeholders seeking to strengthen democratic governance?

·         Select two states in sub-Saharan Africa, post-Communist Europe, or East Asia, and compare and contrast them to assess the relative importance of the external drivers of democratization.

Required Reading:

Christian Haerpfer, Patrick Bernhagenm Ronald F. Inglehart and Christian Welzel. 2009. Democratization. Oxford University Press. Ch  7

Finkel, Steven E., Pérez Liñan, Aníbal S., Seligson, Mitchell A. 2007. ‘The Effects of U.S. Foreign Assistance on Democracy Building, 1990–2003.’ World Politics  59(3): 404-440

Recommended readings:

Barnett, Michael and Martha Finnemore. 2004. Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Carothers, Thomas. 1999. Aiding Democracy Abroad.  Washington DC: Carnegie.

Caplan, Richard D.  2005. International governance of war-torn territories: rule and reconstruction. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

Cooper, Andrew F.  and Thomas Legler. 2007. Intervention Without Intervening? The OAS Defense and Promotion of Democracy in the Americas. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cox, Michael, G. John Ikenberry and Takashi Inoguchi (Editors). 2000. American Democracy Promotion: Impulses, Strategies, and Impacts. New York: Oxford University Press.

Dobbins, James et al. 2005. The UN’s Role in Nation-building. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Dollar, David and Victoria Levin. 2006. ‘The increasing selectivity of foreign aid, 1984-2003.’  World Development 34 (12): 2034-2046.

Doyle, Michael and Nicholas Sambanis. 2006. Making War and Building Peace: UN Peace Operations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Finkel, Steven E., Anibal Perez-Linan, and Mitchell A.Seligson. 2006. Effects of U.S. Foreign Assistance on Democracy Building: Results of a Cross-National Quantitative Study. Final Report USAID/Vanderbilt University.

McMahon, Edwards R.  and Scott H. Baker. 2006. Piecing a Democratic Quilt? Regional Organizations and Universal Norms. CT: Kumarian Press.

Murphy, Craig N. 2006. The United Nations Development Programme: A Better Way? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Neuman, Edward and Roland Rich. Eds. 2004. The UN Role in Promoting Democracy: Between Ideals and Reality. UN University Press.

Pevehouse, Jon C. 2002.  ‘With a little help from my friends? Regional organizations and the consolidation of democracy.’ American Journal of Political Science 46 (3): 611-626.

Pevehouse, Jon C.. 2002. ‘Democracy from the outside-in? International organizations and democratization.’ International Organization 56 (3): 515+.

Pevehouse, Jon C.. 2004. Democracy from Above: Regional Organizations and Democratization. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Piccone, Ted and Richard Youngs. Eds. 2006. Strategies for Democratic Change: Assessing the Global Response. http://www.fride.org/publication/250/strategies-for-democratic-change-assessing-the-global-response

Pridham, Geoffrey. 2005. Designing Democracy: EU Enlargement and Regime Change in Post-Communist Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Rittberger, Volker and Bernhard Zangl. 2006. International Organization. London: Palgrave.

Schraeder, Peter. Ed. 2002. Exporting Democracy: Rhetoric versus Reality. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner.

Weiss, Thomas G., David P. Forsythe, and Roger A. Coate. 2004. United Nations and Changing World Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Youngs, Richard. 2002. The European Union and the Promotion of Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Online resources:

 UNDP Democratic Governance www.undp.org/governance

World Bank Public Sector governance http://go.worldbank.org/J8RR3IVL30

OECD DAC Development Cooperation Network on Governance www.oecd.org/dac/governance

European Commission DG for Development http://ec.europa.eu/development/index_en.cfm

Class 7 Haerpfer: Economic Development

Topics:

• How far does economic development determine the contemporary process of democratization?

• Explain and assess claims about the relationship between capitalism and democracy.  

• Do economic theories of development consign poorer nations to non-democratic status?

• Does democracy produce more egalitarian welfare states?

Required Reading:

Christian Haerpfer, Patrick Bernhagenm Ronald F. Inglehart and Christian Welzel. 2009. Democratization. Oxford University Press. Ch  8

Norris, Pippa. 2007. Driving Democracy. Chapter 4. Available at www.pippanorris.com under ‘books’

Recommended Reading:

Barro, Robert J. 1997. Determinants of Economic Growth: A Cross-Country Empirical Study. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Bratton, Michael and Nicholas van de Walle. 1997. Democratic Experiments in Africa. Cambridge University Press.

Brown, D.S. 1999.  ‘Reading, writing, and regime type: Democracy's impact on primary school enrollment.’ Political Research Quarterly 52 (4): 681-707.

Brown, D.S. 1999. ‘Democracy and social spending in Latin America, 1980-92.’ American Political Science Review 93: 779

Burkhart, Ross E. 1997. ‘Comparative Democracy and Income Distribution: Shape and Direction of the Causal Arrow.’ Journal of Politics 59(1): 148-164.

