Chapter 0: Introduction to comparative politics - Caramani

One of three main fields (with political theory and international relations)Deals with internal political structures, individual and collective actors, processesGoal = describe, explain, predict similarities and differencesLarge-scale or mini analyses, diachronic or synchronic, qualitative and quantitative

[A] INTRODUCTIONLong-term comparative study of politicsPolitics = making authoritative (binding + compulsory) and public (whole society) decisions Politics = acquiring and exercising power

[B] WHAT IS COMPARATIVE POLITICS?1. A science of politics

Empirical: no value judgment, but classification value-neutral Interactions within (not between) political systems: between groups, organizations, classes, ... within sovereign system study of domestic politics

2. Types of comparative politicsThree different traditions:

Study of single countriesStudy of foreign countries, case studies: Spanish politics, German politics, ...

Methodological Establishing rules and standards of comparisonDescription + prediction, conceptual – logistical – statistical techniques of analysis

Analytical Combination empirical and methodological: identification + explanation differences, explanatory

Description, classification, typologies, explanation, hypotheses, predictions

[C] SUBSTANCE OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS1. What is compared?

Political systems at national level compared, but also: sub-national + supra-national Comparison of single elements or components rather than the whole system

2. From institutions to functions...Before WW II: focus on state, institutions, bureaucracy of Western Europe and North America1920-1960: golden age comparative politics: behavioural revolution, away from institutionsNew regimes (communist, fascist) + de-colonization, couldn’t be understood in narrow categories of western institutions new categories + concepts: attention to ideologies, belief systems, ...

Conditions for democratic stability? Political culture? Social capital? Traditions of authority?1960s: Anglo-Saxon bureaucratic supremacy questioned, other forms also viable No competition between elite but consociational pattern, amicable agreement, accommodation

Broader geographical scope and historical experiences Increased variety of political systems Agencies > institutions New methodology

Analysis of behaviour and roles based on empirical observationExtensive global large-scale comparisonsStatistical techniques of analysis + systematic data collection, archives, ...

New framework: systemic functionalismTravelling problem: concepts and categories applied to cases different from those around which they have originally been created other meanings + misinterpretation No more focus on state but general and universal categories: no more ‘state’ but ‘political system’

3. ... and back to institutionsTranscultural and transportable concepts: extreme high level of abstractionUnderstanding of concrete cases impossible counter-reaction in 1967

Shift of substantial focus: bringing the state back in (book p.8 table I.1) Narrowing of geographical scope: grounded/middle-range theories Change of methodology: case-oriented analysis: from N to n Theoretical turn: rational choice theory: from sociological to economical influence

Actors are rational, order alternative options, maximize utilityDid not lead to redefinition op COP because doesn’t offer a metatheory specific to politicsInstitutions constraint actor’s behaviour

[D] METHOD OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS1. A variety of methods

Intensive or extensive – synchronic or diachronic – cross-sectional or functional – longitudinalSimilarities or differences -

2. From cases to variables...Behavioural revolution: more cases, more data, new indicators quantitative From intensive to extensive research, from n to N variable-oriented

3. ... and back to casesBack to n, case-oriented research

4. From aggregate to individual data...Aggregate: available at some territorial level, e.g. voting results

You don’t know who votes for whom, but you know aggregate result

Behavioural revolution: statistics may be manipulated large data sets independent from politicsSurveys to collect individual data, computerization of data1950: ecological fallacy: macro data say nothing about micro level

5. ... and back to aggregate dataMore solid than individual-level data for long-term comparisons

[E] CONCLUSION1. From divergence to convergence...

1950s: convergence to western liberal democracy model predicted Now: homogenization, migration, external influence, interconnectedness, N = 1 ???

2. ... and back to divergence?Also divergence: renewed role religions, alternative populist democracies, ...

Chapter 2: Approaches in comparative politics - Peters

[A] INTRODUCTIONPositivism: fact value distinction, observable + verifiable facts, measure, theory, hypothesesConstructivism: facts socially embedded and constructed, no objectivity, context

[B] USES OF THEORY IN COMPARISONMuch research at micro-level to understand individual choice (e.g. rational choice theory)But: too individualist = irrelevant, bigger picture needed Theory necessary to interpret, predicts behaviour, ... but dare to be honest and reject them instead of trying to find support for them

Grand theories often too general, could not produce meaningful predictions middle-range better Structural functionalism: compare performance functions political system, best models Systems theory: structure = open system with extensive input + output (Easton) Marxism: class conflict due to differences political system, dictatorship proletariat Corporatism: central role state, social interests influence policy Institutionalism: structures shape politics and behaviour, normative structures Governance: role social actors in making and implementing decisions

[C] ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVES: THE FIVE ‘I’s

1. InstitutionsUnderstand government performance, seek to improve, focus on structures and institutionsDifferences in constitutions, law, formal structures, ... to predict performance of governmentIndividualistic: differences due to individual choices and not due to institutional differencesDecisions are product of member’s preferencesNow revival of institutionalism:

Normative institutionalism: institutions exist of norms + rules, shape individual behaviour Rational choice institutionalism: institutions = aggregate of (dis)incentives, influence choice Historical institutionalism: role of ideas and persistence, even when dysfunctionality Initial decision often persists for centuries, even when it turns out bad

Institutionalism explains persistence but not change, stability approach = big constraint

2. Interests Interests that actors pursue through political action, ‘who gets what?’ Rational choice theory, corporatism (access interest groups to decision-making, be loyal in return)

Less conflict than in plural systemsNow: not corporatism but rather networking (connected actors try to influence policy)Individuals and groups define interests in terms of identity and ethnicity consociationalism

Elites represent different communitiesInterests are basis for conflict, institutions must manage conflict

3. Ideas Political culture influences politics, measured by surveysCulture = tension hierarchy vs equality , liberty vs coercion, loyalty vs commitment, trust vs distrustGrid (hierarchy) vs group (constraints due to membership group)

GROUPGRID HIGH LOWHIGH FATALIST HIERARCHICALLOW EGALITARIAN INDIVIDUALIST

Political ideas can be ideologies: communism, fascismBut: no clash of ideologies but of civilizations, religions, cultures, ...

4. Individuals Importance of background, recruitment, social roots

5. International environment Economic dependence can create political dependence, influence by UN, World Bank, NATO, ...EU: multi-level governance, globalization, integration

6. Add a sixth I: interactions

[D] WHAT MORE IS NEEDED? 1. Political process

Explained by institutions

2. Outcomes Impact of social and economical conditionsUltimate variable for outcomes = governance: capacity of governments to direct societies, establishing goals, finding means to reach goals, learn from success or failure

Chapter 3: Comparative research methods - Keman

[A] INTRODUCTION RQ: research question RA: research answer RD: research design / methodDependent variable: what needs to be explained << >> independent: explanatory factorsRD = bridge RQ and RA. Design should enable to answer question – answer ought to meet scientific standards: reliable, valid, generalizable – ...

[B] THE ROLE OF VARIABLES IN LINKING THEORY TO EVIDENCEUse of typologies, dichotomy variables, causality, Descriptive inference: relationship independent & dependent variables based on observation, allows generalization over and beyond the cases of the review externally valid

Internal validity: descriptive inferences from set of cases correct for most/all cases under inspectionExternal: result also relevant for other cases not in the researchTrade-off: more cases included in analysis, more robust result (external), fewer cases = more coherent conclusion for set of cases included (internal)

[C] COMPARING CASES AND CASE SELECTIONWhat to compare – which cases – how – how many – ...

1. CasesUnits of observation, compared at certain level of measurement : individual (unit) or group (level)Observations: values of a variable under investigationTwo-dimensional matrix: variables in columns, cases in rows

2. Case selection Intensive strategies: many variables, few cases (analysis few consociational democracies that exist)Extensive strategies: few variables, many cases (analysis of welfare states)Longitudinal analysis: if time is a relevant factor

3. The single case studyNo external validity, but used for post hoc validation: check if findings hold up in more detailed analysis or to study a deviant case, pilot for generating hypotheses, confirming theories.

