分享课程｜LSE 政治社会学研究生课程（第一学期）

WEEK 1: INTRODUCTION TO POLITICS AND SOCIETY

General Sources for overviews of debates in Political Sociology:

Books

Boix, Charles and Susan Stokes, eds (2007), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics

Della Porta, Donatella and Michael Keating, eds (2008), Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective.

Janoski, Thomas et al, eds (2005), The Handbook of Political Sociology.

Mahoney, James and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, eds (2003), Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences

Journals

Annual Review of Sociology

Annual Review of Political Science

Politics and Society

Libraries

British Library of Political and Economic Science (LSE)

Senate House Library (University of London)

British Library (UK copyright library)

Bibliographical Note:

There is no text book for this course. Each week we will be engaging with the original work of some of the authors who have shaped political sociology as a field of study. However, the books above all provide helpful contemporary overviews of the state of debate in some of the topics that we will be studying. You may find them helpful to consult at various points during the course. Janoski et al in particular has a number of useful chapters.

We have also listed some journals – the two Reviews for summarises of debates and Politics and Society for some influential contributions. There are of course a great many other journals worth consulting – both generalist ones like American Journal of Sociology, the British Journal of Sociology, and Political Studies as well as numerous topic specific ones. It’s worth making a point of browsing the latest issues from time to time.

Finally note that while for most purposes you should be able to find the books and articles you need in the LSE library – though do please be prepared to cooperate and share materials with fellow class members – there are two other important libraries nearby to which you can gain access. See the LSE librarians for details of what you need.

WEEK 2: THE ORIGINS OF POLTICAL ORDER

Reading List:

The Rise of the State

Ertman, Thomas (2005), “State formation and State Building in Europe” in Thomas Janoski et al, eds (2005), The Handbook of Political Sociology.

*Fukuyama, Frances (2011), The Origins of Political Order, preface and chapters 1, 29 & 30, especially chapter 29.

Huntington, Samuel P. (1968), Political Order in Changing Societies.

Kaspersen, Lars and Jeppe Strandberg (2017), Does War Make States?, esp Part II.

Lachman, Richard (2010), States and Power, chapters 1 & 2, esp chapter 2.

Mann, Michael (1984), “The autonomous power of the state: the origins, mechanisms and results”, Archives Europeennes de Sociologie, vol 24, no 2. Also in John A. Hall, ed (1986), States in History.

Mann, Michael (1986), The Sources of Social Power, volume 1, last two chapters.

Mann, Michael (1993), The Sources of Social Power, volume 2, chapter 3 (esp pp 44-63) and chapters 11-14 (esp chapter 11).

Skocpol, Theda (1985), Bringing the State Back In, chapter 1.

Sprukt, Hendrik (2007), “War, Trade and State Formation” in Charles Boix and Susan Stokes, eds, Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics.

Tilly, Charles, ed (1975), The Formation of Nation-States in Western Europe, esp chapter 1.

*Tilly, Charles (1990), Coercion, Capital and European States, AD 990-1990, esp chapters 1, 2 & 3, esp chapter 1.

Bibliographical Note:

Tilly and Mann provide major historically informed studies of the development of the state. Their work, which shares certain similarities, has had a major influence on explanations of state formation. Ertman, Lachman and Sprukt all provide good overviews of the current state of the debate on this question and the different positions of those who have contributed to it. They also provide guides to further reading. Fukuyama adopts a different approach that seeks to build on Huntington. To assess his argument you need to compare it with Tilly, Mann and others. Kaspersen and Strandberg provides a critical review of Tilly’s thesis and whether it applies outside of Europe. Skocpol provides an influential programmatic statement about the importance of the state to political sociology in general.

Questions:

1. Does Fukuyama offer a convincing account of state formation?

2. What explains the rise of sovereign territorial states?

WEEK 3: NATIONAL IDENTITIES

Reading:

General

*Anderson, Benedict (2006), Imagined Communities, particularly chapters 2, 3, 5 & 6, and especially chapters 2 & 3.

Breuilly, John (2006), “Introduction”, pages xiii-liii, in Gellner (2006).

