Midterm 2 pol2

Midterm 2:
Russia
Historical factors
Strategic factors
Institutional design
Super Presidential (US)
450 seats in Duma
½ PR with 5% threshold
encourages political parties
½ SMDP
encourages independents
Veto Players:
Veto Points: ONE
Political Parties
Groups
Left
Center
Right
Election Years
Hungary
Historical factors
Strategic factors
Political
Institutional design
Mixed Pres./Parliamentary (French)
386 seats in parliament
Interconnected mixed PR/SMDM system
Final results depends on how parties do in both types of contest
Encourages parties to form coalitions (as in France)
Veto Players:
Veto Points:
Each Party in Government
Economic
Partially controlled economy. Needed least reform of Poland and Russia.
Political Parties
Groups
Left
Center
Right
Election Years
1990: 6 parties elected
members of center/right governing coalition:
HDF (hung. Dem forum) 25, 43 (center)
CDPP (Christ. Dem Party) 7, 5 (center)
FKP (small holders) 12, 11 (right)
HSP (Hung. Soc. Party) 11%, 8.5% (left)
AFD (all. Free dems) 21, 23.5 (right)
FIDESZ (Hung. Civic party) 9, 5 (right)
15% wasted votes
1994:6 parties
coalition
HSP (hung. Soc. Party) 33, 54 (left)
AFD (all. Free dem) 20, 18 (right)
FKP (small holders) 9, 7 (right)
FIDESZ (hung. Civic party) 7, 5 (right)
HDF (hung. Dem forum) 12, 10 (center)
CDPP (Christ. Dem party) 7, 6 (center)
1998: 5 parties
coalition
FIDESZ/CDPP (Hung. Citi. Un) 29 38 (right)
AFD (all. Freed dems) 7, 6 (right)
FKP (small holders) 13, 12 (right)
HDF (hung. Dem forum) 3, 5 (center)
HSP (hung. Soc. Pty) 33, 35 (left)
Others 10, 4
2002: 3 parties
FIDESZ/CDPP/HDF (Hung. Citi Un) 41, 49 (right)
Coalition:
AFD (all free dems) 6, 5 (right)
HSP (hung. Soc pty) 42, 46 (left)
Others: 10%
Poland
Historical factors
Strategic factors
Institutional design
Parliamentary (Britain)
460 seats in parliament
All elected by PR with 5% threshold
Encourages political parties
Eliminates small parties
Veto Players:
Veto Points:
Each party in government plus president. If president party is not in government.
Political Parties
Groups
Left
Center
Right
Election Years: Pure type of electoral system
1991: 29 parties elected
1993: 6 parties elected
Dalliance= 27, 37
Peasant party= 15, 29
Dem union= 11, 16
Labor union= 7.3, 8
Conf. Ind. Pol. = 6, 5
Non-party bloc = 5, 4
Civic alliance
Lib-dem cong
Peasant alliance
Solidarity
Party x
Homeland
Others 10%
33% of voters wasted their votes( more seats for fewer votes to those who got past 5% threshold.
1997:5 parties elected
Dalliance = 27% with 36% seats
Peasant Party= 7% with 6% seats
Solidarity action= 34%, 44
Freedom Union= 13%, 13
Polish Movement= 6% , 1
Labor Union
Union of Right
National pensioners
Pensioners
11% total wasted
2001: 6 parties elected
Dalliance = 41% with 47% seats
Peasant Party= 9% with 9% seats
Citizens’ Platform= 13 %, 14%
Defense of Poland= 10%, 12 %
Law and justice= 10, 10
Polish league= 8, 8
Solidarity action= 4.9%, 0
Freedom Union= 3%, 0
8% wasted
Party system:
Parties on right in “flux” meaning there isn’t a consistent party representing the right from election to election.
Parties on “left” stable.
About six parties in parliament from election to election.
Comparison of elections (seats)
First elections
Russia 1993:
Democratic reformers: 26%
Centrists: 10
Communists: 18
Nationalists: 14
Independents: 32
Hungary 1990:
Democratic reformers: 46%
Centrists: 43%
Former communists: 11%
Definitive center/right gov
Poland 1991:
Democratic reformers 25%
Centrists: 44
Former communists: 24%
Definitive Center/right gov
Second elections
Russia 1995:
Democratic reformers: 25%
Centrists: 8
Communists: 39
Nationalists: 11
Independent 17
Hungary 1994:
Democratic reformers: 23%
Centrists: 23%
Former communists: 54%
Definitive former communist gov
Poland 1993:
Democratic reformers: 19 %
Centrists: 14
Former communists: 66%
Definitive former communist gov
Third round of elections
Russia 1999:
Democratic reformers: 13%
Centrists: 31
Communists: 25
Nationalists: 4
Independent 23
Hungary 1998:
Democratic reformers: 57%
Centrists: 4
Former Communists: 35
Nationalists: 4
Right reformist government
Poland 1997:
Democratic reformers: 57%
Centrists: 1
Former Communists: 42
Right reformist government
Fourth round of elections:
Russia: 2004
Democratic reformers: 2%
Centrists: 57
Communists: 11
Nationalists: 8
Independent 22
Hungary 2002
Democratic reformers: 49%
Center/Right? : 5
Former Communists: 46
Center/left gov
Poland 2001
Democratic reformers: 0%
Centrists: 14
Former Communists: 56
Nationalists: 30
Change in Power: Poland and Hungary
First election: democratic reformers and centrists form government
Second election: re-named communist party(ies) form(s) government.
Third election: democratic reformers form government
Fourth election: former communists form government

