Syllabus for 442/542 for Fall 93

Political Science 597c -- Fall 2003

Comparative Political Opinion and Mass Behavior

Monday9:00-12:00

Prof. Lee Ann BanaszakOffice Hours: M3:45-5:30 p.m.,

210 Sparks W 3:45-5:00 p.m., and by appointment

Phone: 865-6573E-Mail:

Course Description.

This seminar will introduce graduate students to some of the main streams of research within the field of comparative mass political behavior and public opinion. Often times, mass political behavior and public opinion constitute two separate but related courses. I have chosen to combine the two under a methodological focus that examines literature using survey data in a comparative perspective. As a result, we will be discussing both theoretical questions and the strengths and limitations of the sample surveys that have served as the primary source of evidence in comparative behavioral research.

The purpose of the course is twofold: 1) to give you an overview of the paradigms in the field and 2) to help you prepare a research paper which may in the future serve as a conference paper or publishable work.

The first 7 weeks in the semester we will look at some of the major paradigms in the field: socio-economic cleavages, political culture, the economic actor, and "contextual" perspectives that links micro- and macro-level influences on public opinion and political behavior. In the next four weeks, we will explore several topics in the literature on democratization, public opinion, and mass behavior. In the final section of the course, we will focus on the research papers. This syllabus is a work in progress and so there may be changes in the readings (especially during the later weeks of the semester) if they are useful to completing your research.

Course Requirements and Grades.

Student Responsibilities: The class will meet Monday from 9:00 am to 12:00 am. This course will be in seminar format which means that each individual student is responsible for completing the readings prior to the class meetings, and for contributing to the discussion of the material. For this reason, participation in class discussion is a significant portion of your final grade and multiple absences from the seminar will reduce your participation grade.

Grades: Grades will be determined using the following criteria:

a) class participation is worth 25% of your total grade. In order to get above a B grade in class participation, you must participate regularly in the class discussions. In addition to your contribution to the free discussion of the readings, the participation grade includes individual presentations on the week’s readings.

For each week of readings, one person will be responsible for starting the discussion with 10 minute presentation identifying key concepts, assumptions, evidence and conclusions of the week's reading. You will not be able to describe all of the readings in depth and so you will need to focus on the highlights of the week. In addition, a second person will be responsible for providing a discussion of how the current week’s readings speak to works and themes from previous weeks. This presentation should also last for no more than 10 minutes

b) pre-proposals and paper proposal are worth 25% of grade. The pre-proposals are due September 29thand consist of 2-3 paragraphs detailing an idea, data set or area of interest you think you may want to pursue in your final research paper. You may want to write more than one pre-proposal if you are kicking around more than one potential topic. A full blown paper proposal – around 12-15 pages – is due November 3rd. This proposal should include a review of the existing literature on your research question and how your research contributes to this literature. It should also include a plan of how you will study your question. That plan should include discussions of what dataset(s) you will use, any specific hypotheses you may have developed, and specific information about how you will measure the concepts involved in your research question.

c) final research paper and paper presentation worth 35% of your grade. Initial (but complete drafts) of these papers are due December 3rdin class. Because papers will be distributed to fellow students, late papers will be penalized!! Final drafts which may take into account suggestions for revision from seminar participants are due December 19th. As part of the research proposal you must present your proposal to the class and answer questions from your fellow students. Your presentation and "defense" of your proposal is part of your grade on the research proposal.

d) written comments on other students’ research proposals. You will be graded on the care and clarity of your reviews. Your job as a proposal evaluator is worth or 15% of your grade. Please remember that extensive and good comments are important for your colleagues.

PLEASE NOTE: The PennsylvaniaStateUniversity encourages qualified persons with disabilities to participate in its programs and activities. If you anticipate needing any type of accommodation in this course or have questions about physical access, please tell the instructor as soon as possible.

Tentative Schedule and Readings

Week 1 9/8Introduction to the course; What are we studying?

1) Henry E. Brady. 2000. “Contributions of survey research to political science.”

PS-Political Science and Politics 33:1 (March): 47-57.

2)Franklin, Mark and Christopher Wlezien. 2002. “Reinventing Election Studies.” Electoral Studies 21: 331-338

Recommended Reading:

Dalton, Russell. 2000. “Citizen Attitudes and Political Behavior.” Comparative Political Studies 33:6/7 (August/September): 912-940.

