200 likes | 215 Views
This module explores the concept of regime change, focusing on its definition, measurement, and theories. It discusses the role of economic development, class structure, actors, democratic diffusion, and civil society in explaining transitions to democracy. Students will analyze two countries and evaluate the most convincing theoretical explanation for their level of democracy or regime change.
E N D
Core Issues in Comparative Politics(PO233)Module Director: Dr. Renske DoorenspleetAssociate Professor in Comparative Politicsdirector Centre for Studies in DemocratizationDepartment of Politics and International StudiesUniversity of Warwick, UK www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/staff/doorenspleet/ www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/research/csd/ e-mail: renske.doorenspleet@warwick.ac.uk
‘Regime Change’ = for example ‘Transitions to Democracy’ Three questions: • 1. What ? (week 3) • 2. Where and When ? (week 5) • 3. Why ? (week 4)
What is Democracy ? • Competition: competitive struggle for votes • Inclusiveness: right to vote (Dahl 1971)
What is Democracy ? Measurements • Focus on competition • Inclusiveness ignored • New classification • Two dimensions • Worldwide in scope, 1800 until 2000
Democracy: Where and When ? • A wave of democratization is‘a group of transitions from nondemocratic to democratic regimes that occur within a specified period of time and that significantly outnumber transitions in the opposite direction’(Huntington 1991)
Problem 1: Definition and measurement of democracy Democracy: Where and When ?
Problem 2:Installation of new regimes (1960s and after 1989) Democracy: Where and When ?
Why: Theories • modernization theories (Lerner 1958; Lipset 1959) • dependency theories(Frank 1967; Amin 1976; Cardoso 1973) • world-system theories(Wallerstein 1979) • historical structural theories(Moore 1966; Rueschemeyer et al. 1992) • actor-oriented approaches(Rustow 1970; O'Donnell et al. 1986; Przeworski 1991)
Why: Variables • economic development • dependency and world-system role • class structure • actors • democratic diffusion • civil society
Modernization theory • Lipset 1959: Positive relationship between economic development and democracy • Only in a wealthy society can a situation exist in which ‘the mass of the population could intelligently participate in politics and could develop the self-restraint necessary to avoid succumbing to the appeals of irresponsible demagogues. A society divided between a large impoverished mass and a small favored elite would result either in oligarchy (...) or in tyranny’ (Lipset 1959: 75).
Modernization theory • Cutright 1963; McCrone and Cnudde 1967; Neubauer 1967; Olsen 1968; Jackman 1973; Coulter 1975; Bollen 1979, 1980, 1983, 1991; Bollen and Jackman 1985, 1989, 1995; Muller 1988, 1995a, 1995b; Inglehart 1988, 1997; Muller and Seligson 1994; Burkhart and Lewis-Beck 1994; Vanhanen 1997; Barro 1999 • Etc. etc. etc….
Modernization theory • First critique on modernization theory: Economic development cannot explain transitions to democracy after 1989 Poor countries make transition to democracy after 1989, so negative relationship.
Modernization theory • Second critique on modernization theory: strength of relationship varies over time
Information lecture/seminar week 5 • We are going to watch a recent debate (on DVD) on democratization issues, and discuss it during seminar. • Preparation seminar week 5: • Read the literature: What are the trends of democratization over time? Are there indications of a reverse wave? • Collect statements on basis of literature and lecture week 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (at least 2 statements per week) and e-mail them to me (deadline is Oct. 26, noon)
Contents seminar week 7 Choose two countries and describe & explain their level of democracy or regime change. Find out which theoretical explanation is most convincing on the basis of your own study. Use the required literature of week 2, 3, 4 and 5. Write a memo of 1,500-2,000 words. E-mail it to me; deadline is Nov. 9, noon Give a presentation (5 minutes) and time for Q&A (5 minutes)