Hadenius, Alex. 1997. Democracy's Victory and Crisis Cambridge University Press.

Hadenius, Axel. 1992. Democracy and Development Cambridge University Press. 

Haggard, Stephen. The Political Economy of Democratic Transitions. Princeton University Press. 1995.

Halperin, Morton, Joseph T. Siegle and Michael Weinstein. 2005. The Democracy Advantage. New York: Routledge.

Huntington, Samuel P. 1991. The Third Wave. University of Oklahoma Press. 

Hyden, Goran. 2007. ‘Governance and poverty reduction in Africa.’ Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences of The USA 104 (43): 16751-16756.

Linz, Juan and Alfred Stephan.1996. Problems of Democratic Consolidation. Johns Hopkins Press. 1996.

Lipset, Seymour Martin, Kyoung-Ryung Seong and John Charles Torres. 1993. ‘A comparative analysis of the social requisites of democracy.’ International Social Science Journal. 45(2): 154-175.

Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1959. ‘Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy.’ American Political Science Review. 53: 69-105.

Midlarsky, Manus I. Ed. 1997. Inequality, democracy and economic development. Cambridge UP.

Mulligan, Casey B., R. Gil and X. Sala-a-martin. 2004. ‘Do democracies have different public policies than non-democracies?’ Journal of Economic Perspectives 18(1): 51-74.

Przeworski, Adam, Michael E. Alvarez, Jose Antonio Cheibub and Fernando Limongi. 2000. Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950-1990. Chapters 1 and 2 pp.13-139.

Przeworski, Adam. 1991. Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America Cambridge University Press.

Rodrik, Dani, A. Subramanian, F. Trebbi. 2004.  ‘Institutions rule: The primacy of institutions over geography and integration in economic development.’ Journal of Economic Growth 9 (2): 131-165.

Ross, Michael. 2006. ‘Is democracy good for the poor?’ American Journal of Political Science 50(4): 860-874.

Rueschemeyer, Dietrich et al. 1992. Capitalist Development and Democracy. University of Chicago Press. 

Siegle, Joseph T., Michael Weinstein and Morton Halperin. 2004. ‘Why democracies excel’ Foreign Affairs 83(5):57-72.

Online Resources:

UNDP Human Development Report http://hdr.undp.org/en/ (or latest available)

World Bank Development Data www.worldbank.com/data  

Part II: Comparing Democratic Institutions

Class 9 Democratic Institutions: Power-sharing Constitutions

Topics:

·         Explain the key contrasts Lijphart draws between ‘consensus’ or ‘majoritarian’ democracies by comparing and contrasting the constitutional features of two countries exemplifying each type. 

·         “In the most deeply divided societies, like Northern Ireland, majority rule spells majority dictatorship and civil strife rather than democracy. What such societies need is a democratic regime that emphasizes consensus instead of opposition, that includes rather than excludes, and that tries to maximize the size of the ruling majority instead of being satisfied with a bare majority.” (Lijphart). Is this a robust and well-substantiated claim?

·         What contexts make power-sharing constitutional settlements most likely to fail? What contexts make them most likely to succeed? Discuss and illustrate with two recent cases.

Required Reading:

Norris, Pippa. 2007. Driving Democracy. Chapter 1. Available at www.pippanorris.com under ‘books’

Recommended Reading:

Andeweg, Rudy B.. 2000. ‘Consociational democracy.’ Annual Review of Politics 3:509-36.

Arjomand, Said Amir. Ed. 2007. Constitutionalism and political reconstruction. Boston: Brill.

Buchanan, James M. and Gordon Tullock. 1962. The Calculus of Consent. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.

Elkins, Zachary, Tom Ginsburg and James Melton.  2009. The Endurance of National Constitutions. Cambridge University Press.

Elster, Jon. 1995. ‘Forces and Mechanisms in the Constitution-Making Process.’ Duke Law Journal 45, (November), 364-396

Held, David. 1987.  Models of Democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Horowitz, Donald L. 1985. Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press;

Horowitz, Donald L. 1991. A Democratic South Africa? Constitutional Engineering in a Divided Society Berkeley: University of California Press.

Horowitz, Donald L. 2002. The Deadly Ethnic Riot. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Lijphart, Arend 1975. The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Lijphart, Arend. 1969. ‘Consociational democracy.’ World Politics. 21: 207-25.

Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in 36 Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Lijphart, Arend. 2008. Thinking about Democracy: Power Sharing and Majority Rule in Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge.

Linder, Wolf and Andre Baechtiger. 2005. ‘What drives democratization in Asia and Africa?’ European Journal of Political Research 44: 861-880.

Mansfield, Edward D.  and Jack Snyder. 2007. Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies go to War. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Powell, Jr, G. Bingham. 2000. Elections as Instruments of Democracy. Yale University Press.

Reynolds, Andrew. Ed. 2002. The Architecture of Democracy: Constitutional Design, Conflict Management and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sartori, Giovanni. 1994. Comparative Constitutional Engineering: An Inquiry Into Structures, Incentives, and Outcomes. New York: Columbia University Press.

