pol4

1

POLITICS, PSYCHOLOGY and SOCIOLOGY TRIPOS

PART II 2012-13

Pol 4: Comparative Politics

Course Organiser

Glen Rangwala ([email protected])

Department of Politics & International Studies

7 West Road

Lecturers

Devon Curtis ([email protected])

Kun-Chin Lin ([email protected])

Glen Rangwala ([email protected])

Helen Thompson ([email protected])

Pieter van Houten ([email protected])

Harald Wydra ([email protected])

Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 2

2. The lecture list ........................................................................................................................................ 3

3. The essay ................................................................................................................................................. 4

A. The questions .............................................................................................................................. 4

B. Reading ........................................................................................................................................ 6

C. Writing ....................................................................................................................................... 10

D. Presentation and referencing .................................................................................................. 11

4. The courses ............................................................................................................................................ 14

A. Comparative Politics ................................................................................................................ 14

B. Eastern Europe: Russia and Poland compared .................................................................... 21

C. Western Europe: France and Germany compared .............................................................. 25

D. US Presidential Elections ........................................................................................................ 36

E. The Middle East: Egypt and Saudi Arabia compared ........................................................ 43

F. State Formation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo ................................................ 51

G. The Environment and Growth in China ............................................................................... 59

5. The exam ............................................................................................................................................... 64

Please note that this course guide will be updated from time to time over the year.

This version was last updated on 10th January 2013.

2

1. Introduction

This is a broadly-focused paper that sets out to provide approaches to understanding and

explaining politics around the world today.

The first section of the paper is conceptual, exploring and evaluating major analytical themes in

modern politics. It revolves around questions of convergence and diversity: have the state,

politics and forms of legitimacy become the same everywhere, comprehensible through general

theories that can be applied worldwide, or do national and regional particularities still

predominate? This section will be assessed through a single, 5000-word essay written to a title

chosen from a list provided, and supervised through Michaelmas term.

The second section of the paper is made up of studies of particular regions and cases. The

regional studies will each provide a general introduction to an area, but will focus on a specific

comparison between two countries. Western Europe will be analysed through comparing the

politics of France and Germany, Eastern Europe through a comparison between Russia and

Poland, and the Middle East through looking at Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The case studies will

be of the state-building process in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the relationship

between economic growth and the environment in China, and the US Presidential elections.

This section will be assessed through a 2-hour exam at the end of the year, with candidates

answering two questions on different regions or cases; at least one of the answers has to be

about a region. The long essay and the exam each contribute 50% of the mark for this paper.

3

2. The lecture list The lectures for this paper are organised as follows.

Glen Rangwala: Comparative Politics (10 lectures, Michaelmas)

Harald Wydra: Eastern Europe: Russia and Poland compared (6 lectures, Michaelmas)

Devon Curtis: State Formation in Congo (4 lectures, Michaelmas)

Pieter van Houten: Western Europe: France and Germany compared (6 lectures, Lent)

Glen Rangwala: The Middle East: Egypt and Saudi Arabia compared (6 lectures, Lent)

Helen Thompson: US Presidential Elections (4 lectures, Lent)

Kun-Chin Lin: The Environment and Growth in China (4 lectures, Lent)

Glen Rangwala: Comparative Politics again (1 seminar, Easter)

Here is the timetable in more detail, with shortened lecture titles. All lectures will be in SG1 (the

ground floor lecture room) at 7 West Road, unless otherwise stated. ‘SLB’ means Sidgwick

Lecture Bloc. Full details are in section 4.

Michaelmas term

Comparative Politics Congo (SLB 3) Eastern Europe (SLB 4)

4th Oct, 10 – Comparative politics?

8th Oct, 12 – The state of the state

11th Oct, 10 – Government

15th Oct, 12 – Democracy 19th Oct, 10 – State traditions

22nd Oct, 12 – Parties and leaders 26th Oct, 10 – Nationalism

29th Oct, 12 – Public opinion 1st Nov, 10 - Colonialism 2nd Nov, 10 – Leadership

5th Nov, 12 – Markets and states 8th Nov, 10 - Geopolitics 9th Nov, 10 – Communism

12th Nov, 12 – Identity 15th Nov, 10 – Economy & aid 16th Nov, 10 – Post-communism

19th Nov, 12 – The state & violence 22nd Nov, 10 - A failed state? 23rd Nov, 10 – Legacies

26th Nov, 12 – The liberal state

Lent term

Western Europe – SG2

17th Jan, 11 – History US Presidential elections (SG1)

21st Jan, 10 – Party systems 22nd Jan, 10 – New Deal

23rd Jan, 12 - Republican majority?

24th Jan, 11 - Parliaments China

28th Jan, 10 – Immigration policy 29th Jan, 10 – The culture war 29th Jan, 10 – Development (SG2)

30th Jan, 12 - 2008 & 2012 elections 30th Jan, 11 – Assessment (SG1)

31st Jan, 11 – Economic policy

4th Feb, 10 – EU integration 5th Feb, 10 – Consequences (SG2)

The Middle East – SLB 3 The Middle East – SG1 6th Feb, 11 – Failure? (SG1)

7th Feb, 11 – The Arab world 11th Feb, 10 – Authoritarianism

14th Feb, 11 – Development 18th Feb, 10 – Religion & state

21st Feb, 11 – Revolution 25th Feb, 10 – Change and stability

Easter term – a single session at a date to be confirmed, at 7 West Road.

4

3. The essay This paper is assessed by one long essay, to be submitted by noon on Monday, 21st January

2013, as well as the two-hour exam (on this, see section 5).

The essay-based part of the paper gives you an opportunity to pursue your more particular

interests in politics. It is taken by writing one long essay over the space of Michaelmas term.

You are asked to choose a question from the list below, and to write an essay of not more than

5,000 words on it. You should consider conceptual issues, although not to the exclusion of

relevant facts. Many of the questions are very generally phrased. This allows you, in discussion

with your supervisor, to decide to answer them in a general way or to concentrate on a

particular aspect or example of the issue at hand.

The lectures on comparative politics are intended to assist you in thinking about themes that

will assist you in answering the question. You will also have a supervisor assigned to you. You

can expect to have three supervisions for this essay: the first to consider the nature and scope of

the question and your approach to it; the second, to discuss progress normally on the basis of a

written outline; the third to review a first draft. Supervisors will not read more than one draft of

the essay, and will not offer more than three supervisions. You are expected to work for the

essay during term time and supervisors will expect to give you each of the three supervisions

during term time. Other than in exceptional circumstances where your Director of Studies has

provided evidence that you have been unable to work for some period of the term, supervisors

can, and will, refuse to read drafts during the vacation.

A. The questions You will be asked to choose your question at the start of Michaelmas term. Please register your

first and second choice of question via the electronic survey system; the course organiser will

send an email to you with details of this after the first lecture on 4th October (see below). If you

do not receive an email on this day, please contact him directly on <[email protected]>. As the

preference for questions sometimes outweighs the potential for those questions to be

supervised, it is not always possible for everyone to be supervised on their first choice. You will

receive details of your supervisor on 5th October; again, contact the course organiser if you

haven’t received details by the end of the day.

On the next page is the list of questions. After that, there is a list of suggested initial reading

material for each of these questions.

5

1. What explains the rise and decline of nations?

2. Is politics predictable?

3. To what extent are domestic politics and international affairs still separate

domains?

4. Does democracy authorize political power more effectively than any rival form

of government?

5. Whose interests do states represent?

6. Why do states decentralize power?

7. If all states perform the same basic functions, why do their forms differ?

8. Can democracies ever be effective in protecting the environment?

9. When should politicians lie?

10. Is contemporary liberal politics overly concerned with equality?

11. What determines whether regimes succumb to revolutionary challenge?

12. Are revolutions inevitably disappointing?

13. Is it still plausible to see politics as a vehicle for the advancement of progressive

values?

14. Are political parties becoming less relevant?

15. How does political culture help to explain the rise and fall of social movements?

16. What accounts for the success or failure of popular political protest movements?

17. Should the aim of feminism be the maximisation of choice for women?

18. What is a nation?

19. What is the impact of state debt on domestic politics in democracies?

20. Why are poor countries poor?

21. Does economic globalisation weaken the state?

22. Do religious values constrain or enable capitalism?

23. Can democratic elections promoted by outsiders ever be successful?

24. What makes a constitution viable?

25. Are judiciaries becoming more powerful in democratic politics?

26. Do global environmental problems need local solutions?

27. Can a supranational political system be democratically legitimate and if so how?

28. Has globalisation made the world more or less secure?

29. Why do states make war on drugs?

30. Can there be politics without violence?

6

B. Reading For this paper, you are expected to learn how to use bibliographical searches, if you have not

done so already, and not to rely upon your supervisor to provide a full reading list. Many of the

most useful databases are listed in the faculty library guide to research in Politics:

http://www.hsps.cam.ac.uk/sps-library/lib_research_polguide.html

Three of the most useful databases are ProQuest (access via the link to IBSS on the library

guide); http://www.jstor.org/ ; and, for a broader range, http://scholar.google.co.uk/ .

Below are the beginnings of some initial ideas on where to start with reading for each of these

questions.

1. What explains the rise and decline of nations?

- Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict From

1500 to 2000. Vintage Books, first published 1987.

- Mancur Olson, The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation and Social Rigidities.

Yale University Press, 1984.

- Niall Fergusson, Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire. Penguin, 2004

- Niall Fergusson, Empire: The Rise and Fall of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power.

Basic Books, 2003.

2. Is politics predictable?

- John Lewis Gaddis, ‘International relations theory and the end of the Cold War’, International

Security, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Winter 1992/93), pp. 5-58.

- Peter Breiner, Max Weber and Democratic Politics (Cornell University Press, 1996), chapters 1-2, 4.

- Paul Pierson, ‘Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics’, American Political

Science Review, Vol. 94, No. 2 (June 2000), pp. 251-267.

3. To what extent are domestic politics and international affairs still separate domains?

- Peter Gourevitch, ‘The Second Image Reversed: The International Sources of Domestic Politics’,

International Organization (1978), pp. 881-911.

- Christopher Hill, ‘Bringing war home: foreign policy-making in multicultural societies’,

International Relations 21: 3 (2007), pp. 259–83.

- David Campbell, ‘The Biopolitics of Security: Oil, Empire, and the Sports Utility Vehicle’,

American Quarterly, 57: 3 (2005), pp. 943-72.

4. Does democracy authorize political power more effectively than any rival form of

government?

- John Stuart Mill, Considerations on Representative Government (Everyman 1910)

- Adam Przeworski, Democracy and the Limits of Self-Government (CUP 2010)

- John Dunn, Setting the People Free: The Story of Democracy (London: Atlantic 2005).

5. Whose interests do states represent?

- R. Dahl, Who Governs? Democracy and Power in the American City (New Haven: Yale University

Press, 1961/2005), Ch1

- R. Miliband, The State in Capitalist Society (Dublin: Merlin, 1969/2009)

- C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956/1999)

6. Why do states decentralize power?

- Christopher Ansell and Jane Gingrich, ‘Trends in decentralization’, in Bruce E. Cain et al. (eds),

Democracy Transformed? Expanding Political Opportunities in Advanced Industrial Democracies

(Oxford: OUP, 2003).

7

- Erik Wibbels, ‘Madison in Baghdad?: decentralization and federalism in comparative politics’,

Annual Review of Political Science 9 (2006), pp. 165-188.

- Michael Keating, ‘Thirty years of territorial politics’, West European Politics 31, 1-2 (2008), pp. 60-

81.

- James Manor, The Political Economy of Democratic Decentralization (Washington, DC: The World

Bank, 1999).

7. If all states perform the same basic functions, why do their forms differ?

- R. Inglehart, ‘The renaissance of political culture’, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 82,

No. 4 (1988), pp. 1203-1230

- G. Almond and S. Verba, The Civic Culture (London: Sage, 1989), Chs 1 and 4

- J. Migdal, State in Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001)

- P. Evans, D. Rueschemeyer & T. Skocpol (eds.), Bringing the State Back in (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1985)

8. Can democracies ever be effective in protecting the environment?

- Andrew Dobson, The Politics of Nature: Explorations in Green Political Theory (Routledge, 1993)

- Robyn Eckersley, The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty (MIT Press, 2004)

- Hugh Ward, ‘Liberal democracy and sustainability’, in Environmental Politics, Vol.17, no.3 (2008),

pp. 386-409.

9. When should politicians lie?

- Sisela Bok, Lying (Vintage 1999)

- David Runciman, Political Hypocrisy (PUP, 2008)

- Martin Jay, The Virtues of Mendacity: On Lying in Politics (Virginia, 2011)

10. Is contemporary liberal politics overly concerned with equality?

- Samuel Scheffler, ‘Responsibility, reactive attitudes, and liberalism in philosophy and politics’,

Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Autumn, 1992), pp. 299-323.

- Margot E. Salomon, ‘Why should it matter that others have more? Poverty, inequality, and the

potential of international human rights law’, Review of International Studies, 37 (2011), pp 2137-

2155.

- The Equality Act 2010: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/equalities/equality-act/

11. What determines whether regimes succumb to revolutionary challenge?

- Theda Skocpol, States and Social Revolutions (Cambridge University Press, 1979)

- Barrington Moore, Injustice: the Social Bases of Obedience and Revolt (London: Macmillan, 1978)

- John Dunn, ‘The success and failure of modern revolutions’, in Dunn, Political Obligation in its

Historical Context (Cambridge University Press, 1980)

- Arno J. Mayer, The Furies: Violence and Terror in the French and Russian Revolutions (Princeton

University Press, 2001)

12. Are revolutions inevitably disappointing?

- Theda Skocpol, States and Social Revolutions (Cambridge University Press, 1979), chapter 4

- Crane Brinton, The Anatomy of Revolution (New York: Vintage, 1965), chapter 9

13. Is it still plausible to see politics as a vehicle for the advancement of progressive values?

- Massimo L. Salvadori, Progress: Can We Do Without It? (London: Zed, 2008).

- Christopher Lasch, The True and Only Heaven: Progress and its Critics (New York: WW Norton,

1991).

- Louise Amoore and Paul Langley, ‘Ambiguities of global civil society’, Review of International

Studies, Vol. 30 (2004), pp. 89-110.

14. Are political parties becoming less relevant?

- Peter Mair, ‘The challenge to party government’, West European Politics 31, 1-2 (2008), pp. 211-234.

8

- Jeremy Richardson, ‘The market for political activism: interest groups as a challenge to political

parties’, West European Politics 18, 1 (1995), pp. 116-139.

- Russell J. Dalton and Martin P. Wittenberg (eds), Parties without partisans (Oxford: OUP, 2000).

15. How does political culture help to explain the rise and fall of social movements?

- James Scott, The Moral Economy of the Peasants (Yale, 1977)

- Douglas McAdam, John McCarthy, and Mayer Zald, Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements

(Cambridge University Press, 1996)

- Douglas McAdam, Freedom Summer (Oxford University Press, 1988)

- Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (Simon & Schuster

1998)

16. What accounts for the success or failure of popular political protest movements?

- Jeff Goodwin and Jasper Jones (eds) The Social Movements Reader: Cases and Concepts (Blackwell

Publishers, 2009).

- Sidney Tarrow, ‘Cycles of Collective Action: Between Moments of Madness and the Repertoire of

Contention’, Social Science History Vol. 17 (2), 1993: pp. 281-307.

17. Should the aim of feminism be the maximisation of choice for women?

- Rosemarie Tong and Nancy Williams, ‘Feminist ethics’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

via: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/feminism-ethics/

- Martha Nussbaum, Sex and Social Justice (Oxford, 1999), especially ch.1-3

- Martha Nussbaum, Women and Human Development: the Capabilities Approach (Cambridge, 2000),

ch.2

- Kara Granzow, ‘De-constructing “choice’”: the social imperative and women's use of the birth

control pill’, Culture, Health & Sexuality , Vol. 9, No. 1 (Jan. - Feb., 2007), pp. 43-54

- Lizzie Ward, ‘“Globalization” and the “Third Way”: a feminist response’, Feminist Review, No. 70

(2002), pp. 138-143.

18. What is a nation?

- Rogers Brubaker, Nationalism Reframed (CUP, 1996)

- John Hutchinson and Anthony Smith, Nationalism: A Reader (OUP, 1995).

- Eric Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality, 2nd ed (CUP, 2012).

19. What is the impact of state debt on domestic politics in democracies?

- Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, This time is different: eight centuries of financial folly

(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012).

