Political Science 330: Studies



POIR 621: American Politics Field Seminar Part II

Spring 2015

Class Location: LVL 3V

Prof. Christian Grose

Tues. 2:00pm-4:50pm

Office: Taper 324

Email: cgrose@usc.edu

Office hours: Thursdays 9:30am-10:45am or by appointment

Course Description and Objectives:

The purpose of this course is to provide you with an overview of the field of American politics, though with a focus on theoretical and empirical paradigms and approaches. Most field courses in American politics divide topics by substantive field (Congress, courts/judicial politics, voting behavior, public opinion, etc.). Your previous American politics field seminar was devoted in part to those questions. This second segment in the field seminar is meant to make you think across substantive topics by focusing on the theories, the dominant paradigmatic approaches, questions of causality, and methodological approaches in American politics. In this course, linkages across different substantive fields should be drawn. Additionally, my intention is for the course to link the past of the field in American politics to the present and the future.

In addition, many of the readings in the course will be some of the most recent publications. Many of the readings will be drawn from the last few years of articles published in top journals in the discipline, such as the American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, and Journal of Politics. While the first course in the POIR core curriculum was focused partly on classical and canonical readings, this one will focus on more current readings.

One of the goals of the course is to give a foundation of the variety of subfields, approaches, methods, etc. in the field of American politics. Another, more practical, goal of the course is to give you a foundation to prepare for your American politics comprehensive exam. While quite extensive, there is no way that we can cover every key or core piece of material in the field. This syllabus should be considered a foundation and starting point for the field of American politics. For your comprehensive exam preparation, this syllabus is clearly not exhaustive, but a starting point. You will need to be familiar with more readings than this for the comp.

The syllabus is structured around required readings, though by no means is the syllabus exhaustive. I am requiring a few readings each week so that we all have a common set of readings to discuss. The required readings early in the semester will include a few classics, as well as more recent articles that build directly off of one of the older, “classic” readings to provide a baseline of comparison of substantive, theoretical, and methodological similarities and differences in the field across time. Later in the semester, we will focus mostly on more recent publications in the field of American politics. We will divide some of each week’s readings into ‘required’ and ‘recommended’ readings, and will focus on the required readings. I reserve the right to change the readings, and may do so conditional upon interests of students in the course.

We will sometimes have each student give a presentation on other readings not on the syllabus for certain topics. Those students giving class presentations for that week will need to read at least 5-10 additional articles/readings and report on them to the class. More details on this will be given in class.

I will update the syllabus throughout the semester as needed, and may add or delete readings given your substantive interests that emerge during the semester.

Objectives

The purpose of this course is fourfold. First, you will learn about the field of American politics. Specifically, I want you to think about the field not just as separate subfields but also as a field with interesting theoretical and empirical approaches.

Second, I want you to generate research questions for your future research and think about theoretical and empirical puzzles in the extant literature of the field. Because of this second objective, I want you to generate a research question before each class meeting related to the readings.

Third, I hope you will learn about the direction of the field of American politics, and learn a broad overview of the field.

Fourth, I want you to learn how to become writers and scholars in this course. I require a final research paper that could eventually be published in an academic journal. By focusing the course on writing throughout the semester, I hope to help you learn how to develop a research question, theorize about your topic, and empirically test your question. The final paper requirement of the course can be accomplished in multiple ways. You could each individually write your own paper, or I also encourage co-authorship for your final paper. We can talk more about these options during the first week of class. For those of you who took Prof. Crigler’s class in fall 2012 where a research design was required, you may write the full paper for this class or you may decide to write a different research design and/or paper. We will talk more about this in class.

Fifth, there will be two major assignments in the course. The first will be a joint project that may lead to a co-authored paper. More details will be provided in class, and we will work on this at the beginning of the semester. The second major project will be completion of a research paper, due at the end of the semester.

Grading and Evaluation:

Class participation: formal presentations 5%

Class participation: general weekly discussion & response questions to weekly readings 20%

Journal/book reviews of papers + 1 book 10%

Joint-authored early semester project 25%

Final research paper 40%

Finally, I want to note that plagiarism is unacceptable and can result in serious penalties.  If you are unsure what constitutes plagiarism, please feel free to ask me or consult the student academic services center.  If you are unsure what constitutes plagiarism, please consult the USC student affairs web site that details plagiarism: . Please feel free to ask me as well if you have any questions or concerns. Copying text directly from any source without quotations is one form of plagiarism, as is writing similarly-phrased words and sentences without attribution. Again, please consult the above link for a very detailed description of the types of plagiarism (all of which are unacceptable).

