| |
1. 課程規劃交換意見
2. What Compare: Institutions – Old & New
● Activities:
a. To prepare your PPT regarding what institutions are, or what the differences are between the old and new institutionalism.
a. Discuss in class what, why and how to do comparative studies regarding institutions.
● References:
a. ★Lijphart, A. 1992. Parliamentary VS. Presidential Government, parts I & III.
b. ◎Scott, W. R. 1995. Institutions & Organizations, pp. 1-91.
c. ★Hall, P.A., and R. C. R. Taylor, 1996. “Political Science & the Three New Institutionalism.” Political Studies, pp.936-957.
d. ★March and Olsen, 1989. Rediscovering Institutions, pp. 1-68.
e. ★Olson, Johan P., 2001. “Garbage Cans, New Institutionalism, and the Study of Politics.” American Political Science Review. 95(1): 191-198.
f. ★Mahoney, James, and Terrie Larkin. 2008. "Comparative-historical Analysis in Contemporary Political Science." In The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, eds. Janet Box-Steffensmeier, Henry Brady and David Collier. New York: Oxford University Press. 737-755. (中山圖7F JA71 O948 2008)
g. ◎Krasner, Stephen, 1988. “Sovereignty: An Institutional Perspective.” Comparative Political Studies 21, pp. 66-94.
h. ★Ostrom, Elinor, 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press. part 1.
i. ★Skach, 2005, Borrowing Constitutional Designs, pp. 1-92.
j. Students are welcome to list their own Readings related to this issue.
3. 探討瑞士制度分享/報告
4. What Compare: Nation & State? / 月卿討論French Case
● Activities:
a. Write a short paper regarding what the differences are between a nation and a state, why these two are utilized to be compared.
b. Discuss in class regarding these related issues.
● References:
a. ★Harris, Erika, 2009. Nationalism. Intro., Part I and Conclusion.
b. ★Olson, Mancur, 1982. The Rise and Decline of Nations. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 1-73.
c. ★Evans, Peter B., Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol, ed al., 1985. Bringing the State Back in. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3-43.
d. ◎Vincent, Andrew, 1987. Theories of the State. New York: B. Blackwell.
e. ★Tilly, C., 1985. “War Making & State Making as Organized Crime.” Bringing the State Back in, pp. 169-191.
f. ◎Schmitt, Carl, 1996. The Concept of the Political. Pp. 19-80.
g. Pierson, 2004. The Modern State, pp. 1-182.
h. Dan Breznitz, 2007. Innovation and the State. Chaps. 1 & Conclusion.
i. Students are welcome to list their own Readings related to this issue.
5. What Compare: Behavioral Patterns
● Activities:
a. Prepare your PPT regarding why and how “political behavior” has become a unit of analysis in comparative politics.
b. Discuss in class about what “political behavior” is and how it has been studied.
● References:
a. ★Converse, P., et al., 1960. The American Voter, pp. 3-187.
b. ★Powell, G. B., 1982. Contemporary Democracies, pp. 1-53.
c. ★Carey, John M. 2009. Legislative Voting and Accountability. Chaps. 1 & 7.
d. ◎Stoker, Laura, 1992. “Interests and Ethics in Politics.” APSR, June: 369-380.
e. ★Gray, M. and Caul, M., 2000. “Declining voter turnout in advanced industrial democracies, 1950 to 1997: The effects of declining group mobilization.” Comparative Political Studies, 33(9): 1091-1122.
f. ◎Tilly, Charles, 2008. Contentious Performances, pp. 1-87.
g. ◎Brader, Ted. 2006. Campaigning for Hearts and Minds. Chaps. I-3 & 7.
h. Students are welcome to list their own Readings related to this issue.
6. What Kinds of Theories or Approaches Have Been Used to do Comparison – Rational Choice
● Activities:
a. Prepare your PPT regarding “rational choice” in each assignment.
b. Participating discussion in class.
