ALLAN ON CHAP. 10, 12, 14

The three authors, McAdam, Tarrow, and Tilly begin their paper by stating that most of the field work in regard to Contentious Politics was focused on social movements of the North, revolutions, civil wars and terrorism, and politics of post authoritarian revolutions. Before they begin to state their position on the matter of Contentious Politics, they clearly state that the field has been tremendous paradigms. Many in the field have turned “culturalist” from structuralist and others have turned to rational-choice. But the authors clearly state that they encourage crossing different disciplines and using many different variables like history, geography, culture, structure of institutions, etc… The authors define the different properties of Contentious Politics. These properties are interactions, claims, and governments. Different persons or groups of persons (organizations) are connected together by their claims for different resources, values, powers, etc… in society. These claimants are non-state actors. Contentious Politics usually interacts with other non contentious political processes such as routine public administration, organization of elections, military conscription, tax collection, etc… Governments are supposed to provide balance between the competing persons in society. Governments use the power of coercion to intervene in contention among non-state actors.

CHAPTER 14

The chapter begins by reviewing the work of some of the first to research the modern welfare state such as Adolph Wagner and Gusta Schmoller who hypothesized that social spending will increase with income. Others attributed the particular development of a nation’s welfare policies to its labor market and level of industrialization. I agree particularly with Karl Polanyi’s assessment that society or regimes protect themselves by adopting some form of social insurance to secure their labor force, keep loyal party patrons, and maintain stability. Polanyi found similarities in the responses to the turbulent effects of late 19^th century capitalism (such as external competition, price variation, ect.) between Victorian England and the Prussia of Bismark. The expansion of suffrage also had a great effect on the pace and scope of the development of the welfare state. States primarily sought to keep peasants in the country side with their early social programs, yet later developed programs to both subdue and patronize the peasantry.

Pehlman on Zuckerman & Lichbach 10, 12 and 14

Chapters 10, 12, and 14

Chapter 10 is an explanation of the perimeters of what is studied within contentious politics and a brief history of the evolution of the discipline. The authors attribute the origin of the study of contentious politics to be of a ‘dominant structuralist tradition’ yet they explain how the discipline has evolved to include more paradigms and explanations of contentious politics.

Another crucial adaptation in the development of examining contentious politics has been the broadness of issues that is has grown to study and compare. While the discipline was first interested in reformist social movements (such as the counter culture and anti-war movements of the 1960’s) it now includes phenomena as seemingly diverse as terrorism, insurgencies, ethnic conflict and union strike activity.

Kim Comments on Chapter 10, 12, 14

Chapter 10

In this exerpt the writers bring up the conversation upon comparative perspectives on Contentious Politics. From the beginning, the writers state that this topic of discussion is "fragmented, disconnected, and contentious." I was able to realize that throughout the chapter, for the writers bring up many different theories and approaches within this subject, but also gives a dispute upon why a specific approach is not entirely valid enough to be the best way to study this subject. This is for, there is a variety of forms of contentious actions across the board, and also, a certain contentious act that may be similar in nature with another state has different variables in which makes each contentious act individually specific.

Comments on Chapters 4-5 in Zuckerman and Lichbach

Ira Katznelson sufficiently explains the purpose of his essay by claiming it is an "admiration, concern, and exhortation" of contemporary historical institutionalism. Mr. Katznelson certainly does admire the boundaries that contemporary comparativists have transcended in their studies and the way in which methodologies and paradigms have been fused together to produce better analytical studies. He also praises the new literature in comparative politics for moving beyond a battle of methodologies towards an increased effort in "identifying and probing a range of challenging issues". His praise recognizes the potential in contemporary comparative politics to utilize the newly developed pluralism in the particular field of institutional analysis. Indeed, he concludes his work by stating that no one subject can suffice, and making the striking claim that no mode of analysis can be self-sufficient.

Comments on Chapters 1, 2 and 3 of Mark Lichbach and Alan Zuckerman's Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture and Structure, 2nd Edition 2009 (Cambridge University Press)

(The following was originally posted by Alina Nudelman on the Blackboard site. - Prof. Cocozzelli)

Chapter 1

Zuckerman argues in this chapter that there are many different areas of politics and it is a very broad topic so explanations in comparative politics must be clear on every level (pg. 1). for him explanations and arguments need to be based on acts and proof not just statistics. I think that since politics is so broad sometimes the mere inclusion of facts does not mean that it proves anything because more than likely you will find facts arguing against the initial statement as well. I think that Zuckerman would agree that facts and numbers can be find to support an argument and dismiss it just the same, it is the specifics that make the difference.

In order to understand comparative politics, it is not enough to stick to one way of understanding or researching it. Some use field research, others tend to use a more cultural, rational way of looking at issues such as globalization and politics and violence. Politics takes you to different places all the time, “Changes in the 'real world' of contentious politics have forced scholars to broaden their attention from social movements in Europe and the United States to newer, more wide-ranging, and more violent forms of conflict” (pg. 8, par. 4)

Welcome to the GOV 4993 Senior Seminar in Comparative Politics Blog

This is the blog of St. John's University Senior Seminar in Comparative Government and Politics. The Seminar is the capstone course for graduating seniors majoring in Government and Politics at St. John's. On the blog the seminar participants will be discussing their perspective on comparative politics as a subfield in political science, the particular research projects they are engaged in for the semester, and their work in small groups addressing overlapping topics in the subfield. Additionally, the participants will discuss contemporary politics and political science. Along with that, you'll find the occasional book review and review essay. 

So thanks for visiting the blog, we hope it proves to be an interesting and worthwhile forum.