Dalton, Russell. Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Western Democracies. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.

Dalton, Russell and Martin Wattenberg. 1993. “The Not So Simple Act of Voting” in Political Science: The State of the Discipline II, edited by Ada Finifter. WashingtonD.C.: American Political Science Association. Pp. 193-218.

Klingemann, Hans-Dieter and Dieter Fuchs, editors. 1995. Citizens and the State. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Week 29/15Social Bases of Opinion

1)Lipset, Seymour Martin and Rokkan, Stein. 1967. “Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments.” In Party Systems and Voter Alignments, Lipset and Rokkan, editors. New York: The Free Press. Pp. 1-64.

2)Franklin, Mark; Tom Mackie, Henry Valen et al. 1992. Electoral Change: Responses to the evolving social and attitudinal structures in Western Countries. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press. Pp. 3-57 and 383-436.

3)Manza, Jeffrey and Brooks. N.d. “Cleavage Based Voting Behavior in Cross-National Perspective: Evidence from Six Postwar Democracies.” Unpublished manuscript.

Recommended Reading:

Alford, Robert. 1972. “Class Voting in Anglo-American Political Systems.” In Mass Politics in Industrial Societies: A Reader in Industrial Societies. Edited by Guiseppe di Palma. Chicago: Markham. Pp. 166- 199

Dalton, Russell; Scott Flanagan, and Paul Allen Beck. 1984. Electoral Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies: Realignment or Dealignment? Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Evans, Geoffrey, editor. 1999. The End of Class Politics: Class Voting in Comparative Context. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Evans, Geoffrey and Stephen Whitefield. 1995. “Social and Ideological Cleavage Formation in Post-Communist Hungary.” Europe-Asia Studies 47(7): 1177-1204.

Gabel, Matthew and Christopher Anderson. 2001. “” Comparative Political Studies.

Janowitz, Morris and David Segal. 1972. “Social Cleavage and Party Affiliation: Germany, Great Britain, and the United States.” In Mass Politics in Industrial Societies: A Reader in Industrial Societies. Edited by Guiseppe di Palma. Chicago: Markham. Pp. 200-225.

Rose, Richard and Ian McAllister, editors. 1986. Voters begin to choose : from closed class to open elections in Britain. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Verba, Sidney; Norman Nie, and Jae-on Kim. 1978. Participation and Political Equality: A Seven National Comparison. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Week 39/22Political Culture Perspective

1)Almond & Verba, 1963. The Civic Culture. PrincetonUniversity Press. Chapters 1-3, 8. (Skim one country chapter)

2)Almond, Gabriel A. & Sidney Verba, eds. 1989. The Civic Culture Revisited. Thousand Oaks; Sage Publications. Chapters 2 and 3 and skim one country chapter

3)Eckstein, Harry. 1988. "A Culturalist Theory of Political Change." APSR 82:789-804.

4)Werlin.Herbert and Harry Eckstein. 1990.Critique and response to "Political Culture and Political Change." American Political Science Review 84: 249-59.

Recommended Reading:

Lane, Ruth. 1992. “Political Culture: Residual Category or General Theory?” ComparativePolitical Studies 25 (2): 362-87.

Latin, David D. 1988. “Political Culture and Political Preferences.” American Political ScienceReview 82: 589-93.

Muller, Edward N. & Mitchell A. Seligson. 1994. “Civic Culture and Democracy: The Question of Causal Relationship.” American Political Science Review 88(3): 635-52.

Pye, Lucian & Sidney Verba. 1965. Political Culture and Political Development. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Ross, Marc Howard. 1993. The Culture of Conflict: Interpretations and Interests in ComparativePolitics. New Haven and London: YaleUniversity Press.

Ross, Marc Howard . 1997. Cultural Contributions to the Study of Political Psychology and Ethnic Conflict.” Political Psychology18:299-326.

Wildavsky, Aaron. 1987. “Choosing Preferences by Constructing Institutions: A Culture Theory of Preference Formation.” American Political Science Review81: 3-21.

Week 49/29It’s a Post-Materialist World (Continued next page)

1)Inglehart, Ronald. 1990. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press. Chapters 1-5.

2)Gibson, James L. and Raymond M. Duch. 1994. “Postmaterialism and the Emerging Soviet Democracy.” Political Research Quarterly 47:1 (March). Pp. 5-39.

