Course Syllabus

Proseminar on Democratization, Globalization,

and International Relations
PSCI 6300 - Spring 2011
v1.0 01072011

Course Information
Dr. Brandon Kinne E-mail: brandon.kinne@utdallas.edu
Class: Tuesday 4:00-6:45pm Office: GR 3.824
Location: CB3 1.308 Office Hours: Tuesday 9:00-11:30am

Course Prerequisites
Students must have graduate standing in the School of Economic, Political, and Policy Sciences, or
permission from the instructor. Prior coursework in political science, international studies, political
economy, or the like is assumed.

Course Description
This course is a graduate-level introduction to the fields of comparative politics and international
relations, which together define the study of world politics. The course readings place particular
emphasis on commonalities and connections between the fields. We will review prominent empirical
issues and theoretical disputes in the literature, and explore how political, economic, and social
dynamics interact across domestic and international boundaries. Most of the readings are either
established or emerging classics. Unfortunately, due to the time constraints of the course, some
classics must be excluded. In such cases, other readings have been chosen to summarize important
preceding literatures.

Student Learning Objectives

This course has two objectives. The first is for students to acquire a broad working knowledge
of current academic trends in comparative politics and international relations. The second is to
develop analytical skills and conceptual frameworks to think critically about the subject matter.
Upon completing the course, students should not only be well-versed in the academic study of
world politics, but should also be capable of intelligently engaging major debates and issues. Both
objectives are intended to prepare students for original research in topics on comparative politics,
international relations, or some combination of the two.

1
Required Textbooks and Materials
The first four weeks of the course focus on methodological and theoretical issues, while the remain-
der of the course focuses on substantive issues. Journal articles, available through online archives
like JSTOR, comprise the bulk of the readings. There are also four books to purchase, and a handful
of book chapters on electronic course reserve. In general, you should expect to read the equivalent
of five or six journal articles per week—less for dense readings, more for lighter readings. I may
make minor changes to reading assignments over the course of the semester. Any such changes will
be announced in class.

The following texts are required and are available for purchase at the usual locations:

• Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, et al. 2004. The Logic of Political Survival. MIT Press.

• Hiscox, Michael. 2002. International Trade and Political Conflict: Commerce, Coalitions,
and Mobility. Princeton.

• Kalyvas, Stathis. 2006. The Logic of Violence in Civil War. Cambridge.

• Lake, David, and Robert Powell. 1999. Strategic Choice and International Relations. Prince-
ton.

Our course reserves page:

• http://utdallas.docutek.com/eres/coursepage.aspx?cid=1008

• See eLearning for password

Course & Instructor Policies

Reading Memos & Leading Discussion

Students will write three reading memos over the course of the semester, on three separate weeks
of their choosing. A memo consists of three elements: (1) succinct written summaries of the read-
ings; (2) questions for discussion; and (3) brief in-class presentations of the readings. Students
assigned to the same day should decide between themselves who covers which readings. The writ-
ten summaries and discussion questions must be circulated to the rest of the class 24 hours prior
to seminar (i.e., by 4:00pm Monday). Late memos will receive no credit. Students will be re-
sponsible for leading discussion on their chosen readings. These are not formal presentations, but
exercises in stimulating thoughtful discussion. Discussants should plan to spend about five minutes
introducing each of the week’s readings. Please keep these presentations short, concise, and infor-
mative. Be sure to read the specific requirements for reading memos, which are posted on eLearning.

Memo grades are determined primarily by the quality of the written summary. However, the in-
class presentations of the reading(s) and the quality of discussion question(s) will also affect the
memo grade. Students must complete at least one memo by March 1st. NOTE: Reading memos
and critical essays (see below) cannot be submitted in the same week.

Critical Essays
Students will write two critical essays over the course of the semester, due on two separate weeks
of their choosing. Essays should be four to five pages in length (double spaced with 12-point font)

2
and should critically respond to some relevant aspect of the week’s readings. Essays should avoid
summary and focus instead on critical analysis. The first essay must be completed by March 1st.
Essays should be submitted by email to the professor (not the entire class) no later than start of
seminar on the day they’re due. Late papers will not be graded. (Students are welcome to also
submit a hard copy of their essay at start of seminar, in addition to sending an e-copy.) Be sure to
read the specific requirements for critical essays, which are posted on eLearning. NOTE: Critical
essays and reading memos (see above) cannot be submitted in the same week.

Participation
Since this is a seminar course, student participation is essential. There is no lecture. Students
should come to seminar prepared to discuss the readings in depth. My expectation is that ev-
ery student will regularly contribute to the discussion—though, of course, quality always trumps
quantity. If you are uncomfortable with extemporaneous discussion, I recommend preparing some
comments and thoughts ahead of time. Attendance is mandatory, and any unexcused absences will
substantially lower your grade.

In addition to assigned readings, students are responsible for reading the memos circulated by their
classmates, thinking about the discussion questions, and preparing to contribute to the discussion.
These discussion questions will form the basis of each week’s seminar. Please read them carefully
and take them seriously.