POL 121 Midterm SG

POL 121 Midterm SG
Readings
The War Trap – Bruce Bueno de Mesquita pg 1
The historical experiment as a research strategy in the study of world politics- J. David Singer pg 19
Purpose of Study
Set up of Study
Data
Conclusion
Great Illusions, the Long Peace and the Future of the International System- John Lewis Gaddis pg 31
Purpose of Study
Set up of Study
Data
Conclusion
Fighting for Survival- H.E. Goemans pg 57
Purpose of Study
Set up of Study
Data
Conclusion
Nations in Conflict-Nazli Choucri and Robert North pg 71
Purpose of Study
Set up of Study
Data
Conclusion
Why Do Neighbors Fight? Proximity, Interaction, or Territoriality- John A. Vasquez pg 85
Purpose of Study
Set up of Study
Data
Conclusion
Regime Types and International Conflict, 1816-1976- Zeev Maoz and Nasrin Abdolali pg 103
Purpose of Study
Set up of Study
Data
Conclusion
The War Ledger - Ch. 1- AFK Organski and Jacek Kugler pg 121
Purpose of Study
Set up of Study
Data
Conclusion
Rationalist Explanations for War-James D. Fearon pg 157
Purpose of Study
Set up of Study
Data
Conclusion
Lectures
Jan 9th
4 approaches theory (time and place are not variables)
Understanding
German Philosophers 19th early 20th
Internalizing knowledge as private theory
Make it difficult to replicate --> difficult to teach
Mills most prominent American
Metaphorical
Definitions- spec. Privateness.
Understand in terms of metaphor (checks and balances, domino theory)
Value Theory
Theory is set around a set of values
Justify the way the world should be
Aristotle, Plato, Machiavelli, Hobbes
Scientific Theory
Typology
Organize objects in interest in a particular way

1. must be exhausted, has to be a place for everything.


