Course Syllabus

Proseminar on Democratization, Globalization,

and International Relations
PSCI 5301 - Spring 2010
v2.1 01272010

Course Information
Dr. Brandon Kinne E-mail: brandon.kinne@utd.edu
Class: Tuesday 1:00-3:45pm Office: GR 3.824
Location: CB3 1.304 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. Some background in political science, international studies, po-
litical 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 em-
pirical issues and theoretical disputes, 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 the key debates and issues. Both ob-
jectives 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 five 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 a week—less for dense readings, more for lighter readings. I may (read:
will) make minor changes to reading assignments over the course of the semester. Any such changes
will be announced in class. Unless arranged ahead of time, absence from class is not an acceptable
excuse for being unaware of changes to the reading assignments.

The following texts are required and are available for purchase at Off Campus Books:

• Acemoglu, Daron, and James A. Robinson. 2009 (reprint). Economic Origins of Dictatorship
and Democracy. Cambridge.

• Beissinger, Mark. 2002. Nationalist Mobilization and the Collapse of the Soviet State. Cam-
bridge.

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

• 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=778

Course & Instructor Policies

Participation
Since this is a seminar course, student participation is essential. There is no lecture. You should
come to class prepared to discuss the readings in depth. In addition to the assigned readings, you
should plan to read the student memos each week (see below). My expectation is that every 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 substan-
tially lower your grade.

Reading Memos
Each week, three or four students (depending on enrollment) will be responsible for introducing
the week’s readings to the rest of the class and providing some questions for discussion. Students
assigned to the same day should decide between themselves who will cover which readings. These
are not formal presentations, but exercises in stimulating thoughtful discussion. Plan to spend
about five minutes in class introducing each reading (a bit longer for books or lengthy articles).
Keep your “presentation” short and concise. Just give us the essentials.

You will be required to circulate by email a short discussion memo to the rest of the class at

2
least 24 hours prior to the class meeting (i.e., by 1:00pm Monday). Late memos will not be graded.
Your memo must contain two components:

1. Brief summaries of each of your chosen readings, wherein you answer the following three
questions: (1) What is the key claim or thesis? (2) Why do the authors think their claims
are correct, i.e., what causal explanations and supporting logic do they provide? (3) Does
the empirical evidence support the claim?

• Summaries must not exceed one page per article or chapter. I.e., if you are covering two
articles (or, say, an article and a book chapter), your total summary must not exceed two
pages. Feel free to use whichever spacing you wish, but please use a standard 10-12pt
font.
• Avoid superficial summaries that gloss over the readings. A good summary should
instead distill an article down to its most essential claims and unpack the logic of the
supporting arguments. When writing a memo, it is your responsibility to “make sense”
of the readings for your fellow students.

2. One or more questions to motivate seminar discussion. These should be questions that lend
themselves to discussion rather than, e.g., questions of clarification. Please take these ques-
tions seriously, as we will devote class time to discussing them.

• Your memo should include no more than one question per article or chapter. You may
wish, for example, to question the logic or coherence of an author’s claims, the relevance
of a theory to real-world politics, or the robustness of an article to the arguments and
findings of other readings (either from that week or previous weeks).
• It is also acceptable—and in some cases, perhaps, desirable—to include one broad ques-
tion covering multiple readings in lieu of individual questions for each reading. In any
case, please do not exceed one question per article/chapter.

Students should expect to write three memos during the semester, though that number may change
depending on enrollment. The memos collectively account for 35% of your grade. Memo grades are
determined primarily by the quality of your summary. However, your in-class introduction to the
reading(s) and your discussion question(s) will also affect your memo grade. You must complete at
least one memo before mid-term. If needed, I will post additional guidelines for the reading memos
to our class web page.

For those class meetings when you are not writing a memo (i.e., the majority of the meetings), you
are responsible for reading the memos circulated by your classmates, thinking about their discus-
sion questions, and preparing to contribute to the discussion.