4. Closed universeFew cases compared at different points of time, based on external change (war, new law)

5. Cross-sectionSeveral classes compared simultaneously, constant circumstances but variables vary

6. Pooled analysisPooling cases across time and systems cases too much alike, no meaningful differences

[D] THE LOGIC OF COMPARISON: RELATING CASES TO VARIABLES Most different system design (MDSD) << >> most similar system design (MSSD)Maximize experimental variance – minimize error variance – control extraneous variance

Experimental varianceVariance of dependent variable across cases and/or over timeNo variance = impossible to tell if variable makes a difference or not

Error variance

Random effects unmeasured variables select variables carefully + increase number of cases Extraneous variance

Control extraneous variance: no control for other influences = possibility that relation is caused by another (unknown) cause due to omitted variablesSpurious relationship: third variable affects both independent and dependent variable

[E] THE USE OF METHODS OF AGREEMENT AND DIFFERENCE IN COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Book page 59 table 3.1

[F] CONSTRAINTS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE COMPARATIVE METHOD1. Conceptual stretching

Concept developed for one set of cases, extended to another set of case with other featuresSartori’s ladder of generality: more extensive = less intensive less validity

2. Family resemblance + radial categories

Book page 60 figure 3.4

3. Interpreting results Galton’s problem

Observed difference and similarities caused by exogenous factor common to all selected casesExplanation corrupted by a common cause not included in the research answer

Individual and ecological fallaciesEcological: data measured on aggregated level used to explain individual or group level behaviour Individual: vice versa

Chapter 5: Democracies - Mair

[A] INTRODUCTION1950s: 75% not democratic, lots of variations in non-democratic regimes (now: 75% democratic)Variations also among democracies, very large and heterogeneous group

[B] COMPARING DEMOCRACIES1. The comparison of regimes

Majoritarian vs consensus democracy book page 86 table 5.1

2. The third wave of democratizationDemocratization in waves: 1826-1926, countered by fascism and authoritarianism in 1920s-1930sSecond wave after WW II, reversed in 1960s-1970s. Third wave from 1974 (Portugal), explosive waves after the fall of the wall

3. Neo-institutionalismSince 1980s: institutions as independent variables, direct impact on outcomes and behaviour, regardless of social and economic context lot of variation, potential capacities, different impact on performance, effectiveness and legitimacy why do some systems perform better than others?

[C] DEFINING DEMOCRACY1. Procedural vs substantive democracy

Procedural definition: organisation, representation, accountability, legitimacy Free competition for a free vote

Substantive definition: goals + effectiveness Realisation of common good by making people decide through elections

2. Polyarchy Dahl: no democracies but polyarchies: elected officials, free and fair elections, inclusive suffrage, right to run for office, freedom of expression, associational autonomy, alternative sources of infoSchmitter: democracy = system of governance, rulers are held accountable for their actions in public domain by citizens acting indirectly through competition and cooperation of elected representatives

Thin version: democracy almost solely about elections (Schumpeter) Actual participation in political life by at least some of the civilians

Thick version: constitutional guarantees + control on executive power Enforceable set of rights and opportunities, right of association + belief + freedom expression

3. Liberal and illiberal democracy (since third wave)Liberal democracies: polyarchy as mentioned aboveIlliberal democracy: popular democracy + government by people combined with restrictions and limitations on individual freedom and rights. Formal establishment of democratic electoral process, but shortcoming in constitutional liberties and limits on arbitrary exercise of executive powerStrongly majoritarian, voters expected to be passive cheering audience, remarkably enduring

New democracies only democratized in terms of elections, not constitutional and in libertiesBetter if first constitutional rights are established and only then participation rights 40% of countries have both nowadays (score 1-2 on Freedom House scales)Nowadays: liberal and democratic, or illiberal and non-democratic (very few combinations left)

[D] DEVELOPING DEMOCRACY Three milestones in development democracies: incorporation, representation, organized oppositionFirst two waves: achieved step by step << >> third wave: all together established

1. Incorporation Mass citizenry admitted into political society, right to participate by votingRestrictions before universal suffrage:

Census voting: only wealthy people Capacity voting: only educated people Race: only white males (sometimes) plural voting: rich, educated people had more votes

2. Representation Right to organize parties + participate on equal levelVoting systems proportional since success new parties, to avoid socialist dominance

3. Organized oppositionRight to appeal for votes against the government, to ‘throw the rascals out’Achieved when executive is fully responsible to the legislature and can be dismissed by majority Full scale alternation very rare because of coalitions in multiparty system<< >> two-party system: total alternation very frequent, opposition clearly defined and mobilized

4. Paths of democratizationTransformation to mass democracy along two dimensions

Liberalization: right to be represented and to mobilize opposition Inclusiveness: participation and voting

Inclusive hegemonies: fascist and communist regimes

Competitive oligarchy Mass democracy

Liberalization

Closed hegemony Inclusive hegemony Inclusiveness

Zakaria: constitutionalism should precede participationOtherwise, it may lead to the establishment of an illiberal democracyPath and pace define durability and sustainability of democratization

[E] TYPOLOGIES OF DEMOCRACY 1. Majoritarian vs consensus democracies

Social and cultural divisions could be tempered by certain types of political institutions and behaviourWorking multiparty systems in e.g. Belgium control highly conflictual cleavages by consensus-seekingOnly applicable to societies with fragmented political cultures

Structure of societyElite behaviour Homogenous Plural

Coalescent Depoliticized democracy Consociational democracyAdversarial Centripetal democracy Centrifugal democracy

1980s: distinction majoritarian vs consensual democracies, geographically wider applicable Majoritarian: limitless power to winner, exclusive power, authority hardly constrained Consensus: power shared, minorities included, limited by courts + chambers, decentralized

Problem: many mixed forms, very difficult to make a good typology

2. Decentralist vs centripetal democracies Decentralist: diffusion of power, broad political participation, limits on governmental action, separation of powers, strong limits on executive authority, fragmentation of power USACentripetal: inclusive authoritative institutions, responsible party government, strong unified government, majoritarian + PR, centralized interest groups, well-organized parties Sweden

Both result from mixed Lijphart’s mixed cases

3. The problems of holistic modelsAttempt to model democracies as whole systems Lijphart prefers consensus, Gerring prefers centripetal, both give same weight to different featuresProblem: not one democracy is totally one type, all are mixed formsPostcommunist democracies: wanted to build state and ensure survival at same time

Double-headed strategy leads to different institutional arrangements

Also cross-national learning and porous borders more and more diffusionDemocracies not closed or self-containing systems , never completely coherent systems

[F] AUDIENCE DEMOCRACY?Widespread dissatisfaction with aspects of democracy + declining participation levelsWorld of politics more and more separated from world of citizenry audience democracyAudience moved by spectacle, but indifferent and passiveCitizens withdraw from politics, decision-making becomes more depoliticized, bigger role for judges, banks, international organizations, EU, agencies, ...Countered by referendums, primaries, ... ??