Snyder, Jack. 2000. From Voting to Violence: Democratization and Nationalist Conflict. New York: W.W. Norton.

Schneckener, Ulrich and  Stefan Wolff, editors. 2004.  Managing and settling ethnic conflicts: perspectives on successes and failures in Europe, Africa and Asia. London: C. Hurst.

Schneckener, Ulrich. 2002.  ‘Making power-sharing work: Lessons from successes and failures in ethnic conflict regulation.’ Journal of Peace Research 39 (2): 203-228.

Online Resources:

International Constitutional Law Documents http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/law/index.html

Database of Political Institutions, 2000 http://www.worldbank.org/research/bios/pkeefer.htm

International IDEA http://www.constitutionnet.org/en/welcome and also http://www.idea.int/cbp/

Class 10 Democratic Institutions: Electoral Systems

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, 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?

·         Do we know enough about the impact of political institutions to engage in successful ‘constitutional engineering’?  Compare the outcome of electoral reforms in Italy, New Zealand and Israel to consider these issues.

·         Compare two countries and discuss the primary advantages and disadvantages of proportional or majoritarian/plurality electoral systems for each state.

·         What are the consequences of majoritarian/plurality electoral systems for the representation of women and ethnic minorities, and why do these effects occur?

Required Reading:

Norris, Pippa. 2007. Driving Democracy. Chapter 5. Available at www.pippanorris.com under ‘books’

LeDuc, Lawrence, Richard Niemi and Pippa Norris. 2010. Comparing Democracies 3. Sage Publications.  Ch by Carter and Farrell.

Recommended Reading:

Benoit, Kenneth. 2007. ‘Electoral Laws as Political Consequences: Explaining the Origins and Change of Electoral Institutions.’ Annual Review of Political Science 10: 363-90.

Birch, Sarah et al. Ed. 2002. Embodying Democracy: Electoral System Design in Post-Communist Europe. New York: Palgrave.

Birch, Sarah. 2002. Electoral systems and Political Transformation in Post-Communist Europe. New York: Palgrave.

Colomer, Joseph M.. 2004. Handbook of Electoral System Choice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cox, Gary. 1997. Making Votes Count. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gallagher, Michael and Paul Mitchell. Eds. 2005. The Politics of Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Katz, Richard S. 1997. Democracy and Elections. New York: Oxford University Press.

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

Lijphart, Arend. 1997. ‘Unequal participation: democracy’s unresolved dilemma.’ American Political Science Review. 91:1-14.

Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in 36 Countries. Chapters 5.

Lindberg, Staffan. 2006. Democracy and elections in Africa. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.

Norris, Pippa. 2004. Electoral Engineering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Powell, Jr, G. Bingham. 2000. Elections as Instruments of Democracy. Yale University Press.

Reilly, Ben, and Andrew Reynolds. 1998. Electoral Systems and Conflict in Divided Societies.  Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Reilly, Ben. 2001. Democracy in Divided Societies: Electoral Engineering for Conflict Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Reynolds, Andrew and Ben Reilly. 1997. The International IDEA Handbook of Electoral System Design. Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.

Shugart, Matthew and Martin Wattenberg. 2001. Mixed-Member Electoral Systems. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sisk, Timothy and Andrew Reynolds. Eds. 1998. Elections and Conflict Management in Africa. US Institute of Peace.

Taagepera, Rein and Matthew Shugart. 1989. Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. Yale University Press.

Online Resources:

International IDEA. ACE Project on electoral system design. http://www.aceproject.org

Database of Political Institutions, 2000 http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH/0,,contentMDK:20649465~pagePK:64214825~piPK:64214943~theSitePK:469382,00.html

Class 11 Democratic Institutions: Party Systems

Topics:

·         What is the relationship between electoral systems and party systems?

·         Are ‘cartel’ party systems emerging due to public funding?

·         Are mass-membership political parties in crisis?

Required Reading:

LeDuc, Lawrence, Richard Niemi and Pippa Norris. 2010. Comparing Democracies 3. Sage Publications.  Chs by Scarrow, Dalton,and van Biezen.

Christian Haerpfer, Patrick Bernhagenm Ronald F. Inglehart and Christian Welzel. 2009. Democratization. Oxford University Press. Ch  14 (Morlino)

Recommended Reading:

Dalton, Russell J. 2008. Citizen Politics: Public opinion and political parties in advanced industrialized democracies. Washington DC, CQ Press.

Dalton, Russell, and Martin P. Wattenberg. Ed. 2000. Parties without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Diamond, Larry and Richard Gunther. 2001. Political Parties and Democracy. Johns Hopkins Press.