Final Take-Home Essay

The final requirement is a take-home essay, due at 5:00pm on Monday, May 3rd. I will provide
more information on this assignment as the semester progresses. The essay question will most
likely be distributed on April 27th, the last class of the semester. You will have about a week to
complete the essay, but, assuming you’ve kept up with the readings, you should only need 12-16
hours of actual work time. Your essay should be no less than eight pages and no more than ten
pages, double spaced and with a standard 12pt font. Late papers incur a 10% penalty per day,
beginning at 5:01pm on May 3rd. There will be no extensions for the essay.

3
Grading Policy

• Class participation (30%)

• Reading memos (35%)

• Take-home essay (35%)

January 12 – Introductions

January 19 – 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. Electronic Course Reserve.

• 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. Electronic course reserve.

• 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 26 – Theory I: Systems, Structures, and Strategic Environments

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

• Moravcsik, Andrew, and Jeffrey W. Legro. 1999. “Is Anybody Still a Realist?” in Interna-
tional Security 24(2): 5-55.

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

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

4
 • Schelling, Thomas. 1978. “Micromotives and Macrobehavior,” in Micromotives and Mac-
robehavior, 11-43. New York: W. W. Norton. Electronic course reserve.

February 2 – 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. Electronic course reserve.

• 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.

February 9 – 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 Political
Science 2: 145-162.

• Boix, Carles. 1999. “Setting the Rues of the Game: The Choice of Electoral Systems in
Advanced Democracies,” in American Political Science Review 93(3): 609-624.

February 16 – Nationalism
• Beissinger. Nationalist Mobilization and the Collapse of the Soviet State. Read chapters 1-5.

February 23 – Origins of Regimes I: Domestic Institutions

• Acemoglu and Robinson. Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Read chapters
1-3, 6, 7, and 11. Skim chapters 4 and 5.

5
March 2 – 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). Electronic course
reserve.

• 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. Electronic course reserve.

• 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.

• Gleditsch, Kristian, and Michael Ward. 2006. “Diffusion and the International Context of
Democratization,” in International Organization 60(4): 911-933.

• 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.

March 9 – 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 16 – Spring Break!

March 23 – Security I: Internal Conflict

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

March 30 – Security II: External Conflict

6
 • 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.

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

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

• Wimmer, Andreas, and Brian Min. 2006. “From Empire to Nation-State: Explaining Wars
in the Modern World, 1816-2001,” in American Sociological Review 71(6): 867-897.

• Lake, David. 2007. “Escape from the State of Nature: Authority and Hierarchy in World
Politics,” in International Security 32(1): 47-79.

April 6 – 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.

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

• 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”

• Ward, Michael D., Randolph M. Siverson, and Xun Cao. 2007. “Disputes, Democracies, and
Dependencies: A Reexamination of the Kantian Peace,” in American Journal of Political
Science 51(3): 583-601.

April 13 – Organizations and Treaty Compliance

• Mearsheimer, John. 1994/95. “The False Promise of International Institutions,” in Interna-
tional Security 19(3): 5-49.

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

• Koremenos, Barbara, Charles Lipson, and Duncan Snidal. 2001. “The Rational Design of
International Institutions,” in International Organization 55(4): 761-800.

7
 • Voeten, Erik. 2005. “The Political Origins of the UN Security Council’s Ability to Legitimize
the Use of Force,” in International Organization 59(3): 527-557.

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

April 20 – International Trade

• Hiscox, Michael J. 2002. International Trade and Political Conflict: Commerce, Coalitions,
and Mobility. Selected chapters. Electronic course reserve.

• 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.

• Rogowski, Ronald. 1987. “Political Cleavages and Changing Exposure to Trade,” in American
Political Science Review 81(4): 1121-1137.

• Scheve, Kenneth, and Matthew Slaughter. 2001. “What Determines Individual Trade Policy
Preferences?” in Journal of International Economics 54(2): 267-292.

• Mayda, Anna Maria, and Dani Rodrik. 2005. “Why Are Some People (and Countries) More
Protectionist than Others?” in European Economic Review 49(6): 1393-1691.

April 27 – 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.

• 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 Globaliza-
tion in Developing Countries,” in Journal of Economic Literature 45(1): 39-82.