3)Duch, Raymond and Michael Taylor. 1993. "Postmaterialism and Economic Condition." American Journal of Political Science 37 (August): 747-779.

4)Abrahamson, Paul R. and Ronald Inglehart. 1994. "Education, Security, and Postmaterialism: A Comment on Duch and Taylor's..." American Journal of Political Science 38 (August):797-814.

5)Duch, Raymond and Michael Taylor. 1994. "Reply to Inglehart's 'Education, Security, and Postmaterialism'" American Journal of Political Science 38 (August): 815-824.

Pre-proposals are due today.

Recommended Reading:

Abrahamson, Paul R. and Ronald Inglehart. 1995. Value Change in Global Perspective. University of Michigan Press.

Davis, Darren W.; Kathleen M. Dowley; and Brian D. Silver. 1999. “Postmaterialism in World Societies: Is It Really a Value Dimension?” American Journal of Political Science 43:3 (July). Pp. 935-962.

Davis, Darren W. and Christian Davenport. 1999. “Assessing the Validity of the Postmaterialism Index.” The American Political Science Review, 93:3 (September). Pp. 649-664.

Flanagan, Scott C. 1982. "Measuring Value Change in Advanced Industrial Societies." Comparative Political Studies 15 (April):99-128.

Inglehart, Ronald. 1977. The Silent Revolution. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Inglehart, Ronald and Wayne Baker. 2000. “Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values.” American Sociological Review 65:1 (February). Pp. 19-51.

Inglehart, Ronald and Paul Abramson. 1999. “Measuring Postmaterialism.” American Political Science Review 93:3 (September). Pp. 665-677.

Janssen, Joseph. 1991. “Postmaterialism, Cognitive Mobilization and Public Support for European Integration.” British Journal of Political Science 21:4 (October): 443-468.

Norris, Pippa and Ronald Inglehart. 2001. “Cultural Obstacles to Equal Representation.” Journal of Democracy 12:3 (July). Pp. 126-140.

Week 510/6Or was that…It’s a Material World? (Economic Voting)

1)Lewis-Beck, Michael. 1988. Economics and Elections: The Major Western Democracies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Chapters 1-4, 8 and 10. (Pp. 1-68, 113-136, and 153-162).

2)Gabel, Matthew. 1998. “Economic Integration and Mass Politics: Market Liberalization and Public Attitudes in the European Union.” American Journal of Political Science 42:3 (July). Pp. 936-953.

3) Wlezien,Christopher; Mark Franklin; and Daniel Twiggs. 1997. “Economic Perceptions and Vote Choice: Disentangling the Endogeneity.” Political Behavior19:1(March). Pp. 7-17.

Recommended Readings:

Anderson, Christopher. 1995. Blaming the Government: Citizens and the Economy in Five European Democracies. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Anderson, Christopher and Kathleen O’Connor. 1999. “System Change, Learning and Public Opinion about the Economy.” British Journal of Political Science 29

Clarke, Harold D. and Marianne C. Stewart. 1995. “Economic Evaluations, Prime Ministerial Approval and Governing Party Support: Rival Models Reconsidered.” British Journal of Political Science 25 (April): 145-170.

Gabel, Matthew and Guy D. Whitten. 1997. “Economic Conditions, Economic Perceptions, and Public Support for European Integration.” Political Behavior 19:1(March), pp. 81-96.

Harper, Marcus G. 2000. “Economic Voting in Post-communist Eastern Europe.” Comparative Political Studies 33: 1191-1227.

Norpoth, Helmut; Michael Lewis-Beck and Jean-Dominique Lafay, eds. Economics and Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Pacek, Alexander and Benjamin Radcliff. 1995. “The Political Economy of Competitive Elections in the Developing World.” American Journal of Political Science 39:3 (August). Pp. 745-759.

Week 610/13Contextual Perspective

1)Huckfeldt, Robert and John Sprague. 1993. “Citizens, Contexts and Politics.” In Ada Finifter, ed. Political Science: The State of the Discipline II. WashingtonDC: American Political Science Association. Pp. 281-304.

2)Banaszak, Lee Ann and Eric Plutzer 1993. "Contextual Determinants of Feminist Attitudes: National and Subnational Influences in Western Europe." American Political Science Review 87 (March ): 147-157.

