POLS667 GRADUATE SEMINAR IN POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT

                                                                                                                             

SPRING 2009                                               Instructor: Kikue Hamayotsu

Department of Political Science                       Office: Zulauf Hall 414

Northern Illinois University                              Office Hours: M12-13/W11:30-13:30

                                                @@@@E-mail: khamayotsu@niu.edu

                                                                      Tel: 815-753-7048

Time : 3 :30-6 :10PM

Room : DU464

 

Course Overview:                                                           

 

Why does growth lead to a democratic transition in some countries but not in others? Why is corruption more rampant in an emerging democracy? Why are some authoritarian regimes stable while others are not? Why does religion play an active role in regime transition in some countries but not in others?

 

This course will introduce a range of essential analytical tools, approaches and theories in studying key aspects of political development. The focus of the course will be on central thematic questions in comparative politics, questions that are essential to understanding issues pertinent to politics in the developing world. The issues include:  political regimes and institutions, state-society relations, and political participation and mobilization. In particular, we will comparatively investigate questions such as sources and consequences of the type of regime, patterns of regime transition, and the role of non-governmental actors and institutions, and ask how they impact broader social and economic transformations. The course materials mainly cover regions/nations/political unites in the developing world including (but not exclusively) South/Southeast Asia, the Middle-East, and Africa.

 

The course primarily intends to help students to achieve the following goals:

(1)   Developing analytical skills and learn major theoretical approaches

(2)   Developing skills to adopt theories to practice

(3)   Understanding empirical cases of your interest and beyond

 

These goals are achieved by offering students analytical tools and approaches to investigate issues of political and policy significance from various theoretical perspectives pertinent to studies of comparative politics. Students will learn how to account for various patterns of political development across time and place. The themes/issues taken up in the course include: state formation, democratization, authoritarianism, civil society, political parties and elections, democracy and growth, politics of ethnicity, and religion and politics.

 

Course readings are chosen based on the merits of their analytical arguments rather than their country coverage, to enable students to achieve the following goals: (1) to gain empirical and conceptual understandings of the political dynamics of a given case/nation; (2) to think comparatively within the region and across the developing world more generally; and (3) to address and debate theoretical questions in political science/comparative politics through specific empirical cases. We do not, therefore, specifically study every single country in the same depth, but instead focus on country cases from Southeast Asia including Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and the Philippines. The course will refer to other country cases from within and outside the region, whenever they are relevant to our theoretical investigation and there is adequate interest among students. 

 

This is a seminar course primarily intended for graduate students. Thus, class discussion is a central component of the course. In order to encourage discussion among students, weekly class meetings consist of a brief lecture followed by discussion. Students are required to make two presentations: (1) an oral presentation and discussion of the weekfs reading: (2) a presentation of their research paper projects (see below for guideline).

 

 

Course Requirements:                                                         

 

1.      This is a reading-intensive course. All the course requirements will enable students to develop their analytical and writing skills in the course of your study. Students are expected to come to class having done the required reading beforehand and to actively participate in discussion and stimulate debate. Students should refer to the additional readings listed under the weekly topics in writing assignments.

A)      Students are required to write a one-page long response paper based on the required readings every week. The paper should be submitted to the instructor after each weekly meeting and will be counted as attendance.

B)       It is helpful to approach the readings with the following questions in mind: (a) what is the central question/debate? (b) what is the main argument advanced by an author? (c) how (method) does he/she reach the argument? what is the evidence for the argument? (d) what are the problems with the argument? (e) can you think of counterarguments to contradict the argument?  Students should address these questions in writing assignments and response papers.

 

2.      Two take home exam essays of approximately 2000 words (6-8pages) in length:

A)      Mid-term take-home exam (due on February 23)

B)       Final take-home exam (due on April 13)

‡@      The take-home exam will ask students to answer one or two questions that will address broad thematic questions addressed in the course. The paper must be comparative in nature (referring to at least two countries/cases) and needs to make an argument/take a position and be supported by evidence from lectures and course readings. The exam essays are meant to assess your ability to analyze some of the key theoretical questions. Students are not required to refer to readings beyond those required and recommended for the course. Students will have one week to complete the assignment.

‡A      The exams must be double-spaced and properly footnoted.

 

C)      One analytical research paper of approximately 3000 words (10-12 pages) in length: the paper is intended to assess studentsf skills to test theories learnt in the course by examining specific empirical cases. The paper should address a thematic question selected from the range of themes covered in the course. It should be designed to set up and answer a central question by adopting some case studies and to make an argument. The paper should be comparative in nature and refer to one or more comparable empirical cases of your preference covered in the class discussion and readings. Students are recommended to refer to the readings assigned in the relevant weeks. A good research paper will not just adopt a theory to determine if a given case fit the theory, nor simply describe cases, but should be driven by a good question; it will attempt to resolve some intriguing puzzle that does not fit any dominant theory/model in explaining a particular political phenomenon. Students are allowed to choose a weekly topic of their liking for which they will write their paper (see 4.A).