2. Must be mutually exclusive


3. Consistent with other goals

Prediction
Prediction emerges from explanation
Explanation
Curiosity to understand the world (light bulb)
People want to control ( make the world a better place
What is a theory? How does a theory become part of science?
Must be accepted in science, as it becomes convincing that it adheres to the 5 goals.
The number of scientists that believes in the theory
Not black and white, continuous
Rarely completely rejected or accepted.
Beliefs of a scientist is critical
Theory adheres to five goals
Scientist confident understands meaning and concepts of theory.
The extent of understanding is critical to communicating with other scientists
Shared meaning to transmit knowledge
Science must be abstract, intersubjective and have empirical relevance
Abstract in irrespective in the time and place
Intersubjective- be subjective in evidence everybody’s subjective in communal thought.
Theory needs to be explicit
Precision of meaning (11 meanings of balance of power)
Rigor (mathematics, binary coding)
Empirical relevance –the possibility should always exist that scientists can test hypothesis
Perception –influenced by unconscious factors what an individual sees.
Explanation –event associated with another event
Does perception affect the results the investigator sees?
Jan 11th
What causes what, causation is not seen directly
Covariation/Correlation
One thing changes something else changes.
Causation (independent variable (dependent variable
Time ordering of variables
Elimination of other variables
Z causes both x, y = spurious correlation
Two kinds of sciences
Experimental sciences
Controlled conditions
Observational
Mostly what this field is about; replication of what happens in the world is hard to produce in a lab.
What is a war?
1,000 deaths
Official government policy (government must sanction war
4 levels of measurement:
Nominal- present or absent
Ordinal- one is more than the other
Threat of military force
Display
Use of force ( movement of military
Most MID’s end up here
War
Interval- equal lengths
Ratio- similar to interval, but you can make relationships with other numbers because of 0.
Diplomatic recognition of states
Control of territory, sovereignty
Nature of people under assumption
Rational decision makers
Jan 16th
International system is anarchy
No legitimate authority to tell someone to do something
Failure of sanctions
Can produce its own goods
Almost always somebody willing to provide the good, regardless of respect to authority
Only works in democratic countries
The people can overthrow the country
Distribution of power makes international system orderly
Balance of power means 5-6-7-8 = in power
Leadership
More power for the security of their state
Desire to stay in power
Purging of leadership
Styles of disposition (leaders; killed, executed, exile)
Purging of leadership in democracies doesn’t exist because: institutional constraints against killing opponents.
Vote Buying
Private goods (land, money)
Public goods (clean air, water)
Have different values of support in society and political leaders.
S= electorate given right to vote for political leaders
W= winning coalition
Paraguay in 1950 when s is small
Small s, small w = monarchy
Large s, large w= democracy
Small s, large w= autocracy (rigged electoral system)
“One person, one vote” is naïve
How ballots are voted but how ballots are counted
Corrupt system
Vote=individual unit of power in U.S.
Tank, gun, money= individual unit of power in other places
Living standards of political leaders and citizens
Perks of Political positions
Politics is about friends
Leaders have opportunities to reward loyal friends
Political leaders need to have a mix of “buying” with private and public goods
Political leaders’ strategy:
Small coalition: pay off with private goods
Large coalition: pay off with public goods
Monarchs’ pay off more with private goods(disputes over these goods and not public goods
Democracies aren’t going to going to get into a dispute over private goods( will over public goods.
Jan 23rd
Role of territory in international conflicts
Proximity
International opportunity (Is trade producing or diminishing the prospects of war?)
Manchester school
Trade produces gains
War diminish trade
Countries should prefer trade to war
Territoriality
The importance of territory
#1 issue across time
Balkans war: territory
Falkland war: territory
Hypothesis: once boundaries are mutually accepted then there is a decrease of probability of war.
War is efficient and legitimacy
Power is at the root of relationships across borders.
Turbalent frontier idea: if states have borders – no control- opportunities for problems increase substantially : what’s political have to do with proximity? Forges a necessary condition.
Growth of british empire
East India company
Jan 25th
North “nations in conflict”
Dynamics of population
Need resources
Food, shelter, warmth +clothing
Place to live
Institutions provide these things in wealthy societies
To use resources; need technology
What happens when pop+tech grow faster than resources?
What kind of effect does this have on resources?
Stress+strain on population as a result of mismanagement of societal leaders
Reduce population
Immigration incentives (money or choices –starvation)
Push to outside borders
Resources
Trade
Look harder
Take c
Push to outside borders(lateral pressure
Lateral pressure
Expand into empty space (such low capability, that a high capability just dominates) (US expansion)
Occupy low-capability state—organized state (US(Central and caribbean)
Expand into fulfilling goals of high-capability state
Conflict Intersection
Two states of high-capability are trying to get the same thing
Compromise
If they don’t want the same thing
Deterrence
Crises
Collusion if z-country is available: British Navy coal (diesel fuel in Persian Gulf
Industrialization starts in Russia, both teams scouting for oil 1903.
British+Russians in Paris in 1904: Cut Persian into 2; Russian North, UK South.
War
Look at states that need to provide welfare( can produce lateral pressures
Capitalist states unusually effectively produces goods, but creates huge demand for resources.
In 1933, Japanese army rebelled, marched in China
Army + Navy dominated Chinese policies
Good chance of assassination
Modest punishments
Japanese was after extraordinary lateral expansion
Wanted more territory
Short of resources
1855 admiral William Perry
Led to industrialization in Japan
1855 feudal society ( 1904 war in Russia
Where was Japan getting the resources?
Conditions ripe for WWII
Why didn’t they trade in 1935?
Why didn’t choose war after WWII?
Depends on willingness of leader
To gain the those resources to stay in power (mixed economy leaderships)
Japan: fueled in part by exclusionary laws and nationalism.
Jan 30th
Kant: as more states became republican( chances of war decreases “Perpetual Peace”
Woodrow Wilson: speech at J. Hopkins Univ:
Ideological leader: more democratic states, more peace.
Around 1970: singer
Properties of state
Democratic states didn’t fight each other
From where does the definition of democracy come from?
Polity Project: Robert Gurr
Criteria for:
0-10 democracy
0-10 autocracy
5,6 demo, 4,5 auto=anocratic
Democratic X2 test
In chart, Target Demo and Initiator Demo = zero wars, however with X2 test, this is different
Sum of row x sum of column divided by total n = X2
State NATO (Greece) over Cyprus vs. Turkey.
Allies of America, UK v. Argentina
Excluded war: Finland 1941
Democratic don’t fight each other=false
Democratic don’t fight each other in large wars=maybe true
Table 1.3 use of force
Feb 1st
Waltz-
Finds “democratic peace” inconsistent
Not difficult in finding to realism
“Theory of I.R.”
Domestic arrangements have no relation to foreign relations
Distribution of power( determines what happens in I.R.
READ MOAZ!!!!!!
Collective Security Theory
Balance of Power
=power ( peace
=power(war
Power Transition Theory- Organski
Hierarchical struggle for power
Struggle for ideological power of other countries
As time goes on, the ability of “beta” to challenge “Alpha” its position.
Strength of alliances?
Table 3.2
They let data stay in and not exclude(key in explaining organski’s theory or not?
Theory relies on small n of wars
Power ratios GNP/GNP vs. time
Section:
On Maoz
Nation/Polity
Individual government
More democratic a state is, less likely to initiate conflict or war
As autocracy increases, chances of dispute increases
Democracies don’t initiate fewer disputes, but have lower proportion of dispute(war
Regime type alone not a good predictor of conflict
Dyadic (anarchic)
Pairs (states)
Find support for joint freedom (DP)
Democracies get into conflict w/anocracies undergoing regime change
Systemic
Increase in democratic dyads, positive effect on # of disputes begun, # of disputes underway, # of dyads in dispute each year
Degree of regime type heterogeneity has a positive effect proportion of disputes underway + # of wars.
Feb 6th
Organski(power transition=power generates war
Rational leaders with full information=no war (Fearon)
Power, Alliance, and International Conflict (1984)
major versus major conflict
No relationship if powers have alliances
Major versus minor
Minor powers won’t pick a fight with a major power with allies
Major powers have major power allies
First US alliance was with Japan, economically
Major power (predators) ( minor powers (prey)
Align with a predator
Selection effect
WWI outcome of choices
Conflicts, not a random selection of all conflicts that took place, rather a decision (made by decision maker) to go to war.
Outcome that is not due to chance
Rational leader with full information you will not get war (fearon)
The effects of decisions in choosing a conflict
What are the incentives in choosing a conflict
Two decisions for a leader: war or settle
Feb 8th
Fearon-critique of realist thinking on war
War occurs because of commitment problems
Negotiable agreements are not enforceable until force is required.
Advantage to an actor gives incentive
Anarchy ruler
Indivisible Goods
There’s always something that can’t be divided up
International trade agreements
Decision of Saddam Hussein:
Stay or leave Iraq
What is the commitment of the U.S.?
What is the incentive to fighting?
Smaller countries have incentive to continue their path to hold on to nondivisible goods.
Misrepresentation +Misinformation
Strategic manipulation in politics
Development of economic dependence of international treaties
Chess v. Poker
Transparency of other states
Where are you likely to find under what circumstances to find the greatest transparency (demo) and the greatest obscurity (non-demo)
One theory why states are pathologically secret is dependent on domestic situation
Opposition finds it harder to make moves if nation is not as transparent
The greater the transparency, the less likely the chance of war because the opposition will see the policies (mindset) of the states.
If your’e a democratic state, what would you see in another democratic state? Bargaining range is more defined. Critical is being able to see the opposition’s party and its mobilization effect ( if they mobilize then people will go against pres. (or head of state) if not, rally effect behind pres.
Section
Goeman
Relationship between outcomes+post war fate of leader
This relationship explains link between duration of war + using state’s regime.
Mixed regimes: some degree of punishment whether lose moderately or disastrously
Democratic regimes: lose power when lose moderately, severe punishment when lose disastrously
Dictators: unlikely to lose power when lose moderately, lose disastrously suffer severe punishment
Mixed regime have disincentives to settle on moderate loss-have incentive to continue fighting.
Lateral pressures( population, technology, resources.