How to Reach Me: My office hours are listed at the top of the syallbus. If you cannot make office hours, I am happy to schedule an appointment with you as teaching graduate students is something I very much enjoy. The best way to contact me is by email, which is cgrose@dornsife.usc.edu. 

Part I. Paradigms and Theoretical Foundations in the Field of American Politics

1/13 Week 1. Introduction to course

-Assignment for the next class period: pick one article published (or online first) in the American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, or Journal of Politics since 2011. Be prepared to present the thesis, a short summary of the theory (if there is a theory), and a short summary of the empirical part of the paper (if there is one). Then critique the article’s substantive or methodological weaknesses and detail its strengths. Also consider a research question that extends from the article that has not been answered. The article should be focused on American politics.

1/20 No class today. Instead of class, please find 2-4 articles about the role of multi-member districts on legislator representation, candidate choices, and/or voting behavior. Write a no more than 2-page summary of the articles and what we know about MMD vs. SMDs in U.S. legislative elections. In lieu of class today, we will meet for the SoCLASS conference at USC on 3/27.

1/27 Rational choice and social choice

Introduction to joint research project

*Christian R. Grose. 2015. “Do electoral rules reduce partisan polarization? A field experiment of legislative campaigns.”

*Bertelli, Anthony and Lilliard Richardson, Ideological Extremism and Electoral Design: Multimember versus Single-member Districts.” Public Choice.

*Cox, Gary. 1984. “Strategic Electoral Choice in Multi-member Districts: Approval Voting in Practice?” American Journal of Political Science 28:722-38.

*William Riker, 1982. “The Two-party system and Duverger’s Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science.” American Political Science Review

*Aldrich, John H. 1993. “Rational Choice and Turnout” American Journal of Political Science (also see Riker & Ordeshook)

Dennis Chong, Jack Citrin, and Patricia Conley. 2001. “When Self-interest Matters.” Political Psychology 22:541-70.

Benjamin Lauderdale and Tom S. Clark. 2012. “The Supreme Court’s Many Median Justices.” American Political Science Review.

Jesse Richman, 2011. “Parties, Pivots, and Policy: The Status Quo Test.” American Political Science Review.

McCubbins, Mathew D., Roger G. Noll, and Barry R. Weingast. 1987. “Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 3(2): 243-277.

Anthony M. Bertelli and Christian R. Grose. 2009. “Secretaries of Pork? Executive Ideology, Multiple Bureaucratic Principals, and Distributive Public Policy.” Journal of Politics.

Thomas Gilligan and John Matsusaka, 2007. “Deviations from Constituent Interests: The Role of Legislative Structure and Political Parties in the States.” Economic Inquiry 33:3:383-401.

Michael Peress, “Estimating Proposal and Status Quo Locations Using Voting and Cosponsorship Data.” Journal of Politics.

David Mayhew, 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection

Epstein, Lee, W.M. Landes, and Richard Posner. 2013. The Behavior of Federal Judges: A Theoretical and Empirical Study of Rational Choice.

Ken Shepsle, 1989. “Studying Institutions: Some Lessons from the Rational Choice Approach.” Journal of Theoretical Politics

Anthony Downs, 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy.

Nicholas Weller, 2009. “Trading Policy: Constituents and Party in U.C. Congressional Trade Voting.” Public Choice 141:1:87.

Terry M. Moe and William G. Howell. 1999. “Unilateral Action and Presidential Power: A Theory.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 850-872.

Stephen, Skowronek, The Politics Presidents Make, Ch. 1

2/3 The behavioral revolution and political psychology

JOURNAL “REVIEW” THIS WEEK

*Required:

*Brady, Henry E., Sidney Verba, and Kay Lehman Schlozman. 1995. “Beyond SES: A Resource Model of Political Participation.” American Political Science Review

*David Broockman, 2015. “Mobilizing Candidates: A Field Experiment and a Review.” Journal of Experimental Political Science

*Green, Gerber, and Larimer. 2008. “Social Pressure and Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment.” American Political Science Review.