‡@      Students are asked to present their selected research project in the class to get feedback from their classmates and instructor (see 4.B). The presentation (and the paper) should be explicit about the following points:

1.        Question: what is your puzzle?

2.        Debates: what are the contending arguments in the existing literature?

3.        Hypothesis: what is your argument and findings?

4.        Case: what does your case(s) represent?

‡A      Grading is based on fulfillment of these points.

‡B      The paper must be double-spaced and properly footnoted.

‡C      Further guideline for this assignment will be given in the class.  

‡D      The deadline: Week 15 (April 20)

 

3.      Two class presentations:

A)      On the weekly readings:

‡@      On the first day of class, students will be asked to sign up for the week in which to present. The presentation topic should not coincide with your research paper topic.

‡A      The presentation should be a critique of the readings and must address central controversies to stimulate class discussion. The critique can also include issues of policy relevance and/or comparative perspectives from outside the region (you can be creative). The presentation should be approximately 10 minutes.

‡B      A weekfs presenter should post a one-page long response paper that will navigate class discussion by Saturday midnight. All the students have to read the paper before coming to the class.

B)       On the research paper project:

‡@      After 4 weeks, students will present their research paper projects in turn to get feedback from their colleagues and the instructor. Students are asked to sign up for a week in which to present.

‡A      The presentation should focus on the points mentioned above (see 2.C) and should be approximately 10min. Students assigned to present in earlier weeks of the course will be expected to give more emphasis on their research questions, designs, and contending hypotheses in the literature. Students assigned in later weeks will be expected to give more emphasis on their case studies and findings after briefly presenting their research questions.

 

 

Grade distribution:                                                              

 

1.      Class attendance and participation (10%)

2.      Class presentations (10%+10%=total 20%)

3.      Research paper (30%)

4.      Exams (20%+20%=total 40%)

 

Please note: late submission of assignments will result in grade reduction for a half-mark per day (e.g., gAh will be reduced to gA-h if submission is a day late).

 

 

Books to Purchase:                                                          

All of the books have been ordered at the university bookstore.

 

Kuhonta, Erik Martinez, Dan Slater, and Tuong Vu, eds. 2008. Southeast Asia in Political Science: Theory, Region, and Qualitative Analysis. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

O'Donnell, Guillermo, and Philippe C. Schmitter. 1986. Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.

 

Class Schedule                                                              

 

Week 1 (JAN 12)             Introduction: Tensions and Convergences Between Theories and Cases

Week 2 (JAN 19)              Martin Luther King Jr. holiday [NO CLASS]

Week 3 (JAN 26)              Theoretical Debates in Comparative Politics: Interests, Institutions and Cultures

Week 4 (FEB 2) State Formation: Origins and Types of State  

Week 5 (FEB 9)                 Authoritarianism: Sources and Mechanisms of Autocracies

Week 6 (FEB 16) Democratic Transitions: Theory

Week 7 (FEB 23)              Democratic Transitions: Evidence

**Mid-term exam paper due**

Week 8 (MAR 2)               Hybrid Regimes: Party Dominant Regimes

Week 9 (MAR 9)              Spring Break [NO CLASS]

Week 10 (MAR 16)          Civil Society and Political Oppositions

Week 11 (MAR 23)          Democratic Consolidation: Parties and Elections

Week 12 (MAR 30)          Quality of Democracy: Clientalism, Corruption and Violence 

Week 13 (APR 6)              Regimes and Growth

Week 14 (APR 13)           Ethnicity and Politics

** Final-exam paper due**

Week 15 (APR 20)            Religion and Politics: Faith as a Force for Political Change

** Research paper due**             

Week 16 (APR 27)           Reviews

                                         

 

 

WEEK 1 (JAN12).           INTRODUCTION: TENSIONS AND CONVERGENCES BETWEEN THEORIECS AND CASES

 

Questions:

  • Why are area studies discredited by some political scientists? What are the grounds for their argument? Is their argument valid?
  • Are area studies/knowledge unnecessary?

 

Required readings:

 

Bates, Robert. 1997. Area Studies and the Discipline: A Useful Controversy. PS: Political Science & Politics XXX (2):166-69.

Johnson, Charlmers. 1997. Preconception vs. Observation, or the Contributions of Rational Choice Theory and Area Studies to Contemporary Political Science. PS: Political Science & Politics XXX (2):170-74.