exercise 2 pol51

Craig Merry
Professor Jackman
POL 51
Exercise 2

     For an individual the definition of partisanship is that who devotes its political power to a political party regardless of weighing the platforms of other parties or propaganda given by other parties. Setting up the study, I would try to avoid asking survey foremost and focus more on achieving accurate measurements of data. For example, the way I would want to test the way California partisanship and its effects on the outcomes of elections, I would prefer to test it through the slimmest possible margin of error. If I could access the California voting records by randomly choosing an accurate proportion of citizens to Californians and within random counties, I would do so for my study. But since that requires a budget and a good chunk of time devoted to the study, I would probably set it up through a survey. The questions I would ask to respondents to judge their partisanship would be “ On a scale of one to ten, one being the least devoted to your party commitment to an issue and ten being the highest, how would you scale your voting behavior on issues that are relevant to your party platform?” “Did you read the election materials mailed from county officials?” “Did you read both the issues and candidates for seats for all parties who wrote their literature in the election materials?” This would be measured on a yes being equal to a value of one and no being equal to a value of zero.
     The validity of my measure of partisanship would be somewhat accurate to the extent I can distinguish numerically and systematically how close partisan voters submit their voting choices. I am trying to measure how strong the voters are in their devotion to their party and their exposure to election materials. My hypothesis centers on that if an informed voter votes, that person is most likely to not be partisan. I would set up two categories. Non-partisan would include all those voters who put neither republican nor democrat in their voter preference when they register to vote. Partisan would include voters that are partisan to either democrat or republican parties. The dependent variable in my study is the election materials that are mailed by country officials. The independent variable in my study would be the outcome of the election in partisan/non-partisan voters in their patterns of voting.

POL 2 Midterm 1 revi

POL 2 Midterm 1 review sheet
Topics covered in lectures:
Institutional models of democracy (descriptive)
Definition of Democratization?
Basic institutional requirements:
Separation of executive and legislature
Rules for popular election of politicians
Basic means of enforcement:
Free press
Independent judiciary
Political competition
Creation of the institutional requirements of representative government
Extension of the right to vote to entire population
Pure Presidential (US)
Institutional separation of powers in Presidential system:
President can:
Appoint cabinet
Veto legislation
Submit initiatives to the legislature
Issue executive decrees
Act as head of state
Deploy limited military force
President cannot:
Dismiss the legislature
Pass laws
Force the legislature to pass his legislature
Force the legislature to ratify a treaty
Legislature can:
Approve cabinet
Override veto
Write laws
Pass laws
Ratify treaties
Declare war
Impeach the president
Legislature cannot:
Pass laws that are unconstitutional
Separate national elections for president and Congress
President cannot dissolve congress
Congress can remove president only through impeachment
President is Head of State
No such office as “head of government”
Congress writes laws
President can veto laws
Pure Parliamentary (British)
Institutional separation of powers in Parliamentary
Prime Minister can:
“Form the government”
Dismiss the legislature
Submit laws to parliament
Act as head of state
Deploy limited military force
Prime Minister cannot:
Ignore the wishes of his/her party or coalition without facing vote of no confidence
Parliament can:
Select the prime minister
Vote “no confidence” in government and prime minister
Pass laws
Ratify treaties
Declare war
Parliament cannot:
Fail to pass a government initiated law without facing new elections.
One national election to parliament
Parliament elects executive
Executive includes prime minister and cabinet
Prime minister is the head of government
Head of state is a ceremonial office
Parliament has vote of no confidence
Prime Minister can dissolve parliament
Executive Branch in Parliamentary vs. Presidential systems
Parliamentary:
Executive =PM + Cabinet
“Government” means PM + Cabinet
Members of government are members of Parliament
Prime Minister is chosen by a majority in the parliament
Presidential
Executive = President + Administration
“Government” less specific in meaning
Members of Government are not defined
President is chosen by people in direct election
Mixed Presidential/Parliamentary (French)
President and Parliament are elected in separate elections
President can dissolve parliament
Parliament cannot remove president
Parliament selects prime minister and cabinet
Shared control
President is Head of state and head of government under “shared control”
Cohabitation
President is head of state
Prime minister is head of government
Electoral systems
Outcome of an election depends on the rules
What is the essential institutional difference between a two-party and a multi-party system?
The Electoral Rules
SMDP (Single Member District Plurality)
US, Britain
Reduces the number of political parties
Mechanical effect of “winner take all”
Psychological affect of abandoning losers
Voters and candidates
SMDM (Single Member District Majority)
France
Reduces the number of effective political parties
Helps centrist parties
Encourages coordination between rounds
Most common form until turn of century-PR has overtaken
PR (proportional representation)
Once seat is assigned vote share is divided to two in the party awarded
District magnitude is number of seats in a district
As district magnitude increases, proportionality of the electoral system increases.
Increases number of parties
Encourages small parties
Supports extreme parties as well as centrist parties
Essential difference between SMD and PR?
SMD systems restrict number of parties. PR encourages more parties.
Significance of number of parties
Role of Political parties in the modern democracy
Big problem: how can millions of diverse citizens agree on policy solutions?
Political Parties solve the informational and organizational problem
Political parties take complex political reality and reduce it to simple, ideological statements.
Political Parties
Strength
Presidential systems
Rarely does one party control policy
Weak party discipline
No obvious party leader
Parliamentary systems
Majority party controls government party
Strong party discipline
PM is party leader
US
Green
Democrats
Republicans
Britain
Labour
Conservative
France
Communists
Socialists
UDF
Conservatives
Germany
SPD
CDU
Veto players
Determining Veto Players
Which institutions have veto power
Determine party control of the institutions
The veto player is partisan actor in control of an institution with veto power
Veto Players in Presidential systems
President is always a veto power
Determine partisan control of legislature
In US case, remember that legislature is bicameral
Veto Players in Parliamentary Systems
How are electoral rules critical in determining how a parliamentary system will work?
Number of parties in the Cabinet
Reflects number of parties necessary to form a parliamentary majority!
Veto players in British parliamentary system
Today, labour party controls majority in parliament
How many veto players today?
Veto Players in Mixed systems (French)
President is always a veto player
Determine party that controls the parliament
Shared Control: President and Parliament controlled by same party is 1 veto point
Cohabitation: President and Parliament controlled by different parties is 2 veto points
Party that controls the Cabinet IF it is different than the president’s party
France 1997:
Chirac is Conservative president
Cabinet is formed by Socialist party (veto player)
How many veto players?
Veto Points