*Justin Grimmer, forthcoming 2013. “Appropriators not Position Takers: The Distorting Effects of Electoral Incentives on Congressional Representation,” American Journal of Political Science

McDonald, Michael P and Popkin, Samuel L. “The Myth of the Vanishing Voter.” American Political Science Review, 2001, 95, 4, Dec, 963-974.

Dan Butler and David Broockman,, “Do Politicians Racially Discriminate Against Constituents? A Field Experiment on State Legislators” American Journal of Political Science 55:3:463-477.

Michael B. MacKuen, Robert Erikson, James A. Stimson, “Peasants or Bankers? The American Electorate and the U.S. Economy.” American Political Science Review

Jowei Chen,2013. Voter Partisanship and the Effect of Distributive Spending on Political Participation American Journal of Political Science < >

Cindy Kam, “Risk Attitudes and Political Participation.” American Journal of Political Science 56:4:871-36.

Recommended:

Erik Engstrom, 2012. “The Rise and Decline of Turnout in Congressional Elections.” American Journal of Political Science.

John R. Wright. 2012 “Unemployment and the Democratic Electoral Advantage.” American Political Science Review

Hansford, Thomas G., and Brad T. Gomez. 2010. “Estimating the Electoral Effects of Voter Turnout.” American Political Science Review 104(2): 268-88.

Druckman, James N., Jordan Fein, and Thomas J. Leeper. 2012. “A Source of Bias in Public Opinion Stability.” American Political Science Review 106(2): 430-54.

Bullock, John G. 2011. “Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate.” American Political Science Review 105(3): 496-515.

Gerber, Alan S., Gregory A. Huber, David Doherty, Conor M. Dowling, and Shang E. Ha. 2010. “Personality and Political Attitudes: Relationships across Issue Domains and Political Contexts.” American Political Science Review 104(1): 111-33.

Green, Gerber, and Nickerson. 2003. “Getting Out the Vote in Local Elections: Results from Six Door-to-Door Canvassing Experiments.” Journal of Politics

Gibson, Jim and Greg Caldeira, 2009. “Knowing the Supreme Court? A Reconsideration of Public Ignorance of the High Court.” Journal of Politics

Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. Chicago: University of Chicago. Ch. 1, 6, 10.

Powell, G. Bingham. “American Voter Turnout in Comparative Perspective.” American Political Science Review

Steven J. Rosenstone and Raymond E. Wolfinger. “The Effect of Registration Laws on Voter Turnout.” American Political Science Review Vol. 72, No. 1 (Mar., 1978), pp. 22-45

Converse, Philip E. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In David Apter, ed., Ideology and Discontent, pp. 206-261.

Lau, Richard R. and David P. Redlawsk. 1997. “Voting Correctly.” American Political Science Review 91:585-98.

John Zaller and Stanley Feldman, 1992. “A Simple Theory of Survey Response.” American Journal of Political Science 36:579-616.

John Zaller, The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion.

Benjamin Page et al. “What Moves Public Opinion?” American Political Science Review 81:23-43.

2/10 Inequality, identity, race, gender, class

First half of class: readings/second half of class MMD/SMD joint project

Due in class: (1) Theoretical framework for expectations of candidate behavior in MMD vs. SMD districts and/or (2) Empirical analysis write-up of MMD results.

*Fox, Richard L., and Jennifer L. Lawless. 2004. “Entering the Arena? Gender and the Decision to Run for Office.” American Journal of Political Science.

*Jessica Preece, Chris Karpowitz, et al. “Pink Elephants and Political Ambition: A Field Experiment with Gender and Candidate Recruitment.”

*Kanthak, Kristin, and George A. Krause. 2010. “Valuing Diversity in Political Organizations: Gender and Token Minorities in the U.S. House of Representatives.” American Journal of Political Science 54(4): 839-54.

*Hajnal, Zoltan. 2009 “Who Loses?” American Political Science Review 103:1 (February).

*Gonzalez Juenke, Eric and Robert Preuhs, 2012. “Irreplaceable Legislators? Rethinking Minority Representation in the New Century.” American Journal of Political Science.

Jonathan P. Kastellec, Racial Diversity and Judicial Influence on Appellate Courts, American Journal of Political Science

Larry Bartels, “Home Gets a Tax Cut: Inequality and Public Policy in the American Mind.” Perspectives on Politics

Citrin et al., “Testing Huntington: Is Hispanic Immigration a Threat to American Identity?” Perspectives on Politics

Lax, Jeffrey R., and Justin H. Phillips. 2009. “Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness.” American Political Science Review 103(3): 367-86.

