906 DAHT Office: 309 Dale Hall Tower
W 7:00-9:40 Office Hours: TuW 2:00-3:30
E-mail: briantaylor@ou.edu
Phone: 325-2023

COURSE DESCRIPTION

This course is designed for students broadly interested in the field of comparative politics. No prior knowledge of Russian politics is assumed, and the course is not intended to provide a comprehensive overview of Russian history and politics. Rather, the course is designed to demonstrate how comparativists who focus on Russia have engaged some of the seminal works in the subfield of comparative politics. Approaches/topics to be considered include: revolutions and macro-historical sociology, political development and political order, new institutionalism, political culture, and institutional performance. The goals are two-fold: 1) to expose students to some of the most important works in comparative politics; 2) to explore how scholars go about applying major theories to specific empirical problems.

READINGS AND REQUIRED TEXTS

There are eleven (!) required texts for the course. The following books are available for purchase at the University Bookstore.

Theda Skocpol, States and Social Revolutions.

Edward Acton, Rethinking the Russian Revolution.

Samuel Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies.

Seweryn Bialer, Stalin's Successors.

Douglas North, Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance.

Philip Roeder, Red Sunset.

Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba, The Civic Culture

Nicolai Petro, The Rebirth of Russian Democracy.

Robert Putnam, Making Democracy Work.

Kathryn Stoner-Weiss, Local Heroes: The Political Economy of Russian Regional Governance.

Mark Lichbach and Alan Zuckerman, eds., Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure.

There also is a packet of articles for the course. I can either make a packet available at King Kopy or simply distribute it to the group directly to arrange photocopying. We will discuss this the first week of class.

COURSE EXPECTATIONS AND GRADING

This course is a seminar; attendance and participation are essential. Each student will write three short (6-8 pages, double-spaced) review essays over the course of the semester. These essays will critically assess the readings for that week. A list of questions to consider when writing these review essays is attached; this list is also useful to think about as you do each week's readings, whether or not you are writing an essay that week. These essays will be distributed to the entire class and help orient the discussion for that week. The essays will be due by Tuesday at noon, so everyone has adequate time to read them before the seminar. I would suggest that we create an email list and email the essays as attachments, but I am open to other methods.

Each student will also lead class discussion twice, which will involve critically commenting on the essays for that week and defining the discussion agenda for the seminar. These components of the course (participation, short essays, discussion leader) will comprise about 70 percent of the grade.

The remaining 30 percent will be based on a research design paper of about 10-12 pages. This paper will involve proposing a research question that builds on one of the previous review essays. The student will NOT conduct the research, and the topic need not focus solely on Russia. The purpose for the research design paper is to think about how one would go about conducting empirical research if using one of these major theoretical approaches. The completed paper is due Monday, May 3.

There is no final exam for the class.

ACCOMMODATION POLICY AND ACADEMIC HONESTY

Any student in this course who has a disability that may prevent him or her from fully demonstrating his or her abilities should contact me personally as soon as possible so we can discuss accommodations necessary to ensure full participation and facilitate your educational opportunities.

Students are expected to read and abide by the Academic Misconduct Code, as printed in the Student Handbook. University rules against plagiarism will be enforced. The rules about plagiarism also apply to material found on the Internet. N.B.: I take this very seriously.

COURSE SCHEDULE AND READINGS

N.B. Page numbers for articles from the reading packet refer to their page number in the original text.

January 13: Introduction

This meeting is primarily administrative, and a chance to get acquainted. We will not meet the full period.

Reading: Mark Lichbach and Alan Zuckerman, "Research Traditions and Theory in Comparative Politics: An Introduction," in Lichbach and Zuckerman, Comparative Politics, pp. 3-16.

[Since we are not meeting the full period, please consider reading this article the last hour of our first class!]

PART I: REVOLUTIONS AND THE USE OF HISTORY

January 20: Skocpol and Revolutions

Reading: Theda Skocpol, States and Social Revolutions.

