attempts to measure democracy cross-nationally and over time, and reviewing ...
evaluate the consequences of democracy for economic development, citizen ...
POLI 423C/516C: Measuring Democracy University of British Columbia, Department of Political Science, Term 2 2012-13 http://www.faculty.arts.ubc.ca/bnyblade/poli423.html http://blogs.ubc.ca/nybladepoli423 Benjamin Nyblade Email:
[email protected] Office: Buchanan C322
Tel: (604) 822-4559 Office Hours: Thursday 12:00-1:00 p.m.
Description Orwell wrote that "defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning." In this seminar we consider how we might overcome this challenge, assessing competing conceptualizations of democracy, evaluating attempts to measure democracy cross-nationally and over time, and reviewing attempts to systematically evaluate the consequences of democracy for economic development, citizen welfare, and domestic and international peace. Expectations This seminar is cross-listed for graduate and undergraduate students. Expectations are similar for both types of students, although the reading load is somewhat heavier for graduate students. Seminar participants are expected to: (1) actively participate, both in class and online, (2) critically read and evaluate the course material, and (3) write two essays (described below). In proportion to the amount of effort participants put in, we can expect to develop a greater understanding of democracy (both conceptually and empirically) and improve our ability to think critically and write clearly. Assignments The assignments in this seminar focus on how we can convey political science research to non-academic audiences. In particular we will focus on writing for the general public as well as for NGOs and governments. Each student will maintain a blog, shared with class members, and are assigned to write several (short) blog posts each week. Students are also expected to comment on other blogs regularly. There are two longer writing assignments: a 2000-word research report and a 3000-word review of academic literature, both targeted at an NGO audience. Students will work online and in-class in small groups to discuss and improve their blog posts and paper assignments, and have the opportunity 'revise and resubmit' papers based on extensive feedback from fellow students. Assessment In-Class Participation First Paper
10% 20%
Online Participation Second Paper
10% 30%
Blog Posts
30%
Readings All readings will be made available freely to students electronically in a manner in consistent with UBC policy and copyright law. The reading load is reasonable in terms of total number of pages, but the readings are not easy. Many readings in the second half of the course use quantitative data, statistical techniques and terminology you may not be familiar with. As such, the readings will be challenging and we will spend extra effort working through how to understand, critically assess and write about them.
1
Blogs Becoming a better writer requires practice. One particularly important form of writing is “short” expository writing, in which you seek to convey a clear and coherent message in a compelling fashion without belaboring the point. We will practice this sort of writing in this class in the form of blog posts. You will be expected to write a minimum of four posts per week on a blog, and participate actively in commenting on your classmate’s blog posts as well. You may use your own preferred blogging site if you wish for these assignments—the only requirement we have is that the blog posts are made available to your classmates and the instructor. However, I encourage you to use UBC Blogs, for which I can provide technical support, and which also has access control features that can allow you to limit access to the blog to your classmates and any others you explicitly choose to share with. Each week (Weeks 2-13) you are expected to write: One post related to the readings for that week One post on ‘democracy in the news’ One “small assignment” post (see pp. 6-7 of the syllabus) One or more elective posts Examples of these types of posts, as well as most class materials, can be found on the instructor’s blog. Major Writing Assignments There are two major writing assignments for this class. The first paper is a 2000-word report comparing and contrasting measures of democracy for a specific region of the world. The second paper is a 3000word report in which you critically assess the status of research in one of the debates over the consequences of democracy examined in the second half of the course. You will have the opportunity to “workshop” initial drafts of both papers with classmates. You will also have the opportunity to submit a first version of the paper which will receive extensive feedback, and then have the opportunity to revise and resubmit the paper for a better mark. The First Paper: Regional Democracy Report You have been hired as a Research Associate with the Nyblade Foundation to work on their Regional Democracy Reports. One part of the RDR will focus on assessing measures of democracy for the countries in a certain region. There a wide range of regions (each with six countries), which you may consider, and with instructor permission you may ‘create’ a region. You have been entrusted with the initial draft of the ‘Measures of Democracy in X’ portion for one of the RDRs. In this report, you must (1) summarize major measures of democracy for countries in the region over time, (2) compare and contrast differences in the measures, and (3) assess the usefulness of the measures. You will workshop the initial draft of the paper in class on February 14th. A revised draft of the report is due by the beginning of class on February 28th. Following submission you will receive a mark and detailed feedback, which you may use to ‘revise and resubmit’ your paper. You are expected to submit a revised version of your report based on the feedback by the beginning of class within two weeks of receiving detailed feedback on the original draft. Your overall mark on the paper will be the average of the marks on the two versions of the paper.