*Gellner, Ernest (2006), Nations and Nationalism, chapters 1-5, especially chapters 2 & 3.

*Hobsbawm, E.J. (1990), Nations and Nationalism since 1780, especially chapter 2.

Hobsbawm, Eric and Terence Ranger, eds (1983), The Invention of Tradition.

Lachmann, Richard (2010), States and Power, chapter 3.

Laitin, David (2007), Nations, States and Violence.

Smith, Anthony D. (1991), National Identity, especially chapters 2 & 3.

Spence, Philip and Howard Wollman (2005), Nations and Nationalism: A Reader.

Tilly, Charles (1975), The Formation of National States in Western Europe.

Wimmer, Andreas and Yuval Feinstein (2010), “The Rise of the National-State across the World, 1816 to 2001”, American Sociological Review vol 75, no 5.

European Identity

Checkel, Jeffrey and Peter J. Katzenstein, eds (2009), European Identity.

Daedalus (1990), "Eastern Europe...Central Europe...Europe", Vol 119, No 1, Winter.

Kraus, Peter A. (2008), A Union of Diversity: Language, Identity and Polity Building in Europe.

Kundera, Milan (1984), "The Tragedy of Central Europe", New York Review of Books, Vol XXXI, No 7, 26 April.

Laitin, David (1997), “Cultural Identities of a European State”, Politics and Society, vol 25, no 3.

Past and Present (1992), "The Cultural and Political Construction of Europe", No 137, November.

Bibliographical Note:

Concentrate first on gaining an understanding of the theories in the starred books, especially Anderson and Gellner. These will form the basis of our discussion. Both see language as central. Hobsbawm considered other possible bases of nation formation. Spence and Wollman also include excerpts from a number of key authors. Smith adopts a different approach that place greater weight on pre-existing ‘ethnie’. The second question is quite ambitious and requires you to have some idea of how you would answer the first. One attempt to answer the second question, at least with respect to the eastern border of Europe, occurred among intellectuals in countries like Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia around the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union. For a taste of these debates see Daedalus and Kundera. Laitin considers lessons from India.

Questions:

1. Why did nations come to be the basic units of politics in Europe?

2. Do studies of the formation of nation-states tell us anything about what is likely to become the basis of a European-wide collective identity, and where the borders of a united Europe are likely to be drawn?

WEEK 4: LABOUR AND SOCIALIST POLITICS

Reading:

The Rise of Labour Politics

Bartolini, Stefano (2000), The Political Mobilisation of the European Left, 1860-1980: The Class Cleavage, chapter 2, esp pages 54-66 & 69-86, and chapter 7, esp pages 320-358.

Cronin, James E. (1993), “Neither Exceptional no Peculiar: Towards a Comparative Study of Labor in Advanced Society”, International Review of Social History, vol 38, no 1.

Eley, Geoff (2002), Forging Democracy: The History of the Left in Europe, 1850-2000, chapters 3-6, esp chapter 4.

Geary, Dick (1981), European Labour Protest, 1848-1939, chapters 2 & 3, esp pages 37-70 and 91-126.

Katznelson, Ira and Aristide Zolberg, eds (1986), Working-Class Formation: Nineteenth Century Patterns in Western Europe and the United States.

*Lipset, Seymour Martin (1983), “Radicalism or Reformism”: The Sources of Working-Class Politics”, American Political Science Review, vol 77.

Mann, Michael (1993), Sources of Social Power, volume 2, chapter 18, esp pages 628-635 & 660-685.

Mann, Michael (1995), “Sources of Variations in Working-Class Movements in Twentieth Century Europe”, New Left Review, 212, July/August.

*Marks, Gary (1989), Unions in Politics, especially chapter 2, pages 50-68 & 73-76.

Marks, Gary et al (2009), “Radicalism or Reformism? Socialist Parties Before World War I”, American Sociological Review, vol 74, August.

The Dilemma of Electoral Socialism

Benedetto, G., S. Hix and N. Mastrorocco (2020), “The Rise and Fall of Social Democracy, 1919-2017”, American Political Science Review, Vol 114, no 3, August.