Chapter 6: Authoritarian regimes - Brooker

[A] INTRODUCTIONUntil modern times: states ruled by authoritarian regimes; mostly hereditary monarchies Looked primitive in competition with democracies, replaced by dictatorships by organization / leaderPersonal dictatorship: leader of army (Bonaparte) or of organization (Stalin)One-party rule claiming permanent monopoly over power: Russian Tsars, fascism later personal

Russian revolution (1917): Bolshevik Red Army Chinese revolution(46-49): rural revolution, People’s liberation army, control except Taiwan Iranian revolution (1979): mosque-mobilized revolution of Muslims, ayatollah Khomeini

[B] WHO RULES?1. Dictatorial monarchs

Ruling monarch = personal dictator << >> reigning monarch = constitutional + ceremonialOnly left in Middle East, not due to tradition because created after WW IWhy endurable? Rentier state, exploit rents from oil industry, no taxes no need for representationOther reason: dynastic monarchies: no primogeniture, can put someone powerful in placeVery large families, engage in military, government, civil service take all key postsDesert democracy: lack democracy compensated, possibility to say grievances personally to monarch

2. Monarchical dictatorsPersonal dictators ruling for life (Mao) and succeeded by son or brotherNo agents of military or party, degree of independence and autonomy loose principal-agentSultanism: not ideological, buying off key persons + intimidating privatization of public powerPresidential monarchy: personal dictators, institutionalize their rule in monarchical post of president

Pinochet, Assad, Castro, Kim Il Sung, Ceausescu Populist presidential monarchy: autogolpe / self-coup of “elected” president

Corrupt elections, but claims to be installed by people and to be legitimate (Chavez)

3. Military ruleRule by distinctive organization: own uniforms, barracks, career construction, legal systemVery unstable, lifetime of years (exception: Burma)

Open military ruleMilitary coup results in junta acting as country’s supreme government

Disguised military ruleCivilianized: “ending” of military rule by installing president (which belongs/belonged to army)Indirect: control behind scenes, continuously or intermittently (only budgets and security)Page 109 figure 6.1

4. One-party ruleMore long-lasting, through dictatorial party after revolution or corrupt electionsBut: one-party state =/= one-party rule may be instrument of authoritarian military or monarch

Communist: often disguised personal dictatorships, only core survived (China, Vietnam, Laos) Third world: African one-party systems after decolonization

Won elections, then abused power, overthrown by military coups or evolved in dictatorships

[C] WHY DO THEY RULE?

Claim to exercise legitimate authority giving a right to rule and subjects a duty to obey

1. Religious and ideological claims to legitimacy Religion

Claims to rule by ‘the grace of god’ or ‘the divine right of kings’, now only in Middle East + Vatican 1979: Islamic republic in Iran, ayatollah Khomeini in power, veto laws that distort with Islamic lawSupreme religious judge + leader of revolution that outranked president of state spiritual leader

Ideology No tradition like religion, so use of media, education system, mass-mobilization, youth, unions, ...

- Leader claims prophetic legitimacy- Party claims ideological right to rule

Military ideological rule only in Egypt (Nasser) and Libya (Gadhafi) but not successful in general

2. Democratic claims to legitimacy Democratic claim takes institutional form: use institutions or prepare to (re)introduce them after military coup after corrupt, undemocratic, incompetent governmentClaim that their power is temporary and preparing way for democratic ruleSometimes institutions held to keep form of legitimacy (Reichstag held under Hitler)Mostly only semi-competitive elections

[D] HOW DO THEY RULE? 1. Totalitarianism and authoritarianism Totalitarianism

Mussolini: everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the stateChange human nature through totalitarian organization of all aspects of lifeInternal control of hearts and minds, external control by secret policeMass organizations for youth, workers, leisure activities, personality cult (North-Korea)

Authoritarianism Four differences with totalitarianism

- Presence of limited political pluralism- Absence of ideology used to guide the regime- Absence of intensive or extensive political mobilization- Predictably (instead of arbitrary) leadership by small group or individual

2. Exercising controlSecret police force against potential or actual disloyalty, junta + martial law (in military regimes)Political parties used to gain support and making facade

3. Policies Often very alike with democraciesDistinctive cases: Nazis’ anti-Semitic policy – collectivization in Soviet Union – great leaps in ChinaDifferent social policy: Middle East women’s discrimination

[E] CONCLUSION Extinction interpretation

Authoritarian regimes = political dinosaurs in democratic worldHave evolved in new species and subspecies but won’t survive

Evolution interpretationContinuous survival highlights complexity, may survive and flourish again in 21st century

Chapter 8: Government and bureaucraties1 Introduction‘government’: serval meanings most common: used for the country’s central political executive governing means ruling, exercising overall control over a country and determining the course it will take.

2 Types of government2.1 Government and the separation of powers in order to limit the government’s power, judicial functions were transferred to courts and legislative functions to parliaments normative foundations of democratic government rest on two premises: the government must be connected to the electoral process & work under constitutional constrains

government can be organized in many, different ways

PRESIDENTIALISM- Direct or quasi-direct popular election of the president for a fixed period- The head of state is identical with the head of government- President is not politically accountable to the legislature- Appointment of government members by president (mostly with the consent of the

legislature)PARLIAMENTARISM

- Head of government is different from head of state- Most parliamentary systems allow for parliamentary dissolution by the head of state

(typically on the prime minister’s or government’s proposal)- Election of the prime minister by Parliament in some countries (Spain, Germany);

appointment by the head of state (Italy, Ireland); or speaker of Parliament (Sweden), with subsequent vote of confidence in other countries; appointment by the head of state without obligatory vote of confidence (UK, the Netherlands)

- Prime minister and cabinet are politically accountable to the Parliament (vote of no-confidence possible); some country require a constructive no-confidence vote (replace sitting government)

DIRECTORIAL GOVERNMENT- Switserland: Federal Councils consist of 7 individuals who are elected individually by

Parliament for entire term of Parliament- Federal president = head of government and state

! cabinet members rote presidency between them on annual basis- Government is not politically accountable to Parliament

DIRECTLY ELECTED PRIME MINISTER- Israel (1996-2003): prime minister elected with absolute majority- Cabinet nominated by the prime minister but required a parliamentary vote of confidence- Prime minister politically accountable to Parliament, but vote of no-confidence possible to

dissolve Parliament and led to elections of both the prime minister and ParliamentSEMI-PRESIDENTIALISM

- President directly (or semi-directly) elected- President appoints cabinet- Cabinet is politically accountable to Parliament- President can dismiss the cabinet and/or dissolve Parliament

ZIE OOK FIGURE 8.1 P. 144

2.2 The government under different democratic regime typesDifferent regime types (or systems of government) also distinguish themselves by the definition of government:

- Constitutional one-person executives (f.e. presidentialism) or collective bodies (f.e. parliamentarism)

- Head of state included in government or separate head of state

3 The internal working of government constitutions are typically silent about the internal working and decision-making of government, leaving much to the political actors who adapt the government modes to changing circumstances. Number descriptive models of government:

Presidential government- All executive power in a single, directly (or quasi) elected politician for a fixed term- President directs composition of government (= sovereignty)

Cabinet government- Represents traditional operating mode of parliamentary government- Britain 1850: cabinet = creation of the monarch (keep control over decisions and agenda)- Gradual increase of government tasks: less decisions by cabinet – decisions became formal

(only ratifying what was decided between ministers)- Nowadays: post-classical cabinet government: deliberates and decides important issues +

functions as a court of appealPrime ministerial government

- Monocratic decision-making by the prime minister- Used is Britain after cabinet government- Dominant role of prime minister: three different modes:

1 Generalized ability to decide policy across all issue areas in which the prime minister takes an interest2 By deciding key issues which subsequently determine most remaining areas of government policy3 defining a government ethos or operating ideoloigy which generates predictable and determinate solutions to most policy problems, and constrains other ministers’ freedom or make them agents of prime minister’s will

- Difference with presidential government: president had constitutional right to Monocratic decision-making, terms are fixed, are unassailable

Ministerial government- Instead of concentrating power in prime minister (after cabinet government): dispersed

among individual cabinet members- Decisions mostly only ratified by cabinet- Ministers are ‘policy dictators’ within their own domain

Models of government and cabinet coalitions in parliamentary systems- Coalition governments in parliamentary systems have typically developed more complex

decision modes (due to influence of the parties)

4 The autonomy of governmentPolitical parties are complex identities; they consist of:

- The mass organization- The parliamentary party- The party team in government

Government autonomy: the party dimensionPolitical parties play a crucial role in structuring elections party government: exists only in so far as the actions of office-holders are influenced by values and policies derived from the partyCONFLICT: full autonomy of elected officials from their party a strong role of the party in determining the course steered by the government