Definition:
Institutional or partisan actor whose agreement is necessary to pass laws.
Modernization
What is a modern society today?
Basis of economy changes from agriculture to industry
Eventually, more people in industry than in agriculture
Economically advanced
Highly literate
Tiny proportion in agriculture
Participates in a global economy
Technologically advanced
Rule of Law
Protection of property rights
Contained corruption
Democracy
Key Factors in development
Urbanization
Result of industrialization
People move from rural villages to cities
Economic Growth
Growth in GNP and transformation of society
Enormous increase in number of people who rely on the market for well-being
Education
Diversity and specialization of economy
Skilled workers needed more and more
Public education introduced
Majority of citizens are literate (80-100%)
Britain Stage 1: Evolution of property rights and concept of representation
Signing of Magna Carta in 1215 created a contract
Established a legislative body to protect property right of landowners
Britain Stage 2: Evolution of representative institutions
1300s Great Council becomes known as Parliament
House of Lords-Aristocracy
House of Commons- merchants and minor landowners
1400s Parliament acquires right to make laws
Britain stage 3: Evolution of check on executive power
Monarch cannot raise taxes or write laws without Parliament’s consent
Cabinet is responsible to House of Commons NOT to monarch.
Britain in 1850:
Representative institutions defend rights of property owners
Parliament checks power of executive
Not yet a democracy
Britain stage 4:  Industrialization
Transformation of British economy
Transformation of British society BECAUSE
Creation of new property relations
Middle class
Working class
Both demanded political representation
Britain stage 5: Expansion of suffrage
1867: 16% have right to vote
1884: 32% have right to vote
1918: almost all adult men, and women over 30
Does China Qualify?
15 percent of GNP relies on agriculture

Research Design POL 51

Chapter 3: Research Design
Casual Inference and Controlled Experiments
Causal versus spurious relationships
Causal relationship is when x is connected observationally to Y.
A spurious relationship is when factor z does not appear to have a positive relationship on x factor when it does appear to have a positive relationship on the y factor.
Covariation
Time order
Elimination of possible alternative causes; the absence of confounding factors.
Making a valid causal claim involves showing three things: Covariation, time order and the absence of confounding factors.
Five basic characteristics of a classical randomized experimental design:
Two experimental groups: one is test stimulus or factor and the other is called the control (subjects do not go under experimental manipulation.
Randomization of a group
Researcher controls the administration or introduction of the experimental treatment
Experimental effect: before and after treatment suggests differences between the two groups’ responses to the test factor.
Extraneous factors: environmental of the experiment; time, location.

Randomized controlled experiment
Experimentation: allows the researcher to control exposure to an experimental variable (independent variable)
Randomization and the assignment of subjects
Interpreting and Generalizing the Results of an experiment
Other versions of Experimental Designs
Simple post-test design
Time series design
Multigroup design
Field Experiments
Causal inference in Nonexperimental designs
Nonexperimental time series design
Cross-sectional design
Panel studies
Case study design
Alternate research strategies
Formal modeling
Simulation

his4c study guide final

History 4c Study Guide

• ID’s: Who, what, when, where and historical significance of five of seven.


• Lenin: According to Lenin, as the capitalist system concentrates more wealth in ever-fewer hands, the possibility for investment at home is exhausted, and capitalists are forced to invest abroad, establish colonies, and exploit small, weak nations. In his view the only cure for imperialism was the destruction of capitalism. Instrumental as leader in securing Bolsheviks power in Russia. Lenin dies 1924, Stalin takes over 1929. Creates NEP for Russia.


• Cold War: Ideological war between Capitalism and Communism


• Bolsheviks: Small violent faction of Russian Social Democrats led by Lenin. Became a party dedicated to a violent revolution that would destroy the capitalist system. “Peace, land, bread” “worker control of production” “all power to the soviets” were mottos that could summarize the activities of the Bolsheviks. Came into power 1917, renamed to communists. In the course of the civil war, the Bolshevik regime had also transformed Russia into a bureaucratically centralized state dominated by a single party. It was also a state that was largely hostile to the Allied Powers that had sought to assist the Bolsheviks’ enemies in the civil war 1918-1921. To most historians, the Russian Revolution is unthinkable without the total war of World War I, only the collapse of Russia made it possible for a radical minority like the Bolsheviks to seize the reins of power. In turn, the Russian Revolution had an impact on the course of World War I.


• Schlieffen Plan: Named after General Alfred von Schlieffen created a military plan based on the assumption of a two-front war with France and Russia, which created a military alliance in 1894. The plan called for minimal troop deployment against Russia while most of the German army would make a rapid invasion of western France by way of neutral Belgium. After the planned quick defeat of the French, the German army expected to redeploy to the east against Russia. Under the plan, Germany could not mobilize its troops solely against Russia and declared war on France.


• Leon Blum: Socialist prime minister of France 1936. The Popular Front succeeded in initiating a program for workers that some have called the French New Deal. It established the right of collective bargaining, a forty-hour workweek, two-week paid vacations, and minimum wages. The Popular Front’s policies failed to solve the problems of the depression, however. By 1938, the French were experiencing a serious decline of confidence in their political system that left them unprepared to deal with their aggressive Nazi enemy to the east.