*Esping-Andersen, Gosta (1985), Politics Against Markets, esp chapter 1 and chapter 3 pages 71-73, 82-90 & 106-113.

Hildebrand, Achim and Sebastian Jackle (2021), “The shifting class-base of social democratic parties in Western Europe”, European Politics and Society, online 5 April.

King, D.S. and M. Wickham-Jones (1990), "Social Democracy and Rational Workers", British Journal of Political Science, vol 20, no 3, July.

Koelble, T. (1992), "Social Democracy between Structure and Choice", Comparative Politics, vol 24, no 3, April.

*Przeworski, Adam (1985), Capitalism and Social Democracy, chapters 1-3, esp pages 23-29 & 99-106.

*Przeworski, Adam and John Sprague (1986), Paper Stones: A History of Electoral Socialism, chapter 1, and especially chapter 2.

Rennwald, Line and Jonas Pontusson (2021), “Paper Stones Revisited: Class Voting, Unionisation and the Electoral Decline of the Mainstream Left”, Perspectives on Politics, Vol 19, no 1, March.

Sainsbury, Diane (1990), “Party Strategies and the Electoral Trade-off of Class-based Parties”, European Journal of Political Research, vol 18, no 1, January.

Repression

Brockett, Charles D. (1993), “A Protest-Cycle Resolution of the Repression/Popular Protest Paradox”, Social Science History, vol 17, no3.

Davenport, Christian et al (2005), Repression and Mobilization.

Davenport, Christian (2010), State Repression and the Domestic Democratic Peace.

Della Porta, Donatella (1996), “Social Movements and the State: Thoughts on the policing of protest” in Doug McAdam et al, eds, Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements.

Earl, Jennifer (2003), “Tanks, Tear Gas , and Taxes: Toward a Theory of Movement Repression”, Sociological Theory, vol 21, no 1, March.

Earl, Jennifer (2011), “Political Repression: Iron Fists, Velvet Gloves, and Diffuse Control”, Annual Review of Sociology, vol 37.

Bibliographical note:

A complete explanation of the differences between labour-based parties would need to consider a range of factors, including economic and cultural ones. These readings focus on the impact of political factors during a formative period in late nineteenth and early twentieth century Europe.

For question 1, Geary (1981), Lipset, and Marks each provide short comparative overviews emphasising the importance of repression. Marks makes the case particularly clearly. Bartolini (2000) offers a detailed comparative analysis of this and other factors. For a historical overview of the period see Eley. For a sophisticated analysis of Germany, France (and the US), see Katznelson and Zolberg. The German Social Democratic party emerged as the most important model for labour-based politics in Europe. I can recommend further classic readings for anyone who would like to read up on that case.

For question 2, Przeworski argues that social democratic parties have always faced a fundamental electoral dilemma. Both Przeworski, and Przeworski and Sprague, make the same argument. There is no need to read both. Przeworski, pages 23-29 and 99-106, outlines the essence of the argument. Esping-Andersen draws on Scandinavian experience to dispute this argument. His book is also an excellent source on the development of Scandinavian social democracy in general. Sainsbury also looks at the Swedish experience. King and Wickham-Jones, and Koelble review the debate and test it against the British experience. Rennwald and Pontusson, and Hildebrand and Jackle provide recent reassessments.

Lastly, there are some additional readings that seek to generalise about the impact of repression. These might also be of interest later in the context of studying social movements, democratisation or revolutions.

Questions:

1. Why did labour-based parties take different forms within Europe?

2. Can social democratic parties escape the ‘dilemma of electoral socialism’?

WEEK 5: AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM

Reading:

*Archer, Robin (2007), Why is There No Labor Party in the United States?

Davis, Mike (1980), “Why the US Working Class is Different”, New Left Review, no 123, also in Davis (1986), Prisoners of the American Dream, chap 1.

Eidlin, Barry (2016), “Why Is There No Labor Party in the United States? Political Articulation and the Canadian Comparison, 1932 to 1948”, American Sociological Review, 81, 3.