Evans, Geoffrey. 1999. The End of Class Politics? Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Franklin, Mark, Tom Mackie, Henry Valen, et al. 1992. Electoral Change: Responses to Evolving Social and Attitudinal Structures in Western Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Green, Donald, Bradley Palmquist, and Eric Schickler. 2002. Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Gunther, Richard, Jose Ramon Montero and Joan J. Linz. 2002. Political Parties: Old Concepts and New Challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gunther, Richard, Puhle, Hans-Jürgen and Montero, José Ramón (eds) 2007. Democracy, Intermediation, and Voting on Four Continents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hofferbert, Richard ed. 1998. Parties and Democracy. Oxford: Blackwell.

Kitschelt, Herbert, Zdenka Mansfeldova, Radoslaw Markowski and Gabor Toka. 1999. Post-Communist Party Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kitschelt, Herbert. 1994. The Transformation of European Social Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Knutsen, Oddbjorn. 2006. Class Voting in Western Europe: A Comparative Longitudinal Study. Latham, MD: Lexington Books.

Lewis-Beck, Michael, Helmut Norpoth, William G. Jacoby, and Herbert F. Weisberg. 2008. The American Voter Revisited. University of Michigan Press.

Lipset, Seymour Martin and Stein Rokkan. 1967.  Party Systems and Voter Alignments. New York: Free Press.

Nie, Norman, Sidney Verba and John Petrocik. 1976. The Changing American Voter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Nieuwbeerta, Paul. 1995. The Democratic Class Struggle in Twenty Countries 1945-90. Amsterdam Thesis Publishers.

Class 12 Democratic Institutions: Executives

Topics:

• Explain and assess Linz’s claim that presidential government leads to democratic instability by comparing examples of presidential and parliamentary government in either Latin America or in Central and Eastern Europe.

Required Reading:

Norris, Pippa. 2007. Driving Democracy. Chapter 6. Available at www.pippanorris.com under ‘books’

Recommended Reading:

Baylis, T.A.. 1996. ‘President versus prime ministers: Shaping executive authority in Eastern Europe.’  World Politics 48 (3): 297+.

Blais, André, Louis Massicotte and Agnieszka Dobrynska. 1997. ‘Direct presidential elections: A world summary.’ Electoral Studies 16(4): 441-455.

Beliaev, M.V.. 2006. ‘Presidential power and consolidation of new post-communist democracies.’ Comparative Political Studies 39 (3): 375-398.

Elgie, Robert. 1997. ‘Models of executive politics: A framework for the study of executive power relations in parliamentary and semi-presidential regimes.’ Political Studies 155: 217-231.

Helms, Ludger. 2005. Presidents, Prime Ministers and Chancellors: Executive Leadership in Western Democracies Palgrave.

Jones, Mark P. 1995. Electoral Laws and the Survival of Presidential Democracies. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in 36 Countries. Chapters 7 and 10.

Lijphart, Arendt. 1996. Ed. Presidential v. Parliamentary Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (see chapter by Linz)

Linz, Juan and Alfred Stephan. Problems of Democratic Consolidation. Johns Hopkins Press. 1996.

Linz, Juan J and Arturo Valenzuela. Eds.1994. The Failure of Presidential Democracy. The Johns Hopkins Press. 

Mainwaring, Scott and Matthew Soberg Shugart. 1997. Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Metcalf, Lee Kendall. 2000. ‘Measuring presidential power.’ Comparative Political Studies 33 (5): 660-685.

Poguntke, Thomas and Paul Webb. Eds. 2005. The presidentialization of politics: a comparative study of modern democracies. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press/ECPR. 

Protsyk, O. 2006. ‘Intra-executive competition between president and prime minister: Patterns of institutional conflict and cooperation under semi-presidentialism.’ Political Studies 54 (2): 219-244.

Schugart, Mathew Soberg and John Carey. 1992. Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Siaroff, Alan. 2003. ‘Comparative presidencies: The inadequacy of the presidential, semi-presidential, and parliamentary distinction.’  European Journal of Political Research 42 (3): 287-312.

Class 13 Democratic Institutions: Federalism and decentralization

Topics:

• Do decentralized institutions help or hinder democratic governance?

• Does federalism encourage or deter succession?

Required Reading:

Norris, Pippa. 2007. Driving Democracy. Chapter 7. Available at www.pippanorris.com under ‘books’

Recommended Reading:

Ahmad, Ehtisham (Editor). 2002. Fiscal Decentralization. London: Routledge;

Ames, Barry. 2001. The deadlock of democracy in Brazil. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Bird, Richard M.  and François Vaillancourt. Eds. 1999. Fiscal Decentralization in Developing Countries. New York: Cambridge University Press;

De Vries, Michiel S.. 2000. ‘The rise and fall of decentralization: a comparative analysis of arguments and practices in European Countries.’ European Journal of Political Research 38, 193–224.

Denters, Bas and Lawrence Rose (Editors). 2005. Comparing Local Governance: Trends and Developments. London: Palgrave/Macmillan.

Elazar, Daniel. 1994. Federal Systems of the World: A Handbook of Federal, Confederal and Autonomy Arrangements Essex: Longman

Erk, Jan. 2006. ‘Does federalism really matter?’ Comparative Politics 39 (1): 103.