- James Macdonald, A free nation deep in debt: the financial roots of democracy, chapters 3-9 New York:

Farrar Strauss Giroux 2002.

- John Maudlin and Jonathan Tepper, Endgame: the end of the debt super-cycle and how it changes

everything, John Wiley and Son, Hoboken 2011.

20. Why are poor countries poor?

- Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty

(Profile Books, 2012).

- Matthew Lange, Lineages of despotism and development: British colonialism and state power

(University of Chicago Press, 2009).

- Adam Smith, The wealth of nations (Simon & Brown, 2012 [1776]).

21. Does economic globalisation weaken the state?

- Linda Weiss, 'Globalization and the Myth of the Powerless State', New Left Review 225 (1997)

- Susan Strange, The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1996), chapter 1

22. Do religious values constrain or enable capitalism?

- Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (London: George Allen, 1976 [1905])

9

- Tu Wei-ming, ed., Confucian Traditions in East Asian Modernity: Moral Education and Economic

Culture in Japan and the Four Mini-Dragons (Harvard University Press, 1996)

- Charles Tripp, Islam and the Moral Economy: The Challenge of Capitalism (Cambridge University

Press, 2006)

- Kenneth Wald, Religion and Politics in the United States, 3rd Edition (CQ Press, 1997).

23. Can democratic elections promoted by outsiders ever be successful?

- Philippe Schmitter and Terry Karl, ‘What Democracy is…and what it is not’, Journal of Democracy,

2(3), 1991, pp. 75-88.

- Jon Pevehouse, ‘Democracy from the Outside-In? International Organizations and

Democratization’, International Organization, 53, 3, 2002, pp. 515-549.

- Larry Diamond, ‘Elections without Democracy’, Journal of Democracy, 13, 2, 2002.

- Tom Carothers, ‘The backlash against democracy promotion’ Foreign Affairs, March-April 2006,

pp. 55-68.

24. What makes a constitution viable?

- Anthony King, The British Constitution (OUP, 2009)

- Vernon Bogdanor, The Coalition and the Constitution (Hart, 2011)

25. Are judiciaries becoming more powerful in democratic politics?

- J.A.G. Griffith, The politics of the judiciary, fifth edition, London: Fontana Press, 2010.

- Carlo Guarnieri and Patrizia Pederzoli, The power of judges: a comparative study of courts and

democracy Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

- James MacGregor, Packing the court: the rise of judicial power and the coming crisis of the Supreme

Court Harmondsworth: Penguin 2009.

26. Do global environmental problems need local solutions?

- Peter M. Haas, International Environmental Governance (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008)

- Ken Conca, ‘The rise of the region in global environmental politics’, in Global Environmental

Politics, Vol.12, no.3 (2012), pp. 127-133.

- D.L. Levy and P.J. Newell (eds), The Business of Global Environmental Governance (MIT Press, 2004)

27. Can a supranational political system be democratically legitimate and if so how?

- Andrew Moravcsik, ‘In defence of the democratic deficit: reassessing legitimacy in the European

Union’, Journal of Common Market Studies vol. 40, no. 4 (2002), or Moravcsik. ‘Is there a “democratic

deficit” in world politics? A framework for analysis’, Government and Opposition vol. 39, no. 2 (2004).

- Fritz Scharpf, Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? (Oxford University Press 1991)

- Robert Dahl, ‘Can international organizations be democratic? A skeptic’s view’, in Ian Shapiro and

Casiano Hacker-Cordón, eds., Democracy's Edges (Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp.19-36.

- Robert Keohane, Stephen Macedo and Andrew Moravcsik, ‘Democracy-enhancing multilateralism’,

International Organization vol. 63, no. 1 (2009), pp.1-31.

28. Has globalisation made the world more or less secure?

- Ulrich Beck, ‘The Terrorist Threat: World Risk Society Revisited’, Theory, Culture and Society, 19:4

(2002), pp. 39–55.

- Chris Coker, ‘Risk Management Goes Global’, Spiked, 29 April 2002, via:

http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/9320/

- Tarak Barkawi, Globalisation and War (Rowman and Littlefield, 2005).

29. Why do states make war on drugs?

- Sue Pryce, Fixing drugs: The politics of drug prohibition (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).

- Rene Scherlen, ‘The never-ending drug war: Obstacles to drug war policy termination’, PS:

Political Science & Politics, vol. 45, no. 1 (2012), pp. 67-73.

- Toby Seddon, A history of drugs: Drugs and freedom in the liberal age (Routledge, 2010).

30. Can there be politics without violence?

10

- Bruce Lawrence and aisha Karim (eds), On Violence: A Reader (Duke University Press, 2007)

- Peter Ackermann and Jack DuVall, A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict

(Palgrave, 2000)

- Hannah Arendt, On Violence (Harcourt Publishers, 1970)

- Harald Wydra, ‘The recurrence of violence’, Sociology Compass, Vol. 1 (2), 2008: 183-194.

C. Writing The examiners expect an argument in answer to the question, evidence of having read the

important literature, and independent thinking. They have no fixed expectations for the nature,

direction or conclusion of answers to any of the questions set, and with the general questions

you are free to approach them in a way that particularly interest you. Many essays will use

detailed examples from past or contemporary politics through which to make their argument. If

you do use a particular example, or set of examples, to answer a general question, you need, at

the beginning of the essay, to explain why these examples are pertinent to the question.

Essays must answer the question and they must make an argument in doing do. More is needed

than a straightforward review of the literature. Equally, assertion and rhetorical flourishes

cannot substitute for arguments. Polemical writing will be penalised by the examiners. When

you make arguments, you need to explain your judgements, and you need to engage with

counter-arguments to the arguments you are making. Argue against the strongest claims of

counter-arguments, not their weakest points. You also should avoid grand generalisations.

These almost always fail to stand up to empirical scrutiny and do not advance arguments. All

students should make sure they are familiar with the Department’s policy on what constitutes

plagiarism, within the Polis Guide to Long Essays, via:

http://www.polis.cam.ac.uk/courses/undergraduate/ug-part-iia.html

Developing your ability to write in an accurate, focused and compelling way is an important

part of this paper. You are expected to write clearly, to punctuate carefully, and to proof read

your essays before submitting them. Casualness in presentation of essays and syntactical and

grammatical confusion will be penalised by the examiners. Essays in which there are a

significant number of typographical errors and syntactical and grammatical mistakes cannot

receive a mark higher than a lower second.

The examiners’ report from 2011-12 contains specific comments about the respects in which

essays submitted in that year did, or did not, approach the questions in suitable ways. This

report is contained at the end of this paper guide, and may contain useful advice for this year’s

cohort.

11

D. Presentation and referencing

All essays must be double-spaced and have page numbers. All quotations must be referenced

with page numbers, and the essay must include a full bibliography. The word limit is 5,000

words including references, titles, tables, and all other material submitted in the essay, except

for the bibliography. Essays that do not conform to these guidelines or which exceed the word

limit will be penalised. There is no leeway of 5% or 1%; the limit is 5,000 words.

Essays should adopt a consistent and suitable referencing style. There are two common

conventions for references: (1) full references in notes at the foot of the page or the end of the

document, with a bibliography at the end of the work; and (2) ‘author-date’ citations in the text,

with a bibliography at the end of the work. Follow one of these, and for whichever you use,

since there is no agreed way of citing and ordering the bibliographical details in each, do make

sure that your referencing is complete and consistent.

1. The full referencing convention. If using this approach, references are included in the notes,

which should be numbered serially from 1 from the start of the essay. For references in notes,

give full details at the first mention in the chapter, at subsequent mentions in the essay, a brief

citation will do. Notwithstanding their widespread use, avoid op. cit., loc. cit., and ibid.; these can

confuse. The bibliography should include the full references in alphabetical order.

Examples:

For books -

1. Robert D. Putnam, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in

Modern Italy, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993, p. 36. Thereafter:

2. Putnam, Making Democracy Work, pp. 12-13.

For journals -

1. Sidney Tarrow, ‘Making social science work across space and time: a

critical reflection on Putnam’s “Making Democracy Work”’, American

Political Science Review 90 (1996), pp. 389-98. Thereafter:

2. Tarrow, ‘Making social science work’, pp. 389-98.

For chapters in edited volumes -

1. Maud Eduards, ‘Sweden’, in Joni Lovenduski and Jill Hills (eds), The

Politics of the Second Electorate: Women and Public Participation, Boston:

Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981, pp. 208-27. Thereafter:

2. Eduards, ‘Sweden’, pp. 208-27.

12

For corporate authors -

1. Economist, ‘Between the Caudillo and the Democrat’, 17 April 1999,

pp. 39-40. Thereafter:

2. Economist, ‘Between the Caudillo and the Democrat’, pp. 39-40.

For weblinks -

1. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (DNB), ‘Keynes, John

Maynard’, Sept 2004, www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/34310, accessed

20 July 2010. Thereafter:

2. Oxford DNB, ‘Keynes, John Maynard’.

2. The author-date system. Footnotes and endnotes, including the references in such notes,

count towards the total number of words in Pol 4 essays; the bibliography does not. For this

reason, you may prefer to adopt the second convention - the ‘author-date’ or ‘Harvard’ style. In

this, references are included in the main text, and not in a footnote. There should then be a

complete list of references at the end of the dissertation, in which the items should be arranged

alphabetically by the author’s surname (or where there is no author listed, by corporate author).

Examples:

For books - In text: ... elite political culture in Italy changed dramatically over the course

of the 1970s (Putnam 1993: 33) ... or: Putnam (1993:33) argues that elite political culture in Italy changed

dramatically over the course of the 1970s... In bibliography: Putnam, R. D. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy.

Princeton: Princeton University Press.

For journals - In text: .. although others have questioned his measurements of institutional

performance (e.g., Tarrow 1996: 389-98) ...

or: Tarrow (1996: 389-98) is critical of the measurements of institutional

performance that are used... In bibliography: Tarrow, S. 1996. Making social science work across space and time: A

critical reflection on Putnam’s ‘Making democracy work’. American Political

Science Review 90: 389-98.

13

For chapters in edited volumes - In bibliography: Eduards, M. 1981. Sweden. In Joni Lovenduski and Jill Hills (eds) The Politics

of the Second Electorate: Women and Public Participation. Boston: Routledge &

Kegan Paul.

For corporate authors - In text: (Economist 1999: 39-40) In bibliography: Economist. 1999. Between the Caudillo and the Democrat. 17

April, 39-40.

For weblinks - In text: (Oxford Dictionary of National Biography 2004) In bibliography: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. 2004. Keynes, John Maynard.

www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/34310.

In both conventions, use a single consolidated bibliography; longer works such as books

sometimes have separate bibliographies for primary and secondary sources, but this is not

advisable within a 5,000-word essay.

14

4. The courses

A. Comparative Politics The ten lectures given in Michaelmas for this part of the paper are intended to give students a

general grounding in debates about the core themes of comparative politics. Some of them will

have a direct application to the questions for which assessed essays will be written; others will

explore themes that have specific application in the regional and case studies that will be

supervised in Lent term. Although material from the lectures will not be examined specifically,

the lectures and the reading lists are designed to convey an approach to understanding

comparative politics that may inform your work throughout this paper.

Lecture 1: Comparative politics? An Introduction

The opening lecture is to give an overview of a field of study, the various meanings and

purposes that are attributed to in different traditions, and the debates about whether it is

possible to ‘compare’ in politics. It will also give an overview of the course as a whole. Because

you will be asked to make your choice of options for both Michaelmas and (provisionally) for

Lent, attendance at this lecture is necessary if you wish to have a supervisor.

The opening section of the lecture is borrowed from three texts:

- Alasdair MacIntyre, ‘Is a science of comparative politics possible?’, in Against the Self-

images of the Age (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1971), pp. 260-279; also

in Philosophy, Politics and Society, 4th series, ed. Peter Laslett, W.G. Runciman and Quentin

Skinner (Oxford: Blackwell, 1972), pp. 8-26.

- Ned Lebow, The Tragic Vision of Politics: Ethics, Interests and Orders (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2003).

- Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 2007).

The subsequent argument draws upon:

- Arend Lijphart, ‘Comparative politics and the comparative method’, American Political

Science Review 65 (1971): 682-693.

- David Laitin, ‘Comparative politics: the state of the subdiscipline’, in Ira Katznelson and

Helen Milner, eds. Political Science: The State of the Discipline (New York: Norton, 2002),

available via:

<http://www.stanford.edu/~dlaitin/papers/Cpapsa.doc>

Lecture 2: The state of the state: authority, sovereignty, legitimacy, power. The opening section of this lecture is drawn through two texts:

- James C. Scott, Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition

Have Failed (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998)

15

- Thomas Hobbes, Behemoth: The History of the Civil Wars of England (London: s.n., 1679;

various subsequent editions)

It then moves on to contrast four distinct arguments:

- Joel Migdal, State in Society: Studying how States and Societies Transform and Constitute one

Another (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001)

- Peter Evans, Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation (Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 1995).

- Michael Mann, ‘The autonomous power of the state’, in John Hall, ed., States in History

(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986), pp.109-36.

- Charles Tilly, ‘War making and state making as organized crime’, Peter B. Evans,

Dietrich Rueschemeyer and Theda Skocpol, eds., Bringing the State Back In (Cambridge

University Press, 1985), pp.169-191.

It then comes back to themes drawn from:

- J.P. Nettl, ‘The state as a conceptual variable’, World Politics 20(4), 1968, pp.559-592.

- Quentin Skinner, ‘The state’, in Terence Ball, James Farr and Russell L. Hanson, eds.,

Political Innovation and Conceptual Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1989).

- David Runciman, ‘The concept of the state: the sovereignty of a fiction’, in Quentin

Skinner and Bo Stråth, eds., States and Citizens: History, Theory, Prospects (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp.28-38.

Finally, it ends up leaning against an argument drawn from:

- Mark Bevir and R.A.W. Rhodes, The State as Cultural Practice (Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 2010).

Lecture 3: Government and governance: is governance still primarily a national

business?

This lecture maps out the range of arguments about the limits of national autonomy in the

modern world. It uses the example of classical texts that presuppose autonomy:

- Immanuel Kant, “Perpetual peace: a philosophical sketch,” in H. Reiss, ed., Kant: political

writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 93-130.

It then asks how plausible this remains as a building block for political analysis across the

world. Texts drawn upon include:

- Ha-Joon Chang, Globalisation and the Economic Role of the State (London: Zed Books, 2003).

- Ben Rosamond, Theories of European Integration (London: Palgrave-Macmillan 2000).

16

- David Williams, ‘Aid and sovereignty: quasi-states and the international financial

institutions’, Review of International Studies 26:4 (Oct 2000), pp. 557-573

- David Rapkin ‘Empire and its discontents’, New Political Economy 10:3 (2005), pp.389-412.

- William I. Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1996).

We end up somewhere with:

- Jon Pierre and B. Guy Peters, Governance, Politics and the State (London: Palgrave-

Macmillan, 2000).

- Linda Weiss, The Myth of the Powerless State (Cambridge: Polity, 1998).

- Sebastian Mallaby, The World’s Banker: a Story of Failed States, Financial Crises and the

Wealth and Poverty of Nations (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005).

- Robert Keohane, ‘Governance in a partially globalised world’, American Political Science

Review 95:1 (2001), pp.1-13

Lecture 4: Democracy and democrats: does democracy need its supporters?

The lecture starts with a contrast:

- Stuart Corbridge, and John Harriss, Reinventing India: Liberalization, Hindu Nationalism

and Popular Democracy (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000)

- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (London: Fontana Press, 1994).

The question of this lecture is brought out through:

- Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba, The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in

Five Nations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963)

The attempt to apply the approach more broadly is problematised through:

- Daniel A. Bell, East meets West: Human rights and Democracy in East Asia (Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 2001).

- J.A.A. Stockwin, Governing Japan: Divided politics in a Resurgent Economy, 4th edition

(Oxford: Blackwell, 2008).

- Ghassan Salamé, ed., Democracy without Democrats? The renewal of politics in the Muslim

world (London: I.B. Tauris, 1994), esp chapters 1, 3 and 5.

- Theodore Rabb and Ezra Suleiman, eds, The Making and Unmaking of Democracy (London:

Routledge, 2003), esp chapters 10-12.

Three snappily different answers are found in:

- Fareed Zakaria, ‘The rise of illiberal democracy’, Foreign Affairs 76:6 (November 1997),

pp.22-43.