Hartz, Louis (1955), The Liberal Tradition in America.

Hooks, Gregory and Brian McQueen (2010), “American Exceptionalism Revisited: The Military-Industrial Complex, Racial Tension, and the Underdeveloped Welfare State”, American Sociological Review, vol 75, no 2.

Husbands, Christopher T. (1976), “Editors’ Introductory Essay”, pp xv-xxxvii, Sombart (1976).

Katznelson, Ira (1978), "Considerations of Social Democracy in the United States", Comparative Politics, 11, 1, October.

*Lipset, Seymour Martin (1996), American Exceptionalism, chapters 1, 2 & especially 3.

Lipset, Seymour Martin and Gary Marks (2000), It Didn’t Happen Here, especially chapter 1.

Mann, Michael (2012), Sources of Social Power, Vol 3, chapter 3, esp pages 69-74.

Marks, Gary (1989), Unions in Politics, esp chapter 6.

Sombart, Werner (1976), Why is there no Socialism in the USA?

Bibliographical Note:

Archer and Lipset are good places to start. Both examine a wide range of contending explanations as well as setting out their own (different) answers. Archer also provides an example of a systematic most-similar comparison. Davis emphasizes ethno-religious factors. Hartz sets out the classic case for the importance of liberal individualism. Marks offers a comparison with Britain and Germany. And Sombart’s essay, first published in 1906, still has a major influence on the terms of debate.

Questions:

1. Why is there no labour party in the United States?

2. What effect did American political culture have on the prospects for labour politics in the

United States?

WEEK 7: DEMOCRACY

Reading:

Berman, Sheri (2007), “How Democracies Emerge: Lessons from Europe”, Journal of Democracy, 18, 1.

Bermeo, Nancy (1997), “Myths of Moderation: Confrontation and Conflict during Democratic Transitions”, Comparative Politics, Vol 29, no 3, April.

Bernhard, M, T. Nordstrom and C. Reenock (2001), “Economic Performance, Institutional Intermediation, and Democratic Survival”, Journal of Politics, vol 63, no 3, August.

*Collier, Ruth Berins (1999), Paths Toward Democracy, esp chapter 1.

della Porta, Donatella (2014), Mobilizing for Democracy: Comparing 1989 and 2011.

Horowitz, Donald (1990), “Comparing Democratic Systems”, Journal of Democracy, vol 1, no 4, fall. Also in Lijphart (1992) chapter 29.

Kitschelt, Herbert (1993), “Comparative Historical Research and Rational Choice Theory – the case of transitions to democracy”, Theory and Society, vol 22, no 3.

Landman, Todd (2000), Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics, chapters 4 & 8.

Lijphart, Arend, ed (1992), Parliamentary versus Presidential Government, esp Intro and chapters 14 & 29-32.

Linz, Juan (1990), “The Perils of Presidentialism”, Journal of Democracy vol 1 no 1, winter. Also in Lijphart (1992), chapter 14.

Linz, Juan and Arturo Valenzuela (1994), The Failure of Presidential Democracy: Comparative Perspectives: Volume 1, esp chapter 1, pp3-22 (Linz).

Lipset, Seymour Martin (1981 [1960]), Political Man, chapter 2.

*Lipset, Seymour Martin (1994), “The Social Requisites of Democracy Revisited”, American Sociological Review, vol 59, no 1.

Mainwaring, Scott (1993), “Presidentialism, Multipartism and Democracy”, Comparative Political Studies, vol 26, no 2, July.

Moore, Barrington (1966), The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy.

O’Donnell, Guillermo et al (1986), Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Comparative Perspectives, esp chapters 2 & 3.

*O’Donnell, Guillermo and Philippe C. Schmitter (1986), Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies.

Przeworski, Adam et al (1996), “What makes Democracies Endure?”, Journal of Democracy, vol 7, no 1, winter.

Putnam, Robert (1993), Making Democracy Work.

Riggs, Fred W. (1997), “Presidentialism versus Parliamentarism: Implications for Representativeness and Legitimacy”, International Political Science Review, vol 18, no 3.