Goldsmith, Michael. 2002. ‘Central control over local government: A Western European comparison.’ Local Government Studies 28 (3): 91.

Griffiths, Ann L.. Ed. Handbook of Federal Countries, 2005. Montreal: Forum of Federations/McGill University Press.

Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in 36 Countries. Chapters 15 & 16.

Manor, James. 1999. The Political Economy of Democratic Decentralization. Washington, DC: The World Bank;

Nickson, R.A.. 1995. Local Government in Latin America. Colorado: Lynne Reinner;

B.D. Santos. 1998. ‘Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre: Toward a redistributive democracy.’ Politics & Society 26 (4): 461-510

Page, Ed C.  and Michael Goldsmith. 1987. Central and Local Government Relations. London: Sage; Ed C. Page. 1991. Localism and Centralism in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press;

Prudhomme, Remy. 1995. ‘The Dangers of Decentralization.’ World Bank Research Observer. 10(2): 201-220.

Schneider, Aaron. 2003. ‘Decentralization: Conceptualization and measurement.’ Studies in Comparative International Development 38(3): 32-56.

Stegarescu, Dan. 2005.  ‘Public sector decentralisation: Measurement concepts and recent international trends.’ Fiscal Studies 26 (3): 301-333.

Treisman, Daniel. 2007. The Architecture of Government: Rethinking Political Decentralization. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Watts, Ronald L. 1999. Comparing Federal Systems. 2^nd Ed. Kingston, Ontario: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Wibbels, Erik. 2005. Federalism and the Market: Intergovernmental Conflict and Economic Reform in the Developing World. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Class 14 Democratic Institutions: the mass media

Topics:

• What are the ideal roles of the news media as agenda-setters, watchdogs and in the public sphere in the democratization process? What are the primary barriers to achieving these roles?

Required Reading:

Norris, Pippa. 2007. Driving Democracy. Chapter 8. Available at www.pippanorris.com under ‘books’

LeDuc, Lawrence, Richard Niemi and Pippa Norris. 2010. Comparing Democracies 3. Sage Publications.  Ch by deVrees

Christian Haerpfer, Patrick Bernhagenm Ronald F. Inglehart and Christian Welzel. 2009. Democratization. Oxford University Press. Ch  16 (Voltmer and Rawnsley)

Recommended Reading:

Ackerman, John M.  and Irma E. Sandoval-Ballesteros. 2006. ‘The Global Explosion of Freedom of Information Laws.’  Administrative Law Review. 58(1): 85-130.

Anable, D. 2006. ‘The role of Georgia's media - and Western aid - in the Rose Revolution.’  Harvard International Journal of Press-Politics 11 (3): 7-43.

Banisar, David. 2006.  Freedom of Information Around the World 2006: A Global Survey of Access to Government Records Laws www.freedominfo.org.

Becker, J. 2004. ‘Lessons from Russia: A neo-authoritarian media system.’ European Journal of Communication 19 (2): 139-163.

Besley, T. and R. Burgess. 2002. “The political economy of government responsiveness: Theory and evidence from India” Quarterly Journal Of Economics 117 (4): 1415-1451.

Brunetti, A.  and B. Weder. 2003. ‘A free press is bad news for corruption.’ Journal of Public Economics 87 (7-8): 1801-1824.

Chowdhury, S.K.. 2004. ‘The effect of democracy and press freedom on corruption: an empirical test.’  Economics Letters 85 (1): 93-101;

Chu, L.L. 1994. ‘Continuity and change in China media reform.’ Journal of Communication 44 (3): 4-21.

Djankov, Simeon, Caralee McLiesh, Tatiana Nenova and Andrei Shleifer. 2003. ‘Who Owns The Media?’ Journal of Law and Economics, 46(2,Oct), 341-382.

Esser Frank, and Barbara Pfetsch. Eds. 2004. Comparing Political Communication: Theories, Cases, and Challenges.  Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gunther, Richard and Anthony Mughan. Eds. 2000. Democracy and the Media: A Comparative Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hyden, Goran , Michael Leslie and Folu F. Ogundimu. Eds. 2002. Media and Democracy in Africa. Uppsala: Nordiska Afrikainstitutet.

Islam, Roumeen. 2003. Do More Transparent Governments Govern Better? Washington, DC: World Bank.

Islam, Roumeen. Ed. 2002. The Right to Tell: The Role of Mass Media in Economic Development. Washington, DC: World Bank.

James, Barry. Ed. 2006. Media development and poverty eradication. Paris: UNESCO.