Kuhonta, Slater and Vu [KSV hereafter], chap.1 and chap.14.

 

McCargo, Duncan, and Robert H. Taylor. 1996. Politics. In An Introduction to Southeast Asian Studies, edited by M. Halib and T. Huxley. Lndon: Tauris Academic Studies.

Additional readings:

Taylor, R. H. 1993. Political Science and South East Asian Studies. South East Asia Research 1 (1):5-26.

Tessler, Mark, ed. 1999. Area Studies and Social Science: Strategies for Understanding Middle East Politics. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press: especially introduction (Tessler etc) and chap.1 (Anderson).

 

WEEK 2 (JAN 19).          Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday [NO CLASS]

 

WEEK 3 (JAN 26).          THEORETICAL DEBATES IN COMPARATIVE POLITICS: INTERESTS, INSTITUTIONS AND CULTURES

 

Questions:

  • What are weaknesses and strengths of each analytical approach in answering a given question/explaining a given outcome?
  • How do comparativists employ various approaches to answer what? Why do they adopt a particular approach but not others?

 

Required readings:

 

Berman, Sheri. 2001. Ideas, Norms and Culture in Political Analysis. Comparative Politics 33 (2):231-50.Cultur

Katznelson, Ira, and Barry R. Weingast, eds. 2005. Preferences and Situations: Points of Intersection Between Historical and Rational Choice Institutionalism. New York: Russell Sage Foundation: chap.1 (Katznelson and Weingast) and chap.11 (Mahony).

KSV, chap.13 (Emmerson)

Laitin, David D. 2002. Comparative Politics: The State of the Subdiscipline. In Political Science: The State of the Discipline, edited by I. Katznelson and H. V. Milner. New York: W.W. Norton & Company and American Political Science Association.

Little, Daniel. 1991. Rational-Choice Models and Asian Studies. Journal of Asian Studies 50 (1):35-52.

Ziblatt, Daniel. 2006. Of Course Generalize, but How? Returning to Middle-Range Theory in Comparative Politics. APSA-CP 17 (2):8-11.

 

Additional readings:

Collier[KH1] , David. 1991. New Perspectives on the Comparative Method. In Comparative Political Dynamics: Global Research Perspectives, edited by D. Rustow and K. P. Erickson. New York: Harper-Collins.

Geertz, Clifford. 1973. Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture. In The Interpretation of Cultures, edited by C. Geertz. New York: Basic.

Katznelson, Ira, and Helen V. Milner, eds. 2002. Political Science: The State of the Discipline. New York: W.W. Norton & Company and American Political Science Association.

Mahoney, James, and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, eds. 2003. Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pierson, Paul. 2000. Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics. American Political Science Review 94 (2):251-67.

Pierson, Paul, and Theda Skocpol. Historical Institutionalism in Contemporary Political Science. In Political Science: State of the Discipline, edited by I. Katznelson and H. V. Milner. New York: W.W. Norton & Company and American Political Science Association.

Ragin, Charles C. 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Zakaria, Fareed. 1994. Culture is Destiny: A Conversation with Lee Kuan Yew. Foreign Affairs 73 (2):109-26.

 

WEEK 4 (FEB 2).            STATE FORMATION: ORIGINS AND TYPES OF STATE

 

Questions:

  • How do we measure the strength/weakness of a state? Why do we care about it?
  • Why do we have the particular type of state that we have now? How do we account for variation?

 

Required readings:

 

KSV, chap.2 (Kuhonta)

Tilly, Charles. 1985. War Making and State Making as Organized Crime. In Bringing the State Back In, edited by P. B. Evans, D. Rueschemeyer and T. Skocpol. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Read any two of the followings according to your research focus:

Anderson, Benedict. 1983. Old State, New Society: Indonesia's New Order in Comparative Historical Perspective. Journal of Asian Studies: 477-96.

Callahan, Mary P. 2003. Making Enemies: War and State Building in Burma. Ithaca: Cornell University Press: 1-20.

Emmerson, Donald K. 1978. The Bureaucracy in Political Context: Weakness in Strength. In Political Power and Communications in Indonesia, edited by K. D. Jackson and L. W. Pye. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Hutchcroft, Paul D. 2000. Colonial Masters, National Politicos, and Provincial Lords: Central Authority and Local Autonomy in the American Philippines, 1900-1913. Journal of Asian Studies 59 (2):277-306.

Rich, Paul B., and Richard Stubbs, eds. 1997. The Counter-insurgent State: Guerrilla Warfare and State Building in the Twentieth Century. New York: St. Martin's Press. Selections (Read Introduction and either Stubbs on Malaysia or Abinales on the Philippines).