Ross, Michael (2001), “Does Oil Hinder Democracy?”, World Politics, 53, 3.

*Rueschemeyer, Dietrich et al (1991), Capitalist Development and Democracy, chapters 1, 2, 3 & 7, esp chapter 3.

Stepan, Alfred and Cindy Skach (1993), “Constitutional Frameworks and Democratic Consolidation: Parliamentary vs Presidentialism”, World Politics, 46, October. Also in Linz and Valenzuela.

Democratization

Journal of Democracy

Bibliographical Note:

Lipset canvasses an array of different potential explanatory factors and places particular emphasis on the level of economic development and political culture. Chapter 2 of Rueschemeyer et al also reviews work on the importance of economic development. On the importance of differences in class and state structures see the classic account of Moore, as well as Rueschemeyer et al, esp chapter 1 & 3. On political institutions, Linz makes the case against presidentialism. For a more elaborate version see his chapter in Linz and Valenzuela. Horowitz offers a critique. For more on presidentialism versus parliamentarism see Riggs and Mainwaring, and for large N studies of these and other political institutions see Bernhard et al and Przeworski et al. For an influential account which emphasises the importance of political culture, based on an intra-country comparison of Italy, see Putnam. There are also specialist literatures on different regions, including South America, Eastern Europe, and South Asia, which I have not included here. However O’Donnell et al, Linz and Stepan, and Rueschemeyer et al provide some feeling for this work. The two journals listed at the end are also worth consulting. For an overview that focuses on the importance of comparative methods see Landman. On question 2 compare Rueschemeyer et al with O’Donnell and Schmitter. Collier seeks to arbitrate.

Question:

1. Why is democracy able to survive in some countries but not in others?

2. What is the best explanation for the process of democratisation? Assess the merits of the historical sociology literature (represented by Rueschemeyer et al) and the transitions literature (initiated by O’Donnell and Schmitter).

WEEK 8: RE-FOUNDING CHILE

Reading:

*Heiss, Claudia (2022), "What Can a Constitution Do? Seeking to Deepen Democracy through Constitution-Making in Latin America", LASA Forum vol 53, no. 3, 10-15.

*Heiss, Claudia (2021), "Latin America Erupts: Re-founding Chile", Journal of Democracy, vol 32, no 3, 33-47. DOI: 10.1353/jod.2021.0032

*Heiss, Claudia (2017), "Legitimacy crisis and the constitutional problem in Chile: A legacy of authoritarianism", Constellations, vol. 25, no 3, pp. 470-479.

Araujo, Kathya (2022), The Circuit of Detachment in Chile: Understanding the Fate of a Neoliberal Laboratory, Cambridge University Press.

Castiglioni, Rossana, and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser (2016), “Introduction: Challenges to Political Representation in Contemporary Chile”, Journal of Politics in Latin America, vol 8, no 3, 3–24.

Escudero, Maria Cristina (2021), "Making a Constituent Assembly Possible in Chile: The Shifting Costs of Opposing Change", Bulletin of Latin American Research, 1-16.

Lovera, Domingo (2022), "Chile", in The Oxford Handbook of Constitutional Law in Latin America, edited by Conrado Hübner Mendes, Roberto Gargarella, and Sebastián Guidi.

Rhodes-Purdy, Matthew and Fernando Rosenblatt (2021), “Raising the Red Flag: Democratic Elitism and the Protests in Chile", Perspectives on Politics, doi:10.1017/S1537592721000050.