3 means of control:- Party programmes: clearly state the intentions of the party + specify appropriate means to

the desired ends- Selection of cabinet members: party control of the cabinet in the form of cabinet members

who act upon party values- Permanent control of the party over the cabinet: parties want to exercise permanent

control over their ministers in order to influence government3 ideal types of party-government relation: - dominance: one of the two dominates - autonomy: government and government parties coexist without exercising influence on each other - fusion: party and government become politically indistinguishable

Presidentialization?= increasing leadership power resources and autonomy within the party and the political executive respectively and increasingly leadership-centered electoral processes

Government autonomy: bureaucratic government bureaucracy necessary can set the agenda by identifying problems that need to be addressed can limit political choices by presenting a narrow set of alternatives and by undermining the viability of ideas that run counter to the department’s common wisdom

5 The political capacity of government5.1 unified vs divided governmentDivided government: the presidency is held by one party and at least one chamber of Congress is controlled by another partyUnified government: when everything is under the control of the same party

In presidential regimes, unified government suggest greater capacities. Divides government requires the president to use institutional prerogatives, bribe members of the legislature, or compromiose with legislative partners.President-assembly relations under presidentialismPresidential strategy

Assembly strategy

reject bargain Demand payments

Acquiesce

Undertake unilateral action

Imperial president,Recalcitrant assembly

Bargain Coalition president,Workable assembly

Pay-off Nationally oriented President,

Parochial assemblydictate Dominant president,

subservient assembly

5.2 Majority versus minority governmentMajority government: at least 50 per cent of the seats plus one able to enact political programmaMinority government: less than 50 per centMinority can govern: they can divide the opposition by policy proposals at the center of policy space, but is more difficult than majority governing HANDBOOK:

- Table 8.2: a broad overview of the frequency of government types in democracies worldwide- Table 8.3 and 8.4: overall majority cabinets enjoy a longer life than minority cabinets

5.3 Single-party versus coalition partySingle-party governments: advantage that no party line of division runs through the government, government goals will be relatively uncontroversial internally + are likely to have strong leaders who can overcome internal difficultiesCoalition governments: need to satisfy at least some of the ambitions of each of the government partiesHANDBOEK: table 8.5: government form and cabinet duration compared over countries 6 Bureaucratic capacitiesModern state has developed the permanent bureaucracy as the prime instrument for helping it achieve its goals. Characteristics of the bureaucracy (Weber):

- Personnel: receive a fixed salary and earn pension rights in return for their services and are promoted on basis of seniority

- Organization: specialization, training, functional division of labor, well-defined areas of jurisdiction, and a clear hierarchy

- Procedure: impersonal application of general rules, written documents, recorded decisions and storage of relevant documents

Problems of bureaucracy- Becomes inefficient when decisions need to take into consideration the individual

characteristics of the cases to be decided.- Groupthink: the unconscious minimizing of intra-organizational conflict in making decisions

at the prize of their quality, which can lead to disaster- Bureaucrats have the goal of increasing their budgets (Niskanan)- The effort bureaucrats bring to their job, options:

*work in interest of their principal (no agency problem)*leisure-shirking: work less than expected (stereotype of civil servants)*dissent-shirking: don’t do their best to implement the policies desired by their principals due to different preferences*political sabotage: the production of negative outputs (civil servants work against the interest of their principal

Politician have responded in two ways to their uneasiness with the bureaucracy: establishing spoils systems and introducing New Public Management.

Spoils systems= the victorious party is free to appoint large layers of the administration after each election, with the jobs going to the party faithfulIt is democratic in two ways:

- Administration shares the political philosophy and helps the politician to live up to the promises made in the campaign

- Entrusts ordinary Americans rather than a closed elite of professional bureaucrats with the business of government

US has maintained a large degree of spoil systemsADVANTAGE: provide politician with administrators who are committed to the government goalsDISADVANTAGE: appointees haven’t got enough knowledge about the organization + environment, and do not know each other government of strangers

New public management- Personnel: top positions open to outside candidates, fixed-term basis, salaries equal to

private sector and payment is tied to performance- Organization: splitting large bureaucratic units into smaller ones and allowing competitions

between different public sector units or even with private sector units- Procedure: accountability is based on the civil servants performance in attaining the agency’s

goals public sector managers are expected to engage in managerialism and entrepreneurship

Greatly enhance the potential for political control over the bureaucracyCRITIC: deprofessionalization and politicization of the bureaucracy

The quality of governanceHANDBOOK Table 8.6: the performance of the bureaucracy

Chapter 10: Elections and referendums - Gallagher

[A] INTRODUCTIONElections to fill seats in parliament or other institutions, referendums issue-specific (yes or no)

[B] ELECTIONS AND ELECTORAL SYSTEMSElectoral system: set of rules, structure how votes are cast and how they are converted into seats

1. Electoral regulationsSome countries lowering age (Austria + Brazil, 16 years). Generally voluntary (not: Belgium+Australia)Why compulsory? Voluntary voting = related to socioeconomic status, compulsory yawns the gapBallot access: most countries require financial deposit disadvantage for small parties / candidatesTerms of parliament and presidents are mostly fixed (book p. 183 box 10.1 compulsory or voluntary?)

2. The main categories of electoral systemsConstituency: geographic area into which the country is divided for the elections

Single-member pluralitySingle-member constituencies: strongest party wins the seat majoritarian, first past the post

Alternative voteRank candidates: 1 beside first choice, 2 beside second, ... Majority? Candidate elected << >> No majority? Lowest eliminated, ballots redistributed according to second preference

Two-round systemNo majority in first round? Second round with top 2/3

Proportional representation Multi-member constituencies: seats shared among parties in proportion to votesSimplest way: country is one large constituency 16% votes = 16% seats very proportionalBut: no local MPs country divided into constituencies for local representations List systems: party presents list of candidatesMixed systems: voter casts two votes: for local MP and for party list

- Compensatory mixed systemList seats rewarded to rectify under- or over-representation in constituencies, ensuring that party’s overall number of seats is proportional to its vote shareSmall parties win hardly seats, but receive appropriate number of list seatsBig parties win more than fair share but receive no list seats because constituency seats already brings them to the total number of seats they are entitled highly proportional

- Parallel mixed systemList part and constituency part separate, list seats awarded purely on basis of list votes, no account of what happened in constituencies benefit for large parties which retain over-representation

Single transferable vote: logic of alternative vote in multimember constituenciesSecond vote mostly cast to another member of same party (Malta + Ireland)

3. Dimensions of variation District magnitudeNumber of MPs elected from each constituency The higher the district magnitude, the more proportionalThe more seats, the more fair the distribution can be

Intra-party choiceExtent to which voters decide which of their party’s candidate take the seats the party winsSingle-member: no intra-party choice because only one candidatePR: closed lists << >> preferential lists: even bad position can get you elected

Thresholds 3-5 % = normal, Netherlands = 0.67 %, Russia = 7 %

4. Origins of electoral systemsTrend away from majoritarian and to PR system low risk in PR to lose everything

5. Consequences of electoral systemsDuverger’s law: single-member plurality system = two-party system << >> PR = multiparty systemCoalitions in PR, not in non-PRPR = better representation, more women elected, no over-representation of partyNon-PR: probably two-party stable, easy to judge + overthrow

[C] REFERENDUMS1. Types of referendums

Mass electorate vote on a public issue- Mandatory or optional- May take place at request of number of voters (initiative) or of a political institution - Decision-promoting or decision-controlling: abrogative (strike down existing law) or rejective

(prevent proposal to pass in law)

2. The rationale of the referendumProcess-related arguments

- Certain policies only fully legitimated by their endorsement in a referendum give mandate- Participation is good in itself and educates voters about issues

Outcome-related arguments - More opportunities to participate = more opportunities for exclusion = worse outcomes- Mass = ignorant, bad decisions, highly influential, can disturb social balance

Rules to prevent lots of ‘stupid’ referenda:Legislature mostly decides if referendum takes place and on what issue veto items on agendaIf voters can trigger themselves, judicial body can take veto roleDouble majority needed in federal countries (majority of voters + majority in both federal units)

3. Empirical patternsOptional extra << >> inherent part of the system

4. Voting behaviour at referendumsPeople often don’t vote issue but to punish party, policy, fear for Polish plumber, ... second-order

5. The impact of referendums Additional veto player << >> powerful legitimiser Initiative by people: put popular issues on agenda, pass them because no-one really caresParties can lose control over agenda, but mostly initiative is not possible

Chapter 11: Federal and local government institutions1. Introduction

Any analysis of the contemporary territorial governance must begin with the territorial organization of the nation-state. The nation-state is the ‘modern’ form of political organization. Before the nation-state, there were other forms of territorial organization. e.g The Holy Roman Empire. There have been predictions of the demise of nation-states due to globalization ( pressure from above) and the rise of regions and local authorities ( pressure from below) as political actors. The nation-state has changed significantly. If the nation-state has meant a certain form of territorial governance, then there are important consequences for territorial governance.

