Introduction to Comparative Politics

Assessment

  1. ANNEX I. Seminar Participation Rubric
  2. ANNEX II. List of assigned themes and questions and corresponding texts for the response paper
  3. ANNEX III. Group response paper rubric
  4. ANNEX IV. Explainer video rubric

ANNEX I. Seminar Participation Rubric

CriteriaOutstanding[41-50 points]Good[31-40 points]Satisfactory[21-30 points]Poor[0-20 points]
Substance of argument (50%)Student demonstrates a clear mastery of the subject matter discussed and raises issues/questions that are likely to be outcomes of critical and deep engagement of course materialsStudent demonstrates full understanding of the subject matter discussed but still need nudging to develop critical engagement of course materialsStudent has sufficient understanding of the subject matter discussed but still needs further developmentStudent demonstrates little understanding of the subject matter and requires direct help to participate fully in the discussion
Clarity of expression (50%)Student presents ideas articulately, coherently, AND logicallyStudent presents ideas in either TWO of these ways: articulately, coherently, or logicallyStudent presents ideas in ONLY ONE of these ways: articulately, coherently, or logicallyStudent is unable to express ideas properly (no logic, incoherent, inarticulate)

ANNEX II. List of assigned themes and questions and corresponding texts for the response paper

Ethnic/nationalist conflict
1. Why do ethnic/nationalist conflicts emerge in some states and not in others?

  • Fearon James D. and David D. Laitin. 1996. “Explaining Interethnic Cooperation.” American Political Science Review 90(4):715-735. 
  • Bates, Robert. 1974. “ Ethnic Competition and Modernization in Contemporary Africa.” Comparative Political Studies 6(4):457-477. 
  • Lake, David A. and Donald Rothchild. “ Containing Fear: The Origins and Management of Ethnic Conflict.” International Security 21(2):41-75. 
  • Dion, Douglas. 1997. “ Competition and Ethnic Conflict: Artifactual?” The Journal of Conflict Resolution 41(5):638-648.

2. Can institutional design moderate ethnic/nationalist conflicts?

  • Donald L. Horowitz. 1991. “Electoral Systems for a Divided Society.” In A Democratic South Africa? University of California Press, pp.163-203.
  • Arend Lijphart, “The Puzzle of Indian Democracy: A Consociational Interpretation,” American Political Science Review, Vol.90, No.2, June 1996, pp.258-68.
  • Arend Lijphart. 1995. “Self-Determination versus Pre-Determination of Ethnic Minorities in Power-Sharing Systems.” In The Rights of Minority Cultures, edited by Will Kymlicka. Oxford University Press, pp. 275-287. 
  • Fearon, James, and David Laitin, “Explaining Ethnic Cooperation,” American Political Science Review, 1996, 90, pp.715-35 
  • David D. Laitin. 1985. “Hegemony and Religious Conflict: British Imperial Control and Political Cleavages in Yorubaland.” In Bringing the State Back In, edited by Peter B. Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer and Theda Skocpol. Cambridge University Press, pp.285-316.

Party systems and political regimes

1. Why do party systems turn on religious and ethnic cleavages in some systems and class cleavages in others? 

  • Seymour Martin Lipset and Stein Rokkan. 1967. “Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments: An Introduction”. In Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives. Free Press, pp.1-65. 
  • Carles Boix. 2007. “The Emergence of Parties and Party Systems”. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, edited by Carles Boix and Susan Stokes. Oxford University Press, pp.499-521.
  • Herbert Kitschelt. 2007. “Party Systems”. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, edited by Carles Boix and Susan Stokes. Oxford University Press, pp. 522-554.
  • Rein Taagepera. 2007. “Electoral Systems”. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, edited by Carles Boix and Susan Stokes. Oxford University Press, pp.678-702.
  • G. Bingham Powell, JR. 2007. “Aggregating and Representing Political Preferences”. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, edited by Carles Boix and Susan Stokes. Oxford University Press, pp.653-677.

2. Why do institutions matter? For what outcomes?

  • Matthew Soberg Shugart and Scott Mainwaring. 1997. “Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America:Rethinking the Terms of the Debate”. In Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America, edited by ScottMainwaring and Mathew Soberg Shugart. Cambridge University Press, pp. 12-­‐54.
  • Shugart, Matthew S. and John M. Carey. 1992. Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design andElectoral Dynamics. Cambridge University Press, Chapers 2-3.
  • “Three Months of Waiting” The Economist, Apr 26, 2003.
  • G. Bingham Powell, JR. 2007. “Aggregating and Representing Political Preferences”. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, edited by Carles Boix and Susan Stokes. Oxford University Press, pp.653-677. 
  • David Samuels. 2007. “Separation of Powers.”  In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, edited by Carles Boix and Susan Stokes. Oxford University Press, pp. 703-746. 
  • Pablo Beramendi. 2007. “Federalism”. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, edited by Carles Boix and Susan Stokes. Oxford University Press, pp. 752-781. 