● References:
a. ★Downs, Anthony, 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper. Chaps. 1-9.
b. ★Olson, Mancur, 1971. The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Chaps. 1-2.
c. ◎林繼文編，2000。政治制度。台北：中研院社科所。
d. ★Druckman, J. N., 2004. “Political Preference Formation: Competition, deliberation, and the (Ir) relevance of framing effects.” American Political Science Review, 98(4): 671-686.
e. ★Jones, B. D., 2001. Politics and the Architecture of Choice. Chaps. 4-5 & 9.
f. ◎Duch, R. M. & Stevenson, R. T., 2008. The Economic Vote. Part III, pp. 209-336.
g. Students are welcome to list their own Readings related to this issue.
7. The Taiwan Voter
● References:
a. ★Achen, Christopher H., and T. Y. Wang, eds. 2017. The Taiwan Voter. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
b. Students are welcome to list their own Readings related to this issue.
8. What Compare: Political Culture
● Activities:
a. Prepare your PPT regarding how political culture has been studied in comparative politics.
b. Discuss in class about how to do comparative research by utilizing the concept or theories of political culture.
● References:
a. ★Almond, Gabriel A., 2002. Ventures in Political Science. Chap. 10-11, pp.195-215.
b. ★Almond, Gabriel A., and Sidney Verba eds., 1989. The Civic Culture Revisited. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.
c. ★Dahlgren, Peter. 2006. Media and Political Engagement. Chaps. 7-8.
d. ★Crothers, Lane, and Charles Lockhart, eds, 2000. "Concepts and Applications." Culture and Politics: a reader. New York: St. Martin's Press, pp. 1-74.
e. ★Huntington, S.P. 1996. The Clash of Civilizations. Parts I & V. (中山圖 6F: D860 H86 1996)
f. ◎Chabal, Patrick, and Jean-Pascal Daloz, 2006. Culture Troubles. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Parts. I-III.
g. ◎Harrison, Lawrence E., and S.P. Huntington eds., 2000. Culture Matters, Foreword & Introduction, pp. xi-xxxiv.
h. Almond, Gabriel A., R. Scott Appleby, and Emmanuel Sivan, 2002. Strong Religion: the Rise of Fundamentalisms around the World. (中山圖6F:BL238 A28 2003)
i. ◎Richerson & Boyd, 2005. Not by Genes Alone, pp. 1-98 & Chap. 7.
j. Students are welcome to list their own Readings related to this issue.
9. 期中考週
10. VAA’s Effect
● References:
a. Garzia, Diego, Alexander H. Trechsel, and Andrea De Angelis. 2017. “Voting Advice Applications and Electoral Participation: A Multi-Method Study.” Political Communication 34 (3): 424-443. DOI: 10.1080/10584609.2016.1267053.
b. Garzia, D., Trechsel, A., Vassil, K., & Dinas, E. (2014). “Indirect campaigning: Past, present and future of voting advice applications.” In B. Grofman, A. Trechsel, & M. Franklin (Eds.), The Internet and democracy in global perspective: Voters, candidates, parties, and social movements. New York, NY: Springer.
c. Garzia, Diego, and Stefan Marschall, 2012. “Voting Advice Applications under review: the state of research.” Int. J. Electronic Governance, 5 (3/4): 203-222.
d. Gemenis, K., & Rosema, M. (2014). “Voting advice applications and electoral turnout.” Electoral Studies, 36: 281-289. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2014.06.010
e. Hirzalla, F., Van Zoonen, L., & De Ridder, J. (2011). “Internet use and political participation: Reflections on the mobilization/normalization controversy.” The Information Society, 27: 1-15. doi:10.1080/01972243.2011.534360
f. Israel, Jonas (2016/12/23). “Cognitive dissonance and the effects of Voting Advice Applications on voting behaviour: evidence from the European Elections 2014.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties Volume 27, 2017 - Issue 1, p.56-74.
g. Pajala, Tommi (2018). “Accounting for political opinions, power, and influence: A Voting Advice Application.” European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 266(2), pages 702-715. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0377221717308524
h. Students are welcome to list their own Readings related to this issue.
11. What We Have Learned from Comparative Studies – Electoral Institutions and Party Systems
● Activities:
a. Prepare your PPT regarding electoral rules or party systems discussed in literature.
b. Offer your view in class discussion.