Ziblatt, Daniel. 2006. Structuring the State: The Formation of Italy and Germany and the Puzzle of Federalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press: chap.1-2.

 

Additional readings:

Evans, Peter B., Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol, eds. 1985. Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.

Furnivall, John S. 1939. The Fashioning of Leviathan. Journal of the Burma Research Society 29 (1):3-137.

Geddes, Barbara. 1994. Politician's Dilemma: Building State Capacity in Latin America. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Hamilton-Hart, Natasha. 2002. Asian States, Asian Bankers: Central Banking in Southeast Asia. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

Sidel, John T. 1999. Capital, Coercion, and Crime: Bossism in the Philippines. Stanford: Stanford University Press: especially 1-22.

Silberman, Bernard S. 1993. Cages of Reason: the Rise of the Rational State in France, Japan, The United States, and Great Britain. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tilly, Charles, ed. 1975. The Formation of National Stats in Western Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

 

WEEK 5 (FEB 9).            AUTHORITARIANISM: SOURCES AND MECHANISMS OF AUTOCRACIES

 

Questions:

  • What explains the robustness and longevity of authoritarianism in some countries but not in others?
  • What are the different patterns of military involvement in politics in Indonesia and Thailand? What are the implications of the difference on current political situations in both countries?
  • What were the bases of Suhartofs political power?

 

Bellin, Eva. 2004. The Robustness of Authoritarianism in the Middle East: Exceptionalism in Comparative Perspective. Comparative Politics 36 (2):139-57.

Crouch, Harold. 1979. Patrimonialism and Military Rule in Indonesia. World Politics 31:571-87.

Liddle, R. William. 1999. Regime: The New Order. In Indonesia Beyond Suharto, edited by D. K. Emmerson. New York: M.E. Sharpe.

Linz, Juan J., and Alfred Stepan. 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press: chap.3 (38-54).

Nathan, Andrew J. 2003. China's Changing of the Guard: Authoritarian Resilience. Journal of Democracy 14 (1):6-17.

 

Additional readings:

Alagappa, Muthiah. 1995. The Bases of Legitimacy. In Political Legitimacy in Southeast Asia: The Quest for Moral Authority, edited by M. Alagappa. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Selections.

Brooker, Paul. 2000. Non-Democratic Regimes: Theory, Government and Politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 1-35.

Callahan, Mary P. 2003. Making Enemies: War and State Building in Burma. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Dahl, Robert A. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press: especially 1-16.

Posusney[KH2] , Marsha Pripstein, and Michele Penner Angrist, eds. 2005. Authoritarianism in the Middle East: Regimes and Resistance: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Schmitter, Philippe C., and Terry Lynn Karl. 1991. What Democracy is. and is not. Journal of Democracy 2 (3):75-88.

Schwarz, Adam. 1999. A Nation in Waiting: Indonesia's search for stability. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

Schwarz, Adam, and Jonathan Paris, eds. 1999. The Politics of Post-Suharto Indonesia. New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press.

 

WEEK 6 (FEB 16).          DEMOCRATIC TRANSITIONS: THEORY

 

Questions:

·        Discuss the relationship between democratization and socio-economic change.

·        Why is the middle-class considered so significant to democratic transition?

·        Is the socio-economic theory for democratic transition irrelevant now? If so, why?

 

Required readings:

 

Bartrand, Jacques. 1998. Growth and Democracy in Southeast Asia. Comparative Politics 30 (3):355-75.

KSV, chap.3 (Slater): 55-79.  

 

Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1959. Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy. American Political Science Review 53 (1):69-105.

O'Donnell, Guillermo, and Philippe C. Schmitter. 1986. Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press: 2-72.

Additional readings:

Huntington, Samuel P. 1991. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman and London: University of Oklahoma Press.

Przeworski, Adam, and Fernando Limongi. 1997. Modernization: Theories and Facts. World Politics 49 (2):155-83.

 

WEEK 7 (FEB 23).         DEMOCRATIC TRANSITIONS: EVIDENCE

 

Questions:

  • To what extent are the existing major theories on democratization relevant to the cases of Southeast Asia? Do they have adequate leverage in accounting for variation in outcomes?
  • How do authors attempt to resolve discrepancies from the major theories of democratic transition and how successful are they?

 

Required readings:

 

Anderson, Benedict. 1998. Cacique Democracy in the Philippines. In The Spectre of Comparison: chap.9.

Bratton, Michael, and Nicolas Van de Walle. 1994. Neopatrimonial Regimes and Political Transitions in Africa. World Politics 46:453-89.