Grading Policy
• Class participation (30%)
• Three reading memos (35%)
• Two critical essays (35%)

*available through course reserves (http://utdallas.docutek.com/eres/coursepage.aspx?cid=1008)

†available through UTD’s eJournals (http://www.utdallas.edu/library/resources/journals.htm)

January 11 – Introductions

January 18 – Models and Methods

• †Frieden, Jeffry, and David Lake. 2005. “International Relations as Social Science: Rigor
and Relevance,” in Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 600(1):
136-156.
• Lake and Powell, Chapter 1 (“International Relations: A Strategic-Choice Approach”)
• *Fearon, James, and Alexander Wendt. 2002. “Rationalism v. Constructivism: A Skeptical
View,” in Handbook of International Relations, 52-72. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publica-
tions.

3
 • *Braumoeller, Bear, and Anne Sartori. 2004. “The Promise and Perils of Statistics in In-
ternational Relations,” in Models, Numbers, and Cases: Methods for Studying International
Relations, ed. Detlef Sprinz and Yael Wolinsky-Nahmias, 129-151. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.

• †Geddes, Barbara. 1990. “How the Cases You Choose Affect the Answers You Get: Selection
Bias in Comparative Politics,” in Political Analysis 2(1): 131-150.

January 25 – Theory I: Systems, Structures, and Strategic Environments

• Lake and Powell, Chapter 3 (Morrow, “The Strategic Setting of Choices”)

• *Waltz, Kenneth. 1979. “Reductionist and Systemic Theories,” in Theory of International

Politics, 60–78. New York: McGraw-Hill

• †Wendt, Alexander. 1992. “Anarchy Is What States Make of It,” in International Organiza-
tion 46(2): 391-425.

• †Krasner, Stephen. 1976. “State Power and the Structure of International Trade,” in World
Politics 28(3): 317-347.

• *Katznelson, Ira. 1997. “Structure and Configuration in Comparative Politics,” in Compar-

ative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure, eds. Mark Irving Lichbach and Alan S.
Zuckerman, 81–112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

February 1 – Theory II: Actors, Preferences, and Two-Level Games

• Lake and Powell, Chapter 2 (Frieden, “Actors and Preferences”)

• †Moravcsik, Andrew. 1997. “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International

Politics,” in International Organization 51(4): 513-553.

• *Hopf, Ted. 2002. Social Construction of International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univer-
sity Press. Chapter 1.

• †Putnam, Robert. 1988. “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games,”
in International Organization 42(3): 427-460.

• †Gourevitch, Peter. 1978. “The Second Image Reversed: The International Sources of Do-
mestic Politics,” in International Organization 32(4): 881-912.

4
February 8 – Institutions, Parties, and Elections
• †Hall, Peter, and Rosemary Taylor. 1996. “Political Science and the Three New Institution-
alisms,” in Political Studies 44(3): 936-957.
• †Pierson, Paul. 2000. “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics,” in
American Political Science Review 94(2): 251-267.
• †Greif, Avner, and David Laitin. 2004. “A Theory of Endogenous Institution Change,” in
American Political Science Review 98(4): 251-267.
• †Stokes, Susan. 1999. “Political Parties and Democracy,” in Annual Review of Political
Science 2: 243-267.
• †Cox, Gary. 1999. “Electoral Rules and Electoral Coordination,” in Annual Review of Polit-
ical Science 2: 145-162.
• †Boix, Carles. 1999. “Setting the Rules of the Game: The Choice of Electoral Systems in
Advanced Democracies,” in American Political Science Review 93(3): 609-624.

February 15 – Origins of Regimes I: Domestic Institutions

• *Przeworski et al. 2000. Democracy and Development. Chapters 1–2.
• *Acemoglu and Robinson. Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Chapters 1–3.
• †Ross, Michael. 2006. “Is Democracy Good for the Poor?” in American Journal of Political
Science 50(4): 860–874.

February 22 – Origins of Regimes II: External Influences

• *Schmitter, Philippe. 1986. Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Prospects for Democracy.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Chapter 1 (pp. 3-11).
• *Whitehead, Laurence. 2001. “Three International Dimensions of Democratization,” in The
International Dimensions of Democratization: Europe and the Americas. Laurence White-
head, ed. Oxford University Press: 3-25.
• †Brinks, Daniel, and Michael Coppedge. 2006. “Diffusion Is No Illusion: Neighbor Emulation
in the Third Wave of Democracy,” in Comparative Political Studies 39(4): 463-489.
• †Pevehouse, Jon. 2002. “Democracy from the Outside In? International Organizations and
Democratization,” in International Organization 56(3): 515-550.
• †Finkel, Steven E., Anibal Perez-Linan, and Mitcell Seilgson. 2007. “The Effects of US
Foreign Assistance on Democracy Building, 1990-2003,” in World Politics 59(3): 404-439.
• †Kelley, Judith. 2008. “Assessing the Complex Evolution of Norms: The Rise of International
Election Monitoring,” in International Organization 62(2): 221-255.

