100% de satisfacción garantizada Inmediatamente disponible después del pago Tanto en línea como en PDF No estas atado a nada 4.2 TrustPilot
logo-home
Resumen

CAPI samenvatting

Puntuación
-
Vendido
1
Páginas
19
Subido en
22-01-2024
Escrito en
2023/2024

Samenvatting van de stof uit Caramani, de hoorcolleges en leergroepen van het vak Comparative Analysis of Political institutions

Institución
Grado










Ups! No podemos cargar tu documento ahora. Inténtalo de nuevo o contacta con soporte.

Libro relacionado

Escuela, estudio y materia

Institución
Estudio
Grado

Información del documento

¿Un libro?
Subido en
22 de enero de 2024
Número de páginas
19
Escrito en
2023/2024
Tipo
Resumen

Temas

Vista previa del contenido

Comparative Analysis of Political Institutions – summary
Lectures, seminar groups and literature

Week 47 – introduction
The political system according to David Easton (1995): politics is about “authorative
allocation of values”. He made a model to tell wat politics is about. It is about who
gets what, when and how; but also, about priorities for immaterial values.
- (other definition) Politics is about activity of making public (about people) and
authorative (binding and legitimate) decisions. It is the conflict of competition
for power, and its use.




(Political) institutions: formal and informal rules and norms that shape and constrain
(political) behavior. We focus on institutions. Institutions are the rule of the game.

Comparative politics focusses on internal political structures, actors, and processes,
and analyzing them empirically by describing, explaining and predicting their variety
across political systems.

,Week 48 – Variety in democracies
There are many definitions of democracy, influenced by the view of who made it.
- In ancient Greece it meant: ‘citizens directly involved in decision-making and
public officials selected by lot, rotation or election’.
- Aristoteles was concerned that if you would involve the many (the poor
and the uneducated), they would strive for their own will. He was in
favor of the politeia (=a combination of democracy and aristocracy).
- Aristoteles had a substantive view of democracy. He focused on the
degree a regime serves the public good, but also focused on the
outcome.

- Robbert Dahl defined it by the institutions and procedures. He focused on
contestation (= are citizens free to mobilize people and compete for public
office) and inclusion (= are all citizens allowed to participate).
- This is a procedural view, that is minimalistic.

- Cheibub et al. defined democracies as ‘regimes in which governmental offices
are filled as a consequence of contested elections.’

There are different ways to measure democracy, different measures lead to different
results for the same countries. The indicators a measure uses changes the results.
- Dahl made a continuous scale, were contestation and inclusion lead to a
measure of democracy.
- This is minimalistic (=doesn’t focus on outcome)

- Cheibub at al. made the DD – measure, which has indicators for a democratic
system. This is dichotomous (= either one or another; a country is democratic
or a dictatorship). To be a democracy all 4 must be succeeded:
1. The chief executive is elected;
2. Legislature is elected;
3. There is more than one party competing in the elections;
4. An alternation in power under identical electoral rules has taken place.
- This is minimalistic. It ignores the dimension of inclusion.

- Polity IV looks at 5 indicators. Classified on a score from -10 to 10
(continuous).
1. The competitiveness of executive recruitment.
2. The openness of executive recruitment.
3. The constraints that exist on the executive.
4. The regulation of political participation.
5. The competitiveness of political participation.
- This is minimalistic. It adds constraints on the executive.

- Freedom House. This measured two dimensions (continuous).
1. A country’s level of civil rights
2. A country’s level of political rights
- This is substantive.

There are challenges to measure democracy:
- If it is objective: does it sufficiently capture the state of political system?

, - If it is subjective: does every expert assign the same value to every indicator.
- Which aspects of democracy are indicated? And can they be simply added up
or subtracted?
- What is threshold to call political systems (un)democratic.

The basic hypothesis of the democratic peace theory: democracies do not wage
ware against each other. People in democracies are used to figure out conflicts by
talking/negotiating. Instead of fighting.

There are different types of democracies:
Parliamentary Presidential Semi-presidential
Head of is indirectly elected directly elected by a indirectly elected; the
government popular election prime minister
Head of different person Same person as head The president, choses
state than head of of government. the prime minister
government
Period in Elections can take fixed term President: fixed term,
office place sooner than but he can dissolve
scheduled parliament
Executive Yes No (can’t vote Government: yes
politically someone out because President: no
accountable they don’t support
to legislature
ideas)
Varieties Cabinet, prime Weak or strong Unified or divided
ministerial of president/assembly; government and weak
ministerial unified or divided or strong president.
government; prime government and
minister can be minority of majority
directly elected; government
minority or
(surplus) majority
government; single
party or coalition
governing.

- Majoritarian democracy: concentration power in hands of the majority. This is
optimal for homogeneous societies. Tends to result in more decisive and rapid
policy changes. Can lead to the marginalization of minority interests.
- Consensus democracy: power divided and shared, to protect minorities and
involve many, inducing decision-making by consensus. This is optimal for
divided societies. Strives for compromise and cooperation among different
political factions. Tends to be more protective of minority rights and interests.

Factors for democracy:
- Economic development  long-term developments facilitate the emergence of
modern democracies.
- The nature of the democratic institutions  presidential democracies face a
greater risk of breakdown then parliamentary ones for example.
- Actors and agency
$5.98
Accede al documento completo:

100% de satisfacción garantizada
Inmediatamente disponible después del pago
Tanto en línea como en PDF
No estas atado a nada

Conoce al vendedor
Seller avatar
mikabouwman

Conoce al vendedor

Seller avatar
mikabouwman Universiteit Utrecht
Seguir Necesitas iniciar sesión para seguir a otros usuarios o asignaturas
Vendido
4
Miembro desde
5 año
Número de seguidores
1
Documentos
6
Última venta
1 mes hace

0.0

0 reseñas

5
0
4
0
3
0
2
0
1
0

Recientemente visto por ti

Por qué los estudiantes eligen Stuvia

Creado por compañeros estudiantes, verificado por reseñas

Calidad en la que puedes confiar: escrito por estudiantes que aprobaron y evaluado por otros que han usado estos resúmenes.

¿No estás satisfecho? Elige otro documento

¡No te preocupes! Puedes elegir directamente otro documento que se ajuste mejor a lo que buscas.

Paga como quieras, empieza a estudiar al instante

Sin suscripción, sin compromisos. Paga como estés acostumbrado con tarjeta de crédito y descarga tu documento PDF inmediatamente.

Student with book image

“Comprado, descargado y aprobado. Así de fácil puede ser.”

Alisha Student

Preguntas frecuentes