• Maastricht Treaty: The treaty on European Union (aka Maastricht Treaty after the city in the Netherlands where the agreement was reached) represented an attempt to create a true economic and monetary union of all EC members. On January 1, 2004, the EC (European Community given name 1973 when expansion of six into 9). One of its first goals was to introduce a common currency, called the Euro, adopted by twelve EU nations early in 1999. On June 1, 1999, a European Central Bank was created, and on January 1, 2002, the euro officially replaced twelve national currencies.


• Vichy


• Euro


• Weimar Republic: German democratic state established after WWI. Faced serious economic repercussions with runaway inflation of 1922 and 1923. Creates a large impoverished class of Germans without savings. Made it more attractive to join rightist political groups. The political, economic, and social problems of the Weimar Republic provided an environment in which Hitler and the Nazis were able to rise to power.


• League of Nations: During Paris Peace Conference of 1919 attended by 27 nations, Germany was not invited and Russia had its civil war. Wilson was determined to create a league of nations to prevent a future war.  Clemenceau of France wanted Germany to pay heavily for war, as did Lloyd George of Britain. Not particularly effective in maintaining the peace. New treaties that renounced the use of war looked good on paper, but had no means of enforcement. League’s only weapon for halting aggression was economic sanctions. The efforts at collective security in the 1920s—The League of Nations, the attempts at disarmament, the pacts and treaties—all proved meaningless in light of the growth of Nazi Germany and its deliberate scrapping of the postwar settlement in the 1930s.


• NEP (New Economic Policy): Policy created by Stalin for communist Russia.


• Franco Francisco: Spanish dictator that took over after a three-war civil war that ended in 1939. against the left Popular Front. Supported by fascist Germany and Italy. Russia supported Popular on a limited scale. Lasts until his death in 1975.


• Simone De Beauvoir (1908-1986): lifelong relationship with jean-Paul Sartre. Involved in existentialist movement, the leading intellectual movement of the time. Important figure in the emergence of the postwar French women’s liberation movement in the 1970s. Wrote in 1949 influential book the Second Sex, where she argues that women have been forced into a position subordinate to men, as a result of male-dominated societies.


• Generation E: young Europeans who have lived in Europe without borders. Most likely to support EU efforts and strong unification methods through use of technology like cell phones, Eurovision, Internet, etc. Interestingly, they use English as the common language when meeting with other Europeans. This generation of Europeans will more than likely help the EU gain social acceptance and builds up on politics.


• Mussolini (1883-1945): received diploma as elementary school teacher. After unsuccessful as teacher, becomes socialist. Editor of newspaper Avanti (forward) socialist daily newspaper. After switching his position to neutrality to intervention in WWI, he was expelled from socialist Party. In 1919, he laid down foundations for new political movement that was called fascism. Political stalemate in Italy’s parliamentary system and strong nationalist sentiment saved Mussolini and the Fascists. Thousands of industrial and agricultural strikes in 1919 and 1920 created a climate of class warfare and continual violence. Mussolini also perceived that Italians were angry over Italy’s failure to receive more fruits of victory in the form of territorial acquisitions after World War I. He realized then that anticommunism, antistrike activity, and nationalist rhetoric combined with the use of brute force might help him obtain what he had been unable to achieve in free elections. Fascists called squadristi were formed and turned loose in attacks on Socialist offices and newspapers. Mussolini and the Fascists believed that these terrorist tactics would eventually achieve political victory.  The planned march on Rome was really a calculated bluff to frighten the government into giving them power. In July 1923, parliament enacted the Acerbo Law, which stipulated that any party winning at least 25 percent of the votes in the next election would automatically be allotted two-thirds of the seats in parliament. In 1926, Mussolini established his Fascist dictatorship. All anti-Fascist parties were outlawed. Secret police established, try to become police state. Police activities in Italy were never as repressive, efficient, or savage as those in Nazi Germany. Despite the instruments of repression, the use of propaganda, and the creation of numerous Fascists organizations, Mussolini failed to achieve the degree of totalitarian control accomplished in Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Soviet Union. Mussolini and the Fascist Party never really destroyed the old power structure.


• Berlin Wall: On August 31, 1961, East German workers under Soviet military supervision began the construction of the Berlin Wall. Khrushchev wanted to build a wall around West Berlin to cut off the flow of refugees to the West. This became the symbol of the Iron Curtain; set as an imaginary line that separates Soviet interests and American interests. Powerful demonstrations eventually led to the tear down of the Wall on November 9, 1989.


• Stalin: favored the goal of “socialism in one country” rather than world revolution. Main rival was Leon Trotsky. By 1929, Stalin had succeeded in eliminating the Old Bolsheviks of the revolutionary era from the Politburo and establishing a dictatorship. First five-year plan called for the overnight shift from an agricultural country to an industrial state. By 1934, the Soviet Union’s 26 million family farms had been collectivized into 250,00 units. When WWII ended in 1945, Stalin had been power for more than fifteen years. During that time he had removed all opposition to this rule and remained the undisputed master of the Soviet Union. Other leading members of the Communist Party were completely obedient to his will. Increasingly distrustful of competitors, Stalin exercised sole authority and pitted his subordinates against one another. Start of anti-intellectual campaign came in 1953, but Stalin dies in 1953.


• NATO: (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) created in 1949 as a military unity in that “an attack on one member country is an attack on all member countries”. First mission was in Kosovo in 1993, goal was to submit Yugoslavia into accepting peace terms.


• Margaret Thatcher: First woman to serve as Prime Minister in Britain history starting in 1979. pledged to lower taxes, reduce government bureaucracy, limit social welfare, restrict union power and end inflation. Oversaw Falkland Islands war, served as example that Britain remains a military power, but not a world power. Thatcher was popular in the 1980s but fell in 1990 after introducing a different method of paying taxes that critics argue would make the rich pay the same rate as the poor.