Kalathil, Shanthi and Taylor C. Boas. 2001. The Internet and State Control in Authoritarian Regimes: China, Cuba and the Counterrevolution. Global Policy Program No 21 Washington DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Norris, Pippa and Ronald Inglehart. 2008. Global Communications and Cultural Diversity.  Chapters for the news book are available at www.pippanorris.com

Norris, Pippa. 2001. Digital Divide. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Norris, Pippa. 2000. A Virtuous Circle. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Norris, Pippa. 2009. Public Sentinel: The Roles of the News Media in the Governance Reform Agenda. Washington, DC: the World Bank. Chapters are available online: see  www.pippanorris.com

Roberts, Alasdair. 2006. Blacked Out: Government Secrecy in the Information Age. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sparks, Colin and A. Reading. 1994. ‘Understanding media change in East-Central-Europe.’ Media Culture & Society 16 (2): 243-270.

Voltmer, Katrin. Ed. 2006.  Mass media and political communication in new democracies. London: Routledge

Part III: Comparing Political Culture

Class 16 Inglehart’s Post-Modernization

Topics:

·         What is meant by Inglehart’s concepts of ‘modernization’ and ‘post-modernization’ and are these two distinct stages of socioeconomic development?

·         Is there good evidence supporting Inglehart’s claims of a substantial cultural shift in orientations towards democratic values in affluent societies?

Required Reading:

Inglehart, Ronald. 2003. ‘How Solid is Mass Support for Democracy and How Do
We Measure It?’  PS: Political Science and Politics.

Christian Haerpfer, Patrick Bernhagenm Ronald F. Inglehart and Christian Welzel. 2009. Democratization. Oxford University Press. Ch  9 (Welzel and Inglehart)

Recommended Reading:

Abramson, Paul R. and Ronald Inglehart. 1995. Value Change in Global Perspective. Ann Arbor, Mich: University of Michigan Press.

Almond, Gabriel A. and Sidney Verba. 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Almond, Gabriel and Sidney Verba. Eds. 1980. The Civic Culture Revisited. Boston: Little Brown.

Clarke, Harold D., Alan Kornberg, C. McIntyre, P. Bauer-Kaase, and Max Kaase. 1999. ‘The effect of economic priorities on the measurement of value change: New experimental evidence.’ American Political Science Review. 93 (3): 637-647.

Harrison, Lawrence E. and Samuel P. Huntington. Eds. 2000. Culture Matters. New York: Basic Books.

Hibbing, John R.  and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse. 2003. Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs about How Government Should Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Inglehart, Ronald and Paul Abramson. 1999. ‘Measuring postmaterialism.’ American Political Science Review. 93 (3): 665-677.

Inglehart, Ronald and Wayne E. Baker. 2000.  ‘Modernization, Globalization and the Persistence of Tradition: Empirical Evidence from 65 Societies.’ American Sociological Review.  65: 19-55.

Inglehart, Ronald and Christopher Welzel. 2005. Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence. New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Inglehart, Ronald. 1977. The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Publics.  Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.

Inglehart, Ronald. 1990. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.

Inglehart, Ronald. 1997. Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43 Societies.  Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Inglehart, Ronald and Christopher Welzel. 2003. ‘Political culture and democracy - Analyzing cross-level linkages.’ Comparative Politics 36 (1): 61-+.

Seligson, Mitchell. A. 2002.  ‘The renaissance of political culture or the renaissance of the ecological fallacy?’ Comparative Politics. 34 (3): 273.

Welzel, Chris, Ronald Inglehart, and Hans-Dieter Klingemann. 2003. ‘The theory of human development: A cross-cultural analysis.’ European Journal of Political Research 42 (3): 341-379.

Online Resources:

World Values Study 1981-2007  http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/

Global barometers http://www.globalbarometer.net/

Pew Global Surveys http://pewglobal.org/

Gallup International Voice of the People  www.voice-of-the-people.net/

Class 17 Inglehart’s Post-Modernization: Gender Equality

Topics:

·         How far does the theory of value change explain the rise of new social movements? Discuss in relation to either the environmental or the women’s movement.

·         Critically assess how far cultural theories provide a satisfactory explanation of patterns of gender equality found in agrarian, industrial and postindustrial societies.

·         Do economic priorities or generational shifts provide a more satisfactory explanation of value change?

Required Reading:

Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris. 2003. Rising Tide. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Available at: www.pippanorris.com under http://www.pippanorris.com‘books’ Chapter 1-3

Christian Haerpfer, Patrick Bernhagenm Ronald F. Inglehart and Christian Welzel. 2009. Democratization. Oxford University Press. Ch 10 (Paxton)

LeDuc, Lawrence, Richard Niemi and Pippa Norris. 2010. Comparing Democracies 3. Sage Publications.  Ch by Sawer

Recommended Reading:

Class 18 Inglehart Religion and Secularization

Topics:

·         If secularization has occurred in most post-industrial societies, why not in the case of the United States?

Required Reading:

Inglehart, Ronald and Pippa Norris. 2003. ‘Muslims and the West: A Clash of Civilizations?’ Foreign Policy. March/April: 63-70. Available here: http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~.pnorris.shorenstein.ksg/ACROBAT/Clash.pdf

Norris, Pippa and Ronald Inglehart. 2004. Sacred and Secular: Religion and politics worldwide. Chapter 1 and 3. Available online at www.pippanorris.com  under ‘books’.