2. The modern nation-state and territorial governance

2.1 The modern nation-state

International state systems originated through the Treaty of Westphalia, but the modern state came as a result of a series of revolutions in the 18th century.3 types : The industrial Revolution and the England constitutional revolution lead to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ( Multinational Union State).b) The American Revolution lead to the United States of America ( first as a confederation, then a federation)c) The French Revolution lead to the Unitary State ( characterized by unity and indivisibility)-> Each of these state forms will be imitated by almost all other modern nation-states.-> The French Revolution left another legacy to political thoughts and practice: nationalism. Nationalism is an ideology based on the assumption that nations ought to have states and states ought to be co-terminous with nations.

2.2 Unitary states and nationalism

Nationalism was important throughout the 19th -20th century. It was a driving force behind the - unification of politically fragmented territories such as Germany and Italy and –the breakup of empires such as the Ottoman empire.

19th century French model of the unitary state was dominant and influenced the territorial organization of many of these new states. e.g. in catholic Europe, liberalism was associated with the nationalism and a strong centralized state that is capable of taking control over education and social welfare from the church.

Some countries (Netherlands, Spain) adopted the French model as a result of the Napoleonic conquests at the beginning of the 19th century. Belgium broke away from the Netherlands and became a monarchy. But despite the presence of a large Flemish-speaking population, opted for a French unilingual and centralized state. Brussels (went from a Flemish-speaking to a French-speaking city, situated within Flanders). (e.g Italia and Germany) (zie pg 200 voor meer voorbeelden)

2.3 Federal states and nationalism

The USA and Switzerland are the two oldest modern federal states. After WWII, Germany and Austria became federal, with the encouragement of the USA, to whom federalism was synonymous with democracy. The UK was neither a unitary state, like France nor a Federalist state like the USA. The UK was a ‘union state’(= a state that is formed by a series of Acts of Union). This was very normal before the unitary state in France.

The nation-state model is retained with the ‘national’ dimensions being represented at the federal or union level, where the representative assembly and government are responsible for the nation as a whole ( war, national economy), while the component entities of the state are responsible for those affairs dealt with most appropriately at that level ( education, health). Not all unitary, federal or union states have succeeded in maintaining this unity. E.g Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia. A principal reason why all those didn’t work, was their failure to construct an overarching and common national identity. Instead the constituent units adopted individual nation-state- building projects with some of the constituents. E.g. The Czechs and the Serbs.

Other unitary states have experienced difficulties because of internal nationalisms which challenge the legitimacy of the dominant nation-state. E.g Spain ( Catalan and Basque)

Even in countries with a strong unitary tradition, unification may be incomplete. The majority of the nation states, however, have succeeded in constructing a form of political organization in which the majority of the population do feel an attachment to the ‘nation’. This nation is identifiable with a state with clearly differentiated

borders and where the principal source of political legitimacy lies with the core central institutions.

3. Territorial governance in welfare states

The establishment of welfare states, which began before WWII, but which reached its peak in the post-war period, may be seen as the final stage of nation-state building. In order better to collect resources from the wealthier sections of society and stronger economic regions and redistribute them to the weaker sections and to underdeveloped regions, the state found it necessary to centralize. The implication for territorial political organization was that central- logic relations took on the form of a ‘principal-agent’ relationship: sub-national authorities, whether regions or local governments, increasingly became the ‘agents’ of their ‘principal’ ( the central state), in the delivery of these services. Fiscal policy was controlled by the central government -> less local fiscal autonomy.

3.1 The crisis and reconfiguration of the welfare state (1970-90’s)

The welfare state and the old industrial capitalism which underlay it, went through a serieus of crises and important transformations. The state was reconceptualized less as a top-down, directive agency capable of bringing about the common good and realizing extensive welfare policy goals and more as a stimulator from below of the forces of society and the economy that can achieve these themselves. (zie table 1.1 pg 202)

3.2. Asymmetrical diversity vs symmetrical diversity

We can distinguish political, administrative, and fiscal symmetry and/or asymmetry. There is today a general tendency to increase asymmetrical diversity of all three kinds, although the combinations vary in different countries.

3.3 From the ‘principal-agent’ to the ‘choice’ model and the right to experiment

Central-local relations during the welfare state period were characterized by the ‘principal-agent’ model.

This changed in the ‘80’s as central governments either reproduced welfare services or even terminated some programs of resource redistribution. In response, many regional and local authorities made a virtue out of necessity and began to mobilize their resources and form alliances with other local authorities both inside and outside their national states. (choice-model) This model is also an expression of the neo-liberal approach which predominated in Western States during the 80’s and 90’s.

Local autonomy, in application of the principle of subsidiarity, means deciding local policies at the appropriate level. This lead to competition at the local policy and politics. From 90’s there has been a significant increase in competition among regional and local authorities, both within their own states and with regional and local authorities more widely as they try to create the conditions necessary to attract inward investment.

3.4 Changing patterns of fiscal relations

Local autonomy is viable only if it’s accompanied by fiscal autonomy (= the right and capacity of local authorities to raise their own revenues or to have a degree of discretion over those fiscal resources they receive from central governments). 2 arguments against the decentralization of control over local funding. a) ‘only central governments could achieve local economic efficiency through policies of fiscal equalization and redistribution’b) (known as fiscal federalism) local fiscal autonomy is necessary as a way of increasing the accountability and responsiveness of sub-national governments. Fiscal federalism was based on the idea that citizens could choose from among a variety of services by moving residence from one authority to another -> this can lead to the optimal allocation of resources in a market situation and to local authorities adapting services to local circumstances. ( more in the US than in EU)

Difference between the choice- and agency-model: In the choice model, local authorities are seen as being best placed to make decisions that reflect the needs and preferences of their local communities. In the agency-model, local authorities are seen first and foremost as agents carrying out policies on behalf of the principal (central government). One of the underlying causes of the crisis of the welfare state model was the ‘fiscal crisis of the state’ or the inability of the state itself to fund the ever-increasing demands of its own policy programs. Thus, under the first casualties of the crises were the local authorities themselves.

Situation is complex. Most countries combine the agency and choice-model, though most tend to emphasize one or the other as the dominant tendency. This combination of models leads to a great deal of variety in fiscal arrangements of European states, but one overall trend has been the increase in grants from the central governments and a decrease in ‘own recources’ (local taxes and fees). Local autonomy may retain a certain amount of fiscal autonomy if they have discretion over how the grants are used.

3.5 From hierarchy to ‘equality of levels’

A final trend to note in this survey of changes in territorial governance from the welfare state to a more pluralistic state model is the abandonment in a number of states of hierarchical relationship among different levels of government. In France there is a equality among the three sub-national levels of government: the region, department and the municipality. This was a deliberate choice made when the regions were established, as the ‘departmentalist’ lobby in France feared that the regions might be in a superior position. To avoid this, all hierarchy was abolished.

4. Federal vs unitary states4.1 The classical distinction

Given these trends which have affected all states; Is the classical distinction between federal and unitary states still useful?

