kjhgds
Instructor’s Resource Manual
and Test Bank
N
for
U
Comparative Politics
Second Edition
R
David J. Samuels,
SE
D
O
All Chapters Included
C
All Answers Included
S
jhgfds
, kjhgds
CONTENTS
Chapter 1. Doing Comparative Politics 1
Chapter 2. The State 26
Chapter 3. Democratic Political Regimes 52
Chapter 4. Non-Democratic Political Regimes 85
N
Chapter 5. Regime Change 115
U
Chapter 6. Political Identity 143
Chapter 7. Religion and Politics 169
R
.
Chapter 8. Gender and Politics 197
Chapter 9. Collective Action 220
SE
.
Chapter 10. Political Violence 248
Chapter 11. Political Economy of Development 275
Chapter 12. The Political Economy of Redistribution 304
D
Chapter 13. Globalization 333
O
C
S
jhgfds
, kjhgds
Chapter 1: Doing Comparative Politics
Learning Objectives
• 1.1 What is comparative politics all about?
• 1.2 What sorts of questions do we ask in comparative politics?
• 1.3 How do we build arguments in comparative politics?
• 1.4 What challenges confront building arguments in comparative politics?
• 1.5 How do we obtain evidence to build arguments in comparative politics?
N
Chapter Summary
U
This chapter opens by asking, “Why study comparative politics?” We study comparative
politics in order to explain different political and economic outcomes in different countries. We
study comparative politics in order to better understand our own country. This textbook takes a
question-and -answer organizational approach in order to help the student recognize different
R
explanations for the same event and to aid students in their comparative thinking. This book is
designed to give students the tools they will need to critically engage key questions and build
their own arguments about politics.
SE
Studying Comparative Politics
Politics is about the making of authoritative public choices from private preferences.
Political science examines these public choices and seeks to understand how those choices
were arrived at and what consequences arose from those choices. Comparative politics is the
D
systematic search for answers to political questions about how people around the world make
and contest authoritative public choices. Comparative politics looks at why countries made
different decisions under similar political rules or similar decisions under different political
rules. Comparativists use countries as cases in order compare and contrast them.
O
Comparativists engage in this research in order to understand how politics works around the
world. They assemble evidence which supports their arguments rather than relying on
“conventional wisdom” which occasionally falls down in the face of the facts. While
C
conventional wisdom may be accurate at time, comparativists use the comparative method to
buttress their claims. The comparing and contrasting of cases is used to generate hypotheses
about politics around the world.
S
The Foundations of Comparative Politics
Many of the questions comparativists ask today are quite ancient. The Greek
philosopher Aristotle attempted to compare and contrast all of the constitutions of his day in
order to determine which best balanced good government with political stability.
Comparativists of today still ask the same question. Prior to the Enlightenment, most study of
government was from a religious and moral perspective. After the Renaissance and the
Enlightenment, the study of government moved to a more secular position and philosophers
like Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke began to theorize about secular-rational
kjhgfds
, kjhgds
justifications for different types of government. Their writings laid the framework for the U.S.
Declaration of Independence and the French Revolution. Questions of the relationship of
government to human liberty and the proper way to limit government power dominated their
writings and will be addressed later in this textbook. In the nineteenth century, the rise of
Industrial Revolution prompted new questions about government from thinkers such as Karl
Marx and Max Weber. These writers focused on the relationship of politics to economics and
many of their questions are dealt with in this textbook. In the early twentieth century questions
began to be raised about the future of democracy, especially with the rise of totalitarian
systems in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Fascist Italy. The distinction between various
ideologies and non-democratic regime types are addressed in this textbook as well.
N
Decolonization in the 1960s and 1970s raised new questions about the legacy of colonialism
and how these new countries can best organize their political and economic systems. In the late
1980s and early 1990s, a number of formerly non -democratic states transitioned to
U
democratization, leading to new questions about regime change and the adaptability of various
cultures to democratic norms. The twenty-first century has led to new questions about gender
relations and the impact of globalization on international economics, politics, and culture. The
R
role of religion in government as well as the ongoing ethnic violence in many countries has
raised profound questions for comparativists. These questions, and others, are addressed in the
following chapters.
SE
The Comparative Method
The questions we ask in comparative politics are always inspired by real-world events
and there are often no easy answers. The worst sorts of arguments in comparative politics are
based on opinions rooted in stereotypes, in the belief that the past predicts the future, or on
generalizations drawn from specific facts.
D
In order to overcome a purely opinion-based comparative politics, comparativists look
to study questions about political events that might seem inevitable or those that might
seem to have an “obvious” explanation. Comparativists explore a wide range of possible
O
cases that have similar characteristics but that experience different outcomes, or vice versa,
in order to answer questions about politics around the world.
Comparativists are wary of building arguments based exclusively on the particulars of a
single case. A good comparativist would ask, “Is the emergence of democracy in South Korea
C
just one example of a pattern?” and would explore not just whether democracy has emerged in
other similar places at the same time, but also whether it has emerged in different places at the
same time. Comparativists do this in order to build and support a hypothesis that is an
S
argument that links cause to effect. Reliable hypotheses have been tested across more than
one case. Therefore, those who study comparative politics search for patterns of attributes and
outcomes – their presence or absence – across cases. While comparativists cannot always
gather information from all cases, their research always involves more than one country.
Hypotheses have two important characteristics: they are causal and they are testable.