2
The Second Paper: Literature Assessment The Nyblade Foundation would like to spend further efforts fundraising for its democracy promotion efforts. It would like to be able to point out to potential donors the beneficial effects of democracy, but it would like to not be disingenuous in any claims it makes. Therefore, it is asking you to write up a concise but critical review of key articles in the debate as well as your assessment as to how strong the support for the potential beneficial consequence of democracy is. Links to supplementary readings for each topic will be made available on the course blog, and you are free to draw on any other related readings you find to be relevant. In the 3000-word report, you must (1) concisely and critically assess the argument and evidence made by the assigned articles in the debate you choose to write about and (2) provide a clear recommendation about whether (and if so, how) the Foundation could legitimately rely on the evidence on the beneficial effects of democracy in this area to further their advocacy and fundraising. You will have the opportunity to workshop initial ideas, drafts and outlines of the paper in class near the end of term, but unlike the first paper, there is no formal opportunity for a revising and resubmitting the paper. You will workshop drafts of the paper in class on April 4th, and a revised draft is due by the 11th of April (the first Thursday of Final Examination period) at noon. This second paper is in lieu of a final examination, and thus consideration will be given to any students facing examination hardship.
3
Core Readings Week 2. Defining Democracy (Jan 10) ● Schmitter, Philippe C., and Terry Lynn Karl, “What Democracy Is… and Is Not,” Journal of Democracy 2, no. 3 (1991): 75-88. ● Collier, David, and Steven Levitsky, “Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research,” World Politics 49 (1997): 430-51. ¶ Schumpeter, Joseph, “The Classical Doctrine of Democracy” and “Another Theory of Democracy,” in Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (1950). ¶ Dahl, Robert, Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition, Ch. 1. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971. Week 3. Debating Definitions (Jan 17) ● Przeworski, Adam, “Minimalist Conception of Democracy: A Defense”, pp. 23-55 in Shapiro and Hacker-Cordón, eds., Democracy’s Value (1999). ● Mackie, Gerry, “Schumpeter’s Leadership Democracy,” Political Theory 37:1 (2009): 128-53. ● Collier, David and Robert Adcock, “Democracy and Dichotomies: A Pragmatic Approach to Choices about Concepts,” Annual Review of Political Science 2 (1999): 537-65. Week 4. Principles for Measurement (Jan 24) ● Adcock, Robert and David Collier, “Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research,” American Political Science Review 95:3 (2001): 529-46. ● Herrera, Yoshiko M. and Devesh Kapur, “Improving Data Quality: Actors, Incentives and Capabilities.” Political Analysis 15 (2007): 365-87. ● Schedler, Andreas. “Judgment and Measurement in Political Science.” Perspectives on Politics 10 (2012): 21-36. ¶ Goertz, Gary. 2006. Social Science Concepts. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Chapters 1 and 4. Week 5-6. Measures of Democracy (Jan 31, Feb 7) ● Coppedge, Michael and Wolfgang H. Reinicke, “Measuring Polyarchy”, Studies in Comparative International Development 25:1 (1990): 51-72. ● Alvarez, Michael, José A. Cheibub, Fernando Limongi and Adam Przeworski, “Classifying Political Regimes,” Studies in Comparative International Development 31:2 (1996): 3-36. ● Reich, Gary, “Categorizing Political Regimes: New Data for Old Problems,” Democratization 9:4 (2002): 1-24. ¶ Coppedge, Michael and John Gerring. “Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: A New Approach” Perspectives on Politics 9:2 (2011): 247-67. Week 7. Comparing Measures (Feb 14) ● Munck, Gerardo L. and Jay Verkuilen, “Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: Evaluating Alternative Indices”, Comparative Political Studies 35:1 (2002): 5-34. ● Coppedge, Michael, Angel Alvarez and Claudia Maldonado, “Two Persistent Dimensions of Democracy: Contestation and Inclusiveness,” Journal of Politics 70:3 (2008): 632-47. ¶ Pemstein, Daniel, Stephen A. Meserve and James Melton. “Democratic Compromise: A Latent Variable Analysis of Ten Measures of Regime Type.” Political Analysis 18 (2010): 426-449. ¶ Seawright, Jason and David Collier. “Rival Strategies for Validation: Tools for Evaluating Measures of Democracy.” Comparative Political Studies forthcoming January 2014.
4
Week 8: Consequences of Measurement (Feb 28) ● Paxton, Pamela. “Women’s Suffrage in the Measurement of Democracy: Problems of Operationalization” Studies in Comparative International Development 35:3 (2000) 92-111. ● Doorensplet, Renske, “Reassessing the Three Waves of Democratization,” World Politics 52 (2000): 384-406. ● Elkins, Zachary, “Gradations of Democracy? Empirical Tests of Alternative Conceptualizations” American Journal of Political Science 44:2 (2000): 287-94. Week 9. DemocracyEconomic Growth (Mar 7) ● Przeworski, Adam and Fernando Limongi, “Political Regimes and Economic Growth,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 7:3 (1993): 51-69. ● Gerring, John, Philip Bond, William T. Barndt and Carola Moreno, “Democracy and Growth: A Historical Perspective,” World Politics 57 (2005): 323-64. ¶ Przeworski, Adam and Fernando Limongi. 1997. “Modernization: Theory and Facts,” World Politics, 49(2), 155-83.
Week 10. Democracy International Peace (Mar 14) ● Oneal, John R. and Bruce Russett, “The Kantian Peace: The Pacific Benefits of Democracy, Interdependence and International Organizations,” World Politics 52:1 (1999): 1-37. ● Gartzke, Erik, “The Capitalist Peace,” American Journal of Political Science 51:1 (2007): 166-91. ¶ Dafoe, Allan. “Statistical Critiques of the Democratic Peace: Caveat Emptor” American Journal of Political Science 55.2 (2011): 247-62. Week 11. DemocracyDomestic Peace (Mar 21) ● Zanger, Sabine, “A Global Analysis of the Effect of Political Regime Changes on Life Integrity Violations, 1977-93” Journal of Peace Research (2000): 213-233. ● Davenport, Christian and David Armstrong, “Democracy and the Violation of Human Rights: A Statistical Analysis 1976-1996”, American Journal of Political Science 48 (2004): 538-554. ¶ Conrad, Courtney and Will Moore. “What Stops the Torture?” American Journal of Political Science 54 (2010): 459-76. Week 12. DemocracyHealth and Welfare (Mar 28) ● Lake, David and Matthew Baum, “The Invisible Hand of Democracy”, Comparative Political Studies 34 (2001): 587-621. ● Miller, Grant, “Women’s Suffrage, Political Responsiveness, and Child Survival in American History,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 2008: 1287-1327 ¶ Gerring, John, Strom C. Thacker and Rodrigo Alfaro. “Democracy and Human Development.” Journal of Politics 74 (2012): 1-17. Notes: All readings will be made available electronically (typically via links on the course blog). In addition to these core readings, links to supplementary readings for each topic for the second half of the course—useful for the second paper—will also be made available on the website. Readings marked ● are required for students, whereas those marked ¶ are required for graduate students and ‘encouraged’ for undergraduate students.