Distinctions between federal and unitary state. A federal state: an association of states, which has been formed for certain common purposes, but in which the member states retain a large measure of their original dependence. Prototype : US Certain powers are exercised by the federal or ‘general’ government and other by the ‘regional’ or constituent states. Each government is supreme in its own sphere. In this model of ‘co-ordinate federalism’ the powers of the federal government are circumscribed by the constitution and the remaining ‘residuary’ powers may be exercised by the regional governments. Neither government may intervene in the sphere of the other. (rest best lezen in boek-> moeilijk samen te vatten pg 205+ 206)

5. Trends towards regionalization and decentralization in unitary states

5.1 Decentralization

Decentralization can be political or administrative. Political decentralization means the transfer of decision-making powers from the central state to any of the sub-national levels of government. We need to distinguish regionalism and regionalization, from political decentralization. Although the establishment of political regions is always a form of decentralization, the latter does not always mean setting up regions.

Political decentralization is not the same as administrative decentralization. Administrative decentralization means the transfer of some administrative functions to sub-national levels of the administration. It is the central organs of the administration which remain in control of policy-making and administrative behavior. (zie pg 207 tabel)

5.2 Occupying the ‘meso-level’: the emergence of the region as a political actor

The ‘meso-level’ of territorial governance is the level that exists between the national and the local level. In federal states, the component units of the federal level are the meso-level, and their position defines the nature of the federation.

The larger unitary states, such as France, have found it necessary to set up meso-level governments ( eg: regions in france and Italy) e.g. Italy adopted the regionalized model which distinguished between ‘special’ and ‘ordinary’ regions. ‘special regions’ were distinguished by their geographical/ cultural features(Island of Sicily) or linguistic/cultural specificity. (voor verdure voorbeelden zie boek).

European integration did add a new element to these processes of strengthening regions, especially with the upgrading of EU regional policy in the form of the Structural of Cohesion funds. This lead to a vast mobilization of regional and local authorities in the hope of obtaining some of this manna from heaven. This strengthened the position of the regions within the large unitary states, who could argue that regionalism and regionalization were the appropriate forms of contemporary European governance.

6. The local level

6.1 Local government and local autonomy

All states, with the exception of the Vatican, possess a level of local government but there is a great deal of variation in its position within the overall system of government. One important difference is between the unitary and federal state. In federal states, as a general rule, local government does not have a direct relationship with the federal government but with the sub-federal meso-government. In unitary states, there is usually a direct relationship between the central and local levels. However, in some cases, the body occupying the ‘meso’space (the region or the autonomous community) is the hierarchical superior of the local authorities. This has led to a regionalist centralism ( Belgium) which may infringe the local autonomy.

Political decentralization means here, strengthening of local government autonomy. (zie vb EU pg211)

6.2 Comparing and typologizing local government

P212 -213 in boek bekijken (veel vergelijkingen )

Chapter 12: Political parties - Katz

[A] DEFINITIONS OF PARTY Objectives: gain control over governmental power Methods: nominations, elections, organization of government Competition: contesting of elections Autonomous citizens who can freely choose

[B] ORIGINS OF PARTIESSince 16th-19th: notion that coordinated action is more effective than solo actionIntra-parliamentary parties, developed leadership cadres and became active in electoral campaigns Took control from monarch and put it in parliamentarian handsRise of parties =/= democratization: still elite club, no universal suffrage, ...Need to mobilize large numbers of excluded to support leaders extra-parliamentary parties

Broadened suffrage, turned liberal regimes in liberal democracies

Intra-parliamentarian: represented upper class and upper middle classExtra-parliamentarian: represent middle class and lower classes

[C] FUNCTION OF PARTIES 1. Coordination

Within governmentMaintain discipline and communication within parliamentary caucusCoordinate action of parliamentary caucus in support/opposition to cabinet

Within societyOrganize political activity of like-minded citizens

Between government and societyPattern linkage between representatives in public office and organized supporters

2. Contesting elections Provide candidates, link them to symbols, histories, expectations of team-like behaviourDevelop policy programmesRecruit and coordinate campaign workers

3. Recruitment Selection of candidates for electionsRecruitment of candidates for appointed officeIntegration of new citizens into existing political system

4. Representation Speak for members and supporters within government agenciesOrganizational embodiment of demographically or ideologically defined categories of citizens

[E] MODELS OF PARTY REPRESENTATION 1. Types of parties (book p. 226 table 12.1)

Cadre or elite parties Highly restricted suffrage, MP had own personal clientele, didn’t need mass support or party officeWorked together for common goals, grew + sometimes elaborated local organizations + coordinationHeart of organization = MP with personal campaign and support organization, for ‘national interest’

Mass parties (1850-...)Extra-parliamentary, core of leaders organize party central office to win elections + gain public officeRepresent interest of particular group or class that were excluded from powerStrategy of encapsulation: organizations as women’s groups, after-work clubs, trade unions, servicesExtensive organization required: formally defined membership + payment of fee requiredNational congress = highest decision-making body, chairman or president elected

Iron law oligarchy: leads to domination by party elite

Catch-all partiesSame idea mass parties, but organized as supporters of party in public office rather than as its masterSocial breakdown, spread of mass media, social groups not large enough, ...

Reduction in role of members relative to professionals Shedding of ideological baggage No more interconnection between party and interest organizations Strategy across group boundaries for votes and resources

Parties professionalized (consultants, pollsters), membership superfluous

Cartel parties (1975-...)Catch-all under pressure: increasing public debts choice between taxes or cuts in welfare spendingGlobalization, growth of interest groups, ... brought pressure on parties and stateLess party loyalties and memberships: change to cartel parties

- Mainstream parties form cartel to protect themselves from electoral risks + supplement resources with state subventions

- Parties become agencies of state instead of agencies of society- Preserve internal democracy, increase power of members and disempower part activists - Professional expertise > political experience & activism

Anti-cartel parties= left-libertarian / new right / movement partiesExpect deeper commitment from members, organized around an ideaFrustrated that substantive outcomes don’t change because all parties are mainstream + in grey zoneParties more interested in protecting own privileges than in advancing interests of ordinary citizens

Business-firm partiesCfr. Berlusconi: party sponsored by corporate empire and staffed by its employeesLightweight organisation, mobilises short-term support at election-time

Parties in the USLook like old cadre parties: cases of arrested development

- Weak central organization- Focus on individuals rather than institutions- No formal membership organization

But: regulated by law + mass membership to select the candidate (primaries) organized by stateRegistrants free to do so, party can’t control them

2. MembershipOriginal parties: only MPs as members, now all modern parties have membershipIndividuals who have applied or inescapably via trade unions (mostly with social parties)General decline in party membership, members cost more than they are worth

Couch party: so few members that they could all sit on one couch

3. Regulation Party laws, sometimes embedded in national constitution, regulate following things:

- Centrality of parties to democracy (justification for giving them special rights)- Power of parties + definition of party- Administrative convenience or necessity

Once registered, some privileges: eligible for tax credits, name on ballot, half of expenses paid back

4. FinanceRegulation of spending

- Bans on particular forms of spending: buying advertising time in broadcast media- Limitations on total spending: depend on size of electorate- Disclosure of spending: provide transparency

Regulation of fundraisingPrevent wealthy individuals / groups from exercising undue influence over parties easily avoidableDifficult to define what contribution is, where it comes from, ...

Public subventionsBenin tax systems, direct provision of goods and services, direct financial subventions

[F] PARTIES AND THE STABILIZATION OF DEMOCRACY Essential role in transition from traditional monarchy to electoral democracyHelped citizens into established patterns of competition (third wave)Slow expansion of immigrants: able to win them and not let them fall to radical groups

Function of integration and stabilization

[G] CONCLUSION Alternatives: technocrats

Chapter 13: Party systems - Caramani

[A] INTRODUCTIONMotor of politic interaction = competition for power + cooperation when in powerParty system = result of competitive interactions, three main elements:

- Which parties exist? Why do all systems have socialist parties but not agrarians? origin- How many parties exist and how big are they? morphology / format- How do parties behave to maximize votes? dynamics

Pluralism needed with free elections (not like China or Syria)

[B] GENEALOGY OF PARTY SYSTEMS1. The national and industrial revolutions

1850-1920: socio-economic and political changes- Industrial revolution: changes by industrialization and urbanization- National revolution: formation nation-states (homogenous + centralized) + liberal democracy

Social groups, values, interests and elites opposed: modern parties = political translation of divisions

2. Cleavages and their political translation (Book page 239 table 13.1) National revolution

Centre vs periphery Political power, administration, taxation systems centralized, national languages + national religionResistance in regionalist parties (Basque, Catalan, Scottish, ...)