First, implicitly or explicitly, hypotheses posit causal relationships between attributes and
outcomes. Hypotheses must also be testable. It is not enough to simply seek out and find
evidence that supports a hypothesized connection between cause and effect – comparativists
must also account for cases that do not fit their expectations. These cases are used to refine
kjhgfds
Instructor’s Resource Manual
and Test Bank
N
for
U
Comparative Politics
Second Edition
R
David J. Samuels,
SE
D
O
All Chapters Included
C
All Answers Included
S
jhgfds
, kjhgds
CONTENTS
Chapter 1. Doing Comparative Politics 1
Chapter 2. The State 26
Chapter 3. Democratic Political Regimes 52
Chapter 4. Non-Democratic Political Regimes 85
N
Chapter 5. Regime Change 115
U
Chapter 6. Political Identity 143
Chapter 7. Religion and Politics 169
R
.
Chapter 8. Gender and Politics 197
Chapter 9. Collective Action 220
SE
.
Chapter 10. Political Violence 248
Chapter 11. Political Economy of Development 275
Chapter 12. The Political Economy of Redistribution 304
D
Chapter 13. Globalization 333
O
C
S
jhgfds
, kjhgds
Chapter 1: Doing Comparative Politics
Learning Objectives
• 1.1 What is comparative politics all about?
• 1.2 What sorts of questions do we ask in comparative politics?
• 1.3 How do we build arguments in comparative politics?
• 1.4 What challenges confront building arguments in comparative politics?
• 1.5 How do we obtain evidence to build arguments in comparative politics?
N
Chapter Summary
U
This chapter opens by asking, “Why study comparative politics?” We study comparative
politics in order to explain different political and economic outcomes in different countries. We
study comparative politics in order to better understand our own country. This textbook takes a
question-and -answer organizational approach in order to help the student recognize different
R
explanations for the same event and to aid students in their comparative thinking. This book is
designed to give students the tools they will need to critically engage key questions and build
their own arguments about politics.
SE
Studying Comparative Politics
Politics is about the making of authoritative public choices from private preferences.
Political science examines these public choices and seeks to understand how those choices
were arrived at and what consequences arose from those choices. Comparative politics is the
D
systematic search for answers to political questions about how people around the world make
and contest authoritative public choices. Comparative politics looks at why countries made
different decisions under similar political rules or similar decisions under different political
rules. Comparativists use countries as cases in order compare and contrast them.
O
Comparativists engage in this research in order to understand how politics works around the
world. They assemble evidence which supports their arguments rather than relying on
“conventional wisdom” which occasionally falls down in the face of the facts. While
C
conventional wisdom may be accurate at time, comparativists use the comparative method to
buttress their claims. The comparing and contrasting of cases is used to generate hypotheses
about politics around the world.
S
The Foundations of Comparative Politics
Many of the questions comparativists ask today are quite ancient. The Greek
philosopher Aristotle attempted to compare and contrast all of the constitutions of his day in
order to determine which best balanced good government with political stability.
Comparativists of today still ask the same question. Prior to the Enlightenment, most study of
government was from a religious and moral perspective. After the Renaissance and the
Enlightenment, the study of government moved to a more secular position and philosophers
like Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke began to theorize about secular-rational
kjhgfds
, kjhgds
justifications for different types of government. Their writings laid the framework for the U.S.
Declaration of Independence and the French Revolution. Questions of the relationship of
government to human liberty and the proper way to limit government power dominated their
writings and will be addressed later in this textbook. In the nineteenth century, the rise of
Industrial Revolution prompted new questions about government from thinkers such as Karl
Marx and Max Weber. These writers focused on the relationship of politics to economics and
many of their questions are dealt with in this textbook. In the early twentieth century questions
began to be raised about the future of democracy, especially with the rise of totalitarian
systems in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Fascist Italy. The distinction between various
ideologies and non-democratic regime types are addressed in this textbook as well.
N
Decolonization in the 1960s and 1970s raised new questions about the legacy of colonialism
and how these new countries can best organize their political and economic systems. In the late
1980s and early 1990s, a number of formerly non -democratic states transitioned to
U
democratization, leading to new questions about regime change and the adaptability of various
cultures to democratic norms. The twenty-first century has led to new questions about gender
relations and the impact of globalization on international economics, politics, and culture. The
R
role of religion in government as well as the ongoing ethnic violence in many countries has
raised profound questions for comparativists. These questions, and others, are addressed in the
following chapters.
SE
The Comparative Method
The questions we ask in comparative politics are always inspired by real-world events
and there are often no easy answers. The worst sorts of arguments in comparative politics are
based on opinions rooted in stereotypes, in the belief that the past predicts the future, or on
generalizations drawn from specific facts.
D
In order to overcome a purely opinion-based comparative politics, comparativists look
to study questions about political events that might seem inevitable or those that might
seem to have an “obvious” explanation. Comparativists explore a wide range of possible
O
cases that have similar characteristics but that experience different outcomes, or vice versa,
in order to answer questions about politics around the world.
Comparativists are wary of building arguments based exclusively on the particulars of a
single case. A good comparativist would ask, “Is the emergence of democracy in South Korea
C
just one example of a pattern?” and would explore not just whether democracy has emerged in
other similar places at the same time, but also whether it has emerged in different places at the
same time. Comparativists do this in order to build and support a hypothesis that is an
S
argument that links cause to effect. Reliable hypotheses have been tested across more than
one case. Therefore, those who study comparative politics search for patterns of attributes and
outcomes – their presence or absence – across cases. While comparativists cannot always
gather information from all cases, their research always involves more than one country.
Hypotheses have two important characteristics: they are causal and they are testable.
First, implicitly or explicitly, hypotheses posit causal relationships between attributes and
outcomes. Hypotheses must also be testable. It is not enough to simply seek out and find
evidence that supports a hypothesized connection between cause and effect – comparativists
must also account for cases that do not fit their expectations. These cases are used to refine
kjhgfds