Recommended Reading:

Class 19 Putnam’s Social Capital and Democracy: Italy

Topics:

·         Do you agree that social capital, including dense social networks and rich reservoirs of social trust, help to explain why some democratic governments succeed while others fail? Explain and assess Putnam’s theory in the context of Italian regional government.

·         What are the alternative conceptions of ‘social capital?

·         Does social trust matter? Explain why and why not.

Required Reading:

Christian Haerpfer, Patrick Bernhagenm Ronald F. Inglehart and Christian Welzel. 2009. Democratization. Oxford University Press. Chs 11 (Letki)

Paxton P. 2002. ‘Social capital and democracy: An interdependent relationship.’ American Sociological Review.  67 (2): 254-277.

Recommended Reading:

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1970. Reproduction in Education, Culture and Society. London: Sage.

Coleman, James S. 1988. ‘Social capital in the creation of human capital.’ American Journal of Sociology. 94: 95-120.

Coleman, James S. 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge: Belknap.

Fukuyama, Francis. 1995. Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. NY: Free Press.

Norris, Pippa. 2002. Democratic Phoenix. Cambridge University Press. Chapter 8.

Pharr, Susan and Robert Putnam. Eds. 2000. Disaffected Democracies: What’s Troubling the Trilateral Countries? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Putnam, Robert. 1995. Making Democracy Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 

Tarrow, Sidney. 1996. ‘Making social science work across space and time: A critical reflection on Robert Putnam's Making Democracy Work.’ American Political Science Review. 90 (2): 389-397.

Class 20 Putnam’s Social Capital and Democracy: the US

Topics:

·         How far has the United States experienced a long-term erosion of civic engagement and, if so, explain and assess Putnam’s analysis of the causes of this phenomenon.

·         Has television entertainment corroded social capital?

Required Reading:

Putnam, Robert D. 2002. ‘Bowling Together.’ The American Prospect. 13(3): http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/3/putnam-r.html

Putnam, Robert D. 1995. ‘The Strange Disappearance of Civic America.’ The American Prospect 7(24). http://www.prospect.org/print/V7/24/putnam-r.html

Recommended Reading:

Brehm, John, and Wendy Rahn. 1997. ‘Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences of social capital.’ American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 41, No. 3: 999-1023.

Ladd, Everett C. 1996. ‘The Data Just Don't Show Erosion of America's Social Capital.’ The Public Perspective. 7(4).

Norris, Pippa. 1996 ‘Did Television Erode Social Capital?  A Reply to Putnam’ PS: Political Science and Politics. XXIX (3) September: 474-480.

Putnam, Robert D, and Lewis Feldstein. 2003. Better Together: Restoring the American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Putnam, Robert D. 1995. 'Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America.' P.S.: Political Science and Politics XXVIII (4): 664-83.

Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone. NY: Simon & Schuster.

Rotolo, Thomas. 1999. ‘Trends in voluntary association participation.’ Nonprofit And Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 28(2): 199-212.

Skocpol, Theda and Morris P. Fiorina. Eds.  1999. Civic Engagement in American Democracy. Washington DC: Brookings/Russell Sage Foundation.

Online Resources:

Saguaro Seminar http://www.bettertogether.org/ Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey

Class 21 Putnam’s Social Capital and Democracy Worldwide

Topics:

·         Do the central claims in Putnam’s theory of social capital hold in cross-cultural perspective?

·         What is the relationship between ethnic heterogeneity and social capital?

Required reading:

Putnam, Robert D. 2007. ‘E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century the 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture.’  Scandinavian Political Studies  30(2): 137-174.  

Recommended Reading:

Albrow, Martin, Helmut Anheier, Marlies Glasius, Monroe Price and  Mary Kaldor (Eds.) 2008. Global Civil Society 2007/8: Communicative Power and Democracy. London: Sage.

Baron, Stephen, John Field, and Tom Schuller. (Eds). 2000. Social Capital: Critical Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Curtis, J.E, E.G. Grabb and D.E. Baer. 1992. ‘Voluntary association membership in 15 countries – a comparative analysis.’ American Sociological Review. 57(2): 139-152.

Dasgupta, Partha and Ismail Serageldin. Eds. 2000. Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective. The World Bank: Washington DC.

Edwards, Michael and David Hulme. 1996. ‘Too close for comfort? The impact of official aid on nongovernmental organizations.’ World Development 24 (6): 961-973.

Foley, Michael and Bob Edwards. 1998. ‘Beyond Tocqueville: Civil Society and Social Capital in Comparative Perspective.’ American Behavioral Scientist. 42(1): 5-20.

Hall, Peter. 1999. ‘Social capital in Britain.’ British Journal of Political Science. 29: 417-461.