Somma, Nicolás M., Matías Bargsted, Rodolfo Disi Pavlic & Rodrigo M. Medel (2020), "No water in the oasis: the Chilean Spring of 2019–2020", Social Movement Studies, doi: 10.1080/14742837.2020.1727737

Somma, Nicolás M. (2022), "Chilean Democracy, Past and Present", Latin American Research Review (2022), 1–14, doi:10.1017/lar.2022.33

Bibliographical Note:

Latin America seems to be experiencing a new ‘pink’ tide. A prime example of this is Chile, where, after a decade of mobilisation, a new President – the former student leader Gabriel Boric – took office in March 2022, promising to leave behind the legacy of the Pinochet era and re-found the country’s social and political order. And yet, an attempt to rewrite Chile’s constitution to entrench this new order has just been rejected in a popular referendum. In this seminar we will focus on the work of Claudia Heiss, who is Professor of Public Affairs at the University of Chile and a past-president of the Chilean Association of Political Science. She also served on the technical commission for rewriting the Chilean constitution. Please read at least two of her articles above in preparation for the seminar. The original process of democratisation in the late 1980s and early 1990s is covered in a number of the standard works on last week’s reading list. And some other recent works have been included here to provide a starting point for those interested in following up on this topic.

Questions:

1. What is the relationship in Chile between the process of democratisation and the social movements and unrest of the last decade?

2. What does the case of Chile teach us about the process of democratisation?

WEEK 9: WELFARE STATE DEVELOPMENT

Reading:

Baldwin, Peter (1990), The Politics of Social Solidarity: Class Bases of the European Welfare State 1875-1975.

Brooks, Clem and Jeff Manza (2007), Why Welfare States Persist?

Castles, Francis G. (1978), The Social Democratic Image of Society, especially chapter 2.

Castles, Francis G. (2004), The Future of the Welfare State.

Castles, Francis G. ed. (2010), The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State.

*Esping-Andersen, Gosta (1990), The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, especially chapters 1 & 5. See also excerpt in Pierson and Castles.

Esping-Andersen, Gosta (1999), Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies, especially chapter 5.

Flora, Peter (2015), The European Social Security System, 1885-1945.

Gingrich, Jane (2015), “Coalitions, policies and distribution: Esping-Andersen’s Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism”, in James Mahoney and Katheleen Thelen, eds (2015) Advances in Comparative Historical Analysis.

Goodin, Robert E. (1999), The Real Worlds of Welfare Capitalism.

Goodin, Robert E. (2000), “The Real Worlds of Welfare Capitalism”, in C. Pierson and F.G. Castles, eds (2000), The Welfare State Reader (first edition), pages 170-188.

Huber, Evelyne and John D. Stephens (2001), Development and Crisis of the Welfare State.

Kuhnle, Stein et al, eds (2020), Globalizing Welfare: An Evolving Asian-European Dialogue.

Kitschelt, Herbert et al (1999), Continuity and Change in Contemporary Capitalism, chapter 6, John D. Stephens et al, “The Welfare State in Hard Times”.

Janoski, Thomas et al, eds (2005), Handbook of Political Sociology, chapters 25, 26 & 30.

Korpi, Walter (1983), The Democratic Class Struggle, especially chapter 9.

Korpi, Walter and Joakim Palme (1998), “The Paradox of Redistribution and Strategies of Equality: Welfare State Institutions, Inequality and Poverty in Western Countries”, American Sociological Review, 63, 5, October.

Larsen, C.A. (2008), “The Institutional Logic of Welfare Attitudes”, Comparative Political Studies, 41, 2, February.

Mann, Michael (2012), Sources of Social Power, Vol 3, especially chapter 9.

Pampel, Fred C. and John B. Williamson (1988), “Welfare Spending in Advanced Industrial Democracies, 1950-1980”, American Journal of Sociology, 93, 6, May.

Pierson, Christopher and Francis G. Castles (2014), The Welfare State Reader, second edition.

Pierson, Paul, (1994), Dismantling the Welfare State? Reagan, Thatcher and the Politics of Retrenchment.

Pierson, Paul (1996), “The New Politics of the Welfare State”, World Politics, 48, 2, January. Also in Pierson and Castles.

*Skocpol, Theda (1992) Protecting Soldiers and Mothers, esp Introduction, pages 1-62.

Stephens, John D. (1995), “Preserving the Social Democratic Welfare State”, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, 22.

Svallfors, Stefan (2007), The Political Sociology of the Welfare State, esp chapter 2.

Wilensky, Harold L. (1975), The Welfare State and Equality.