Ange-Marie Hancock, “When Multiplication Doesn’t Equal Quick Addition.” Perspectives on Politics

2/18 Other topics and workshop class on MMD/SMD joint project

Draft of MMD/SMD paper due in class. Will workshop and review paper in half of class, discuss readings in other half of class.

*John R. Alford, Carolyn L. Funk, John R. Hibbing. 2005 “Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted?” American Political Science Review 99:153-167

*Elinor Ostrom, 1998. “A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action.” American Political Science Reivew.

*Herbert A. Simon, 1985. “Human Nature in Politics: The Dialogue of Psychology with Political Science.” American Political Science Review.

*Hawkesworth, Mary. 2003. “Congressional Enactments of Race-Gender: Toward a Theory of Raced-Gendered Institutions.” American Political Science Review 97:529-550.

Daniel Diermeier and Keith Krehbiel. 2003. “Institutionalism as a Methodology.” Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2003, 15, 2, Apr, 123-144.

Jonathan Bendor, Daniel Diermeier, and Michael Ting. “A Behavioral Model of Turnout.” American Political Science Review (2003), 97: 261-280

Peter Hatemi et al. 2013. The Influence of Major Life Events on Economic Attitudes in a World of Gene‐Environment” American Journal of Political Science

Paul Pierson, 2000. “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics.” American Political Science Review

Sidney Verba, Gary King, Kay Lehman Schlozman, Norman Nie. 2009. The Future of Political Science: 100 Perspectives.

Part II. Substantive Readings with a Focus on Causality and Method in the Field of American Politics

2/24 Field experiments and lab experiments (may extend this to two weeks if interest)

JOURNAL “REVIEW” THIS WEEK

*Grimmer, Messing, and Westwood. “How Words and Money Cultivate a Personal Vote.” American Political Science Review.

*Grose, Christian R. 2014. “Field Experimental Work on Political Institutions.” Annual Review of Political Science. Available on SSRN:

Broockman and Green. 2013. “Do Online Advertisements Increase Political Candidates’ Name Recognition or Favorability?” Political Behavior, June.

David Broockman, “Do Politicians act on Linked Fate? An Experiment on State Legislators’ Private Behavior” forthcoming, American Journal of Political Science.

Jonathan Woon, 2012. “Democratic Accountability and Retrospective Voting: A Laboratory Experiment.” American Journal of Political Science.

Alvarez, Hopkins, and Sinclair, 2010. “Mobilizing Pasadena Democrats: Measuring the Effects of Partisan Campaign Contacts” Journal of Politics

Chong, Dennis, and James N. Druckman. 2010. “Dynamic Public Opinion: Communication Effects over Time.” American Political Science Review 104(4): 663-80.

Eldersveld, Samuel J. 1956. "Experimental propaganda techniques and voting behavior." American Political Science Review 50:154-65.Blydenburgh, 1971, Midwest Jrnl of Political Science

Eline de Rooij, Donald Green, and Alan Gerber, 2009. “Field Experiments on Political Behavior and Collective Action.” Annual Review of Political Science.

Keele, McConnaughy, and White. 2012. “Strengthening the Experimenter’s Toolbox: Statistical Estimation of Internal Validity.” American Journal of Political Science.

3/3 Research design presentations in class and/or individual meetings regarding your final research paper scheduled for this week

3/10 “Natural” experiments, quasi-experiments, and RDD

JOURNAL REVIEW THIS WEEK

REVIEW: Required: *Abrajano, Marisa, Jonathan Nagler, and R. Michael Alvarez. 2005. “A Natural Experiment of Race-based and Issue Voting: The 2001 City of Los Angeles Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 58:2:203-18.

*Steve Ansolabehere, James Snyder, and Charles Stewart. 2000. “Old Voters, New Voters, and the Personal Vote: Using Redistricting to Measure the Incumbency Advantage.” American Journal of Political Science 44:1:17-34.

*Sekhon, Jasjeet S., and Rocio Tittunik. 2012. “When Natural Experiments Are Neither Natural nor Experiments.” American Political Science Review 106(1): 35-57.