Brownlee, Jason. 2008. Bound to Rule: Party Institutions and Regime Trajectories in Malaysia and the Philippines. Journal of East Asian Studies 8:89-118.

Crouch, Harold. 1998. Indonesia's 'Strong' State. In Weak and Strong States in Asia-Pacific Societies. Sydney: Allen & Unwin in association with the Department of International Relations, RSPAS, ANU.

Sidel, John T. 2008. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy Revisited: Colonial State and Chinese Immigrant in the Making of Modern Southeast Asia. Comparative Politics 40 (2):127-47.

Additional readings:

Crouch, Harold, and James W. Morley. 1992. The Dynamics of Political Change. In Driven by Growth: Political Change in the Asia-Pacific Region, edited by J. W. Morley. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.

Collier, Ruth Berins. 1999. Paths toward Democracy: The Working Class and Elites in Western Europe and South America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Girling, John. 1996. Interpreting Development: Capitalism, Democracy, and the Middle Class in Thailand. Ithaca: Cornell University Southeast Asian Program.

Hellman, Joel S. 1998. Winners Take All: The Politics of Partial Reform in Postcommunist Transitions. World Politics 50 (2):203-34.

Hewison, Kevin, ed. 1997. Political Change in Thailand: democracy and participation. London and New York: Routledge.

Sidel, John T. 1998. Macet Total: Logics of Circulation and Accumulation in the Demise of Indonesia's New Order. Indonesia (66):159-94.

Thompson, Mark R. 1996. Off the Endangered List: Philippine Democratization in Comparative Perspective. Comparative Politics 28 (2):179-205.

 

WEEK 8 (MAR 2).         HYBRID REGIMES: DOMINANT PARTY SYSTEMS

 

Questions:

  • Why are party dominant undemocratic regimes more stable and resilient than other types of authoritarian regimes?
  • Can we expect any one of the party dominant regimes to collapse in the near future? If so, under what conditions?

 

Required readings:

 

Brownlee, Jason. 2004. Ruling Parties and Durable Authoritarianism. In CDDRL Working Papers. Stanford: Center on Democracy, Development, and The Rule of Law, Stanford Institute on International Studies.

Case, William. 2005. Southeast Asia's Hybrid Regime: When Do Voters Change Them? Journal of East Asian Studies 5:215-37.

Levitsky, Steven, and Lucan A. Way. 2002. Elections Without Democracy: The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism. Comparative Politics 13 (2):51-65.

Slater, Dan. 2003. Iron Cage in an Iron Fist: Authoritarian Institutionalization and the Personalization of Power in Malaysia. Comparative Politics 36 (1):81-101.

Vasavakul, Thaveeporn. 1995. Vietnam: The Changing Models of Legitimation. In Political Legitimacy in Southeast Asia: The Quest for Moral Authority, edited by M. Alagappa. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

 

Additional readings:

Brownlee, Jason. 2007. Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Case, William. 1996. Can the 'Halfway House' Stand?  Semidemocracy and Elite Theory in Three Southeast Asian Countries. Comparative Politics 28 (4):437-64.

 

Chang Heng Chee. 1976. The dynamics of One Party Dominance: The PAP at the Grass-Roots. Singapore: Singapore University Press.

Crouch, Harold. 1993. Malaysia: Neither authoritarian nor democratic. In Southeast Asia in the 1990s: Authoritarianism, Democracy and Capitalism, edited by K. Hewison, R. Robison and G. Rodan. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Greene, Kenneth F. 2007. Why Dominant Parties Lose: Mexico's Democratization in Comparative Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hamilton-Hart, Natasha. 2000. Singapore State Revisited. Pacific Review 13 (2):195-216.

Magaloni[KH3] , Beatriz. Voting for Autocracy: Hegemonic Party Survival and its Demise in Mexico, Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Rodan, Garry. 1996. Elections without Representation: The Singapore Experience under the PAP. In The Politics of Elections in Southeast Asia, edited by R. H. Taylor. Cambridge: Woodrow Wilson Center Press and Cambridge University Press.

Rodan, Garry. 2004. Transparency and authoritarian rule in Southeast Asia: Singapore and Malaysia. London: RoutledgeCurzon.

Tønnesson, Stein. 2000. The Layered State in Vietnam. In State Capacity in East Asia: Japan, Taiwan, China, and Vietnam, edited by K. E. Brødsgaard and S. Young. New York: Oxford University Press.

 

WEEK 9 (MAR 9).          SPRING BREAK [NO CLASS]  

 

WEEK 10 (MAR 16).     CIVIL SOCIETY AND POLITICAL OPPOSITIONS

 

Questions:

  • Why are some civil societies weak? What accounts for the various patterns of civil societyfs contribution to political opposition and democratization?
  • Is robust civil society necessary or sufficient for the healthy functioning of democracy?
  • Is civil society useless under an authoritarian regime?