• Dada. Attempted to enshrine the purposelessness of life. Hoch seemed to criticize the “new woman” by making fun of the way women were inclined to follow new fashion styles. 1920 Berlin first art show. The 1918 Berlin Dada Manifesto maintained, “Dada is the international expression of our times, the great rebellion of artistic movements.”


• Frantz Fanon (1925-1961): studied psychiatry in France. His work as head of a psychiatric hospital in Algeria led him to favor violence as a necessary instrument to overthrow Western imperialism, which to Fanon was itself rooted in violence. The Wretched of the Earth, published in 1961, provided an argument for national liberation movements in the Third World. In the last part of the book, Fanon discussed the problem of mental disorders that arose from Algeria’s war of national liberation.


• Marshall Plan: the proclamation of the Truman Doctrine was followed in June 1947 by the European Recovery Program, better known as the Marshall Plan. Intended to rebuild prosperity and stability, this program included $13 billion for the economic recovery of war-torn Europe. Underlying it was the belief that communist aggression fed off economic turmoil. The Marshall Plan helped speed up the division of Europe into two competing blocs. To some scholars, the Marshall Plan encouraged Stalin to push for even greater control of Eastern Europe to safeguard Soviet interests.


• May 1968: A series of student protests, followed by a general strike by the labor unions, shook the government. Although de Gaulle managed to restore order, the events of May 1968 seriously undermined the French people’s respect for their aloof and imperious president. Tired and discouraged, de Gaulle resigned from office in April 1969 and died within a year.


• “cocacolonization”: term used by Professor C. Kudlick to describe Europe’s adoption of American products by Generation E.


• Solidarity: Polish independent labor movement represented 10 million of Poland’s 35 people. New demonstrations after the arrests of party’s leader led to first free parliamentary election in forty years in 1988. The military regime allowed the newly elected Solidarity coalition to form a new government, thus ending forty-five years of Communist rule in Poland. After Mikhail Gorbachev made it clear that his government would not intervene militarily, the Communist regimes fell quickly in the revolution of 1989.


• “The Final Solution”: Nazi term for Jewish problem of annihilation. SS became more efficient in killing Jews –by forcing them next to large pits, and killing them- without any other form of discrimination.


• Chunnel: named given to continental train link between France in Britain. Britain citizens can work in France; likewise, French can vacation in Britain, etc. Strong symbol of integration of Europe.


• Treaty of Versailles: Created during Paris Conference of 1919. Article 231 (war guilt clause) declared Germany (and Austria) responsible for starting the war and ordered Germany to pay reparations. Germany had to reduce its army to 1000,000 men , cut back its navy, and eliminate its air force. German territorial losses included the cession of Alsace and Lorraine to France and section of Prussia to the new Polish state. German land west and as far as thirty miles east of the Rhine was established as a demilitarized zone and stripped of all armaments or fortifications to serve as a barrier to any future German military moves westward against France. Treaty of Versailles created a runaway inflation of Germany currency that led to the environment of the extremist politics that bred the rise of the Nazi party. By 1936, Treaty of Versailles had been virtually scrapped as Hitler knew politically that the France and Russia did not want to wage war.


• Charles De Gaulle: possessed the unshakable faith that he had a historical mission to reestablish the greatness of the French nation. The fragile political stability of the Fourth Republic had been badly shaken by the Algerian crisis. The French army had suffered defeat in Indochina in 1954 and was determined to resist Algerian demands for independence. But a strong antiwar movement among French intellectuals and church leaders led to bitter divisions that opened the door to the possibility of civil war in France. The panic-stricken leaders of the Fourth Republic offered to let de Gaulle take over the government and revise the constitution. By the end of de Gaulle’s era, France was a major industrial producer and exporter, particularly in such areas as automobiles and armaments. Nevertheless, problem remained. The nationalization of traditional industries, such as coal, steel, and railroads, led to large government deficits. May 1968 protests start; de Gaulle resigns in April 1969 and dies within a year.

• Essay Part One


• Impact of decolonization


• Impact of the “Thirty Years War of the 20th Century” on Europe


• ID’s to use: Weimar Republic, Schlieffen Plan, Lenin, League of Nations, Mussolini, Stalin, Dada, “The Final Solution”, Treaty of Versailles.


• Treaty of Versailles instigated as the main cause/effect of WWII.


• supplemented with the spirit of Locarno pact.


• Allowed Hitler to rise in politics by declaring superiority in drastic desperation caused by treaty of Versailles


• Hitler know the West didn’t want war, he rebuilt his military and eventually got a militarist response by entering Poland


• WWI-WWII: One large war


• Economic depression of early 1930s


• Differences of weapons used


• Differences of perspective of going to war before WWI+WII


• WWI: exciting, inevitable, quick victory expected


• WWII: avoid war as much as possible


• League of Nations:


• Only tool to enforce treaties was economic sanctions


• Impact of the Cold War


• ID’s to use: Stalin,


• Cold War never became hot because of political cooperation to the last thread (Cuban Missile Crises October 1963)


• Domino Theory/Iron Curtain


• Marshall Plan


• Truman Doctrine: Support countries devastated by WWII with financial aid to persuade them not to cooperate with Soviet Union


• Containment


• Détente


• Berlin Wall( Berlin Airlift (JFK speech in Berlin)


• Generation E rises


• Role of NATO and UN


• Europe coming together vs. Europe splitting apart


• Europe Coming Together:


• Europe Splitting Apart:


• Starts with ethnic and class


• Broad vs. depth strategic expansion of EU


• Essay Part Two


• Impact of industrialization, technology, and mass culture in politics and warfare in Europe since the French Revolution.


• Railroad ( expedites Industrial Revolution.


• The ultimate symbol socially, economically, and politically


• Technology in war


• French Revolution:


• Guillotine


• WWI: pg. 730


• Tanks


• Airplanes


• Machine Guns, gases


• Two centuries of revolutions


• The impact of the French revolution


• reminder that the middle class can revolt and in violent means.