8
Technical Support
If you experience any problems with your UTD account you may send an email to: assist@utdallas.edu
or call the UTD Computer Helpdesk at 972-883-2911.

Field Trip Policies

Off-campus Instruction and Course Activities
Off-campus, out-of-state, and foreign instruction and activities are subject to state law and Uni-
versity policies and procedures regarding travel and risk-related activities. Information regarding
these rules and regulations may be found at the website address
http://www.utdallas.edu/BusinessAffairs/Travel Risk Activities.htm. Additional information is
available from the office of the school dean. Below is a description of any travel and/or risk-
related activity associated with this course.

Student Conduct & Discipline

The University of Texas System and The University of Texas at Dallas have rules and regulations
for the orderly and efficient conduct of their business. It is the responsibility of each student and
each student organization to be knowledgeable about the rules and regulations which govern stu-
dent conduct and activities. General information on student conduct and discipline is contained
in the UTD printed publication, A to Z Guide, which is provided to all registered students each
academic year.

The University of Texas at Dallas administers student discipline within the procedures of recognized
and established due process. Procedures are defined and described in the Rules and Regulations,
Series 50000, Board of Regents, The University of Texas System, and in Title V, Rules on Student
Services and Activities of the university’s Handbook of Operating Procedures. Copies of these rules
and regulations are available to students in the Office of the Dean of Students, where staff members
are available to assist students in interpreting the rules and regulations (SU 1.602, 972/883-6391)
and online at http://www.utdallas.edu/judicialaffairs/UTDJudicialAffairs-HOPV.html

A student at the university neither loses the rights nor escapes the responsibilities of citizenship.
He or she is expected to obey federal, state, and local laws as well as the Regents’ Rules, university
regulations, and administrative rules. Students are subject to discipline for violating the standards
of conduct whether such conduct takes place on or off campus, or whether civil or criminal penalties
are also imposed for such conduct.

Academic Integrity
The faculty expects from its students a high level of responsibility and academic honesty. Because
the value of an academic degree depends upon the absolute integrity of the work done by the
student for that degree, it is imperative that a student demonstrate a high standard of individual
honor in his or her scholastic work.

9
Scholastic Dishonesty, any student who commits an act of scholastic dishonesty is subject to dis-
cipline. Scholastic dishonesty includes but is not limited to cheating, plagiarism, collusion, the
submission for credit of any work or materials that are attributable in whole or in part to another
person, taking an examination for another person, any act designed to give unfair advantage to a
student or the attempt to commit such acts.

Plagiarism, especially from the web, from portions of papers for other classes, and from any other
source is unacceptable and will be dealt with under the university’s policy on plagiarism (see gen-
eral catalog for details). This course will use the resources of turnitin.com, which searches the web
for possible plagiarism and is over 90% effective.

Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of pho-
tocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted materials, including music and software. Copying,
displaying, reproducing, or distributing copyrighted works may infringe the copyright owner’s rights
and such infringement is subject to appropriate disciplinary action as well as criminal penalties pro-
vided by federal law. Usage of such material is only appropriate when that usage constitutes ”fair
use” under the Copyright Act. As a UT Dallas student, you are required to follow the institution’s
copyright policy (Policy Memorandum 84-I.3-46). For more information about the fair use exemp-
tion, see http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/copypol2.htm

Email Use
The University of Texas at Dallas recognizes the value and efficiency of communication between
faculty/staff and students through electronic mail. At the same time, email raises some issues con-
cerning security and the identity of each individual in an email exchange. The university encourages
all official student email correspondence be sent only to a student’s U.T. Dallas email address and
that faculty and staff consider email from students official only if it originates from a UTD student
account. This allows the university to maintain a high degree of confidence in the identity of all
individual corresponding and the security of the transmitted information. UTD furnishes each stu-
dent with a free email account that is to be used in all communication with university personnel.
The Department of Information Resources at U.T. Dallas provides a method for students to have
their U.T. Dallas mail forwarded to other accounts.