 

Hedman, Eva-Lotta E. 2001. Contesting State and Civil Society: Southeast Asian Trajectories. Modern Asian Studies 35 (4):921-51.

Jesudason, James V. 1995. Statist Democracy and the Limits of Civil Society in Malaysia. Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics 33 (3):335-56.

Langohr, Vickie. 2004. Too Much Civil Society, Too Little Politics: Egypt and Liberalizing Arab Regimes. Comparative Politics 36 (2):181-203.

SKV, chap.7 (Weiss)

Weiss, Meredith L. 2006. Protest and Possibilities: Civil Society and Coalitions for Political Change in Malaysia. Edited by M. Alagappa, East-West Center Series on Contemporary Issues in Asia and the Pacific. Stanford: Stanford University Press: 1-22, 42-52.

Additional Readings:

 

Alagappa, Muthiah, ed. 2004. Civil Society and Political Change in Asia. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Selections.

Aspinall, Edward. 2005. Opposing Suharto: Compromise, Resistance, and Regime Change in Indonesia. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Berman, Sheri. 1997. Civil Society and the Collapse of the Weimar Republic. World Politics 49 (3):401-29.

Berman, Sheri. 2003. Islamism, Revolution, and Civil Society. Perspectives 1 (2):257-72.

Boudreau, Vincent. 2001. Grassroots and Cadre in the Protest Movement. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Hedman, Eva-Lotta E. 2006. In the Name of Civil Society: From Free Election Movements to People Power in the Philippines. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.

Jesudason, James V. 1996. The Syncretic State and the Structuring of Oppositional Politics in Malaysia. In Political Oppositions in Industrializing Asia, edited by G. Rodan. London and New York: Routledge.

Putnam, Robert D. 1994. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Rodan, Garry, ed. 1996. Political Oppositions in Industrializing Asia. London and New York: Routledge. Selections.

 

WEEK 11 (MAR 23).      CONSOLIDATION OF DEMOCRACY: PARTIES, ELECTIONS AND WHAT ELSE?

 

Questions:

  • What does it take for democratic consolidation? Under what conditions can a democracy be consolidated?
  • Why is democratic consolidation difficult in some cases but not in others?
  • Discuss a potential threat of military coup in the process of democratic consolidation. What accounts for the degree of the threat?

 

Required readings:

 

KSV, chap.4 (Hicken).

Linz, Juan J., and Alfred Stepan. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press: chaps.4-5 (55-83).

Mainwaring, Scott, and Timothy R. Scully, eds. 1995. Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America. Stanford: Stanford University Press: chap.1.

Alagappa, Muthiah, ed. 2001. Coercion and Governance: The Declining Political Role of the Military in Asia. Stanford: Stanford University Press (Ockeyfs chapter on Thailand).

Slater, Dan. 2004. Indonesia's Accountability Trap: Party Cartels and Presidential Power after Democratic Transition. Indonesia (78):61-92.

Varshney, Ashutosh. 1998. Why Democracy Survives. Journal of Democracy 9 (3):36-50.

 

Additional readings:

Alagappa, Muthiah, ed. 2001. Coercion and Governance: The Declining Political Role of the Military in Asia. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Buehler, Michael, and Paige Tan. 2007. Party-Candidate Relationships in Indonesian Local Politics: A Case Study of the 2005 Regional Elections in Gowa, South Sulawesi Province. Indonesia (84):41-69.

Fish, Steven. 1999. Democracy Derailed in Russia: The Failure of Open Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Grzymala-Busse, Anna. 2007. Rebuilding Leviathan: Party Competition and State Exploitation in Post-Communist Democracies. New York: Cambridge University Press: chap.3.

Katz, Richard S., and Peter Mair. 1995. Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Democracy: The Emergence of the Cartel Party. Party Politics 1 (1):5-28.

Taylor, R.H., ed. 1996. The Politics of Elections in Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Woodrow Wilson Center Press and Cambridge University Press.

 

WEEK 12 (MAR 30).     QUALITY OF DEMOCRACY: CLIENTALISM, CORRUPTION AND VIOLENCE

 

Questions:

  • Can democratization resolve the problem of corruption? If so (or not), why and how?

Required readings:

Anderson, Benedict. 1998. Murder and Progress in Modern Siam. In The Spectre of Comparison: chap.8.