State and economy
1. How do variations in capitalism affect economic and governance outcomes?

  • Matthew E. Carnes and Isabela Mares. 2007. “The Welfare State in Global Perspective”. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, edited by Carles Boix and Susan Stokes. Oxford University Press, pp. 868-887. 
  • Iversen, Torbin and Sockice, David. (2006). “Electoral Institutions and the Politics of Coalitions: Why Some Democracies Redistribute More Than Others”. American Political Science Review, 100(2): 165-81. 
  • Mares, Isabela. (2003). The Politics of Social Risk: Business and Welfare State Development. Cambridge University Press., pp.1-9, 213-46, 249-63. 
  • Alesina, Alberto & Rodrik, Dani, 1994. “Distributive Politics and Economic Growth,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 109(2), pages 465-90, May.
  • Peter A. Hall and David Soskice. 2001. “An Introduction to Varieties of Capitalism”. In The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford University Press.
  • Philipp Rehm, Jacob S. Hacker and Mark Schlesinger, “Insecure Alliances: Risk, Inequality, and Support for the Welfare State,’ American Political Science Review, Vol. 106, No. 2 May 2012, pp.386-406. 

2. Can addressing corruption lead to economic development of poor states?

  • Matthew E. Carnes and Isabela Mares. 2007. “The Welfare State in Global Perspective”. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, edited by Carles Boix and Susan Stokes. Oxford University Press, pp. 868-887. 
  • Iversen, Torbin and Sockice, David. (2006). “Electoral Institutions and the Politics of Coalitions: Why Some Democracies Redistribute More Than Others”. American Political Science Review, 100(2): 165-81. 
  • Mares, Isabela. (2003). The Politics of Social Risk: Business and Welfare State Development. Cambridge University Press., pp.1-9, 213-46, 249-63. 
  • Alesina, Alberto & Rodrik, Dani, 1994. “Distributive Politics and Economic Growth,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 109(2), pages 465-90, May.
  • Peter A. Hall and David Soskice. 2001. “An Introduction to Varieties of Capitalism”. In The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford University Press.
  • Philipp Rehm, Jacob S. Hacker and Mark Schlesinger, “Insecure Alliances: Risk, Inequality, and Support for the Welfare State,’ American Political Science Review, Vol. 106, No. 2 May 2012, pp.386-406. 

Political culture
1. Is culture an important consideration in the study of comparative politics?

  • Philippe C. Schmitter, and Terry Lynn Karl 1994. „The Conceptual Travels of Transitologists and Consolidologists: How Far to the East Should They Attempt to Go? Slavic Review, Vol. 53. No. 1. 173-185. 
  • Valerie Bunce, 1995. „Should Transitologists Be Grounded?” Slavic Review, Vol. 54. No. 1. 111-127. 
  • Terry Lynn Karl and Philippe C. Schmitter 1995. „From an Iron Curtain to a Paper Curtain: Grounding Transitologists or Students of Post-Communism?” Slavic Studies, Vol. 54. No. 4. 965-978. 
  • Valerie Bunce, 1995. „Paper Curtains and Paper Tigers” Slavic Studies, 54:4. 979-987.

2. Does culture explain democracy?

  • Przeworski, Adam. 1998. “Culture and Democracy.” World Culture Report: culture, creativity and markets. Paris: Unesco Publishing. Pages 125-131, 134-146. 
  • Almond, Gabriel and Sidney Verba. 1963. The Civic Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Pages 1-44.
  • Barbara Geddes. 1990. “How the Cases You Choose Affect the Answers You Get: Selection Bias in Comparative Politics.” Political Analysis 2. Pages 131-152. 
  • Kalyvas, Stathis N. 1998. “Democracy and Religious Politics: Evidence From Belgium.” Comparative Political Studies 31. Pages 292-320. 