State vs church Promotion of secular institutions, individualism and democracy, against huge role of churchLiberals against conservatives

Industrial revolutionRural vs urbanLanded rural interests against rising class of industrial and trading entrepreneursFocus on trade policies: protectionism (agrarians) vs liberalism (industrials)

Workers vs employersIndustrial entrepreneurs who started revolution vs working class resulting from it, capital vs labourCaused geographical mobility, changed production mode, social rights and welfare state

International revolutionCommunism vs socialism Revolution necessary or not? Acceptance of Soviet communist party as leaders?Reaction against radicalization working class = fascism nation > class

Why no socialist parties in US?- Open frontier: geographical + social mobility, workers moved in search of good conditions- Dominance republicans + democrats made rise of third party difficult- Working class white men allowed to vote and were integrated in political system- No feudalism, no aristocracy working class similar to European bourgeoisie

Post-industrial revolutionMaterialism vs post-materialism Between generations over socio-political values: tolerance, equality, environment, freedom, peace, ..<< >> materialists: security, law & order, protection private property, tradition, authority

Globalization cleavageEconomic defensive attitudes, anti-immigration, xenophobic, ...extreme right wings

3. Variations in cleavage constellationsSpace Not all cleavages everywhere, country-specific, determined by

- Differences in social structures, ethnicities, religious groups, class relations- Extent to which socio-economic and cultural divisions have been politicized

Homogenous: one predominant cleavage left-rightHeterogeneous: various cleavages overlap or cut across one another (Belgium)

Time Freezing hypothesis: reflect original conflictsVoters get strong identities, hardly room for new parties, hardly volatility between left & right

[C] THE MORPHOLOGY OF PARTY SYSTEMSNumber + size of parties: how many players are there and how strong are they?Observed by votes and seatsTwo more types that are not discussed because not democratic: single-party systems (only one party is legal) and hegemonic-party systems (other parties legal but just satellites)4 other types: dominant / two-party / multi-party / bipolar (page 246 table 13.2)

1. Dominant party systemsOne very large party dominates all others with large majority over several decadesFree elections, but everyone votes massively for one party, no power alternation, no coalitions

2. Two-party systemsTwo fairly equally balances large parties, alternation in power after almost each electionComparable sizes, equal chances in winning. Other small parties not needed to form governmentFPTP system, plurality = ideological moderation = similar programmes

3. Multi-party systemsMost frequent type, from 3 to 10 parties, small and large parties, coalitionsNo ideological moderation, government change mostly through swaps of coalitionsBetter representation of socio-political pluralism, stable, functioning, peaceful

Moderate multi-party systemsLess than 5 parties, moderate visions, all coalitions possible

Polarized multi-party systemsIdeological distance, not all coalitions possible, some excluded and always in oppositionOne centre party which is always in power, not punished electorally because no alternatives

4. Bipolar systemsMany parties, no majority, coalition already before elections an run as electoral alliancesStable coalitions over time, mostly two great coalitions which alternate (cfr. Two-party systems)

5. The number of parties Numerical rules: based on size: many small parties (fragmented) or few large ones (concentrated)Qualitative rules: based on role: coalition potential vs blackmail potential

6. The influence of electoral laws on the format of party systemsCauses for varying numbers of parties and their size

Electoral systemsMajoritarian vs proportional systems Duverger’s lawVoters vote strategically: try to avoid wasted votes when small parties have no chance<< >> PR systems= voters vote sincerely, small parties can gain a lot of votesPlurality over-represents large parties (more seats than votes) and under-represent small parties

Number of cleavages in societyLarge number of parties when social and cultural pluralism, PR = result of fragmentation

[D] THE DYNAMICS OF PARTY SYSTEMS1. The market analogy

Parties maximize votes, actors are rational, seek control, self-interested, appeal to large groupFace alternatives, inform themselves, search individual advantages

2. The spatial analogyProximity / distance between individual preferences and party policies (bakery)

3. Down’s modelBell-shape: voters in centre, moderate ideologiesCentrifugal competition: voters to the extremes, ideological polarization

4. The wider application of rational choice modelsParty organization: rational choice explains transformation from mss parties to catch-all partiesDealignment: looser relationships parties – society, vague programmes to attract more votersEnfranchisement and democratization: reformist wanted socialist in power through votesPR and multiparty systems: high abstention levels in FPTPMore opinion-voters than identity-voters

Why more and more convergence?- Development of large homogenous middle class- Reduction of social inequalities + secularization of society- Nationalization and globalization more integration, less ethnic difficulties

Chapter 18: Political participation

1 Intro

Political participation establishes links from the mass public to the political eliteso Voluntary + democracies

Political participation addressed to a central authority is costly and difficult to achieve Political participation is thus an activity that occurs in spite of all kinds of obstacles and

preferences for more spontaneous, self-reliant action

2 Modes of political participation – HOW?

Sites of participation1. Public arena to advertise and communicate demands2. Target policy-makers as addressees of their communications3. Selection process of who aspire the office

Intermittent to continuous participation and leadership in organized efforts Riskiness of participation depends on the legal and political regime

1. Democracies Communication with government + elections = low risk Unconventional = low risk or high risk (harm,…)

Modes of participation1. Social movements

= streams of activities that target demands at policy-makers through community, street and media events

Small formal organizational cores No formal membership

2. Interest groups = activities where participants mainly rely on communicating preferences, demands and threats to policy-makers tends to create durable interest groups

Formally organized Explicit membership roles + internal statutes Power derives from the centralization of its internal organization

o Credible commitments3. Political parties

= activities in which participants cooperate in order to nominate legislative candidates, help them attract voters and organize voter turnout

Few candidates, reputations and promises voters perspective One core competence: participatory mobilization

3 Determinants of political participation – WHY?

Political vs. other types of participation Paradox of collective action

o People participate in politics to bring about authoritative decisions allocating goods to large groups = collective goods

o Collective action paradox People behave as free riders Selective incentives overcome the problem

Private benefits only for participants outweigh the costs participation!

Solutions:1. Political entrepreneurs consider participation not as costly2. Participation as benefit itself3. Underrate the costs4. Social networks = monitoring device

4 Explaining political participation at the macro-level – WHEN + WHERE?

Why?o Context and opportunity = macro-level

+ Political entrepreneurs devise organizations of political actiono Resources and dispositions = micro –level

Economic development and political regimeo Industrial Revolution (transportation, communication)o Democracies

Elections, universal single suffrage and protection of rightso Authoritarian regimes

Executive is not accountable to the citizens, less activities/opportunities to participate

o Harshly repressive despotic regimes More restricted and compulsory participation through sate-run mass

organizations Differences in participation within democracies

o Political opportunity structure To be able to incorporate new issues?

Multi-party systems: easyBut proportional representation: independent mobilization

Two-party system: lack of internal cohesion Voter turnout

o Poorer and more authoritarian regimes = lower turnouto Institutional regulations

Compulsory voting: sanctions?