*Erikson, Robert S., and Laura Stoker. 2011. “Caught in the Draft: The Effects of Vietnam Draft Lottery Status on Political Attitudes.” American Political Science Review 105(2): 221-37.

Time permitting?*Matthew Hall, 2009. “Experimental Justice: Random Judicial Assignment and the Partisan Process of Supreme Court Review.” American Politics Research 37:195-226.

Time permitting?*Gerber, Alan S., Daniel P. Kessler, and Marc Meredith 2011. “The Persuasive Effects of Direct Mail: A Regression Discontinuity Based Approach.” Journal of Politics 73:140-55.

Optional: Green, Donald P., Terence Y. Leong, Holger L. Kern, Alan S. Gerber, and Christopher W. Larimer. 2009. “Testing the Accuracy of Regression Discontinuity Analysis Using Experimental Benchmarks.” Political Analysis 17(4): 400-17.

Broockman, David E. 2009. “Do Congressional Candidates Have Reverse Coattails? Evidence from a Regression Discontinuity Design.” Political Analysis 17(4): 418-34.

Caughey, Devin, and Jasjeet S. Sekhon. 2011. “Elections and the Regression Discontinuity Design: Lessons from Close U.S. House Races, 1942-2008.” Political Analysis 19(4): 385-408.

Robinson, Gregory, John E. McNulty, and Jonathan S. Krasno. 2009. “Observing the Counterfactual? The Search for Political Experiments in Nature.” Political Analysis 17(4): 341-57.

3/17 Spring break – No class

3/24 Qualitative methods, ethnography and interpretation

DUE IN CLASS: SHORT 2-4 PAGE WRITE UP OF MAIN EMPIRICAL RESULTS IN YOUR PAPER

Richard Fenno. 1986. “U.S. House Members in Their Constituencies: An Exploration.” American Political Science Review 71:883-917.

Walsh, Katherine Cramer. 2012. “Putting Inequality in Its Place: Rural Consciousness and the Power of Perspective.” American Political Science Review 106:3:517-32.

John Geering, 2004. “What is a Case Study and What is it Good for?” American Political Science Review

Andrew Bennett, Aharon Barth and Kenneth R. Rutherford. 2003. “Do We Preach What We Practice? A Survey of Methods in Political Science Journals and Curricula.” PS: Political Science and Politics [skim]

3/27 SoCLASS Conference at USC Law School

3/31 Representation and Political Communication: Text Analysis

REVIEW OF ENTIRE BOOK DUE IN CLASS

Justin Grimmer, Sean Westwood, and Solomon Messsing, The Impression of Influence: Legislator Communication, Representation, and Democratic Accountability.

4/7

Workshop students’ in-progress papers.

EMPIRICAL ANALYSES OF STUDENT FINAL PAPER MUST BE COMPLETE AND WILL BE PRESENTED AND WORKSHOPPED IN CLASS

III. Returning to theory in American politics

4/14 Formal theory with empirical applications; EITM; spatial model applications

ROUGH DRAFT OF FINAL PAPER DUE – EVEN IF VERY ROUGH

Justin Fox and Kenneth W. Shotts. 2009. “Delegates or Trustees? A Theory of Political Accountability.” Journal of Politics 71:1225-37.

Jospeh Bafumi, and Michael C. Herron, 2010. “Leapfrog Representation and Extremism.” American Political Science Review 104:519-42.

Carruba, Friedman, Martin, Vanberg, 2012. “Who Controls the Content of Supreme Court Opinions?” American Journal of Political Science.

Moraski, Bryon J. and Charles R. Shipan. 1999. “The Politics of Supreme Court Nominations: A Theory of Institutional Constraints and Choices.” American Journal of Political Science 43:4.

William G. Howell and Jon C. Rogowski. War, the Presidency, and Legislative Voting Behavior, 2013. American Journal of Political Science

4/21 Normative theory and American politics; American politics and current politics

Dawes, Loewen, and Fowler. 2011. “Social Preferences and Political Participation.” Journal of Politics 73:845-56.

McClendon, Gwyneth H. “Social Esteem and Participation in Contentious Politics.” Working paper, NYU.

Karpowitz, Mendelberg, and Shaker. 2012. “Gender Inequality in Deliberative Participation.” American Political Science Review 106:533-47.

Other readings might be added. *Also may start presentations on papers in last hour of class.

4/28 Presentations on final papers

MAY 4 PAPERS DUE!

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download