Hooghe, Marc and Dietlind Stolle. Eds. 2003.  Generating Social Capital: Civil Society and Institutions in Comparative Perspective.  New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

János Kornai, Bo Rothstein, and Susan Rose-Ackerman. Eds. 2004. Creating Social Trust in Post-Socialist Transitions. New York: Palgrave Macmillan

Keck, Margaret E.  and Kathryn Sikkink, 1998. Activists beyond Borders - Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Krishna A. 2007. ‘How does social capital grow? A seven-year study of villages in India.’  Journal of Politics 69 (4): 941-956.

Norris, Pippa. 2002. Democratic Phoenix. Cambridge University Press. Chapter 8.

Ottaway, Marina and Thomas Carothers. Eds.2000. Funding Virtue: Civil Society Aid and Democracy Promotion. DC: Brookings Institution.

Pharr, Susan and Robert Putnam. Eds. 2000. Disaffected Democracies: What’s Troubling the Trilateral Countries? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Putnam, Robert. Ed. 2002. Democracy in Flux. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rose, Richard and Doh C. Shin. 2001. ‘Democratization backwards: The problem of third-wave democracies.’  British Journal of Political Science 31: 331-354 Part 2, APR 2001

Schneider G, T. Plumper, and S. Baumann. 2000. ‘Bringing Putnam to the European regions - On the relevance of social capital for economic growth.’ European Urban and Regional Studies. 7 (4): 307-317.

Schofer E. and M. Fourcade-Gourinchas. 2001. ‘The structural contexts of civic engagement: Voluntary association membership in comparative perspective.’ American Sociological Review.  66 (6): 806-828.

Smith, Jackie. 1998. ‘Global civil society? Transnational Social Movement Organization and Social Capital’ American Behavioral Scientist. 42(1): 93-107.

Svendsen, Gunnar Lind Haase and Gert Tinggaard Svendsen. 2004. The Creation and Destruction of Social Capital: Entrepreneurship, Cooperative Movements, and Institutions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Tusalem, Rollin F. 2007. ‘A boon or a bane? The role of civil society in third- and fourth-wave democracies.’ International Political Science Review 28 (3): 361-386.

Van Deth, Jan Willem. Ed. 1997. Private Groups and Public Life: Social Participation, Voluntary Associations and Political Involvement in Representative Democracies. London: Routledge.

Van Deth, Jan.W. Ed. 1999. Social Capital and European Democracy. New York: Routledge

Varshney, Artosh. 2001. ‘Ethnic conflict and civil society - India and beyond.’ World Politics 53 (3): 362+.

Whiteley Paul F. 2000. ‘Economic growth and social capital.’ Political Studies. 48 (3): 443-466.

Online Resources:

Class 23 Case-study: Building democratic states in Iraq and Afghanistan

Topics:

• How would you evaluate the democratic effectiveness of the new Iraqi and Afghan constitutions, what further reforms would you suggest, and why?

Required Reading:

Full briefing details are available online: see the class website at www.pippanorris.com

Anderson, Lisa, 2006. Searching where the light shines: Studying democratization in the Middle East 
Annual Review Of Political Science 9: 189-214 2006

Cavatorta, F. 2006. Civil society, Islamism and democratisation: the case of Morocco Journal Of Modern African Studies 44 (2): 203-222.

Dalacoura, Katerina. 2005. ‘US democracy promotion in the Arab Middle East since 11 September 2001: a critique.’  International Affairs 81 (5): 963-+ OCT 2005

Diamond, Larry, Mark Plattner and Daniel Brumberg. Eds. 2003. Islam and Democracy in the Middle East. Johns Hopkins Press.

Esposito, John L.  and John O. Voll. 1996. Democracy and Islam, New York: Oxford University Press.

Esposito, John. Ed. 1997. Political Islam: Revolution, Radicalism or Reform? Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner.

Puddington, Arch. 2006. ‘Freedom in the World 2006: Middle East Progress amid Global Gains.’ www.freedomhouse.org

Rotberg, Robert. 2007. Building a new Afghanistan. Washington DC: Brookings.

Tessler, Mark and E. Gao E. 2005. ‘Gauging Arab support for democracy’ Journal Of Democracy 16 (3): 83-97 JUL 2005

UNDP. 2004. Arab Human Development Report 2004. New York: UNDP. www.undp.org .

Volpi, F. 2004. ‘Pseudo-democracy in the Muslim world.’ Third World Quarterly 25 (6): 1061-1078.

Class 24: Final wrap up

For further research resources:

-In general for the Class Website see www.pippanorris.com

-For relevant literature always check the online Social Science Citation Index via Hollis or the Harvard Kennedy School Library’s website, www.hks.harvard.edu/library, under ‘key resources for hks’

-Also check journal articles in American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, British Journal of Political Science, Comparative Political Studies, Comparative Politics, Electoral Studies, Journal of Democracy, Journal of Politics, Party Politics, and West European Politics.

-For sources of data always check the Harvard Data Center.

http://www.hmdc.harvard.edu/, or also through the Harvard Kennedy School Library’s website, www.hks.harvard.edu/library, under ‘key resources for hks’