● References:
a. ★Sartori, Giovanni, 1976. Parties and Party Systems: A framework for analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press. Chaps. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10.
b. ◎Gunther, Richard, 2002. Political Parties: Old Concepts and New Challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chaps. 1, 9, 10.
c. ★Greene, Kenneth F., 2009. Why Dominant Parties Lose. Cambridge University Press. Chaps. 1, 2, 8, 9.
d. ★Duverger, Maurice. 1964. Political Parties: their organization and activity in the modern state. London: Lowe & Brydone. Pp. 206-254. (7F JF 2051 D88)
e. Lijphart, Arend. 1994. Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies, 1945-1990. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (7F JF 1001 L54 1994)
f. ★Powell, G. Bingham. 2006. “Election Laws and Representative Governments: Beyond Votes and Seats.” British Journal of Political Science, 36(2): 291-315.
g. ★Crete, Jean, and Nouhoun Diallo, 2009. “Do Parties Matter? A Qualitative Answer with Numbers.” Imbeau, L. M. (ed.), 2009. Do They Walk Like They Talk? Pp. 207-221.
h. ★廖達琪、李承訓、陳柏宇，2013/5，〈選舉制度與立法者競選政見及立法表現：臺灣立法院第六屆及第七屆區域立委之比較〉，《選舉研究》，第20卷第1期：73-119。
i. Students are welcome to list their own Readings related to this issue.
12. Review of Taiwan’s Constitutional Developmental History & A Cross-country Comparison of Semi-presidentialism
● Activities:
a. Hand in your review of the following readings.
● References:
a. ★廖達琪、簡赫琳、張慧芝，2008/9，〈台灣剛性憲法的迷思：源起、賡續暨其對憲改的影響〉，中研院人文社會科學研究中心：《人文及社會科學集刊》，第二十卷第三期，頁357-395。
b. ★廖達琪、沈有忠、張峻豪，2013/11，〈憲政研究的回顧與展望(2000-2011)〉，吳玉山、林繼文、冷則剛主編《政治學的回顧與前瞻》，台北：五南，頁151-172。
c. ★陳新民，2002，《1990-2000年臺灣修憲紀實》，臺北：學林。
d. ★Duverger, Maurice. 1980. “A New Political System Model: Semi-Presidentialist Government.” European Journal of Political Science 8(2): 87-165.
e. Liao, Da-chi, and Hui-chih Chang, 2010/1, “The Choice of Constitutional Amendments in a Young Democracy—From Indirect to Direct Election of the President in Taiwan.” Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, Vol. XXXIX, No. 1: 111-131.
f. Liao, Da-chi, and Yueh-Ching Chen, 2014, “Parliamentary Oversight in ‘Atypical Foreign Affairs’ under Semipresidentialism– a Comparison of the French National Assembly, Romania’s Parliament and Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan.” Romanian Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 5, Issue 1, pp.83-125.
g. ◎Elgie, Robert, 2011. Semi-presidentialism. Oxford University Press.
h. ◎廖達琪、陳月卿，2016，〈半總統制下國會監督實際作為之初探-台灣立法院與法國國民議會之比較〉，《政治科學論叢》，69: 27-74。
13. What Kinds of Theories or Approaches Have Been Used to do Comparison – Democracy
● Activities:
a. Hand in mid-term report.
b. Prepare your PPT regarding “Democracy” in your readings.
c. Participating discussion in class.
● References:
i. ★Lindblom, C. E., 1977. Politics & Markets. Part VI.
j. ★Dahl, R., 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory.
k. ★Cunningham, 2002. Theories of Democracy.
l. ◎Elster, 1998. Deliberative Democracy, pp.1-68.
m. Dahl, R., 1998. On Democracy.
n. ◎Przeworski, Adam, and Jose Maria Maravall, 2003. Democracy and the Rule of Law. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 19-60.
o. ★Bell, D. A., 2006. Beyond Liberal Democracy.
p. ◎Wolin, 2001. Democracy & Vision, Chaps. 1-5.
q. Baynes, eds., 2002. Discourse & Democracy, pp. 1-88.
r. ★Kalyvas, A. 2008. Democracy and the Politics of the Extraordinary. Chaps. Introduction & Conclusion.
s. Students are welcome to list their own Readings related to this issue.