3)Ikeda, Ken’ichi and Robert Huckfeldt. 2001. “Political Communication and Disagreement among Citizens in Japan and the United States.” Political Behavior 23(1): 23-51.

4)Anderson, Christopher J., and Christine A. Guillory. 1997. "Political Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy: A Cross-National Analysis of Consensus and Majoritarian Systems." American Political Science Review 91 (1): 66-8.

Recommended Reading:

Boyd, Lawrence H.andGudmund Iversen. 1979. Contextual Analysis: Concepts and Statistical Techniques. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Week 710/20Democratic Transitions and Trust (continued on next page)

1)Mishler, William and Richard Rose. 1997. “Trust, Distrust and Skepticism: Popular Evaluations of Civil and Political Institutions in Post-Communist Societies.” Journal of Politics, Vol. 59, No. 2. (May, 1997), pp. 418-451.

2)Mishler, William and Rose, Richard. 2001. “What are the Origins of Political Trust? Testing Institutional and Cultural Theories in Post-Communist Societies.” Comparative Political Studies 34:1 (Feburary) 30-62.

3)Anderson, Christopher and Yuliya Tverdova. 2003. “Corruption, Political Allegiances and Attitudes toward Government in Contemporary Democracies.” American Journal of Political Science 47:1 (January). Pp. 91-109.

4)Gibson, James. 2001. “Social Networks, Civil Society, and the Prospects for Consolidating Russia’s Democratic Transition.” American Journal of Political Science 45(1): 51-69.

Recommended Reading:

Putnam, Robert. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Seligson, Mitchell A. 2002. “The Renaissance of Political Culture or the Renaissance of the Ecological Fallacy?” Comparative Politics 34:3 (April)Pp. 273-92.

Seligson, Mitchell A. 2002. “The Impact of Corruption on Regime Legitimacy: A Comparative Study of Four Latin American Countries.” Journal of Politics 64:2 (May). Pp. 408-433.

Week 810/27Tolerance and Ethnic Divisions

1)Bahry D, Boaz C, Gordon SB. 1997. “Tolerance, transition, and support for civil liberties in Russia.” Comparative Political Studies 30:4 (August): 484-510.

2)Dowley KM, Silver BD. 2000. “Subnational and national loyalty: Cross-national comparisons.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research12:4 (Winter): 357-371.

3)Gibson, James L.and Amanda Gouws. 2000. “Social Identities and Political Intolerance: Linkages within the South African Mass Public.” American Journal of Political Science, 44: 2. (April), pp. 278-292.

4)Legge, Jr.,Jerome S. 1996. “An Economic Theory of Antisemitism? Exploring Attitudes in the New GermanState.” Political Research Quarterly. 49:3 (September), pp. 617-630.

Recommended Readings:

Dowley, Kathleen and Brian Silver. 2002. “Social Capital, Ethnicity, and Support for Democracy in the Post-Communist States.” Europe/Asia Studies 54:4 (June). Pp. 505-527.

Gibson, James L. 1993. “Perceived Political Freedom in the Soviet Union.” The Journal of Politics 55:4 (November), pp. 936-974.

Gibson, James L. and Raymond M. Duch. 1991. “Elitist Theory and Political Tolerance in Western Europe.” Political Behavior 13:3 (September 1991), pp. 191-212.

Week 911/3Paper Proposals due

Week 1011/10Democratic Transitions and Democratic Legitimacy

1)Rohrschneider, Robert. “The Democracy Deficit and Mass Support for an EU-wide Government.” American Journal of Political Science 46:2(April): 463-475.

2)Mishler, William and Richard Rose. 2002. “Learning and re-learning Regime Support: The Dynamics of Post-Communist Regimes.” European Journal of Political Research 41: 1. Pp.:

3)Evans, Geoffrey and Stephen Whitefield. 1995. “The Politics and Economics of Democratic Commitment: Support for Democracy in Transition Societies. British Journal of Political Science

4)McDonough, Peter; Samuel Barnes, and Antonio Lopez Pina. 1994. “The Nature of Political Support and Legitimacy in Spain.” Comparative Political Studies 27:3 (October): 349-380.

5)Bratton, Michael and Robert Mattes. 2001. “Support for Democracy in Africa: Intrinsic or Instrumental?” British Journal of Political Science 31:. Pp. 447-474.