17

- Thomas Carothers, ‘The end of the transition paradigm’, Journal of Democracy 13:1 (2002),

pp.5-21.

- Larry Diamond, ‘Can the whole world become democratic? Democracy, development,

and international policies’ (2003), Center for the Study of Democracy, at:

http://repositories.cdlib.org/csd/03-05

Lecture 5: Parties and leaders: are parties redundant in an age of personality politics?

The lecture revisits Madison in Federalist No. 10 and 63; it asks what has been gained and lost

by the emergence and dominance of party systems around the world; and asks whether the

historical forces that brought them into being are still pervasive. The texts that will be used to

ask about alternatives to party systems in politics are:

- Henry E. Hale, Why not Parties in Russia? Democracy, Federalism, and the State (New York:

Cambridge University Press, 2006)

- Herbert Kitschelt and Steven I. Wilkinson, Patrons, Clients, and Policies: Patterns of

Democratic Accountability and Political Competition (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 2006), chapters 1,2,12 and 13

- Richard Gunther, José R. Montero, Juan José Linz, eds., Political Parties: Old Concepts and

New Challenges (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), chapters 1, 2, 5, 10 and 11

- Russell J. Dalton, Martin P. Wattenberg, eds., Parties without Partisans: Political Change in

Advanced Industrial Democracies (Oxford University Press, 2000), chapters 2,5 and 6

Lecture 6: The idea of public opinion: when and how do the public’s views affect

political decisions?

The lecture asks if one can escape the scepticism of Schumpeter or Lippman towards a model of

politics that is guided by informed public opinion:

- Walter Lippman, Public opinion (New York: Macmillan, 1922).

- Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, socialism and democracy (London: Routledge, 1994), part iv

Also:

- John Dunn, Setting the People Free: The Story of Democracy (London: Atlantic 2005).

Attempts to reinstall a central role for public opinion include:

- Stuart N. Soroka and Christopher Wlezien, Degrees of Democracy: Politics, Public Opinion,

and Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).

- Clem Brooks and Jeff Manza, ‘Why Do Welfare States Persist?’, The Journal of Politics 68:4

(2006), pp.816-827.

18

The lecture explores in particular the global reach of opinion surveys, to see what can be

appreciated from understanding the effects of public opinion outside the ‘West’, by drawing

upon examples of the effects of opinion surveys in 2011 in the Arab states.

Lecture 7: Markets and states: how do markets constrain and enable state action?

This lecture goes through a series of steps, first by evaluating arguments about the reduced role

of states in national and international politics:

- Vincent Cable, ‘The diminished nation-state: a study in the loss of economic power’,

Daedalus 124:2 (1995), pp.23-53

- Layna Mosley, Global Capital and National Governments (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2003).

It then looks at arguments that challenge the view that markets compel states to act:

- Steven K. Vogel, Freer Markets, More Rules: Regulatory Reform in Advanced Industrial

Countries (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996).

- Geoffrey Garrett, ‘Global markets and national politics: collision course or virtuous

circle?’, International Organization 52:4 (Autumn 1998), pp.787-824.

It ends with a critique of attempts to portray the state as countering the forces of the market:

- Charles Lindblom, Politics and Markets: the World’s Political and Economic Systems (New

York: Basic Books 1977).

Lecture 8: The politics of identity: have religion, ethnicity and tribe become central to politics?

Starting points are found in:

- Isaiah Berlin, ‘The bent twig: on the rise of nationalism’ in The Crooked Timber of

Humanity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990).

- Amartya Sen, Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny (London: Allen Lane, 2006)

- Partha Chatterjee, The Nation and its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories

(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993).

That takes us on to arguments about the extent to which identity politics becomes an arena for

confrontation:

- David Turton, ed., War and Ethnicity: Global Connections and Local Violence (New York,

1997).

- Mary Kaldor, New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era (Cambridge: Polity,

1999).

- Amy Chua, World on Fire (New York: Doubleday, 2002).

We end up somewhere around:

19

- Ashutosh Varshney, Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life: Hindus and Muslims in India (Yale

University Press, 2002).

- James Fearon and David Laitin, ‘Violence and the social construction of ethnic identity’,

International Organization 54:4 (Autumn 2000), pp.845-77.

- Ilan Peleg, Democratizing the Hegemonic State: Political Transformation in the Age of Identity

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).

Lecture 9: The state and violence: agents of security and insecurity.

We begin with an attempt to historicise the relationship of the state with domestic order:

- Philip Bobbitt, The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace and the Course of History (London:

Penguin, 2003), chapters 6-8 of book I and chapters 17-20 in book II

- Charles Tilly, ‘Reflections on the history of European state-making’, in Charles Tilly, ed.,

The Formation of National States in Western Europe (Princeton University Press, 1975), pp.3-

83. (eBook: http://search.lib.cam.ac.uk/?itemid=|eresources|5029522)

This in then placed within a global context:

- Mohammed Ayoob, The Third World Security Predicament: State-making, Regional Conflict,

and the International System (Lynne Rienner, 1995)

- Diane E. Davis and Anthony W. Pereira, eds., Irregular Armed Forces and their Role in

Politics and State Formation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), chapters 1 &

15

- Mark Duffield, Development, Security and Unending War: Governing the World of Peoples

(Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007)

The takes us on to discussions of the privatisation of violence and the state:

- Béatrice Hibou, Privatising the State (London: Hurst, 1999/2004), chapters 1 and 4

- Rita Abrahamsen and Michael C. Williams, Security Beyond the State: Private Security in

International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011)

- Edward Blakely and Mary Snyder, Fortress America: Gated Communities in the United

States (Washington: Brookings Institute, 1999)

Lecture 10: The liberal state revisited. A Conclusion.

This lecture tries to draw together themes from its predecessors. The core theme it tackles is the

resilience of political diversity: is there a single, universalisable political model within which

politics globally exists, and which sets standards of legitimacy? Where does political difference

exist, and is it sustainable? How does this affect the aspiration to develop an approach to

understanding politics comparatively?

The case is set by:

20

- Bertrand Badie, The Imported State: the Westernization of Political Order (Stanford: Stanford

University Press, 2000)

- Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (London: Penguin, 1992).

- Olivier Roy, The Failure of Political Islam (London: IB Tauris, 1994)

- John Keane, Global Civil Society? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).

21

B. Eastern Europe: Russia and Poland compared

This course introduces students into central selected themes of Russian and Polish politics. It

uses historical, political, sociological, and anthropological methods in order to address an

important range of problems in these political societies. This course will point to numerous

family resemblances related to similar patterns of social development and state tradition but

also highlight fundamental differences mainly related to formations of state, religious

orientations, commitments to democracy, or modes of extrication from communism. The

lectures start by a conceptual introduction that is attuned to historical-cultural particularities

before addressing selected case studies and, eventually, discussing comparative elements.

Essential reading:

Brown, Archie (2001) Contemporary Russian Politics. A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Davies, Norman. God's Playground: A History of Poland (New York: Columbia University Press,

1982).

Sakwa, Richard (2008) Russian Politics and Society. 4th edition. London: Routledge.

Schoepflin, George (1993) Politics in Eastern Europe 1945-1992. Oxford: Blackwell.

Urban, Michael (2010) Cultures of Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wydra, Harald (2007) Communism and the Emergence of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Lecture 1: State traditions and state formation

Kharkhordin, Oleg (2005) Main Concepts in Russian Politics, chapter 1

Koyama, Satoshi. 2008. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as a Political Space: Its Unity

and Complexity. Acta Slavica Iaponica 15:137-152. (on camtools)

Schoepflin, George (1993) Politics in Eastern Europe. Oxford: Blackwell.

Szuecs, Jeno, ‘Three Historical Regions of Europe’, in John Keane (ed.) Civil Society and the State.

London: Verso, 291-332.

Lecture 2: Nationalism and Nation-Building

Beissinger, Mark (2002) Nationalism and Nationalist Mobilisation. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, chapter 8.

22

Brock, Peter (1994) ‘Polish Nationalism’, in Peter Sugar and Ivo Lederer (eds) Nationalism in

Eastern Europe. Third printing. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 310-72.

Brown, Archie (2002) Contemporary Russian Politics. A Reader , Section 8 Russian Statehood and

the National Question, 343-66.

Brubaker, Rogers (1996) Nationalism Reframed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

chapters 2 and 4.

Richard Sakwa (2007) Russian Politics and Society, part III.

Tolz, Vera ‘Forging the Nation: National Identity and Nation Building in Post-Communist

Russia, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol.50, No.6, 993-1022 (camtools)

Zubrzycki, Genevieve (2006) The Crosses of Auschwitz: Nationalism and Religion in Post -

Communist Poland. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

Lecture 3: Leadership and Ideological Traditions

Casanova, José (1994) ‘Poland: From Church of the Nation to Civil Society’ in Public Religions

in the Modern World (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 92-113.

Curry, Jane, ‘Poland: The Politics of God’s Playground’, in Wolchik, Sharon L. and Curry, Jane

(2008) (eds) Central and East European Politics: From Communism to Democracy. Lanham,

MD: Rowman and Littlefield), 165-89.

Jasiewiczy, Krzysztof (1997) Walesa’s Legacy to the Presidency’, in Taras, Ray (ed.)

Postcommunist Presidents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 130-167.

Sakwa, Richard (2007) Putin. Russia’s Choice. London and New York: Routledge.

Wydra, Harald (2001) Continuities in Poland’s Permanent Transition, chapters 2-4.

Brown, Archie (1996) The Gorbachev Factor. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

White, Stephen (1997) ‘Russia: Presidential Leadership Under Yeltsin’, Taras, Ray (ed.)

Postcommunist Presidents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 38-66.

Lecture 4: Communism: Revolution and Resistance

Ash, Timothy G. (1991) The Polish Revolution: Solidarity. London: Granta Books.

23

Bunce, Valerie (1999) Subversive Institutions: The Design and the Destruction of Socialism and the

State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kotkin, Stephen (2001) Armageddon Averted. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kubik, Jan (1994) The Power of Symbols Against the Symbols of Power. Rise of Solidarity and the Fall

of State Socialism in Poland. Penn State University Press.

Rothschild, Joseph (1993) Return to Diversity. A Political History of East Central Europe Since World

War II. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wydra, Harald (2008) ‘Revolution and Democracy: The European Experience’, in Foran, John/

Lane, David/Zivkovic, Andreja, Revolution in the Making of the Modern World. London and New

York: Routledge, 27-44.

Wydra, Harald, Communism and the Emergence of Democracy, chapters 3 and 5.

Lecture 5: Post-Communism: The Rebirth of Politics and its Challenges

Holmes, Leslie (1997) Postcommunism. Durham: Duke University Press.

Zarycki, Tomasz, ‘Politics in the Periphery: Political Cleavages in Poland Interpreted in Their

Historical and International Context’, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 5 (Jul., 2000), pp. 851-873

(camtools).

Sanford, George (2002) Democratic Government in Poland: Constitutional Politics Since 1989.

London: Palgrave Macmillan, chaps 1, 3,4.

Michta, Andrew (1997) ‘Democratic Consolidation in Poland after 1989’, in Dawisha, Karen and

Parrot, Bruce (eds) The Consolidation of Democracy in East-Central Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 66-108.

Urban, Michael et al. (1997) The Rebirth of Politics in Russia. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, chapter 1.

Jerzy Szacki (1995) Liberalism after Communism. Budapest: Central European University Press.

Weigle, Marcia (2000) Russia’s Liberal Project. State-Society Relations in the Transition from

Communism. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 382-459.

Wydra, Harald (2007) Communism and the Emergence of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, chapter 8-9.

24

Lecture 6: Authoritarian Legacies and Paths to Democracy

Dryzek, John and Holmes, Leslie (2002) Post-Communist Democratisation. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, Chapters 1, 6, 14, 16.

Fish, Steven (2003) ‘Conclusion: Democracy and Russian Politics’, Barany and Moser (eds)

Russian Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 215-51.

Kubik, Jan (2003) Cultural Legacies of State Socialism: History Making and Cultural-Political

Entrepreneurship in Postcommunist Poland and Russia, in Ekiert, G. and Hanson, S. (2003)

Capitalism and democracy in Central and eastern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

Michael Bernhard, ‘Civil Society and Democratic Transition in East Central Europe’, Political

Science Quarterly, Vol. 108, No. 2. (Summer, 1993), pp. 307-326.

Richard Sakwa (2007) Russian Politics and Society, part VI.

Sakwa, Richard (2004) Putin. Russia’s Choice. London and New York: Routledge.

Wydra, Harald (2008), ‘Democratisation as Meaning-Formation – Insights fom the Communist

Experience’, International Political Anthropology Vol. 1, No. 1, 113-32. (on camtools)

Supervision essays:

Is there an Eastern European model of nationalism?

How did communist legacies influence democratisation processes in Eastern Europe?

Do transition processes weaken or strengthen state power?

25

C. Western Europe: France and Germany compared

France and Germany are at the heart of European politics. They are two of the largest states and

economies in Europe, and have been centrally involved in the political developments in

Western Europe for at least the last century and a half. They continue to be important states in

the European Union and in global politics. The governments of both states are crucial actors in

the attempts to deal with the recent economic and Eurozone crises, and – to different extents –

play an important role in the EU’s external policies. Some knowledge and understanding of the

French and German political institutions and policies is, therefore, essential for students of

European and comparative politics.

More specifically, for several reasons France and Germany are good case studies in a course on

comparative politics. First, as will become clear in the Michaelmas module in this paper, some

of the general arguments and concepts in the study of comparative politics were based on or

inspired by observations of Western European states. Therefore, France and Germany provide

good illustrations of these general arguments and concepts. Second, France and Germany

provide interesting contrasts in, among other things, their party systems, political regimes

(semi-presidential vs parliamentary), territorial organization of their states (unitary vs federal),

and their approaches to economic policy and immigration policy. The lectures will indicate the

variation between France and Germany in some institutional features and policy areas, and how

these differences might be explained. Trying to understand and explain these differences is

interesting in itself, as well as a good illustration of the study of comparative politics ‘in action’.

Third, both are interesting cases as such, and feature important political debates and challenges

that regularly feature in the news. These include the rise of extremist parties (especially in

France), the need to reform social and welfare policies, challenges provided by immigration

pressures and how to govern increasingly diverse societies, and the future of the European

Union. This module will not cover all these topics, but will provide some basis for

understanding them better.

Students in this module will obtain basic knowledge of the French and German political

systems in general and some detailed knowledge of a few specific aspects and policy areas in

these countries. Moreover, they will learn how to apply and critically evaluate some general

comparative politics theories and concepts in specific cases. However, students are not expected

to learn and fully comprehend the political history and contemporary politics of these two

countries. This module serves as an illustration of several basic themes and arguments in

comparative politics, not as a full course in French and German politics.

The rest of this guide gives some suggestions for background and further reading, lists the

topics of the lectures, and indicates the questions and reading lists for supervision essays.

Students will do two supervisions for this module. The lecturer will contact the students at the

start of Lent term about the specific supervision arrangements.

26

Background, general and further reading

Specific readings for the supervision essays are indicated in the last section of this guide. It is,

however, a good idea to do some background reading on the recent political history of France

and Germany (and perhaps on post-war political developments in Western Europe more

broadly). This section provides some suggestions for this (the ones indicated with a ‘•’ are

specifically recommended as background reading), and also lists some general texts on French

and German politics (some chapters of which may be useful for the supervisions).

France

• Robert Gildea, France since 1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997).

Helen Drake, Contemporary France (London: Palgrave, 2011).

Anne Stevens, The government and politics of France, 3rd ed. (London: Palgrave, 2003).

Andrew Knapp and Vincent Wright, The government and politics of France, 4th ed. (London:

Routledge, 2001) [or 5th ed., 2007].

Nick Hewlett, Modern French politics: analysing conflict and consensus since 1945 (Cambridge:

Polity, 1998).

Pepper D. Culpepper, Peter A. Hall and Bruno Palier, eds., Changing France: the politics that

markets make (London: Palgrave, 2006).

Germany

• Lothar Kettenacker, Germany since 1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997).

Simon Green et al, The politics of the new Germany, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2011).

Simon Green and William E. Paterson, eds., Governance in contemporary Germany: the semi-

sovereign state revisited (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).

David Broughton, Contemporary German Politics (London: Routledge, 2003).

Herbert Kitschelt and Wolfgang Streeck, eds., Germany: beyond the stable state (London: Frank

Cass, 2004). Also published as: ‘Germany: from stability to stagnation’, special issue of

West European Politics, 26, 4 (2003).