ANNEX III. Group response paper rubric

CriteriaOutstanding[41-50 points]Good[31-40 points]Satisfactory[21-30 points]Poor[0-20 points]
Development and strength of argument (25%)The paper provides a clear, well-developed argument that is focused on the identified topic.The paper provides a clear argument that is focused on the identified topic. However, the argument was not developed well in the paper.The argument offered in the paper is either unclear, incoherent, or unsubstantiated.The paper has no argument at all. It neither provides a clear argument nor an implied one. 
Effective use of evidence and theory (25%)The analysis is supported by relevant data, presented clearly and effectively, with sources of information attributed properly. Relevant concepts and theories in CP are correctly and meaningfully applied. Multiple relevant perspectives from a variety of theories are incorporated to arrive at a more meaningful and nuanced analysis.The analysis is supported by relevant data, with sources of information attributed properly. Relevant concepts and theories in CP are correctly and meaningfully applied.The analysis is based on data that is either incomplete or unreliable. There is an attempt to apply relevant concepts and theories in CP in the analysis, but parts of the discussion tend to be inaccurate, inadequate, or incorrect.There is very little data that is offered to support the analysis. The data is also unsystematic, unreliable, or totally irrelevant. Relevant concepts and theories in CP are not used, or the use is extremely inaccurate, inadequate, or plainly incorrect.
Breadth and depth of research on chosen country cases (25%)The chosen country cases are identified and discussed in a clear, nuanced manner, demonstrating awareness of historical background and nature of domestic politics. Information presented is based on multiple credible sources.The chosen country cases are identified and effectively discussed based on well-researched information. The chosen country cases are identified but the discussion generally deviates from a focused study of the country cases and/or provides an incomplete background of the country cases. The discussion tends to rely mainly on one or two sources of information.The chosen country cases are unclear and inadequately discussed. The paper provides very little discussion of the history and development of the selected cases, or any discussion is not useful for providing a meaningful background. 
Clarity of expression (25%)The paper is articulately written—concise yet complete, interesting while maintaining rigor, and demonstrates effective use of technical language in a manner that is easy for the lay reader to understand. There are no grammatical, spelling, punctuation, or formatting errors. Methods for citing sources are used correctly and consistently.The paper follows accepted standards of undergraduate-level academic writing. The discussion is effective and well-organized. There are no grammatical, spelling, punctuation, or formatting errors. Methods for citing sources are used correctly and consistently.There are some errors – in word choice, grammar, spelling, punctuation, formatting, or citation of sources – but these do not seriously detract from the discussion in the paper.The paper is incoherent and generally unorganized. There are serious errors in writing that undermines the communicative purpose of the paper.

ANNEX IV. Explainer video rubric

CriteriaOutstanding[41-50 points]Good[31-40 points]Satisfactory[21-30 points]Poor[0-20 points]
Development and strength of argument (20%)The video provides a clear, well-developed argument that is focused on the identified topic.The video provides a clear argument that is focused on the identified topic. However, the argument was not developed well.The argument offered in the video is either unclear, incoherent, or unsubstantiated.The video has no argument at all. It neither provides a clear argument nor an implied one. 
Effective use of evidence and theory (20%)The analysis is supported by relevant data, presented clearly and effectively, with sources of information attributed properly. Relevant concepts and theories in CP are correctly and meaningfully applied. Multiple relevant perspectives from a variety of theories are incorporated to arrive at a more meaningful and nuanced analysis.The analysis is supported by relevant data, with sources of information attributed properly. Relevant concepts and theories in CP are correctly and meaningfully applied.The analysis is based on data that is either incomplete or unreliable. There is an attempt to apply relevant concepts and theories in CP in the analysis, but parts of the discussion tend to be inaccurate, inadequate, or incorrect.There is very little data that is offered to support the analysis. The data is also unsystematic, unreliable, or totally irrelevant. Relevant concepts and theories in CP are not used, or the use is extremely inaccurate, inadequate, or plainly incorrect.
Breadth and depth of research on chosen country cases (20%)The chosen country cases are identified and discussed in a clear, nuanced manner, demonstrating awareness of historical background and nature of domestic politics. Information presented is based on multiple credible sources.The chosen country cases are identified and effectively discussed based on well-researched information. The chosen country cases are identified but the discussion generally deviates from a focused study of the country cases and/or provides an incomplete background of the country cases. The discussion tends to rely mainly on one or two sources of information.The chosen country cases are unclear and inadequately discussed. The paper provides very little discussion of the history and development of the selected cases, or any discussion is not useful for providing a meaningful background. 
Level of creativity and persuasiveness (40%)Unique use of the affordances of the video medium (images, sounds, effects, etc.) to convey a narrative and make it appealing to general public Maximal use of the affordances of the video medium (images, sounds, effects, etc.) to convey a narrative and make it appealing to general publicMinimal use of the affordances of the video medium (images, sounds, effects, etc.) to convey a narrative and make it appealing to general publicThere is no evidence of an attempt to systematically use the affordances of the video medium (images, sounds, effects, etc.) to convey a narrative and make it appealing to general public