Wilensky, Harold L. (2002), Rich Democracies, chapter 5

*Williamson, John B. and Fred C. Pampel (1993), Old-age Security in Comparative Perspective, introductory chapter.

Bibliographical Note:

Skocpol (1992), and Williamson and Pampel provide good overviews of the competing explanations. Esping-Andersen has set the terms for much of the contemporary debate. For a test of his theory by another author see Goodin. Korpi (1983) sets out the original social democratic model. Wilensky defends a version of the logic of industrialism and convergence thesis. Baldwin provides historical depth. Flora provides copious data. Pierson (1996) is a good starting point for debates about welfare state retrenchment. Castles (2004) argues that there has been little retrenchment. Chapter 1 of Brooks and Manza provides a review.

Questions:

1. What is the best explanation for the differences between social welfare arrangements that have developed in different advanced capitalist countries?

2. Why have attempts to dismantle welfare states not been more effective?

WEEK 10: WELFARE STATE SPREAD

Reading List待定

WEEK 11: MONARCHY

Reading:

Agamben, Giorgio (2011) The Kingdom and the Glory.

Aldrich, Robert and Cindy McCreery, eds (2020), “Global Royal Families” conference https://www.ghil.ac.uk/global_royal_families.html

Bagehot, Walter (1867), The English Constitution.

Clancy, Laura (2021), Running the Family Firm.

Elzinga, Douwe Jan (2009), “Monarchy, Political Leadership and Democracy” in J. Kane et al, eds Dispersed Democratic Leadership, chapter 6, 104-16.

Gerring, John (2021), “Why Monarchy? the Rise and Demise of a Regime Type”, Comparative Political Studies, vol 54, no 3-4.

Hazell, Robert and B. Morris (2020), “European Monarchies: Guardians of Democracy?”, Political Quarterly, vol 91, no 4, 841-45, October.

Hazell, Robert and B. Morris (2020), The Role of Monarchy in Modern Democracy: European Monarchies Compared.

Hobsbawm, Eric and Terrence Ranger (1983), The Invention of Tradition, esp Chapter 4 by David Cannadine.

Nairn, Tom (2012), The Enchanted Glass: Britain and Its Monarchy, second edition.

Pimlott, Ben (2012), The Queen.

Ramp, William (2014), “Paradoxes off Sovereignty: Towards a Durkheimian Analysis of Monarchy”, Journal of Classical Sociology, vol 14, no 2.

Royal Studies Journal

Shils, E. and M. Young (1953), “The Meaning of the Coronation”, Sociological Review, vol 1, no 2.

Stepan, Al et al (2014), “Democratic Parliamentary Monarchies”, Journal of Democracy, vol 25, no 2, 35-51, April.

Turner, Bryan S. (2012), “In Defence of Monarchy”, Society, 49, pp 84-89.

https://global-modern-monarchy.sydney.edu.au/ for a wide range of scholarly resources and recent publications

Bibliographical Note:

Monarchy clearly continues to play an important role in British public life. But monarchies can also be found in many other countries from Scandinavia, the Low Countries and Spain to Malaysia, Thailand and Japan. Bagehot is a classic account of the role of a monarch in a parliamentary democracy. Shils and Young is a classic sociological account of Queen Elizabeth’s coronation. Hobsbawn and Ranger examine the modern development of ‘historical’ ceremonies. Stepan et al provide a typology of different types of monarchy. Gerring analyses their fortunes. Clancy, Nairn and Agamben are critiques of monarchy. Hazell and Morris, Turner, and Elzinga provide a qualified defence. Pimlott, a Fabian socialist, provides one of the few scholarly biographies of the Queen. The Global Modern Monarchies project web site lists a wide range of scholarly writings and sources on monarchies around the world. See also Aldrich and McCreery and the Royal Studies Journal. Polls from You Gov and the Pew Center provide evidence of public attitudes. You might also find news coverage from around the Queen’s funeral an interesting source.

Question:

1. Should monarchy be abolished?

2. Why have forms of monarchy survived in societies that otherwise claim to be egalitarian and democratic?