Withdrawal from Class

The administration of this institution has set deadlines for withdrawal of any college-level courses.
These dates and times are published in that semester’s course catalog. Administration procedures
must be followed. It is the student’s responsibility to handle withdrawal requirements from any
class. In other words, I cannot drop or withdraw any student. You must do the proper paperwork
to ensure that you will not receive a final grade of “F” in a course if you choose not to attend the
class once you are enrolled.

10
Student Grievance Procedures
Procedures for student grievances are found in Title V, Rules on Student Services and Activities,
of the university’s Handbook of Operating Procedures.

In attempting to resolve any student grievance regarding grades, evaluations, or other fulfillments
of academic responsibility, it is the obligation of the student first to make a serious effort to resolve
the matter with the instructor, supervisor, administrator, or committee with whom the grievance
originates (hereafter called ”the respondent”). Individual faculty members retain primary respon-
sibility for assigning grades and evaluations. If the matter cannot be resolved at that level, the
grievance must be submitted in writing to the respondent with a copy of the respondent’s School
Dean. If the matter is not resolved by the written response provided by the respondent, the student
may submit a written appeal to the School Dean. If the grievance is not resolved by the School
Dean’s decision, the student may make a written appeal to the Dean of Graduate or Undergraduate
Education, and the deal will appoint and convene an Academic Appeals Panel. The decision of the
Academic Appeals Panel is final. The results of the academic appeals process will be distributed
to all involved parties.

Copies of these rules and regulations are available to students in the Office of the Dean of Stu-
dents, where staff members are available to assist students in interpreting the rules and regulations.

Incomplete Grade Policy

As per university policy, incomplete grades will be granted only for work unavoidably missed at
the semester’s end and only if 70% of the course work has been completed. An incomplete grade
must be resolved within eight (8) weeks from the first day of the subsequent long semester. If the
required work to complete the course and to remove the incomplete grade is not submitted by the
specified deadline, the incomplete grade is changed automatically to a grade of F.

Disability Services
The goal of Disability Services is to provide students with disabilities educational opportunities
equal to those of their non-disabled peers. Disability Services is located in room 1.610 in the
Student Union. Office hours are Monday and Thursday, 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.; Tuesday and
Wednesday, 8:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.; and Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

The contact information for the Office of Disability Services is: The University of Texas at Dallas,
SU 22 PO Box 830688 Richardson, Texas 75083-0688 (972) 883-2098 (voice or TTY) disabilityser-
vice@utdallas.edu

If you anticipate issues related to the format or requirements of this course, please meet with
the Coordinator of Disability Services. The Coordinator is available to discuss ways to ensure your
full participation in the course. If you determine that formal, disability-related accommodations
are necessary, it is very important that you be registered with Disability Services to notify them
of your eligibility for reasonable accommodations. Disability Services can then plan how best to

11
coordinate your accommodations.

It is the student’s responsibility to notify his or her professors of the need for such an accom-
modation. Disability Services provides students with letters to present to faculty members to
verify that the student has a disability and needs accommodations. Individuals requiring special
accommodation should contact the professor after class or during office hours.

Religious Holy Days

The University of Texas at Dallas will excuse a student from class or other required activities for
the travel to and observance of a religious holy day for a religion whose places of worship are ex-
empt from property tax under Section 11.20, Tax Code, Texas Code Annotated. The student is
encouraged to notify the instructor or activity sponsor as soon as possible regarding the absence,
preferably in advance of the assignment. The student, so excused, will be allowed to take the
exam or complete the assignment within a reasonable time after the absence: a period equal to the
length of the absence, up to a maximum of one week. A student who notifies the instructor and
completes any missed exam or assignment may not be penalized for the absence. A student who
fails to complete the exam or assignment within the prescribed period may receive a failing grade
for that exam or assignment.

If a student or an instructor disagrees about the nature of the absence [i.e., for the purpose of
observing a religious holy day] or if there is similar disagreement about whether the student has
been given a reasonable time to complete any missed assignments or examinations, either the stu-
dent or the instructor may request a ruling from the chief executive officer of the institution, or his
or her designee. The chief executive officer or designee must take into account the legislative intent
of TEC 51.911(b), and the student and instructor will abide by the decision of the chief executive
officer or designee.

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

12