Political biographies

An interesting and enjoyable way of learning about recent French and German political history

is to read biographies of some of main political actors. Some interesting biographies are:

Jonathan Fenby, The General: Charles de Gaulle and the France he saved (London: Simon & Schuster,

2010).

Roland Tiersky, François Mitterand: the last French president (London: St Martin’s Press, 2000).

Charles Williams, Adenauer: the father of the new Germany (London: Abacus, 2003).

Paul Hockenos, Joschka Fischer and the making of the Berlin republic: an alternative history of postwar

Germany (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).

More general overviews of post-war European political history

Tony Judt, Postwar: a history of Europe since 1945 (London: Pimlico, 2005). [Brilliant history of

post-war Europe, but long and dense in places.]

27

William I. Hitchcock, The struggle for Europe: the turbulent history of a divided continent 1945-2002

(London: Profile, 2003). [Good and readable overview of the main events, developments

and political actors.]

Derek W. Urwin, A political history of Western Europe since 1945, 5th ed. (London: Longman, 1997).

[Solid and useful overview of political development in Western Europe until the 1990s.]

Further reading

There is a large amount of literature on the contemporary politics of France and Germany. It

will not be difficult to find more material in books or journals, if students want to read beyond

the lists provided below (when you are preparing for the exam, for example). Students should

be able to do this themselves by looking through catalogues and such, but can ask the lecturer if

they want further guidance.

Journal articles are particularly good sources for further information (especially for recent

developments). The journals German Politics, French Politics, German Politics and Society and

French Politics, Culture and Society focus exclusively on the countries covered in this module. The

following journals also regularly or occasionally feature articles on French or German politics:

West European Politics, Journal of European Public Policy, Comparative European Politics, Perspectives

on European Politics and Society, Comparative Political Studies, European Journal of Political Research,

Government and Opposition, Party Politics. Students may also find it interesting – although this is

not essential for the module – to follow current debates in French and German politics. In

addition to daily British newspapers, good sources are The Economist (www.economist.com),

Financial Times (www.ft.com) and International Herald Tribune (www.iht.com).

Lectures

This module has six lectures, which are given in the first three weeks of Lent term. This section

indicates the titles of the lectures, and gives some indication of their contents.

1. Historical background to French and German politics

This lecture introduces some of the main features of and developments in French and German

politics since World War II, which serve as background to the themes of the following lectures.

Students will receive a hand-out with basic factual information on the post-war political history

of these two countries.

2. Political parties and party systems: ‘unstable and polarized’ (France) vs. ‘stable and

centrist’ (Germany)?

For decades Germany had one of the most stable and least polarized party systems in Western

Europe, while France’s party system was much more polarized and volatile. How did this

happen, and is it still the case? Mainstream parties in both countries are increasingly

28

challenged. Where do these challenges come from, and what are the implications for the party

systems in these two countries?

3. Executives and parliaments (political regimes): semi-presidential vs. parliamentary

France and Germany have different political regimes, which is most obvious when considering

the formal status and role of their executives (the French president and the German chancellor),

but also manifests itself in differences in the role and influence of their parliaments. What are

the implications of these different regimes?

4. Immigration and integration policy: republican vs. ethnic?

Immigration and the integration of immigrants into society are increasingly salient political

issues in Western Europe. What are the main differences to the approaches traditionally taken

in France (often described as a ‘republican’ approach) and Germany (an ‘ethnic’ approach) in

these areas? And are these differences still significant in light of challenges and developments in

recent years?

5. Economic policy: statist vs. ‘coordinated liberal’?

This lecture focuses on the approaches to economic policy in France and Germany, with specific

emphasis on the role of the state in their respective economies. It has often been argued that

there are significant differences in the role of the state in these cases (a direct role in France and

a more indirect role in Germany). What exactly is this difference, and does it still exist?

6. Policies towards European integration: intergovernmental vs. supranational?

France and Germany have been key states in the development of the European Union. Their

aims and preferences for the EU (or, more broadly, their ‘visions of Europe’) have often been

said to differ, with France seeing the EU as a platform to maintain France’s European and global

role and Germany more open to the development of a supranational and post-sovereign

political system. Has there indeed been such a difference? If so, what can explain this difference

and does it still exist?

Supervisions

Students will do two supervisions for this module. Some students will do these supervisions in

the first half of Lent term, while others will do them in the second half of Lent term. The course

organiser and the module lecturer will contact the students near the start of Lent term to notify

them of the specific arrangements (timing, supervisor, etc.) of the supervisions.

Essay questions and reading lists are given below. For each supervision essay, students are

expected to do the ‘Basic readings’ listed for their chosen question and sample some of the other

29

listed readings. (These other readings also provide further readings for exam preparation.) Note

that some of the books on France and Germany listed above as ‘General reading’ may also have

chapters on the themes of the supervisions. So it is worth checking these books for relevant

material too.

Supervision 1: Institutional features

The first supervision focuses on some of the structural or institutional features of French and

German politics, as discussed in lectures 2 and 3. In consultation with their supervisor, students

should choose one of the following two questions.

1a. Is the party system in France still more fragmented than in Germany?

Basic readings

• Herbert Kitschelt, “European party systems: continuity and change,” in Developments in West

European politics, edited by Martin Rhodes, Paul Heywood and Vincent Wright

(Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1997).

• Andrew Knapp, “France: never a golden age,” and Susan E. Scarrow, “Party decline in the

parties state?: the changing environment of German politics,” in Political parties in

advanced industrial democracies, edited by Paul Webb, David Farrell and Ian Holliday

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).

France

• Andrew Knapp and Frederic Sawicki, “Political parties and the party system,” in Development

in French politics 4, edited by Alistair Cole, Patrick Le Galès and Jonah D. Levy (London:

Palgrave, 2008).

• Simon Bornschier and Romain Lachat, “The evolution of the French political space and party

system,” West European Politics 32, 2 (2009): 360-383.

G. Grunberg, “The French party system and the crisis of representation,” in Changing France: the

politics that markets make, edited by Pepper D. Culpepper et al (London: Palgrave, 2006).

Andre Blais and Peter J. Loewen, “The French electoral system and its effects” West European

Politics 32 (2009): 345-359.

Jocelyn E. Evans, ed., The French party system (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003).

Germany

• Gordon Smith, “Parties and the party system,” in Developments in German politics 3, edited by

Stephen Padgett, William E. Paterson and Gordon Smith (London: Palgrave, 2003).

• Uwe Jun, “Volksparteien under pressure: challenges and adaptation,” German Politics, 20, 1

(2011): 200-222.

Klaus Detterbeck, “Party cartel and cartel parties in Germany,” German Politics 17, 1 (2008): 27-

40.

Michelle Hale Williams, “Kirchheimer revisited: party polarisation, party convergence, or party

decline in the German party system,” German Politics 17, 2 (2008): 105-123.

30

Geoffrey Roberts, German electoral politics (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006).

General

• Paul Webb, “Political parties, representation and politics in contemporary Europe,” in

Developments in European politics 2, edited by Erik Jones, Paul Heywood, Martin Rhodes

and Ulrich Sedelmeier (London: Palgrave, 2011).

Ingrid van Biezen and Peter Mair, “Political parties,” in Developments in European Politics, edited

by Paul Heywood, Erik Jones, Martin Rhodes and U. Sedelmeier (London: Palgrave,

2006).

Paul Webb, David Farrell, and Ian Holliday, eds., Political parties in advanced industrial

democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), Introduction.

Alan Ware, Political parties and party systems (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996).

Peter Mair, ed., The West European party system (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990).

1b. Which is more powerful: the French President or the German Chancellor?

Basic readings

• Klaus Goetz, “Power at the centre: the organization of democratic systems,” in Developments in

European Politics, edited by Paul M. Heywood et al (London: Palgrave, 2006).

• Robert Elgie, Political leadership in liberal democracies (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1995), chapters 3

and 4.

France

• Jonah D. Levy and Cindy Skach, “The return to a strong presidency” and Bastien Francois,

“Parliament and political representation,” in Development in French politics 4, edited by

Alistair Cole et al (London: Palgrave, 2008).

• Robert Elgie, Political institutions in contemporary France (Oxford: Oxford University Press,

2003), Chs 4, 6.

John Gaffney, Political leadership in France: From Charles de Gaulle to Nicolas Sarkozy (London:

Palgrave, 2012).

Robert Elgie, “The political executive” and Andrew Knapp, “The Fifth Republic and checks on

executive power,” in Development in French politics 3, edited by Alistair Cole et al

(London: Palgrave, 2005).

“France’s political institutions at 50,” special issue of West European Politics 32, 2 (2009), esp.

articles by Elgie, Grossman, Lazardeux, Sauger, Grossman & Sauger.

Germany

• Klaus H. Goetz, “Government at the centre,” in Developments in German politics 3, edited by

Stephen Padgett, William E. Paterson and Gordon Smith (London: Palgrave, 2003).

• Manfred G. Schmidt, Political institutions in the Federal Republic of Germany (Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2003), Chs 2, 3.

Ludger Helms, “The changing Chancellorship: resources and constraints revisited,” German

Politics 10, 2 (2001): 155-168.

31

Clay Clemens, “Explaining Merkel’s autonomy in the Grand Coalition: persionalisation or party

organisation?,” German Politics 20, 4 (2011): 469-485.

Ludger Helms, “Germany: Chancellors and the Bundestag,” The Journal of Legislative Studies 10,

2-3 (2004): 98-108.

Stephen Padget et al, eds., Adenauer to Kohl: the development of the German Chancellorship (London:

Hurst, 1994).

General

Paul Heywood, “Executive capacity and legislative limits” in Developments in West European

Politics 2, edited by Paul Heywood, Erik Jones and Martin Rhodes (London: Palgrave,

2002).

Thomas Poguntke and Paul Webb, eds., The presidentialization of politics: a comparative study of

modern democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), relevant chapters.

Yves Mény and Andrew Knapp, Government and politics in Western Europe: Britain, France, Italy,

Germany, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), Chs 5, 6.

Philip Norton, ed., Parliaments and governments in Western Europe (London: Cass, 1998).

P. Schleiter and E. Morgan-Jones, “Citizens, presidents and assemblies: the study of semi-

presidentialism beyond Duverger and Linz,” British Journal of Political Science 39, 4

(2009): 871-892.

Supervision 2: Policy areas

The second supervision focuses on a specific policy issue or area in France and Germany, as

discussed in lectures 4 to 6. In consultation with their supervisor, students should choose one of

the following three questions.

2a. Are policies towards immigration and immigrants more restrictive in Germany than in

France?

Basic readings

• Rogers Brubaker, Citizenship and nationhood in France and Germany (Cambridge MA: Harvard

University Press, 1992), Introduction (pp. 1-18).

• Christian Joppke, “European immigration policies: between stemming and soliciting still,” in

Developments in European politics 2, edited by Erik Jones et al (London: Palgrave, 2011).

France

• V. Guiradon, “Different nation, same nationhood: the challenges of immigration policy,” in

Changing France: the politics that markets make, edited by Pepper D. Culpepper et al

(London: Palgrave, 2006).

• Patrick Weil, “The politics of immigration,” in Developments in French politics 2, edited by

Alain Guyomarch et al (London: Palgrave, 2001).

• Sally Marthaler, “Nicolas Sarkozy and the politics of French immigration policy,” Journal of

European Public Policy 15, 3 (2008): 382-397.

32

Rogers Brubaker, Citizenship and nationhood in France and Germany (Cambridge MA: Harvard

University Press, 1992), chapters on France.

V. Guiradon, “Immigration politics and policies,” in Development in French politics 3, edited by

Alistair Cole et al (London: Palgrave, 2005).

Martin A. Schain, The politics of immigration in France, Britain and the United States: a comparative

study (London: Palgrave, 2009), chapters on France.

Miriam Feldblum, Reconstructing citizenship: the politics of nationality reform and immigration in

contemporary France (New York: SUNY Press, 1999).

Stefan Vertovec and Susanne Wessendorf, eds., The multicultural backlash: European discourses,

policies and practices (London: Routledge, 2010), chapter on France.

Germany

• Simon Green, “Towards an open society?: citizenship and immigration,” in Developments in

German politics 3, edited by Stephen Padgett, William E. Paterson and Gordon Smith

(London: Palgrave, 2003).

• Marc Morjé Howard, “The causes and consequences of Germany’s new citizenship law,”

German Politics 17, 1 (2008): 41-62.

Joyce M. Mushaben, “Citizenship and migration policies under Merkel’s Grand Coalition,”

German Politics 20, 3 (2011): 376-391 [see especially pages 380-387].

Michael Minkenberg, “The politics of citizenship in the new republic,” West European Politics,

26, 4 (2003): 219-240.

Rogers Brubaker, Citizenship and nationhood in France and Germany (Cambridge MA: Harvard

University Press, 1992), chapters on Germany.

Elisabeth Musch, “Consultation structures in German immigrant integration politics: the

National Integration Summit and the German Islam Conference,” German Politics 21, 1

(2012): 73-90.

Barbara Marshall, New Germany and migration in Europe (Manchester: Manchester University

Press, 2000).

Stefan Vertovec and Susanne Wessendorf, eds., The multicultural backlash: European discourses,

policies and practices (London: Routledge, 2010), chapter on Germany.

General

• Christian Joppke, “Beyond national models: civic integration policies for immigrants in

Western Europe,” West European Politics 30 (2007): 1-22.

• V. Guiradon and E. Jileva, “Immigration and asylum,” in Developments in European Politics,

edited by Paul M. Heywood et al (London: Palgrave, 2006).

Terri E. Givens, “Immigrant integration in Europe: empirical research,” Annual Review of

Political Science 10 (2007): 67-83.

Christian Joppke, “European immigration policies at the crossroads,” in Developments in West

European Politics 2, edited by Paul Heywood et al (London: Palgrave, 2002).

‘The politics of immigration in Western Europe’, special issue of West European Politics, 17, 2

(1994), selected articles.

33

Rafaela M. Dancygier, Immigration and conflict in Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 2011), chapters 7 and 8.

2b. Where does the state play a larger role in economic policy: in France or in Germany?

Basic readings

• Vivien A. Schmidt, “French capitalism transformed, yet still a third variety of capitalism,”

Economy and Society 32 (2003): 526-554.

• Ben Clift, “Economic policy,” in Development in French politics 4, edited by Alistair Cole et al

(London: Palgrave, 2008).

• Stephen Padgett, “Political economy: the German model under stress,” in Developments in

German politics 3, edited by Stephen Padgett, William E. Paterson and Gordon Smith

(London: Palgrave, 2003).

France

• Jonah Levy, “Economic policy and policy-making,” in Development in French politics 3, edited

by Alistair Cole et al (London: Palgrave, 2005).

• Peter A. Hall, “The evolution in economic policy,” in Developments in French politics 2, edited

by Alain Guyomarch et al (London: Palgrave, 2001).

Pepper D. Culpepper, Peter A. Hall and Bruno Palier, eds., Changing France: the politics that

markets make (London: Palgrave, 2006), Part One.

Peter A. Hall, Governing the economy: the politics of state intervention in Britain and France (Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 1986), Parts I, III, IV.

Jonah D. Levy, Tocqueville’s revenge: state, society, and economy in contemporary France (Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).

Germany

• Andreas Busch, “Globalisation and national varieties of capitalism: the contested viability of

the ‘German model’,” German Politics 14 (2005): 125-139.

• Reimut Zohnlhöfer, “Between a rock and a hard place: the Grand Coalition’s response to the

economic crisis,” German Politics, 20 (2011): 227-242.

Kenneth Dyson, “ The West German model revisited,” in Continuity and change in German

politics, edited by Stephen Padgett and Thomas Poguntke (London: Frank Cass, 2001).

Richard Deeg, “The comeback of Modell Deutschland?: the new German political economy in

the EU,” German Politics 14 (2005): 332-353.

Horst Siebert, The German economy: beyond the social market (Princeton: Princeton University

Press, 2005).

Christel Lane, Globalization and the German model of capitalism: erosion or survival? (London:

Routledge, 2000).

General

34

• Erik Jones, “Globalization and interdependence,” and Bob Hancké, “Varieties of European

capitalism and their transformation,” in Developments in European politics 2, edited by

Erik Jones et al (London: Palgrave, 2011).

Vivien A. Schmidt, “European political economy: labour out, state back in, firm to the fore,”

West European Politics, 31 (2008): 302-320.