Malley, Michael S. 2003. New Rules, Old Structures and the Limits of Democratic Decentralization. In Local Power and Politics in Indonesia: Decentralisation & Democratisation, edited by E. Aspinall and G. Feally. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Ockey, James. 1998. Crime, Society, and Politics in Thailand. In Gangsters, Democracy, and the State in Southeast Asia, edited by C. A. Trocki. Ithaca: Cornell University Southeast Asian Program.

Sidel, John T. 1999. Capital, Coercion, and Crime: Bossism in the Philippines. Stanford: Stanford University Press: 1-80.

Additional readings:

Buehler, Michael. 2008. The rise of shari'a by-laws in Indonesian districts: An indication for changing patterns of power accumulation and political corruption. South East Asia Research 16 (2):255-85.

Buehler, Michael, and Paige Tan. 2007. Party-Candidate Relationships in Indonesian Local Politics: A Case Study of the 2005 Regional Elections in Gowa, South Sulawesi Province. Indonesia (84):41-69.

Hadiz, Vedi R. 2004. Indonesian Local Party Politics: A Site of Resistance to Neo liberal Reform. Critical Asian Studies 36 (4):615-36.

Hewison, Kevin, ed. 1997. Political Change in Thailand: democracy and participation. London and New York: Routledge.

Sidel, John T. 1997. Philippine Politics in Town, District, and Province: Bossism in Cavite and Cebu. Journal of Asian Studies 56 (4):947-66.

Sidel, John T. 2004. Bossism and Democracy in the Philippines, Thailand, and Indonesia: Towards and Alternative Framework for the Study of 'Local Strongman'. In Politicising Democracy: Local Politics and Democratisation in Developing Countries, edited by J. Harriss, K. Stokke and O. Teornquist. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Trocki, Carl A., ed. 1998. Gangsters, Democracy, and The State in Southeast Asia. Ithaca: Cornell University Southeast Asia Program.

 

WEEK 13 (APR 6).         REGIMES AND GROWTH

 

Questions:

  • Is democracy necessary for growth?
  • How does economic crisis cause a regime transition? Why does economic crisis trigger a regime transition in some cases but not in others?

 

Required readings:

 

Doner, Richard F. 1992. Limits of State Strength: Toward an Institutionalist View of Economic Development. World Politics (44):398-431.

Hutchcroft, Paul D. 1998. Booty Capitalism: The Politics of Banking in the Philippines. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press: 1-44.

Pepinsky, Thomas. 2008. Capital Mobility and Coalitional Politics: Authoritarian Regimes and Economic Adjustment in Southeast Asia. World Politics 60 (3):438-74.

SKV, chap.10 (Abrami and Doner)

Additional readings:

Doner, Richard F. 1991. Approaches to the Politics of Economic Growth in Southeast Asia. Journal of Asian Studies 50 (4):818-49.

Hamilton-Hart, Natasha. 2002. Asian States, Asian Bankers: Central Banking in Southeast Asia. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

Jomo, K.S., and Chen Yun Chung, eds. 1997. Southeast Asia's Misunderstood Miracle: Industrial policy and economic development in Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Selections.

Khan, Mushtaq H., and K.S. Jomo, eds. 2000. Rents, Rent-Seeking and Economic Development: Theory and Evidence in Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

MacIntyre, Andrew, ed. 1994. Business and Government in Industrializing Asia. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Selections.

McVey, Ruth, ed. 1992. Southeast Asian Capitalists. Ithaca: Cornell University Southeast Asia Program.

Rodan, Garry, Kevin Hewison, and Richard Robison, eds. 1997. The Political Economy of South-East Asia: An Introduction. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

 

WEEK 14 (APR 13).       ETHNICITY AND POLITICS

 

Questions:

  • What are the causes of ethnic violence? How and to what extent does gidentityh facilitate violence?
  • Discuss the relationship between economic conditions/grievances and ethnic violence.

 

Bertrand, Jacques. 2004. Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict in Indonesia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 1-27, 45-71, 184-223.

McKenna, Thomas M. 1998. Muslim Rulers and Rebels: Everyday Politics and Armed Separatism in the Southern Philippines. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press: 1-24, 69-85, 269-89.

Sidel, John T. 2001. Riots, Church Burnings, Conspiracies: The moral economy of the Indonesian crowd in the late twentieth Century. In Violence in Indonesia, edited by I. Wessel and G. Wimhofer. Hamburg: Abera Verlag Markus Voss.

SKV, chap.9 (Davidson)

 

Additional readings:

Aragon, Lorraine V. 2001. Communal Violence in Poso, Central Sulawasi: Where People East Fish and Fish East People. Indonesia (72):45-79.

Aspinall, Edward. 2006. Violence and Identity Formation in Aceh under Indonesian Rule. In Verandah of Violence: The Background to the Aceh Problem, edited by A. Reid. Seattle: Singapore University Press in association with University of Washington Press.