Electoral rules: PR or majoritarian? Registration requirements: automatically or not? Concurrent or non-concurrent elections for legislative and presidential office:

on the same day or not? Labour union membership (= interest group) depends on:

o Agriculture urban manufacturing service industrieso Political regimeo Communism economic development policy interest group participationo Ghent system: unemployment insurance by labour unions

Political organizations and mobilizationo Actors will invest in collective action only if future benefits justify current expenses

1. Organizational infrastructure that facilitates coordination2. Process of redefining or expanding the objectives driving the mobilization

effort Learning process

Temporally discrete objectives/ single issue causes social movementsOpen-ended and permanent struggles around certain objectives/ specialize range of issues/ limited issue domain political interest groups

o Political interest groups Are not making authoritative political decisions in democracies But challenge unresponsive politicians forming own political party?

Preconditions for entry:1. Institutional thresholds2. The party appeals to a salient issue demand that is not

represented by existing parties3. Strategic deliberation and generalization of political

objectives Political causes pursue complex agendas of interdependent issues

5 Explaining political participation at the micro-level – WHO?

Individual traits + contextual cues

Individual traits1. Resources: socio-economic skills and endowments

Availability of time Schooling/education

Process more information Self-confidence + sense of individual capacity is higher More efficient strategies More developed deliberative processes

Impact on income and occupational time sovereignty Promote involvement in civic activities

2. Recruitment Associational involvement

Organization of the work process: class and group milieus Role of the family Age and gender: older + male

3. Orientations Political interest and ideology

4. Contextual cues Micro: networks of family and friends Meso: large, encompassing associations and densely organized parties Macro: democratic institutions, strategic alignments, PR, interaction effects

between citizens’ individual resources and complex causal chains that reinforce differentials of participation

Chapter 20: Policy making

INTRODUCTION Policies = government statements of what it intends to do, including law,

regulation, ruling, decision or order Public policy = a more specific termwich refers to a series of actions carried out to

solve societal problems Public policies are the main output of the political system!!

By analyzing the policy-making process, we gain a fuller understanding of the causes and consequences of political decision-making.

Types of policies

1 CONCEPTUAL MODELS OF POLICY-MAKING (staat niet in de slides, dus niet te kennen?) Important elements of policy-making

1 Functionality 2 Constraints

A lot of different models, and the main implication of these models is that they make different assumptions about the importance of the actors involved and their rationality.

1.1 INSTITUTIONAL MODEL How do institutional arrangements influence the content of policies? Analytical focus balance between executives and legislatives. (notable variation across political systems) Institutional prespective policies are formulated and implemented exclusively by these institutions& policy-making smooth and largely technical process in wich all relevant institutions participate. !! intra-institutional processes remain in a ‘black box’

1.2 RATIONAL MODELRational model of decision-making

Formulates guidance on how to secure ‘optimal’ policy decisions. “Bayesian learning” governments update their beliefs on the consequences of

policies with all available information about policy outcomes in the past and elsewhere, and choose the policy that is expected to yield the best results.

Involves a number of demanding assumptions: e.g. expactation to have perfect information

“Public choice theory” examines the logic and foundations of actions of individuals and groups that are involved in de policy-making process. (main objects of analysis: voting behaviour and party competition, coalition and government formation, …)

Related to “game theory”

1.3 GROUP MODEL1.4 ELITE MODEL

2 ANALYSING POLICY-MAKING AS A PROCES: THE POLICY CYCLEThe policy-cycle (or process model) the policy-process is modelled as a series of political activities

2.1 AGENDA-SETTINGFirst identification of a social problem requiring the state to intervene. Many social problems only few will be given attention chosen? constitute the policy agenda. Setting the agenda = important source of power as it is policy consequential; but also the ability to exclude societal problems from the policy agenda (non-decisions) is an important source of policy-shaping power. 3 basic policy initiation models

1) Outside-initiative model citizen groups gain broad public support and get an issue onto the formal agenda

2) Mobilization model initiatives of governments need to be placed on the public agenda for succesful implementation

3) inside-initiation model influential groups with acces to decision makerspresent policy proposals, wich are broadly supported by certain interest groups but only marginally by the public

KINGDON: three process streams flowing through the system: problems, policies and politics

~simular to the garbage can model the relevance of chance, the view that agenda-setting represents rational bahviour

The policy agenda is set by four types of actors 1) Public officials (president, parliament, …)2) Bureaucracy3) Mass media 4) Interest groups 5) (political parties and scientific communities)

Agenda-setting is an important source of power first mover advantage

2.2 POLICY FORMULATION Definition, discussion, acceptance or rejectanceof feasible courses of action for coping with policy problems. Deals with elaboration of alternatives of action broader context of technical and political constraints of state action (substantial or procedural) Involves a large number of actors + more attention for interest groups in de formulation of policies & the impact of policy advice and scientific knowledge. 2.3 POLICY ADOPTION The final adoption of a particular policy alternative is determined by government institutions. Policy adpotion is determined by a number of factors, of wich two are particulary important

- The necessity to build a majority- The expected costs/benefits of the policy

2.4 IMPLEMENTATION

Represents the conversion of new laws and programs into practice without this, policy has neither substance nor significance. Implementation research open the black box between policy formation and policy outcomes. Three theoretical approaches

1) Top-down models2) Bottom-up models3) Hybrid models

Implementation of the policy is the central role of top bureaucrats (they have to be able to translate the policy objectives into an operational framework that is accountable for its actions. ~choice of policy instruments is related to this subject, and in federal states also the implementation efforts may move between and within levels of government. Relevance of bureaucracy is contradictory bureaucrasies are essential for making policies work, but senior bureaucrats are often better trained than their political masters (~”bureaucratic drift”)

2.5 EVALUATION Carried out to measure policy efficiency and effectiveness. It provides a feedback loop wich is a powerful tool og policy-making progress, but negative evaluation is not enough to kill policy. (it can lead to termination though)Forms of systematic evaluation: mostly by scientist, but also diverse actors in the political area, media, … The most common type is based on hearings and reports, but also citizen’s complaints. Problem: citzens and politcians are to intepretate the effects to their own intentions, and policies are mostly so vaguely described to avoid policy-failure in any way.

3 INSTITUTIONS, FRAMING AND POLICY-STYLES3.1 THE ROLE OF INSTITUTIONS (verwijzing naar Lijphart) Broad sense policy-making is used to resolve sociatal problems by using institutions (these can structure the interactions of actors + they can support social cooperation, …) In a democratic system: electoral system (most essential formal institution) party-competition, structure and articulate the public’s opinion. Left-right dichotomy.Three main types of voting systems

1) Plurality-majority system2) Proportional representation3) Mixed systems

The relation between the legislative and executiveis also of cruscial importance (e.g. parliamentary vs. presidential regimes) LIJPHART (!!) democratic systems tend to fall in two categories: majoritarian system (concentrates power ans fuses executive and legislative power in the classic parliamentary power) and consensus democracies (sharing power by separating and balancing executive and legislative power)

3.2 NATIONAL POLICY STYLES~regulatory styles (RICHARDSON)

1) Liberal pluralist versus étatist versus corporatist 4) Adversial vs consensual paternalisti

2) Active versus reactive 5) Legalistic vs pragmatic3) Comprehensive versus fragmentes 6) Formal vs informal networks

3.3 CONTEXT: HOW IS AN ISSUE FRAMED?VOORBEELD EXAMENVRAGEN

UIT DE LES1 Waarom klopt ‘The clash of civilizations’ (Hunnington) niet? (~zie vraag 6) 2 Welke methode gebruikt comparative politics?3 Welke twee democratische stelsels zijn er volgens Lijphart?

KNOWLEDGE4 Type: multiple response question

An important distinction is between grand theories and middle-range theories. Which of the following approaches can be classified as grand theories? Please select all that apply.a. Structural functionalismb. Marxismc. Systems theoryd. Governance

5 The three subtypes of one-party rule, distinguished by their ideological/policy orientation are: 1.) Fascist, 2.) Communist, 3.)____________

INSIGHT, EXAMPLES & ESSAY 6 What is the main critique of Katzenstein on the work of Huntington?7 Comparative Politics tries to explain similarities and differences. Can you give two

concrete hypotheses that would be useful to test political differences between countries?

8 Grafiek proberen te verklaren (bv. press-freedom worldwide: what are your findings from this graph?)