Vivien A. Schmidt, The futures of European capitalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002),

esp. chapters 3 and 4.

Peter A. Hall and David Soskice, eds., Varieties of capitalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press,

2001), Introduction.

Andrew Gamble, The spectre at the feast (London: Palgrave, 2009), esp. chapter 4.

2c. What are some of the main differences in French and German European integration

policies, and how can we explain these differences?

Basic readings

• Stanley Hoffman, “French dilemmas and strategies in the new Europe,” in After the cold war,

edited by Robert Keohane, Joseph Nye and Stanley Hoffman (Cambridge MA: Harvard

University Press, 1993).

• Charlie Jeffery and William Paterson, “Germany and European integration: a shifting of

tectonic plates,” West European Politics, 26, 4 (2003): 59-75.

France

• Nicholas Sauger, “Attitudes towards Europe in France,” and Hussein Kassim, “France and

the European Union under the Chirac presidency,” in Development in French politics 4,

edited by Alistair Cole et al (London: Palgrave, 2008).

•Richard Balme and Cornelia Woll, “France: between integration and national sovereignty,” in

The member states of the European Union, edited by Simon Bulmer and Christian Lequesne

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).

Ulla Holm, “Sarkozyism: new European and foreign policy into old French bottles,” DIIS

Working Papers 30 (2009) [available at http://www.diis.dk/sw87604.asp].

Helen Drake, ed., French relations with the European Union (London: Routledge, 2005), chs. 1, 2, 9.

Craig Parsons, “Domestic interests, ideas and integration: the French case,” Journal of Common

Market Studies, 38 (2000): 45-70.

Alain Guyomarch, Howard Machin and Ella Ritchie, France in the European Union (Basingstoke:

Macmillan, 1998), chapter 1.

Germany

• William E. Paterson, “The reluctant hegemon?: Germany moves centre stage in the European

Union,” Journal of Common Market Studies Annual Review 49 (2011): 57-75.

• Jeffrey Anderson, “Germany and Europe: centrality in Europe,” in The member states of the

European Union, edited by Simon Bulmer and Christian Lequesne (Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2005).

35

William E. Paterson, “Does Germany still have a European vocation?,” German Politics, 19, 1

(2010): 41-52.

Simon Bulmer, Charlie Jeffery and William E. Paterson, Germany’s European diplomacy: shaping

the regional milieu (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000).

Adrian Hyde-Price and Charlie Jeffery, “Germany in the European Union: constructing

normality,” Journal of Common Market Studies 39 (2001): 689-717.

Peter J. Katzenstein, ed., Tamed power: Germany in Europe (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997),

selected chapters.

General

• Helen Wallace, “Exercising power and influence in the European Union: the roles of member

states”, in The member states of the European Union, edited by Simon Bulmer and Christian

Lequesne (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).

Tanja A. Börzel, “Pace-setting, foot-dragging, and fence-sitting: member state responses to

Europeanization,” Journal of Common Market Studies, 40 (2002): 193-214.

Andrew Moravcsik, The choice for Europe: social purpose and state power from Messina to Maastricht

(London: UCL Press, 1998).

36

D. US Presidential Elections

This case study looks at presidential elections in the US from 1968 to 2012 with an analytical

focus on putting the 2008 presidential election into political context. It asks whether or not 2008

was an election that realigned American politics and whether it heralded an era of Democratic

dominance in presidential elections.

There are four lectures:

Lectures

1. The rise and fall of the New Deal coalition

2. Was there a Republican majority 1968-2004?

3. The politics of the ‘culture war’

4. The 2008 and 2012 presidential elections

The supervisions will concentrate on the material in lectures two, three and four and the exam

questions will arise in relation to this material. Students though will be expected to do some

reading covering the whole time period to contextualise the material.

Essential reading for the whole case study

John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, The right nation: why America is different

Harmondsworth: Penguin, 2005.

Sean Trende, The lost majority: why the future of government is up for grabs Basingstoke: Palgrave,

2012.

John Judis and Ruy Teixeira, The emerging Democratic majority New York: Scribner, 2002.

Supervision 1: The Republican majority 1968-2004?

This topic examines the apparent era of Republican dominance in presidential elections

between 1968 and 2004. The supervision essay considers whether elections in this period can be

explained by a culture war.

Essay: How far does a ‘culture war’ in the United States explain the outcomes of presidential

elections between 1968 and 2004?

• Sean Trende, The lost majority: why the future of government is up for grabs, Part I, chapters 2 and

3 Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2012.

37

• John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, The right nation: why America is different Penguin,

2005.

• Thomas Frank, What’s the matter with the United States? London Martin Secker and Warburg

2004.

• Larry M. Bartels, ‘What’s the matter with what’s the matter with Kansas?’

http://www.princeton.edu/%7ebartels/kansas.pdf

• John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira, The emerging democratic majority (New York: Scriber 2002),

chapter 1.

• Philip E Converse at al "Continuity and change in American politics: parties and issues in the

1968 election" American Political Science Review 1969 63(4): 1083-1105.

• A. I. Abramowitz and K. L. Saunders ‘Is polarization a myth?’ The Journal of Politics 2008 70

(2): 542-555.

• James Guth et al, ‘Religious influences in the 2004 presidential election’ Presidential Studies

Quarterly vol 36 no 2. 2006, 223-42.

• D. E. Campbell ‘A house divided?: what social science has to say about the culture war,’

William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 2006 vol 15, 59-74.

Additional relevant reading

Morris Fiorina et al, Culture war?: the myth of a polarised America London: Longman 2004.

David Leege, The politics of cultural differences: social change and voter mobilization strategies in the

post New Deal period Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002.

Alan Wolfe and Iris Katznelson (eds), Religion and democracy in the United States Princeton

Princeton University Press, 2010. chapter 2.

Larry Sabato, Divided states of America; the slash and burn politics of the 2004 presidential election

Longman 2005.

Geoffrey Layman, The great divide: religious and cultural conflict in American party politics,

Princeton University Press, 2001.

Kevin Phillips, The emerging Republican majority, Arlington House 1969.

38

Arthur Miller and Martin Wattenberg, ‘Politics from the pulpit: religiosity and the 1980

elections’, Public Opinion Quarterly. 48: 300-12

J. Himmelstein and J. McRae ‘Social conservatism, new Republicans and the 1980 election’

Public Opinion Quarterly, 48 (3) 595-605.

Seymour Lipset, Earl Raab ‘Evangelicals and the elections’ Commentary 1981 71, 25-31.

David Gopoian ‘Images and issues in the 1988 presidential election,’ Journal of Politics, 1993 55

(1): 151-66.

Alan Abramowitz ‘It’s abortion stupid: policy voting in the 1992 presidential election’ Journal of

Politics, 1995, 57 (1) 176-186.

Ted Jelen and Marthe Chandler ‘Culture wars in the trenches: social issues as short-term forces

in presidential elections 1968-1996,’ The American Review of Politics 21: 69-87.

Alan I. Abramowitz and Walter Stone ‘The Bush effect: polarization, turnout and activism in the

2004 presidential election’, Presidential Studies Quarterly 2006 36 (2): 141-154.

David J. Smyth and Susan Washburn Taylor, ‘Why do the Republicans win the White House

more often than the Democrats?’ Presidential Studies Quarterly, 22 (1992): 481-91.

Everett Carll Ladd, ‘The 1992 vote for President Clinton: another brittle mandate?’ Political

Science Quarterly 108 (1993).

Irene Taviss Thomson, Culture wars and enduring American dilemmas, University of Michigan

Press, 2010.

Nolan McCarty, Keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal, Polarized America: the dance of ideology

and unequal riches, Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 2007.

Supervision 2: Why did the Democrats win in 2008?

This essay covers the 2008 presidential election. The question should be answered both looking

backwards to previous elections – how does 2008 fit into the pattern of elections from 1968 –

and forwards to the 2012 election – what does the 2012 election suggest about what was

happening in 2008.

• Sean Trende, The lost majority: why the future of government is up for grabs, Introduction and

Part II, Basingstoke: Palgrave 2012.

39

• John Judis and Ruy Teixeira, The emerging Democratic majority New York: Scribner, 2002,

chapters 2 and 4.

• Paul R. Abramson, John H. Aldrich, and David W. Rohde. Change and continuity in the 2008

elections, chapters 2-8.

• Erik Jones and Salvatore Vassallo, The 2008 presidential elections: a story in four acts London:

Macmillan, 2009, chapters 4-7.

• Gillian Peele et al, Developments in American politics 6, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2010. chapter 3.

Available on camtools under Bruce Cain

• Corwin Smidt et al, The disappearing God gap?: religion in the 2008 presidential election, chapters

5-7.

• Larry Sabato, The year of Obama: how Barack Obama won the White House London:

Longman 2010.

For analysis of 2012 there is a collection of short pieces and the relevant data at:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/

Additional reading

Kate Kenski, Bruce W. Hardy, and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. The Obama victory: how media, money,

and message shaped the 2008 election, Oxford University Press, 2010, parts I and II.

Hannah Goble and Peter M.Holm ‘Breaking Bonds? The Iraq war and the loss of Republican

dominance in national security,’ Political Research Quarterly 62 (2009)

Gary Jacobson, ‘The 2008 presidential and congressional elections: anti-Bush referendum and

prospects for the Democratic majority,’ Political Science Quarterly 2009 124 (1); 1-30.

Reading on the 2008 Democratic nomination race

Paul R. Abramson, John H. Aldrich, and David W. Rohde. Change and continuity in the 2008

elections, chapter 1.

J. Citrin and D. Karol, Nominating the President: evolution and revolution in 2008, Latham, Md,

Rowman and Littlefield.

40

Erik Jones and Salvatore Vassallo, The 2008 presidential elections: a story in four acts London:

Macmillan, 2009, chapter 1.

Larry Sabato (ed), The year of Obama: how Barack Obama won the White House London: Longman

2010, chapter 10

Corwin Smidt et al, The disappearing God gap?: religion in the 2008 presidential election, chapter 3.

General reading relevant to the case study

American political parties

Gillian Peele et al, Developments in American politics 6, chapter 4, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2010.

John H. Aldrich, Why parties?: a second look, University of Chicago Press, 2011.

Joseph A. Schlesinger, 1985 “The new American political party” American Political Science

Review, 79 (4, Dec.): 1152-1169.

Leon D. Epstein, Political parties in the American mold, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press,

1986.

Martin Wattenberg, The decline of American political parties, 1952-88, fifth edition. Harvard

University Press, 1998.

James A. Stimson, Tides of consent: how public opinion shapes American politics, New York:

Cambridge University Press, 2004

Alan Ware, ‘Political parties and the new partisanship’ in Gillian Peele (ed) Developments in

American politics 6 Basingstoke: Palgrave 2010.

Parties and presidential nominations

Marty Cohen, David Karol, Hans Noel, and John Zaller, The party decides: presidential nominations

before and after reform, Chicago: University of Chicago Press 2008.

J. Bibby & Maisel, L. Sandy, Two parties or more? the American party system, Westview Press:

Boulder, CO, 1998.

Realignment elections and changing presidential coalitions

41

V. O Key, “Secular realignment and the party system” Journal of Politics 21:198-210) 1959.

Everett Carll Ladd and Charles D. Hadley, Transformations of the American party system: political

coalitions from the New Deal to the 1970s, 2nd edition New York: W. W. Norton and company 1978.

V. O. Key jr ‘A theory of critical elections,’ Journal of Politics 1 (1955); 4.

Nelson Polsby and A Wildavsky, Presidential elections: strategies and structures of American politics,

12th edition Lanham Md: Rowman and Littlefield.

Alan I. Abramowitz and Kyle L. Saunders ‘Ideological realignment in the US electorate’ Journal

of Politics, 1998 60 (3): 634-652.

Bernard Sternsher ‘The New Deal party system: a reappraisal,’ Journal of Interdisciplinary History

1984, vol 15 (1) pp. 53-81.

David Mayhew, Electoral realignments: a critique of an American genre, 2004.

Religion and American politics

R. Putnam and D. Campbell, American grace: how religion divides and unites us New York: Simon

and Schuster 2010.

Garry Wills, Head and heart: a history of Christianity in America Harmondsworth: Penguin 2008.

Kenneth D. Wald and Allison Calhoun-Brown, Religion and politics in the United States, fifth

edition Lanham : Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2006.

Frank Lambert, Religion in American politics: a short history Princeton: Princeton University Press

2010.

James Guth, ‘George W. Bush and religious politics’ in Steven E. Schier, High risk and big

ambition: the presidency of George W. Bush Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press, 2004.

Race and American politics

Robert Huckfeldt and Carol Weitzel Kohfeld, Race and the decline of class in American politics

Chicago: University of Illinois Press 1989.

Donald Kinder and Lynn Sanders, Divided by color: racial politics and democratic ideals Chicago:

42

University of Chicago Press, 1996.

Michael Dawson, Behind the mule: race and class in African American politics, Princeton: Princeton

University Press, 1994.

Paul Frymer, Uneasy alliances: race and party competition in America Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press, 1999.

Edward G. Carmines, and James A. Stimson, Issue evolution: race and the transformation of

American politics, Princeton University Press, 1989.

Sample exam questions

What does religion explain in American presidential elections since 1968?

Would any Democratic nominee have won the 2008 presidential election?

43

E. The Middle East: Egypt and Saudi Arabia compared

The course

Over the past sixty years, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have each been, in different ways and at

different times, the core state in the Middle East. Egypt has taken on, sometimes by consent and

sometimes to the chagrin of others, the role of political and cultural leadership in the Arab

world. Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, has been the dominant economic force in the region, with its

ability to utilise its oil wealth to ensure that all states in the region have to coordinate closely

with it. Both states in their own ways exemplify the politics of the Middle East today.

They also have been remarkably different as polities and societies. Egypt has long presented

itself as the face of ‘modernisation’, with political systems harking at different times to

socialism, nationalism, liberalisation, and (now) democratisation. Saudi Arabia meanwhile has

been a highly conservative society, with many areas of public and political life dominated by a

sprawling ruling family that has been deeply resistant to what they portray as the ideological

fads that have swept the rest of the world.

The lecture series will look to compare two countries that between them have shared a region,

and which are near-neighbours, but which remain palpably distinct in their political institutions

and political culture. Students can expect to come away from this course with a good grasp of

the modern history of these two countries, and to understand their political systems, which in

Egypt’s case is undergoing a significant transformation with the ‘Arab Spring’.

They should also be able to draw comparisons. What explains the long experience of

authoritarianism that has dominated both countries’ modern histories, and it is the same type of

authoritarianism? Does religion play a similar role in garnering political legitimacy? To what

extent do they face the same economic and social challenges? What explains the different paths

that the two countries followed in 2011, with the type of popular movement that developed

rapidly in Egypt to overthrow Hosni Mubarak’s government seemingly absent in Saudi Arabia?

Essay questions

Why has authoritarianism persisted for so long in Egypt and Saudi Arabia?

What explains the significance that religion has had in the politics of Egypt and Saudi

Arabia?

Lectures and reading lists

Lecture 1: The idea of the Arab world

It is very much worthwhile to start this course by developing a general sense of the historical

evolution and politics of the Middle East. Owen is probably the best way in for a newcomer to

the region, developing both a historical account and themes for analysis. In addition to this text,

44

a general historical sense of the two core countries that are being examined in this option –

Egypt and Saudi Arabia – is crucial. On Saudi Arabia, Al-Rasheed’s account is ideal for this

purpose. Niblock is an alternative, but is less detailed. Kostiner traces Saudi history in terms of

relations between tribes and a centralising state apparatus. Oddly enough, there is no

comparable high-quality history of modern Egypt; many general histories of the Middle East as

a whole give a considerable degree of centrality to the place of Egypt in that history, and it is

perhaps best to approach Egypt through relevant sections of Gelvin (chapters 5, 9-10, 12 and 15)

and (maybe preferably) Cleveland & Bunton (the relevant sections of chapters 4-6, 11, 15-16 and

18), before moving on to literature from the second lecture about Egypt.