Chandra[KH4] , Kanchan, Why Ethnic Parties Succeed: Patronage and Ethnic Head Counts in India, Cambridge University Press, 2007. [Order Exam Copy].

Kell, Tim. 1995. The Roots of Acehnese Rebellion, 1989-1992. Ithaca: Cornell Modern Indonesian Project, Southeast Asian Program, Cornell University.

McCargo, Duncan. 2007. Thaksin and the Resurgence of Violence in the Thai South. In Rethinking Thailand's Southern Violence. Singapore: NUS Press.

McVey, Ruth. 1989. Identity and Rebellion among Southern Thai Muslims. In The Muslims of Thailand, edited by A. D. W. Forbes. Gaya: Center for South East Asian Studies.

Rush, James R. 1983. Social Control and Influence in Nineteenth Century Indonesia: Opium Farms and the Chinese of Java. Indonesia 35:53-64.

Schwarz, Adam. 1999. A Nation in Waiting: Indonesia's search for stability. Sydney: Allen and Unwin: chap.5.

Skinner, G. William. 1957. Chinese Society in Thailand: An Analytical History. Ithaca: Cornell University Press: chaps.2-5.

Taylor, Robert H. 1982. Perceptions of Ethnicity in the Politics of Burma. Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science 10 (1):7-22.

 

WEEK 15 (APR 20).       RELIGION AND POLITICS: FAITH AS A FORCE FOR POLITICAL CHANGE

 

Questions:

  • What accounts for the varied patterns/degrees of religionfs contribution to political mobilization across place and across religious tradition?
  • Why does religion play an active role in democratization in some countries but not in others?

 

Required readings:

 

Bellin, Eva. 2008. Faith in Politics: New Trends in the Study of Religion and Politics. World Politics 60 (2):315-47.

KSV, chap.9 (Hamayotsu).

Levine, Daniel H., and Scott Mainwaring. 1989. Religion and Popular Protest in Latin America: Contrasting Experiences. In Power and Popular Protest: Latin American Social Movements, edited by S. Eckstein. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Original edition, 1989.

Liddle, William R. 1996. The Islamic Turn in Indonesia: A Political Explanation. Journal of Asian Studies 55 (3):613-34.

Wickham, Carrie Rosefsky. 2002. Mobilizing Islam: Religion, Activism, and Political Change in Egypt. New York: Columbia University Press: chap.1, 7, and 9.

 

Additional readings:

Diamond, Larry, Marc F. Plattner, and Daniel Brumberg, eds. 2003. Islam and Democracy in the Middle East, Journal of Democracy Book. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hefner, Robert W. 2000. Civil Islam: Muslims and Democratization in Indonesia. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Kalyvas, Stathis N. 1996. The Rise of Christian Democracy in Europe. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

Kalyvas, Stathis N. 2000. Commitment Problems in Emerging Democracies: The Case of Religious Parties. Comparative Politics 32 (4):379-98.

Langohr, Vickie. 2001. Of Islamists and Ballot Boxes: Rethinking the Relationship between Islamists and Electoral Politics. International Journal of Middle East Studies (33):591-610.

Levine, Daniel H. 1981. Religion and Politics in Latin America: The Catholic Church in Venezuela and Colombia. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Matthews, Bruce. 1993. Buddhism under a Military Regime: The Iron Heel in Burma. Asian Survey 33 (4):408-23.

Sidel, John T. 2003. Other Schools, Other Pilgrimages, Other Dreams: The Making and Unmaking of Jihad In Southeast Asia. In In Southeast Asia over Three Generations: Essays Presented to Benedict R.O.G. Anderson, edited by J. T. Siegel and A. R. Kahin. Ithaca: Southeast Asian Program, Cornell University.

Sidel, John T. 2006. Riots, Pogroms, Jihad: Religious Violence in Indonesia. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Tepe, Sultan. 2005. Religious Parties and Democracy: A Comparative Assessment of Israel and Turkey. Democratization 12 (3):283-307.

Tessler, Mark. 2002. Islam and Democracy in the Middle East: The Impact of Religious Orientation on Attitudes toward Democracy in Four Arab Countries. Comparative Politics 34 (3):337-54.

Wickham, Carrie Rosefsky. 2004. Interests, Ideas, and Islamist Outreach in Egypt. In Islamic Activism: A Social Movement Theory Approach, edited by Q. Wiktorowicz. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

 

WEEK 16 (APR 27).       REVIEWS


 [KH1]Order the book.

 [KH2]Order the book and add the city onto the library.

 [KH3]Order an exam copy.

 [KH4]Order an exam copy.