14. What We Have Learned from Comparative Studies – Democratic Governance.
● Activities:
a. Prepare your PPT regarding how a democracy can be governed.
b. Participating in-class discussion.
● References:
a. ★Aron, Raymond, 1990. Democracy and Totalitarianism: a theory of political systems. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
b. ◎Helmke, Gretchen, and Steven Levitsky, 2006. Informal Institutions & Democracy. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Chaps. Introduction & Afterword.
c. ★Norris, Pippa, 2008. Driving Democracy. Cambridge University Press. Chaps. 1 & 9.
d. ★Gailmard, Sean, and John W. Patty. 2013. Learning While Governing. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Chaps. 1 & 9.
e. ★Cronin, Thomas & Michael A. Genovese, 2012. Leadership Matters, Chaps 1-2 & 6.
f. ★Lupia, Arthur, 2016. Uninformed. Chaps. 1-2, 4-5, & 19.
g. Students are welcome to list their own Readings related to this issue.
15. What We Have Learned from Comparative Studies – Democratic Limits & Hope.
● Activities:
a. Prepare your PPT regarding the flaws or problems of democracy you have observed, perceived, or figured out from the readings.
b. Participating in-class discussion.
● References:
a. ◎Patterson, O., 1999. “Liberty against the Democratic State.” Democracy & Trust, pp. 151-207.
b. ★Handelman, H., and M. Tessler, eds. 2000, Democracy and its limits, pp. 1-10, 115-129, 321-340.
c. ★Dahl, Robert A., 2000. Democracy & Its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.
d. ★Lane, Robert E., 2002. The Loss of Happiness in Market Democracies. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Pp. 1-55. (中山圖7F，HB72 L364 2000)
e. ◎Brady, 2009. Rich Democracies, Poor People. pp. 3-22.
f. ◎Hegre, H., Ellingsen, T., Gates, S., and Gleditsch, N. P., 2001. “Toward a Democratic Civil Peace? Democracy, Political Change, and Civil War, 1816-1992.” American Political Science Review, 95(1): 33-48.
g. ★Tulis, Jeffrey K., and Stephen Macedo, (eds.,) 2010. The Limits of Constitutional Democracy. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. Chaps. Introduction, 1, 5, 11, 12 & 13 & Conclusion.
h. ★Rosanvallon, P., 2008. Counter-Democracy, Chaps. Introduction, Part 1.1 & Part 3.
i. Fuller, 2016. Beasts & Gods: How Democracy Changed Its Meaning and Lost Its Purpose. University of Chicago Press. (中山圖 7F JC423 F85 2015)
j. ★Wolin, 2016. Fugitive Democracy. Princeton Univ. (中山圖7F JC 423 W57 2016)
k. Przeworski, Adam, 1995. Sustainable Democracy. Intro. & Part I.
l. Students are welcome to list their own Readings related to this issue.
16.
17. 方法Review
● References:
a. ★Landman, 2000. "Why Compare Countries." Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics, pp. 3-20, 195-210.
b. ★Almond, G.A. and S. G. Genco, 1990. “Clouds, Clocks, and the Study of Politics.” A Discipline Divided. pp. 32-65.
c. ★Lijphart, Arend, 1988. “The Comparable-Cases Strategy in Comparative Research.” Cantori, L.J. and A. H. Ziegler, eds., Comparative Politics in the Post-Behavioral Era pp. 54-70.
d. ★Gerring, J., 2004. “What is a case study and what is it good for?” American Political Science Review. 98(2): 341-354.
e. ★Munck, Gerardo, and Richard Snyder, 2007. “Debating the Direction of Comparative Politics: An Analysis of Leading Journals.” Comparative Political Studies, 40(1): 5-31.
f. ◎Qleinik, Anton, 2011. “Mixing Quantitative and Qualitative Content Analysis: Triangulation at Work.” Quality and Quantity 45(4): 859-873.
g. Students are welcome to list their own Readings related to this issue.
18. Final Presentation
|
|