* Roger Owen, State, Power and Politics in the Making of the Modern Middle East (London:

Routledge, 3rd edition, 2004)

William Cleveland and Martin Bunton, A History of the Modern Middle East (Westview Press, 4th

edition, 2009) – earlier editions, with Cleveland as the sole author, are also fine

Albert Hourani, A History of the Arab Peoples (London: Faber & Faber, 1991)

James Gelvin, The Modern Middle East: A History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005)

* Madawi Al-Rasheed, A History of Saudi Arabia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd

edition, 2010)

Tim Niblock, Saudi Arabia: Power, Legitimacy and Survival (Abingdon: Routledge, 2006)

Joseph Kostiner, ‘Transforming dualities: tribe and state formation in Saudi Arabia’, in Philip

Khoury and Joseph Kostiner, eds, Tribes and State Formation in the Middle East (Berkeley CA:

University of California Press, 1990) [C]

Lecture 2: The authoritarian mode

Middle East scholarship has developed a range of ways of explaining the persistence of

authoritarianism in the region; many of these modes of analysis will need revision in light of the

events of 2011. It is important though to understand the general argument about the region and

the specific arguments about Egypt and Saudi Arabia; Schlumberger provides the best starting

point, with chapter 2 (Heydemann) setting out general arguments, chapters 4 (Albrecht), 8

(Pioppi) and 11 (Richter) on Egypt, and chapter 15 (Aarts) a provocative short coda on Saudi

Arabia. The Posusney/Angrist is similar: chapters 1 (Posusney) and 2 (Bellin) are useful ways in

to the topic, chapter 9 (Langohr) is particularly good on Egypt, and chapter 8 (Herb) briefly on

Saudi Arabia.

45

On Saudi Arabia, the most useful texts here are two contrasting articles: the first by Glosmeyer,

the second by Al-Rasheed & Al-Rasheed (and/or see the first chapter of the author’s more recent

Contesting the Saudi State, listed with lecture 6, for a more recent account of the ideology of

‘defensive conservatism’); also see the texts with lecture 3. On Egypt, Kassem is fairly

introductory but newcomers to the topic should find it useful to read this short book as a whole.

Cook – especially chapter 4 – is more directly focused. Springborg is good, but dated.

* Oliver Schlumberger, ed., Debating Arab Authoritarianism: Dynamics and Durability in

Nondemocratic Regimes (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2007) [chapter 4 on C].

Marsha Pripstein Posusney and Michele Penner Angrist, eds., Authoritarianism in the Middle

East: Regimes and Resistance (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2005) [chapter 9 on C].

Maye Kassem, Egyptian Politics: The Dynamics of Authoritarian Rule (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner,

2004) [chapter 3 on C]

* Madawi Al-Rasheed and Loulouwa Al-Rasheed, ‘The politics of encapsulation: Saudi policy

towards tribal and religious opposition’, Middle Eastern Studies, 32 (1), 1996, 96–120. [OL]

Iris Glosemeyer, ‘Checks, balances and transformation in the Saudi political system’, in Paul

Aarts and Gerd Nonneman, eds., Saudi Arabia in the Balance (London: Hurst & Co., 2005),

pp.214-233 [C]

Steven Cook, Ruling But Not Governing: The Military and Political Development in Egypt, Algeria,

and Turkey (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2007) [Chapter 4 on C]

Robert Springborg, Mubarak’s Egypt: Fragmentation of the Political Order (Boulder, CO: Lynne

Rienner, 1989).

Lecture 3: Development and disjuncture

Discussions of the politics of Saudi Arabia revolve around its ‘rentier’ character: Okrulik and

Chaudhry are both comparative accounts that include Saudi Arabia, and are generally within

the rentier paradigm. Hertog provides a well-researched critique: chapter 1 has been copied to

CamTools, but the book as a whole is worth reading, and especially chapter 8. See also Foley,

for lecture 6.

Analysis of Egypt tends to take a quite different focus of analysis: it is centrally concerned with

the programmes of economic reform or liberalisation continually announced by Egyptian

governments, their economic and political effects, and the reasons for their repeated stalling.

Although making an advanced argument, Kienle is perhaps the best one to read first: the final

chapter, copied to CamTools, brings together the overall evaluation, but the earlier material in

46

the book provides the necessary substance. Sullivan and Zaki may prompt a useful comparison.

Posusney is a bit dated, but its focus on how economic liberalisation changed relations between

the state and labour unions is still relevant. Roy and Shehata are partly technical in nature, but

both contain provocative political arguments.

* Gwenn Okruhlik, ‘Rentier wealth, unruly law, and the rise of opposition: the political

economy of oil states’, Comparative Politics, 31(3), 1999, 295–315. [OL]

Kiren Aziz Chaudhry, ‘Economic liberalization and the lineages of the rentier state’, Comparative

Politics, 27(1), 1994, pp.1–25. [OL]

* Steffen Hertog, Princes, Brokers, and Bureaucrats: Oil and State in Saudi Arabia (Ithaca: Cornell

University Press, 2010) [chapter 1 on C]

* Eberhard Kienle, A Grand Delusion: Democracy and Economic Reform in Egypt (I.B. Tauris

Publishers, 2001) [chapter 8 on C]

Marsha Posusney, Labor and the State in Egypt: Workers, Unions and Economic Restructuring (New

York: Columbia University Press, 1997) [chapter 5 on C]

Denis J. Sullivan, ‘The political economy of reform in Egypt’, International Journal of

Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 22 (1990), pp.317-334. [OL]

Mokhlis Y. Zaki, ‘IMF-supported stabilization programs and their critics: evidence from the

recent experience of Egypt’, World Development 29/ 11 (2001), pp.1867-1883 [OL]

Delwin A. Roy, 'Egyptian emigrant labour: domestic consequences', Middle Eastern Studies, vol.

27/4 (1991), pp.551-82 [OL]

Samer Shehata, ‘In the Basha’s house: the organizational culture of Egyptian public-sector

enterprise’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 37/1 (2003), pp.103–32. [OL]

Lecture 4: Religion and the state

In both countries, religion has had a significant role in shaping political discourse. The main

focus of much of the literature on Saudi Arabia is on the form of Islam adopted in that country,

which is usually referred to by outsiders and critics as ‘Wahhabism’. Piscatori, a short schematic

article, is old but still probably the best place to start. Steinberg gives a historical account of the

religious elite, but Al-Rasheed’s History (lecture 1) is more thorough. The chapter from Yamani

(lecture 6) is on the younger generation’s views on the role of Islam in public life. Delong-Bas

provides a critical reassessment of the extent to which what is now often referred to Wahhabism

is really a product of the eighteenth-century thought of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, arguing instead

47

that it is a modern invention. Literature on Egypt tends to look to the parties that were in

opposition prior to 2011 that made particular appeal to their Islamic credentials, particularly the

Muslim Brotherhood (here, El-Ghobashy is probably the best starting point, with Wickham and

Bayat subsequently), and to some extent also the centrist ‘New Islamist Trend’ (Baker).

Wickham’s text is best to read in full; the chapter copied to CamTools is on the development of

Islamist networks, but other chapters are also directly useful, including the postscript, which

takes the account up to the 2000s. Clark, on the development of Islamic social welfare

organisations, helps understand the increased appeal of an ‘Islamic identity’, although it is only

indirectly about the politics of that identity.

It is also important to look to the way in which governments of Egypt since the 1970s have all

made strong claims to religious authenticity, and also how much of the opposition within Saudi

Arabia has tried to outflank the monarchy through claims to being true upholders of the

country’s religious inheritance. On Egypt, see especially al-Awadi and Bayat. On Saudi Arabia,

see Lacroix on the Sahwa movement; Jones is a short, and less historically informed, alternative.

* James P. Piscatori, ‘The roles of Islam in Saudi Arabia’s political development’, in John L.

Esposito (ed.), Islam and Development: Religion and Sociopolitical Change (Syracuse University

Press, 1980), pp. 123–38. [C]

Guido Steinberg, ‘The Wahhabi ulama and the Saudi state: 1745 to the present’, in Paul Aarts

and Gerd Nonneman, eds., Saudi Arabia in the Balance (London: Hurst & Co., 2005), pp.11-34.

Natana Delong-Bas, Wahhabi Islam: from Revival and Reform to Global Jihad (London: I.B. Tauris,

2007).

Stéphane Lacroix, Awakening Islam: The Politics of Religious Dissent in Contemporary Saudi Arabia

(Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2011) [chapter 1 on C].

Toby Jones, ‘Religious revivalism and its challenge to the Saudi regime’, in Mohammed Ayoob

and Hasan Kosebalaban, eds, Religion and Politics in Saudi Arabia (Boulder, CO: Lynne

Rienner, 2009), pp.109-120. [C]

* Carrie Wickham, Mobilizing Islam: Religion, Activism, and Political Change in Egypt (New York:

Columbia University Press, 2003) [chapter 7 on C]

* Asef Bayat, Making Islam Democratic: Social Movements and the Post-Islamist Turn (Stanford:

Stanford University Press, 2007), chapter 5 [C].

Hesham Al-Awadi, In Pursuit of Legitimacy: The Muslim Brothers and Mubarak, 1982-2000

(London: IB Tauris, 2004) [chapter 7 on C]

48

Janine Clark, Islam, Charity, and Activism: Middle-Class Networks and Social Welfare in Egypt,

Jordan, and Yemen (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 2004), chapter 2 [C]

Raymond Baker, Islam without Fear: Egypt and the New Islamists (Cambridge: Harvard University

Press, 2003).

Sheri Berman, ‘Islamism, revolution, and civil society’, Perspectives on Politics, vol. 1/2 (June

2003), pp. 257-272 [OL]

Mona El-Ghobashy, ‘The metamorphosis of the Egyptian Muslim Brothers’, International Journal

of Middle East Studies 37(2005), pp.373-395 [OL].

Lecture 5: Revolution and consolidation

This lecture will look to the historical distinctiveness of the movements that, in Egypt, led to the

removal of the Mubarak regime in 2011. It also looks to the comparability of these movements

with the rebellions that Saudi Arabia has experienced in its recent past. Due to the rapid

evolution of the events in the ‘Arab Spring’ or ‘Arab Awakening’, and the highly fluid nature of

Egyptian politics in the aftermath of the 2012 presidential election, a short reading list on recent

events will be distributed in the lecture. For past uprisings, Jones is good on Saudi Arabia. On

Egypt, see Abdelrahman on the Kifaya movement, and Bayat and Sadiki on the earlier bread

riots. On the Arab Spring, see Bellin and Barani for starting points. The final chapter in Cook

and the article by Martini and Taylor are useful contrasting perspectives on how significant the

overthrow of Mubarak is for Egypt’s political system. Stein is useful on the problems of

consolidation. The final five pieces on the list look to potential effects (or the absence of them) of

the Arab Spring within Saudi Arabia.

Toby Jones, ‘Rebellion on the Saudi periphery: modernity, marginalization and the Shi‘a

uprising of 1979’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 38/2 (2006), pp.213–33 [OL].

Maha Abdelrahman, ‘“With the Islamists? - sometimes. With the State? - never!” cooperation

between the Left and Islamists in Egypt’, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 36/1 (2009),

pp.37-54 [OL].

Asef Bayat, ‘Activism and social development in the Middle East’, International Journal of Middle

East Studies, vol. 34 (2002), pp.1-28 [OL].

Larbi Sadiki, ‘Popular uprisings and Arab democratization’, International Journal of Middle East

Studies, vol. 32 (2000), pp.71-95 [OL].

49

* Eva Bellin, ‘Reconsidering the robustness of authoritarianism in the Middle East: lessons from

the Arab spring’, Comparative Politics, vol. 44/2 (January 2012), pp. 127-149

Zoltan Barani, ‘Comparing the Arab revolts: the role of the military’, Journal of Democracy, vol.

22/4 (October 2011), pp.28-39, via: http://tinyurl.com/pol4vi

Steven Cook, The Struggle for Egypt: From Nasser to Tahrir Square (Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 2011) [chapter 7 on C]

Jeff Martini and Julie Taylor, ‘Commanding democracy in Egypt’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 90/5

(Sept/Oct 2011), via: http://tinyurl.com/pol4ii

Ewan Stein, ‘Revolution or coup? Egypt's fraught transition’, Survival: Global Politics and

Strategy, vol. 54/4 (August 2012), pp. 45-66 [OL].

Mehran Kamrava, ‘The Arab spring and the Saudi-led counterrevolution’, Orbis, vol. 56/1

(2012), pp.96-104, via: http://tinyurl.com/pol4vii

Christopher Clary and Mara E. Karlin, ‘Saudi Arabia's reform gamble’, Survival, vol. 53/5 (Sept

2011), pp.15-20, via: http://tinyurl.com/pol4iii

* Madawi Al-Rasheed, ‘Sectarianism as counter-revolution: Saudi responses to the Arab Spring’,

Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism, vol. 11/3 (December 2011), pp. 513-526, via:

http://tinyurl.com/pol4iv

Toby Matthiesen, ‘A “Saudi Spring?” The Shi‘a protest movement in the Eastern Province 2011-

12’, Middle East Journal, vol. 66/4 (August 2012), pp. 629-659 [OL].

Stéphane Lacroix, ‘Is Saudi Arabia immune?’, Journal of Democracy, vol. 22/4 (October 2011),

pp.48-59, via: http://tinyurl.com/pol4v

Lecture 6: Change and stability

The lecture course finishes with a series of reflections on the extent to which we can understand

the future of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Middle East as a whole from an understanding of

their past. It brings out a series of arguments about the new factors that affect the politics of

these countries, and evaluates critically the extent to which the politics of the region can be seen

to be entering a new era.

Joel Beinin, ‘Political Islam and the new global economy: the political economy of an Egyptian

social movement’, CR: The New Centennial Review, 5/1 (2005), pp.111–39. [OL]

50

Madawi Al-Rasheed, Contesting the Saudi State: Islamic Voices from a New Generation (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2006) [chapter 1 on C]

Sean Foley, The Arab Gulf States: Beyond Oil and Islam (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2010) [chapter 3

on C]

Mai Yamani, Changed Identities: The Challenge of the New Generation in Saudi Arabia (London:

RIIA, 2000) [chapter 6 on C].

Marc Lynch, Voices of the New Arab Public: Iraq, al-Jazeera, and Middle East Politics Today (New

York: Columbia University Press, 2006) [chapter 2 on C]

Maha Abdelrahman, ‘The transnational and the local: Egyptian activists and transnational

protest networks’, British Journal of Middle East Studies, 38/3 (2011), pp.407-24. [OL]

51

F. State Formation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Lecturer and supervisors:

Devon Curtis

Hubertus Jürgenliemk

Lindsay Scorgie

States in sub-Saharan Africa are often deemed to be flawed or imperfect models of states

elsewhere. Different terms have been used to describe Africa states, such as failed states, quasi-

states, privatised states, shadow states, rentier states, fragile states, weak states. Amid these

seemingly ‘imperfect’ states, the Democratic Republic of the Congo is sometimes singled out as

a ‘dark hole in the centre of the continent’, the epitome of the shortcomings of the African state.

In this option, we will discuss the ways in which many representations of the Congo - and of

other states in Africa - may obscure more than they reveal. If these representations are

inadequate, what are some of the other ways of understanding and describing politics in

Congo, that better capture the complexity of political structures and practices in the country?

How can we understand the exercise of authority in Congo? Can we use theories of state

formation derived from the experiences of other parts of the world to help us understand

political authority in Congo? What can we learn from the Congo about the purpose of the state,

and about the relationship between the state and the international system?

This optional module will seek to understand the political trajectory of the Congo, and students

will also be encouraged to think about what the Congolese experience can contribute to theories

of the state, legitimacy, identity, and democracy. Throughout this option, students should also

reflect upon the extent to which the ‘domestic’ can be seen as separate from the ‘international’ in

the Congo.

Lectures:

1. Colonialism, identity and state formation (1 November)

2. The state and the world: Independence and the cold war (8 November)

3. Post cold war politics: democracy and economy (15 November)

4. Conflict, violence and what kind of state in the Congo? (22 November)

Lectures will be held in 7 West Road, room SG1 from 10-11am.

Movie night: we will be showing the movie Lumumba at 5pm, at Emmanuel College Old

Library on Tuesday 13 November.

Supervision: Students will receive two supervisions for this option. The supervisions will take

place in Lent term.

Reading:

You should begin by reading at least one general text. A good place to start is Adam

52

Hochschild’s King Leopold’s Ghost, which gives an excellent account of the pre-colonial and

colonial period in the Congo. Hochschild is a journalist and his book raises important questions

about the foundations of the Congolese state, and of the international humanitarian movement

that claimed to be acting in the best interest of the Congolese. Another good introductory book

is Theodore Trefon’s Congo Masquerade. Young and Turner’s book, The Rise and Decline of the

Zairian State, is a classic text on the Mobutu years. Kevin Dunn’s Imagining the Congo raises key

questions about the way in which Congo has been represented by outside observers over time,

and to what effect. Jason Stearns’ book, which focusses on the contemporary period, has an

unfortunate title (Dancing in the Glory of Monsters), but it is a compelling read and a good

introduction to the country. Stearns also writes a blog that students should read for an analysis

of current events: http://congosiasa.blogspot.com/

In the list below, the starred readings are particularly useful. In each section, I have also placed

one or two general readings that do not focus on Congo, but that will be helpful in thinking

about Congo from comparative perspective.