Concentrate especially on the theory sections and the sections on Russia, but be sure to skim the sections on France and China. She does a good job of summarizing as she goes along.

Papers:

Discussant: Brian

January 27: The New History on the Russian Revolution

Reading: Edward Acton, Rethinking the Russian Revolution.

Papers:

Discussant:

Additional Questions: Think about what underlying theories and proposed causal mechanisms underlie the different approaches to the Russian revolution, and how this work fits with Skocpol's interpretation.

February 3: The Use of History in Political Science Arguments

Readings:

Ian Lustick, "History, Historiography, and Political Science: Multiple Historical Records and the Problem of Selection Bias," APSR, Vol. 90, No. 3 (September 1996), pp. 605-618.

Richard Pipes, "1917 and the Revisionists," The National Interest, Spring 1993, pp. 68-79.

Ira Katznelson, "Structure and Configuration in Comparative Politics," in Lichbach and Zuckerman, Comparative Politics, pp. 81-112.

Doug McAdam, Sidney Tarrow, and Charles Tilly, "Toward an Integrated Perspective on Social Movements and Revolution," in Lichbach and Zuckerman, Comparative Politics, pp. 142-173.

Papers:

Discussant:

Additional Questions: How do political scientists use (and abuse) historical evidence and arguments? What do we make of Skocpol's argument now, after being exposed to the alternatives? Do the "revisionists" offer structural, cultural, or rational accounts of the Russian revolution, or can they be classified this way? What about Pipes?

PART II: POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT AND POLITICAL ORDER

February 10: Huntington, Political Development, and Political Order

Reading: Samuel Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies.

Papers:

Discussant:

February 17: Bialer and Political Stability in the Soviet Union

Reading: Seweryn Bialer, Stalin's Successors.

You can ignore Part IV (on foreign policy).

Papers:

Discussant:

Additional Questions: To what extent does Bialer's account of Soviet political development and political order draw on Huntington's argument? What other factors does he think are important?

February 24: Rethinking Political Order and Political Development

Readings:

Zbigniew Brzezinski, "The Soviet Political System: Transformation or Degeneration?", Problems of Communism, January 1966, pp. 1-15.

Richard Lowenthal, "On 'Established' Communist Party Regimes," Studies in Comparative Communism, Winter 1974, reprint pp. 785-807.

Joel Migdal, "Studying the State," in Lichbach and Zuckerman, Comparative Politics, pp. 208-236.

Karen Remmer, "Theoretical Decay and Theoretical Development: The Resurgence of Institutional Analysis," World Politics, October 1997, pp. 34-61.

Papers:

Discussant:

Additional Questions: Reconsider Soviet political development and order based on Brzezinski and Lowenthal, and more recent theoretical literature on the general topic (as discussed in Migdal and Remmer).

PART III: NEW INSTITUTIONALISM

March 3: North and Institutions

Reading: Douglas North, Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance.

Papers:

Discussant:

March 10: New Institutionalism and the Collapse of the Soviet Union

Readings: Philip Roeder, Red Sunset.

Papers:

Discussant:

Additional Questions: To what extent does Roeder draw on North's argument in his account of the Soviet collapse?

March 17: Spring Break

March 24: New Institutionalism and the Collapse of the Soviet Union Revisited

Readings:

Robert Daniels, "Political Processes and Generational Change," in Archie Brown, ed., Political Leadership in the Soviet Union, pp. 96-126.

Alexander Dallin, "Causes of the Collapse of the USSR," 1992, reprint, pp. 673-695.

Margaret Levi, "A Model, and Method, and a Map: Rational Choice in Comparative and Historical Analysis," in Lichbach and Zuckerman, Comparative Politics, pp. 19-41.

Peter Hall and Rosemary Taylor, "Political Science and the Three New Institutionalism," Political Studies, 1996, pp. 936-957.

Papers:

Discussant:

Additional Questions: How does Roeder's argument differ from Daniels' on the "circular flow of power"? And from Dallin's explanation for the Soviet collapse? To what extent is new institutionalism a rational choice approach?