5
March 1 – Regimes and Political Survival

• Bueno de Mesquita et al. The Logic of Political Survival. Read chapters 1-5, and 7 (skip
chapter appendices).

• †Clarke, Kevin A., and Randall W. Stone. 2008. “Democracy and the Logic of Political
Survival,” in American Political Science Review 102(3): 387-392.

• †Morrow, James D., et al. 2008. “Retesting Selectorate Theory: Separating the Effects of W
from Other Elements of Democracy,” in American Political Science Review 102(3): 393-400.

March 8 – Security I: Internal Conflict

• Kalyvas. The Logic of Violence in Civil War. Read chapters 1-7. Skim chapters 8 and 9.

March 15 – Spring Break!

March 22 – Security II: External Conflict

• †Morrow, James D. 1993. “Arms versus Allies: Trade-Offs in the Search for Security,” in
International Organization 47(2): 207–233.

• †Fearon, James. 1995. “Rationalist Explanations for War,” in International Organization

49(3): 379-414.

• †Smith, Alastair. 1995. “Alliance Formation and War,” in International Studies Quarterly
39(4): 405-425.

• †Slantchev, Branislav. 2004. “How Initiators End Their Wars: The Duration of Warfare and
the Terms of Peace,” in American Journal of Political Science 48(4): 813–829.

• †Schultz, Kenneth. 2005. “The Politics of Risking Peace: Do Hawks or Doves Deliver the
Olive Branch?” in International Organization 59(1): 1–38.

March 29 – Democratic Peace

• †Oneal, John R., and Bruce Russett. 1999. “The Kantian Peace: The Pacific Benefits of
Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, 1885-1992,” in World Politics
52(1): 1-37.

• †Schultz, Kenneth. 1998. “Domestic Opposition and Signaling in International Crises,” in

American Political Science Review 92(4): 829-844.

• †Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, et al. 1999. “An Institutional Explanation of the Democratic
Peace,” in American Political Science Review 93(4): 791-807.

6
 • †Rosato, Sebastian. 2003. “The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory,” in American
Political Science Review 97(4): 585-602.

• †Forum articles from August 2005 issue of American Political Science Review, pp. 453-472:

– Kinsella, “No Rest for the Democratic Peace”

– Slantchev, Alexandrova, and Gartzke, “Probabilistic Causality, Selection Bias, and the
Logic of the Democratic Peace”
– Doyle, “Three Pillars of the Liberal Peace”
– Rosato, “Explaining the Democratic Peace”

April 5 – Organizations and Compliance

• †Chayes and Chayes. 1993. “On Compliance,” in International Organization 47(2): 175–205.

• †Downs et al. 1996. “Is the Good News about Compliance Good News about Cooperation?”
in International Organization 50(3): 379–406.

• †Abbott, Kenneth, and Duncan Snidal. 1998. “Why States Act through Formal International
Organizations,” in Journal of Conflict Resolution 42(1): 3-32.

• †Fearon, James. 1998. “Bargaining, Enforcement, and International Cooperation,” in Inter-

national Organization 52(2): 269–306.

• †Koremenos, Barbara. 2005. “Contracting around International Uncertainty,” in American

Political Science Review 99(4): 549–566.

• †Hathaway, Oona. 2007. “Why Do Countries Commit to Human Rights Treaties?” in Journal
of Conflict Resolution 51(4): 588-621.

April 12 – International Trade

• †Alt, James, et al. 1996. “The Political Economy of International Trade: Enduring Puzzles
and an Agenda for Inquiry,” in Comparative Political Studies 29(6): 689-717.

• Hiscox, Michael J. 2002. International Trade and Political Conflict: Commerce, Coalitions,
and Mobility. Read entire book.

April 19 – Globalization

• †Garrett, Geoffrey. 2000. “Causes of Globalization,” in Comparative Political Studies 33(6/7):

941-991.

• †Evans, Peter. 1997. “The Eclipse of the State? Reflections on Stateness in an Era of
Globalization,” in World Politics 50(1): 62-87.

7
 • †Hicks, Alex, and Christopher Zorn. 2005. “Economic Globalization, the Macro Economy,
and Reversals in Welfare: Expansion in Affluent Democracies, 1978-1994,” in International
Organization 59(3): 631-662.

• †Neumayer, Erik, and Indra de Soysa. 2005. “Trade Openness, Foreign Direct Investment,
and Child Labor,” in World Development 33(1): 43-63.

• †Goldberg, Pinelopi Koujianou, and Nina Pavcnik. 2007. “Distributional Effects of Global-
ization in Developing Countries,” in Journal of Economic Literature 45(1): 39-82.

April 26 – TBD

• Almost done! The topic for this week’s class will be chosen in light of student interests. I’ll
assign a topic (and readings) after the first few weeks of class.

University Policies http://go.utdallas.edu/syllabus-policies

These descriptions and timelines are subject to change at the discretion of the Pro-
fessor.