Lecture 1: Colonialism, identity and state formation

We will discuss the colonial encounter, and the structures of pre-colonial political authority that existed

in the space we now call Congo. What were the legacies of colonialism? What kind of political economy

emerged? What were the consequences of colonialism on ethnicity, religion and other identities in the

Congo?

*Adam Hochschild, King Leopold’s Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, Heroism in Colonial Africa.

Houghton, 1998.

*Kevin Dunn, Imagining the Congo: The International Relations of Identity, (Palgrave 2003). [C:

chapter 1]

*Crawford Young, The Colonial State in Comparative Perspective, Yale University Press, pp. 1-76.

*Stephen Jackson, “Sons of Which Soil? The Language and Politics of Autochtony in Eastern DR

Congo” African Studies Review 49 (2), 2006.

*Koen Vlassenroot, “Citizenship, Identity Formation and Conflict in South Kivu: The Case of

the Banyamulenge” Review of African Political Economy, 93/94, 2002.

Marie-Benedicte Dembour, Recalling the Belgian Congo, Berghahn Books, 2008.

Joseph Conrad, The Heart of Darkness

See also: Chinua Achebe, ‘An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness’ in

Conrad, Heart of Darkness, Critical Edition (New York: Norton, 1988).

Tintin in the Congo

53

See also Maev Kennedy, ‘Tintin’s adventures in Congo goes on trial in Belgium’ Guardian, 28

April 2010.

--

*Peter Ekeh, ‘Colonialism and the Two Publics in Africa: A Theoretical Statement’, Comparative

Studies in Society and History, 17: 1, 1975: 91-112.

*Pierre Englebert, “Pre-Colonial Institutions, Post-Colonial States, and Economic Development

in Tropical Africa,” Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 1 (March 2000)

Lecture 2: The state and the world: Independence and the cold war

The image of President Mobutu looms large in the Western imagination. How was Mobutu shaped and

produced, and to what extent is Congolese post-colonial political development driven by this leader? What

options existed for Congo at the Independence? Was Congo merely a pawn in the Cold War? What effect

did the superpower struggle have on Congo’s political trajectory?

*Patrice Lumumba, Congo: My Country, New York: Praeger, 1962.

*Crawford Young and Thomas Turner, The Rise and Decline of the Zairian State, Madison:

University of Wisconsin Press, 1985. (be sure to look at chapter on the patrimonial state and

personal rule)

*Janet McGaffey The Real Economy of Zaire: The Contribution of Smuggling & Other Unofficial

Activities to National Wealth (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991). [C:

conclusion]

*B Muhuni, ‘Mobutu and the Class Struggle in Zaire’, Review of African Political Economy, 5, Jan-

Apr 1976: 94-98 [OL]

*Michela Wrong, In the Footsteps of Mr. Kurtz: Living on the Brink of Disaster in Mobutu’s Congo,

New York: Harper Perennial 2002.

*Martin Meredith, The Fate of Africa: From the Hopes of Freedom to the Heart of Despair, New York:

Public Affairs, 2005, pp. 93-115.

*Thomas Callaghy, ‘External Actors and the Relative Autonomy of the Political Aristocracy in

Zaire’ Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics 21(3), 1983.

*John Clark, ‘Zaire: The Bankruptcy of the Extractive State’, in Villalon and Huxtable (eds), The

African State at a Critical Juncture, Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1997.

54

*William Reno, ‘Sovereignty and Personal Rule in Zaire’, African Studies Quarterly, 1(3), 1997.

Matthew Stanard, Selling the Congo, University of Nebraska Press, 2012.

Piero Gleijeses, ‘Flee! The White Giants are Coming!: The United States, the Mercenaries and the

Congo, 1964-65’, Diplomatic History, 18(2), 1994.

M. Schatzberg, The Dialectics of Oppression in Zaire, Indiana University Press, 1988.

*Larry Devlin, Chief of Station, Congo: Fighting the Cold War in a Hot Zone, Public Affairs, 2008. [C:

chapter 3]

Ernesto Che Guevera, edited by Richard Gott and translated by Patrick Camiller, The African

Dream: The Diaries of the Revolutionary War in the Congo, Grove Press 2001.

* Ludo de Witte, The Assassination of Lumumba, New York: Verso, 2002. [C: chapter 1]

Sergey Mazov, A Distant Front in the Cold War: The USSR in West Africa and the Congo 1956-1964,

Stanford University Press, 2010.

M Naniuzeyi, ‘The State of the State in Congo-Zaire: A Survey of the Mobutu Regime’ Journal of

Black Studies, 1999.

Thomas Callaghy, ‘The State as a Lame Leviathan: The Patrimonial Administrative State in

Africa’, in Zaki Ergas (ed), The African State in Transition, New York: St Martin’s Press, 1987.

--

*Jean- Francois Bayart, Africa in the World: A History of Extraversion, African Affairs 99 (395),

2000: 217-67.

*Nicolas Van de Walle, African Economies and the Politics of Permanent Crisis, 1979-1999

(Cambridge University Press, 2001) [C, ch. 3]

Robert Jackson and Carl Rosberg, “The Political Economy of African Personal Rule,” in Apter

and Rosberg, Political Development and the New Realism in Sub-Saharan Africa, University of

Virginia Press, 1994.

Movies:

Mobutu, King of Zaire (directed by Thierry Michel), 1999

Lumumba (directed by Raoul Peck), 2000 (Note: we will be showing this movie at

Emmanuel College, old library at 5pm on Tuesday 13 November)

55

Lecture 3: Post Cold War Politics: Democracy and Economy

Many people thought that the end of the Cold War offered a new opportunity for political and economic

development in Africa. What happened in Congo at this moment of transition? What are the

consequences of Congo’s enormous mineral wealth on the nature of the state? Is democratic reform viable

in Congo? What is the role of regional and international actors in providing opportunities and

constraints on governance in Congo?

*Georges Nzongola-Ntalaja, A People’s History of the Congo, (London: Zed Books, 2002).

*Theodore Trefon, Congo Masquerade: The Political Culture of Aid Inefficiency and Reform Failure,

London: Zed Books, 2011. [C: chapter 1]

*Filip Reyntjens, “Democratic Republic of the Congo: Political Transition and Beyond” African

Affairs, 106 (423), 2007.

*Gerard Prunier, Africa’s World War. Congo, the Rwandan Genocide, and the Making of a Continental

Catastrophe, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. [C: chapter 10]

*Michael Nest, Francois Grignon and Emizet Kisangani, The Democratic Republic of Congo:

Economic Dimensions of War and Peace, (Lynne Rinner, 2005). [C: chapter 3]

*William Reno, ‘Congo: from State Collapse to Absolutism to State Failure’, Third World

Quarterly, 27 (1) February 2006).

Jason Stearns, Dancing in the Glory of Monsters: The Collapse of the Congo and the Great War of

Africa, New York: Public Affairs, 2011. [C: chapter 20]

Jeffrey W Mantz, ‘Improvisational economies: Coltan production in the eastern Congo’, Social

Anthropology, Vol. 16, Issue 1, February 2008.

David Renton, David Seddon and Leo Zeilig, The Congo: Plunder and Resistance, (London: Zed

Books, 2007). [C: chapter 3]

Samset, “Conflict of Interests or Interests in Conflict? Diamonds and the War in the DRC,”

Review of African Political Economy, 29, no. 93/4, 2002. [OL]

John F. Clark, The African Stakes of the Congo War (Palgrave, 2004)- see in particular Kevin Dunn,

‘A Survival Guide to Kinshasa: Lessons of the father, passed down to the son’

Rene Lemarchand, The Dynamics of Violence in Central Africa, Philadelphia: University of

Pennsylvania Press, 2008.

56

Filip Reyntjens, The Great African War: Congo and Regional Politics, 1996-2006, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Thomas Turner, The Congo Wars: Conflict, Myth and Reality, (London: Zed Books, 2007). [C:

chapter 2]

OG Afoaku, ‘The Possibilities of Ethnonationalism in Post-Mobutu Zaire’, Western Journal of

Black Studies, 21(2), 1997: 124-133.

--

*Kevin Dunn and Timothy Shaw (eds), Africa’s Challenge to International Relations Theory,

Palgrave 2001. See esp chapter by Siba Grovogui, ‘Sovereignty in Africa: Quasi-Statehood and

other myths in international theory’

Lecture 4: Conflict, Violence and What kind of State in the Congo?

In this concluding lecture we will ask how we can best characterise the Congolese state. Why has violent

conflict played such a prominent role in Congolese politics? What forms of legitimacy exist in Congo?

Why does the Congolese state continue to exist? Do non-traditional donors such as China offer new

political opportunity in the Congo?

*Denis Tull, “A reconfiguration of political order?: The state of the state in North Kivu” African

Affairs, Vol. 103, No. 408, 2003. [OL]

*Jeffrey Herbst and Greg Mills, “There is No Congo” Foreign Policy, 18 March 2009;

See reply by Timothy Raeymaekers, “Who Calls the Congo” [OL]

*Stefaan Marysse and Sara Geenan, ‘Win-win or unequal exchange? The case of the Sino-

Congolese cooperation agreements’, Journal of Modern African Studies 47 (3), 2009: 371-396.

*Mvemba Phezo Dizolele and Pascal K Kambale, ‘The DRC’s Crumbling Legitimacy’, Journal of

Democracy Volume 23, Number 3 July 2012

*Severine Autesserre, ‘Dangerous Tales: Dominant Narratives on the Congo and their

Unintended Consequences’ African Affairs, 111(442), Spring 2012.

*Pierre Englebert, ‘A Research Note on Congo’s Nationalist Paradox’ Review of African Political

Economy, September-December 2002.

*Theodore Trefon, ‘Public Service Provision in a Failed State: Looking Beyond Predation in the

Democratic Republic of the Congo’ Review of African Political Economy, 36: 119, March 2009.

57

Paul Kirby, How is Rape a Weapon of War? Feminist International Relations, Modes of Critical

Explanations and the Study of Wartime Sexual Violence, EJIR, 2012

Severine Autesserre, “Hobbes and the Congo: Frames, Local Violence, and International

Intervention”, International Organization, Vol. 63, 2009: pp. 249-280 [OL]

Theodore Trefon (ed), Reinventing Order in the Congo: How People Respond to State Failure in

Kinshasa, (London: Zed Books, 2005).

Stefaan Marysse, “Regress and War: The Case of the DR Congo,” European Journal of

Development Research 15, no. 1 (June 2003)

Michael Niemann, “War Making and State Making in Central Africa,” Africa Today 53, no. 3

(Spring 2007)

Timothy Raeymaekers, “Protection for Sale? War and the Transformation of Regulation on the

Congo-Ugandan Border, Development and Change, August 2010.

Timothy Raeymaekers, ‘Why History Repeats itself in Eastern DR Congo’, e-International

Relations, 20 December 2012,

http://www.e-ir.info/2012/12/20/why-history-repeats-itself-in-eastern-dr-congo/

Maria Baaz and Maria Stern, “Making Sense of Violence: Voices of Soldiers in the Congo

(DRC),” Journal of Modern African Studies, 46, No. 1, 2008. [OL]

Maria Eriksson Baaz and Maria Stern, ‘NAI researcher critical of rape report’ (May 2011),

http://www.nai.uu.se/news/articles/nai-researcher-critical-o/

Nicholas Garrett, Sylvia Sergiou, Koen Vlassenroot, ‘Negotiated peace for extortion: the case of

Walikale territory in eastern DR Congo’ Journal of Eastern African Studies 3(1) 2009.

Alexander Veit, “Figuration of Uncertainty: Armed Groups and Humanitarian Military

Intervention in Ituri (DR Congo)” Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, Vol. 2 No. 3, 2008.

Severine Autesserre, The Trouble with the Congo: Local Violence and the Failure of International

Peacebuilding, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Koen Vlassenroot and Karen Busher, ‘The City as Frontier: Urban Development and Identity

Processes in Goma’, Working Paper 61, Crisis States Research Centre, London School of

Economics, November 2009. [OL]

Kristof Titeca, ‘Real governance beyond the ‘failed state’: negotiating the education sector in the

Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)’, African Affairs, 110: 439 (2011): 213-231.

58

Mathijs van Leeuwen, ‘Imagining the Great Lakes Region: discourses and practices of civil

society regional approaches for peacebuilding in Rwanda, Burundi, and DR Congo’, Journal of

Modern African Affairs, 46, 3, 2008.

59

G. The Environment and Growth in China

Summary

Contemporary China faces an environmental crisis reaching into every aspect of life, which

would likely prove to be the Achilles’ heel of its aim to achieve sustainable growth. Yet it is not

singular among developing countries to face an apparent tradeoff between environmental

protection and rapid industrialization. This option addresses the following four issues:

1) Compare the developmental stage- and culturally-specific perspectives on Chinese elite’s

relationship to Nature through several historical periods;

2) Consider the application of “green GDP accounting” to present-day China;

3) Examine interest aggregation and social mobilization in local communities for and against

sidelining environmental protection, under the limitations of the authoritarian institutions;

4) Assess the regulatory framework and implementation of the “pollute first, clean-up later”

approach to controlling for negative externalities of growth.

Students will gain an analytical understanding of the major dilemmas in policymaking and

contentions in state-society relations in addressing environmental problems.

Lecturer and Supervisors

Dr Kun-Chin Lin

Mao Feng

Supervision

Students will receive two supervisions for this option. See questions provided at the end of the

weekly reading list.

Week 1: Developmental Stage and Cultural Understanding of the Environment

Mark Elvin, 1998. "The Environmental Legacy of Imperial China." China Quarterly 156: 733-756.

Mark Elvin, 2004. The Retreat of the Elephants: An Environmental History of China. Yale University

Press.

60

Mark Elvin, and Liu Ts'ui –jung, ed, 1998. Sediments of Time: environment and society in Chinese

history. Cambridge University Press.

Peter Ho, 2003. “Mao’s war against nature? The Environmental impact of the grain-first

campaign in China.” The China Journal 50: 37-59.

Nicholas K. Menzies, 1994. Forest and Land Management in Imperial China. St. Martin’s Press.

Rhoads Murphey, 1967. “Man and Nature in China.” Modern Asian Studies 1(4): 313-333.

Gregory Rohlf, 2003. "Dreams of Oil and Fertile Fields: The Rush to Qinghai in the 1950s"

Modern China 29: 455-489.

R. Keith Schoppa, 1989. Xiang Lake: nine centuries of Chinese life. Yale University Press.

Robert P. Weller and Peter K. Bol, 1998. "From Heaven-and-Earth to Nature: Chinese Concepts

of the Environment and their influence on policy implementation," in Michael B. McElroy, Chris

P. Nielsen, and Peter Lydon, ed.s, Energizing China. Harvard University Committee on

Environment.

Lynn White, Jr., 1967. “Historical roots of our ecologic crisis.” Science v.155 (March 10, 1967).

Question: Do you see any continuity between dynastic approaches toward the exploitation of

natural resources and Maoist and post-1978 reform era economic developmental principles?

Week 2: Environmental Assessment - Water and Grassland

Robert Louis Edmonds, ed., 2000. Managing the Chinese Environment. Oxford UP.

Elizabeth Economy, 2004. The River Runs Black: The Environmental Challenge to China’s Future.

NY: Cornell University Press.

Ma Jun, 1999. China’s Water Crisis. Pacific Century Press.

The Wilson Center, China Environment Forum: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/program/china-

environment-forum

Peter Ho, 2000. "China's Rangelands under Stress: A Comparative Study of Pasture Commons

in the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region." Development and Change 31: 385-412.

Tony Banks, 2001. “Property rights and the environment in pastoral China: Evidence from the

field.” Development and Change 32(4): 717-740.

61

Emily Yeh, 2005. “Green governmentality and pastoralism in Western China: Converting

pastures to grasslands.‟Nomadic Peoples 9(1): 9-29.

Ministry of Environmental Protection. “Report on the State of the Environment in China" (SOE).