5
Blog Small Assignment Posts Week 2: Self-Introduction Introduce yourself. Don’t be boring! Week 3: Interesting Links (1) Read everyone’s self-introductions. (2) Post on your blog three links for three specific people that you think might interest them. Week 4: Democracy with Adjectives Find, link to, and assess two examples of the word democracy being used ‘with adjectives’ in the news that you find interesting. Draw on the terminology and concepts that Collier and Levitsky introduce. Week 5: Comparing Measurements (1) Find something that has multiple measures that are done differently that you can link to. (2) Post links and paragraph discussing the merits/demerits of the different measures. Week 6: First Paper Post (1) Post what region you have chosen for the first paper. (2) Post your initial thoughts about measures of democracy for the region. Week 7/Break: What is democracy, anyway? At a dinner with extended family you are seated next to a distant relative who wants to hear all about your studies. She is extremely sharp and politically astute, but has no background in political science. When you mention that you are taking a course on measuring democracy, she immediately asks, “So what is democracy, anyway?” Write on your blog how you would answer this question. Make sure to discuss the contested nature of the concept of democracy and explain and justify your preferred conceptualization. Week 8: Blogging you like, Blogging you hate Peruse some of the most highly visible blogs on politics on the internet and: (1) Identify one post that has a style of writing you like. Link to it and explain why you like it. (2) Identify one post that has a style of writing you hate. Link to it and explain why you hate it. Week 9: Blogical Fallacies Find examples of two different fallacies that you can find in news reporting or opinion writing. Include one ‘logical’ fallacy and one ‘rhetorical’ fallacy. Be sure to provide a link to the piece, identify the fallacy, and write a succinct explanation for the fallacy.
6
Week 10: Blog Fight! This week everyone will write on a common topic and engage in an online ‘exchange’ in which they will be taking sides on a contested issue. Students are expected to stake out a position, and engage with both those who agree with them and those who disagree. Topic TBD. Week 11: Polish a Post Reread all the posts you have done to date on your blog. Identify one you think could use rewriting. Write an updated version of the post, and put up some commentary on your changes. Week 12: Paper 2 Post Write a status report on your progress on paper 2. Include at least one point that you think could be useful for other students (either generally, or at least those writing on the same topic) and identify one point or area in which you yourself could use some help. Week 13: Best of the Term Your final small assignment is a two-part Best of the Term blog post assignment. In one post, highlight the post from your blog that you think is the best–that is, the most worthy of being remembered. Explain why. In a second post, highlight a post from someone else in the class that you found particularly worthy of being remembered. Again, explain why you thought it was particularly good.
Legalese Classroom and Online Conduct. Students are responsible for helping create a positive atmosphere and are expected to treat each other with respect. Students should expect a certain degree of disagreement, criticism of arguments and debate in this class—debate is a central part of the academic enterprise. However, disagreement should be respectful, thoughtful and not personally directed. Plagiarism. Students should be aware of their responsibilities in regards to academic integrity as they apply to this and all other courses they take here at UBC. For more information, check out the VP Academic website (http://www.vpacademic.ubc.ca/integrity/). As per department policy, essays must be submitted electronically for plagiarism prevention purposes, details will be provided to students in class and on the course blog. Late Assignments. Deadlines will be strictly enforced, although students facing unavoidable hardships or other difficulties are encouraged to contact the instructor before the due date. Unexcused late assignments will receive a 10 percentage point penalty if they are submitted within 48 hours of the deadline. After that no unexcused late assignments will be accepted. Course Requirements and Changes. The instructor reserves the right to amend this course syllabus, including, but not limited to, changing readings and assignment requirements or deadlines. Changes to the course syllabus will be announced in class and posted online, with appropriate advance notice wherever possible.
7
