Woodrow Wilson Department of Politics University of Virginia

American Politics Comprehensive Exam August 2015

Students taking the exam as a MAJOR have eight hours to answer three questions: one question from Part I and one question each from two of the remaining three parts. Students taking the exam as a MINOR have six hours to answer two questions: one question from Part I and one question from any of the remaining three parts.

The exam is semi-open book. You may consult books, articles, and syllabi but may not access notes or the internet during the exam. You may not receive assistance from or give assistance to another student.

Exams will be evaluated according to the following criteria: 1) the extent to which you address the issues raised by the questions; 2) the breadth and depth of your knowledge of the relevant literature; 3) the skill with which you critically analyze this literature. This is your opportunity to demonstrate in depth your knowledge of the major theoretical issues, scholars, literature, and methodological approaches of the discipline. Answers that simply offer literature reviews without thoughtful theoretical and empirical analyses will be graded less favorably. You should take care to cite a wide variety of specific authors and works to support your answers. Your discussion should also illuminate broader points about the field of American Politics.

On each essay please indicate clearly which question you are answering.

Section I: General. Answer one question. Majors’answers should draw on literature from American Political Development, American Political Behavior, and American Institutions. Minors’ answers should draw on literature from at least two of these three subfields.

1. Over the last decade, a trend has emerged in political science research wherein greater emphasis is placed on causality and in particular on identifying causal effects. Dubbed "the causal inference movement" or the "credibility revolution," work in this tradition values the identification of causal effects through careful research and analytic design. In your essay, you should first discuss the degree to which this trend has shaped recent work in the various subfields of American politics. Second, discuss the benefits and/or costs for scholarship on American politics. What, if any, inquiries in American politics have been substantially advanced by this increased attention to causal inference? Can you point to any other areas of inquiry that could benefit from greater attention to causal inference? Does the trend toward greater emphasis on causal inference have any significant downsides?

2. Does it make sense to study U.S. politics in isolation from the rest of the world?What are the limits to what we can we learn from an n of 1? What is gained from in-depth analysis of a single country? Remember to ground your answer in specific examples from the literature.

Section II: Institutions

3. Information is a powerful currency in the literature on American political institutions. Many models assume that actors have full (i.e., complete and perfect) information. When is this assumption appropriate and when is it problematic? How have scholars relaxed or even rejected this assumption? How should future scholars handle the role of information in models of political institutions? In your answer you should refer to the role of information in at least two institutions.

4. Thinking both in historical and theoretical terms, why do political parties exist in the United States? Discuss the purposes that they serve and assess whether they are (and have been) effective in fulfilling those purposes. From a normative perspective, are parties good for democracy and American society more generally? Discuss some costs and benefits that come with political parties and how political life and the political process would be different if political parties did not exist. Are we in fact better off by having a political party system? Why or why not?

Section III: American Political Development

5. Scholars such as Lowi, Skocpol, Skowronek, Mettler, and Zelizer have written about the development of an American “State.” Yet very little political science scholarship carefully delineates the major features and principal dynamics of the “State.” In what sense does America have a State, as distinguished from the major institutions of government? What are its most important features? Does the development of the State follow inexorably from modernization? Has “state building” transformed in any fundamental ways the principles and institutional arrangements of American politics?

6. One of the most troubling developments in recent American political life is the growing problem of economic inequality – a development frequently referred to as the emergence of a second “gilded age.” Have APD studies tended to show that inequality is a chronic or new condition of the American political system? What factors have APD scholars identified that have contributed to decline of equality in the marketplace? Do these factors highlight “nonpolitical” factors, for example, “globalization,” or have there been important changes in institutions, the political process and policy that have aggravated inequality?

Section IV: Political Behavior

7. In recent years there has been a great deal of work in psychology and political science on implicit attitudes and processes. Critically evaluate this approach. In your answer, describe how the concept of implicit attitudes and processes has informed work in political psychology, not just recently but in earlier work as well. What has this approach contributed to what we know about American politics or any other subfield of the discipline? What might it miss?

8. Many scholars studying opinion at the individual level draw attention to ways in which the American public falls short of what democratic theory requires. Others point to the “miracle of aggregation” to argue that things may not be so bad, after all. Describe the basic findings in each of these traditions, and discuss who you think is right, or more right. How should we understand the disjunctures between these two literatures?