People's Republic of China, Beijing. Up to 2009: Available online at:

http://english.mep.gov.cn/standards_reports/

The World Bank – Supporting Environmental Management in China:

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/EASTASIAPACIFICEXT/EXTEA

PREGTOPENVIRONMENT/0,,contentMDK:20515211~menuPK:502915~pagePK:34004173~piPK

:34003707~theSitePK:502886,00.html

UNDP – China – Energy and Environment:

http://www.undp.org.cn/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&catid=10&sid=8

Question: At what point in China’s industrialisation and urbanisation will the value of water,

grassland, and other natural resources become sufficiently high to reset the calculus of

development? Or has China passed that tipping-point?

Week 3: Social and Political Consequences of Environmental Damages

Peter Ho, 2001. “Greening without conflict? Environmentalism, NGOs and civil society in

China.” Development and Change 32(5): 893–921.

Jun Jing, 2000. “Environmental Protests in Rural China,” in Elizabeth J. Perry and Mark Selden,

eds., Chinese Society, Change, Conflict, and Resistance. Harvard UP: 143-60.

Susan Martens, 2006. “Public participation with Chinese characteristics: citizen consumers

in China’s environmental management.” Environmental Politics 15(2): 211-230.

Andrew Mertha, 2008. China’s Water Warriors: Citizen Action and Policy Change. Cornell

University Press.

Phillip Stalley and Dongning Yang, 2006. "An Emerging Environmental Movement in China?"

The China Quarterly 186:1: 333-56.

Benjamin Van Rooij, 2010. "The People vs. Pollution: Understanding Citizen Action against

Pollution in China." Journal of Contemporary China 19(63): 55-77.

Fengshi Wu, Fengshi. 2003. Environmental GONGO Autonomy. Journal of the Good Society 12(1):

35-45.

62

Guobin Yang, 2005. “Environmental NGOs and Institutional Dynamics in China.” The China

Quarterly 181: 46–66.

Questions: Which social groups – and with what strategies – are most likely to advance their

interests on the exploitation of the environment? Would you consider their actions as

constituting a form of political liberalization?

Week 4: Government Failure or Market Failure?

Alford William P. and Yuanyuan Shen. "Limits of the Law in Addressing China's

Environmental Dilemma," in Energizing China, pp. 431-473.

HJ Albers, Scott Rozelle, G. Li, 1998. "China's forest under economic reform: timber supplies,

environmental protection and rural resource access." Contemporary Economic Policy 16(1): 22-33.

Kristen Day, ed., 2005. China’s Environment and the Challenge of Sustainable Development. ME

Sharpe.

Robert Louis Edmonds, ed., 2000. Managing the Chinese Environment. Oxford University Press.

Abigail Jahiel, 1998. “Organization of Environmental Protection in China,” China Quarterly 156:

757-787.

Kenneth Lieberthal, 1997. “China‟s Governing System and its Impact on Environmental Policy

Implementation.” China Environment Series, Woodrow Wilson International Center.

Carlos W. Lo, Carlos W. H. and Gerald E. Fryxell, 2003. "Enforcement Styles among

Environmental Protection Officials in China." Journal of Public Policy 23(01): 81-115.

C. Lo, G. Fryxell, and W. Wong, 2006. "Effective Regulations with Little Effect? The Antecedents

of the Perceptions of Environmental Officials on Enforcement Effectiveness in China."

Environmental Management 38(3): 388-410.

C. Lo and S. Y. Tang, 2006. "Institutional Reform, Economic Changes, and Local Environmental

Management in China: The Case of Guangdong Province." Environmental Politics 15: 190-210.

Ma Xiaoying and Leonard Ortolano, 2000. Environmental regulation in China : institutions,

enforcement, and compliance. Rowman & Littlefield.

Michael Palmer, 1998. "Environmental Regulation in the People's Republic of China: The Face of

Domestic Law." China Quarterly 156: 788-808.

63

Barbara J. Sinkule and Leonard Ortolano, 1995. Implementing Environmental Policy in China.

Westport, CT: Praeger.

Bemjamin Van Rooij and C. W. Lo, 2010. "Fragile Convergence: Understanding Variation in the

Enforcement of China’s Industrial Pollution Law." Law & Policy 32(1): 14-37.

OECD, 2006. “Environmental Compliance and Enforcement in China: An Assessment of

Current Practices and Ways Forward.” Available online at:

http://www.oecd.org/environment/environmentinemergingandtransitioneconomies/37867511.p

df

OECD, 2007. “Environmental Performance Reviews: China.” Available online at:

http://www.efchina.org/csepupfiles/report/200812095029729.8523773582758.pdf/Environmental

%20Performance%20Review%20-%20China%2007-23-07.pdf

Vermont Journal of Environmental Law, 2007. Special issue on "China in Transition: Environmental

Challenges in the Far East." VJEL 8(2). Available: http://www.vjel.org/journal/VJEL10051.html

Gerald Chan, 2004. “China's compliance in global environmental affairs.” Asia Pacific Viewpoint

45(1): 69-86.

A.I. Johnston, “China and International Environmental Institutions: A decision rule analysis,” in

Energizing China.

Question: What are the limitations of the reach of the central state in providing legal and

regulatory incentives for compliance of local governmental, businesses, and communities?

64

5. The exam The end-of-year examination will ask questions about specific regions or cases. These questions

will often draw upon general themes of politics, using the material lectured upon in the first

section of the course. A mock exam paper is below, followed by last year’s exam paper (which

did not include questions on China, but is otherwise a good guide). The Examiner’s report for

2011-12 concludes this section.

Pol 4 mock exam paper, 2012-13

Candidates should answer two questions, taking each from a different section. At least one of these

questions must be from Sections A to C. Questions from sections A to C should be answered with

reference to at least two countries, unless otherwise stated.

Section A

1. Do electoral systems determine party systems in Western Europe?

2. Has European integration increased the role and power of the executive in Western European

states?

3. Why have policies related to the integration of immigrants changed in recent years in Western

Europe?

Section B

4. Why have paths of democracy differed in Eastern Europe?

5. How have national traditions shaped the development of political parties?

6. Why had nationalism led to different political consequences across Eastern Europe?

Section C

7. What are the principal impediments to the formation of liberal market democracies in the Arab

world?

8. Why have rulers of Arab states tried to legitimise their rule so prominently through an appeal to

religious sentiment?

9. Middle Eastern states have often been referred to as “fragile” or “failing”. What does this mean,

and how accurate is this characterisation?

Section D

10. Would any Democratic nominee have won the 2008 presidential election?

11. What does EITHER race OR religion explain in American presidential politics since 2000?

Section E

12. What explains Congolese nationalism?

13. Is the state in Congo anything more than a vehicle to promote the private interests of its rulers?

Section F

14. How accurate would it be to characterise China’s long-standing policy approach as one of

economic growth first and environmental cleanup later?

15. Is local government a suitable vehicle for implementing China’s environmental regulation?

65

Past exam paper: 2011-12

Section A

1. Have policies in France and Germany converged over the past two decades? Discuss

with reference to at least one specific policy area.

2. Why are some party systems in Western Europe more stable than others?

3. Can parliaments in Western Europe control the executive?

Section B

4. How has nationalism shaped state traditions in Eastern Europe?

5. Why did forms of authoritarian rule in Eastern Europe differ across states?

6. Can legacies of the authoritarian past explain the evolution of post-communist

democracies?

Section C

7. How similar is the authoritarian apparatus of Saudi Arabia to that of Egypt under

Mubarak?

8. Why is political opposition in the Arab world so often expressed through movements

that make a claim to religious authenticity?

9. To what extent do Arab countries experience the domination of the state over society?

Section D

10. How far did Republican success in presidential elections between 1968 and 2004 depend

on mobilising religious voters?

11. Was the 2008 presidential election unwinnable for the Republicans?

Section E

12. What accounts for the continued survival of the Congolese state?

13. In what ways has Congo’s historical legacy shaped its political economy?

66

Examiner’s Report for 2011-12

This was the first year of the new paper in Comparative Politics, and the first time that a paper

in Politics & International Relations had been examined through a mixed assessment process,

compromising a long essay and an exam. It was taken by 84 students in Part IIA and 4 students

in Part IIB. The same assessment process and marking standards were applied to both groups of

students.

The 5,000 word essays, submitted in Lent term, adopted a variety of approaches, and a broad

spectrum of abilities was apparent to the examiners. Most students had prepared their essays

thoroughly, drawing upon a wide range of sources, including (where appropriate) primary

materials such as official and archival documents, news reports and interview texts. It was

encouraging to see the enthusiasm and energy with which some essays were evidently

researched and written. A relatively small number of students however still treated this

component of the course in a similar way to normal supervision essays, looking at only a small

number of major academic works on the topic, and content simply to regurgitate their main

points. Such essays would normally gain no more than a mid-2.2. An associated problem was

that a few students relied exclusively upon one text or one author for an account of a case study;

all political events of any complexity are amenable to different interpretations, and one cannot

engage critically and effectively with a case unless one has explored these differences.

In terms of substance, many of the best essays were able to both address major conceptual or

theoretical issues, and to argue in detail about specific cases. Almost all of the best essays

recognised and explained a broad theoretical framework within which to situate their answers,

and were able to develop arguments and counter-arguments within this framework. The essay

was then developed through an in-depth exploration of a relatively small number of cases. A

few essays tried to use too many cases (in some essays, there were attempts to use five or more

cases), which resulted in a degree of superficiality, and some care is needed in ensuring that the

number of cases chosen is appropriate for the question. It is difficult to provide general

guidance about the essays, as the type of the question and students’ own preferences will

sometimes lead towards different essay structures – there is no set formula for writing long

essays for this paper. Nevertheless, all the best essays for this paper managed to find a balance

between conceptual and descriptive material, and reviewed and evaluated counter-arguments.

There were a number of common problems of format, style and presentation. The most

apparent problem was that a large number of students still do not have an appropriate system

for referencing and bibliographies. A short account of how to reference is included in the paper

guide, and a more detailed version is included in the Politics & International Relations

Handbook. Many students seem to have ignored this, and instead adopted their own

anachronistic system, or indeed no system at all, for referencing and bibliographies. It really is

important that by the time students are in their second years that they learn how to organise

their references in a recognised, systematic way.

67

Whilst some essays were immaculately written, a significant number of essays contained

persistent grammatical problems. It was difficult to tell whether this was down to carelessness

or ignorance. It was clear that quite a few students do not know how to use semi-colons,

deploying them where they should be using commas. If students think this is a problem, they

should talk to their directors of studies and/or tutors urgently, as most Colleges are able to

provide remedial help. Essays which contain repeated typos and grammatical mistakes cannot

achieve a mark higher than a 2.2, so it really is worthwhile to sort this out.

The third common stylistic problem was that of quotation. Some students leaned too heavily on

extensive quotation from academic sources, with a few essays containing multiple paragraph-

length quotations. Two students copied text verbatim or near-verbatim from sources, properly

referenced but without quotation marks. This is considered plagiarism, and both students were

significantly penalised. In relation to both issues, it is important that students learn to put

arguments in their own words; there is no point in just reprinting what someone else has

written. The whole point of the essay, after all, is to encourage you to make your own

arguments in your own terms.

Essays that exceeded the word limit were penalised. In one case, a student was brought below a

class boundary for this essay, which resulted in an overall class lower than they would have

otherwise received.

Notwithstanding these problems, 14 students (all in Part IIA) obtained an average mark in the

first class range for their essays. 27 students obtained a high 2.1 (a mark of 65-69), and a 27 a low

2.1 (60-64). 18 students received 2.2s, and 2 students received 3rds.

The Easter term exams produced slightly fewer 1sts than the essays but more high 2.1s. 12

students received a first class average, and 33 received marks in the 65-69 range. 27 received

low 2.1s, 14 received 2.2s, one student received a 3rd, and one student withdrew. The majority of

students demonstrated a good amount of detailed and relevant knowledge about the regions

and cases, although often this knowledge was not applied sharply enough to what exactly the

question was asking – hence the high number of 2.1s.

All questions on the exam paper drew at least five responses, except for q.5, on differences in

the forms of authoritarianism that were present in Eastern Europe, which did not tempt a single

student. The most popular question was q.8, on the religious discourse of opposition

movements in the Arab world, which had all of 42 students taking it. q.11, on whether the 2008

presidential elections were unwinnable for the Republicans, and q.12, on explanations for the

survival of the Congolese state, were the next most popular, each drawing 28 responses.

Perhaps the two most common problems found in the exam scripts were those of not thinking

quite carefully enough about what the terms of the question meant, and of not considering or

weighing up alternative explanations for the phenomenon that was being asked about. In the

first category, an example is q.4, which asked about the effect of nationalism on state traditions

68

in Eastern Europe. Only one of the eight students taking this question made a serious attempt to

unpack the notion of ‘state traditions’, and evaluate the extent to which nationalism can be

considered as something external to those traditions (it was no surprise that this student

received a high 1st class mark). Other students used the term as if it had a clear and

unambiguous meaning, but without stopping to review the different types of activities (resilient

institutions, enduring expectations, formalised rituals?) that could be incorporated within this

notion. As a result, it was never clear what exactly they were arguing about, even by the end of

the essay.

A similar problem attached to the notion of what made an election ‘unwinnable’ in q.11: some

students gave an extensive account of the reasons why the Republicans lost, and concluded that

made the election unwinnable for them. But this is to render the question meaningless. Implicit

in the question is some distinction between elections that are unwinnable and winnable

elections that are still lost – and that needs to be worked through if the question is to be

answered successfully.

The second type of problem comes from those students who picked one explanatory mode and

simply pursued that unreflectively throughout the essay. This was most obviously so with q.8,

on religion and opposition in the Arab world. A large number of these essays staked the claim

at the start that governments in the Arab world have used religion heavily as a form of

legitimisation, and therefore opposition groups have to respond using a similar frame. Much of

the rest of these essays was then devoted to an account of how the Saudi and Egyptian

governments had instrumentalised religion. But this link doesn’t necessarily follow, at least in

any sort of straightforward way. A government’s adoption of a set of symbolic reference points

could just as straightforwardly lead to the discrediting of those symbols. Opposition

movements may deliberately adopt strategies of legitimisation that distinguish their approach

from those of a government. It would need to be explained why this has not happened, at least

to the extent it might have done, for the argument to work.

Most students who answered q.12, on the reasons for the survival of the Congolese state, were

able to distinguish different reasons, and were able to categorise those reasons (typically

bringing into their accounts the role of external interests, international assistance, the interests

of the Congolese elite and institutions, popular nationalism and everyday coping strategies).

Somewhat too often this just became a list, with a paragraph or two on each reason. The best

answers by contrast were able to weigh these accounts up against each other, for example by

working through a series of successive explanations but showing the limitations of each of them

alongside the explanation, and their intersections.

Few students need more encouragement to understand the regions and cases in depth; there

were only a small number of essays which demonstrated inadequate knowledge or made

serious factual mistakes. Focusing an essay on the question though remains a problem. It was

striking how many answers to the question on whether parliaments can control the executive in

Western Europe (q.3) gave general accounts of the constraints on executives, with sometimes

69

large sections of the essay unrelated to the role of parliaments. The question on the convergence

of policies between France and Germany (q.1) also led some students into giving accounts of the

long-standing differences of the policies of these two countries, with barely a word said about

convergence or divergence over time. q.13 on how Congo’s historical legacy has shaped its

political economy was answered by some students by giving a simple narrative history of

Congo’s economic structure. A little bit of careful thought and planning would surely have been

enough in each of these cases to make students realise that they were in danger of wasting a lot

of time on writing about matters that were not relevant for answering the essay question.

The other great waste of time came from laborious introductions that provided overviews of

essays. The number of students who expended a large of proportion of their essays explaining

all the things that their essays would argue was disappointing, even distressing. One student

wrote the first half of each of the two essays explaining what would be argued, before going on

to repeat exactly the same material in the same order in the second half of each essay. Exam

essays are inevitably short; there is no point at all in telling the reader what they will be reading

within a page or two.

The most pleasing aspect of reviewing the exam scripts was in appreciating the extent to which

students had clearly developed quite extensive knowledge, and a sense of the key debates,

about regions and countries which at the start of the year few of them had much familiarity.

Many essays brought in recent events, occurring after the latest academic literature or the last

supervisions, indicating that interests have been developed through the course that persist

beyond the lecture room. Even if it didn’t always come out in the essay, it was apparent that

most students taking this paper have read and thought a lot about the complexities and

uncertainties of the politics of these diverse regions of the world.