PART IV: POLITICAL CULTURE

March 31: Political Culture

Readings: Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba, The Civic Culture.

Papers:

Discussant:

April 7: Russian Political Culture

Readings: Nicolai Petro, The Rebirth of Russian Democracy.

Papers:

Discussant:

Additional Questions: Compare the methods and arguments of Petro to those of Almond and Verba.

April 14: Political Culture Reconsidered

Readings:

Stephen White, "The USSR: Patterns of Autocracy and Industrialism," in Archie Brown and Jack Gray, eds., Political Culture and Political Change in Communist States, 1977, pp. 25-65.

Frederic Fleron, "Post-Soviet Political Culture in Russia: An Assessment of Recent Empirical Investigations," Europe-Asia Studies, 1996, pp. 225-260.

David Elkins and Richard Simeon, "A Cause in Search of Its Effect, of What Does Political Culture Explain?", Comparative Politics, January 1979, pp. 127-145.

Marc Howard Ross, "Culture and Identity in Comparative Political Analysis," in Lichbach and Zuckerman, Comparative Politics, pp. 42-80.

Papers:

Discussant:

Additional Questions: Compare White and Fleron's assessments of Russian political culture to Petro's; what are the sources of agreement and disagreement? Does political culture contribute to an explanation of democratization in Russia?

PART V: INSTITUTIONAL PERFORMANCE

April 21: Putnam, Democracy, and Social Capital

Readings: Robert Putnam, Making Democracy Work.

Also useful:

David Laitin, "The Civic Culture at 30," APSR, March 1995, pp. 168-173.
[review of Putnam as an exemplar of political culture research]

Sidney Tarrow, "Making Social Science Work across Space and Time: A Critical Reflection on Robert Putnam's Making Democracy Work, APSR, June 1996, pp. 389-398.
[critique of Putnam from a structural perspective]

Papers:

Discussant:

April 28: Regional Performance in Russia

Readings: Kathryn Stoner-Weiss, Local Heroes: The Political Economy of Russian Regional Governance.

Papers:

Discussant:

Additional Questions: Compare Stoner-Weiss's methods and arguments to Putnam's.

MONDAY, MAY 3 RESEARCH DESIGN PAPER DUE
 

QUESTIONS FOR THINKING ABOUT THE READINGS/PAPERS

A. What is the central argument?

-- What causal chain is posited?

-- What are the variables (Independent, Intervening, Dependent)? How defined and operationalized?

-- What explanations are offered for the posited connections between the variables?

-- Try to arrow diagram the argument (a à b à c, etc.)
 

B. What are the major strengths and weakness of the argument?

-- Does the posited causal chain make sense? Is it clear?

-- How does the author use evidence? Is disconfirming evidence supressed or ignored? Are alternative explanations dealt with adequately?

-- Are you satisfied with the amount and persuasiveness of the evidence? Can you think of disconfirming evidence?

-- Is the argument about necessary or sufficient conditions, or is this unclear?

-- Are there relevant variables ignored by the author?

-- If you think the argument has problems, can it be fixed? Or is it fatally flawed?
 

C. How does this argument connect to the larger comparative politics literature?

-- Is it a rational, cultural, or structural argument, or does it not fit any of these approaches?

-- Does it relate to other works discussed in this class? (for example, how does Skocpol relate to Huntington, Huntington to North, Almond and Verba to Putnam, etc.) To works you have discussed in other classes?
 
 

D. How would you test the theory?

-- Think of hard and easy tests

-- What issues from history or current events can we think of which the theory be applied to? What about other regions or countries? How does this literature connect to other areas and topics?
 

E. Your personal judgment.

-- How would you rate the importance of the works? For the classics, do they deserve to be? For the material on Russia, have these works advanced the study of comparative politics? of Russian studies?
 

F. If you feel a bit unclear about the nature of theory, and how they are tested, you may wish to consult:

Stephen Van Evera, Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science, Cornell University Press.

King, Keohane, and Verba, Designing Social Inquiry, Princeton University Press.