• this reminder is serves as strong incentive for governments to concede with the demands of the revolting group


• may invoke small counterrevolutions to act as a balance to prevent further chaos.


• evidence from certain revolutions:




• The Great War as the watershed between the 19th and 20th centuries.


• The end of liberalism


• The origin of strong nationalism, fascism


• WWI and the League of Nations


• WWII and the UN


• Development of the EU


• Place an economic emphasis first to allow fairness and mutual benefit.

The Lingering Fear of a United Europe

The Lingering Fear of a United Europe
Haffner would’ve been cautiously optimistic about the creation of the European Union and the status quo of the EU today. Haffner writes, “I shudder to think that after the next war the whole of Europe will probably experience a magnified 1923---that is, unless very wise men make the peace” (Haffner 52-53). The Europe of today is far more open socially and integrates more economic tools to preserve an ideal that attracted citizens in his lifetime and continues to attract Europeans these last few decades: peace and cooperation among all of Europe.
“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” FDR’s assessment of the historic challenge of WWII speaks volumes to Americans of that time. Through the readings assigned, like Sebastian Haffner’s memoir of his life during the rise of the Nazi regime and contemporary Europe in T.R. Reid’s The United States of Europe, a perception develops among Europeans that fear is the distinction that is muddled between native and foreigner. This is apparent in the transition of the EU into a political entity.
After WWI, the Allies adopted the League of Nations on January 25, 1929 during the Paris Peace conference. Later on during the conference on June 28th, the Treaty of Versailles was signed (Spielvolgel 744). This treaty had left a bitter taste for Germans, as they were forced to accept the blame for starting war and consequently pay for it. The reparations were much for Germany to handle and fueled instability. Inflation soon became rampant and made the German mark drastically worthless against the dollar. “Anyone who had savings in a bank or bonds saw their value disappear overnight. Soon it did not matter whether it was a penny put away for a rainy day or a vast fortune. Everything was obliterated. Many people quickly moved their investments only to find that it made no difference. Very soon it became clear that something had happened that forced everyone to forget about their savings and attend to a far more urgent matter”(Haffner 55). Germans in large numbers lived under impoverished conditions, where fortunes through inflation could be reduced to nothing in a matter of hours, consequently created a gap between the youth and the older generation.
The absence of identity made possible by impoverished conditions in the early 1920s for the youth of Germany was a key component in fueling the advance of extreme nationalism in the late 1920s. An issue that EuroSkeptics bring up in contemporary times is the fear of a lack of identity in member countries. A lack of identity in one country may mean an increase of nationalistic attitudes towards the EU but not all countries transmit this ideology. There is a solid system in balance of powers between countries and room for political dissent if one country takes up issue with the rest of the EU. Though this concern is valid, Haffner would’ve approached the creation of Europe cautiously, but overall he would accept the system that is in place as acceptable for its goals of economic stability.
The rise of mass politics and mass production of radios made it possible for an extremist ideology of nationalism to arise in Germany. Haffner makes the claim that it was bound to happen under the dire, boring circumstances that German people were living under. To remedy this boredom, Germans turned to sports. “It did not occur to them that through sport, the lure of the war game, the old thrilling magic of national rivalry, was being exercised and maintained and that his was not some harmless venting of bellicose instincts. They (leftists) failed to see any connection. They were blind to Germany’s relapse” (74). After the 1928 Olympics in Amsterdam, the enthusiasm faded from sports and that need of simple unity was progressed into politics.
Haffner describes the fear of brandishing the Nazis as he sees them as what he experiences through. “In day-to-day politics I formed my views according to the circumstances; sometimes I had no view at all. None of the existing political parties seemed particularly attractive to me, despite the abundant choice. Anyway, belonging to any of them would not have saved me from becoming a Nazi” (Haffner 103). The policies that Haffner opposed were intended to create the maximum illusion that Nazis were righteous in every aspect of life. If Haffner were to conform to the social standards of the Nazi’s, which he did with increasing disgust, he would’ve ended up like many of the dissenting citizens of Nazi Germany: “disappeared”.
After Hitler came to power legally, his foreign policy goals was to create a racist superiority that controlled an empire that required living space for its citizens (Spielvogel 783). Hitler coerced his neighbors into accepting the invasion of Austria and Czechoslovakia under Britain’s policy of appeasement and for strategic purposes against Russia. The French would not act without Britain’s approval. When Germany invaded Poland, it became clear that Hitler was purposely being deceitful and the West declared war two days later on September 3, 1939 (Spielvogel 788).
The major pillar of civilization, behind political, legal and military tracks, that the European Union strived through progressive steps of achievement first was economic integration. From the early starts of the 1951 creation of the European Steel and Coal community, Europe has slowly, through intensively debated forums, developed economic safeguards to prevent collapse. A major economic accomplishment of the European Union is its successful introduction of its currency: the Euro. “Europeans took to their new money so readily that 95 percent of all transactions in the twelve euro countries were being carried out in euros by January 5” (Reid 64). This is a major step forward in the cohesion of economic forces in Europe. Haffner would’ve gleefully accepted this money and preserve it as a safety net to confrontations. Since the economic integration occurred first, all other pillars now have a form of stability to rely on and a clear rule of principle to follow.
Not one economic system will ever be perfect. There are always winners and losers. The use of a common currency has had major economic implications but also social implications. “The proud ancient nations of Europe were willing to surrender some elements of national sovereignty to build their continental union, but it was something else entirely to surrender revered national symbols that date back centuries or millennia” (Reid 65). But member states wanted to put national symbols on Euros that were being produced in their country. The EU allowed coins and allowed the back of paper money to be designed by representatives of member countries. The process towards the allotment of designing the currency was a brilliant approach to a difficult problem with no clear solution. Through this fair, democratic process, a system of currency is in place that Haffner would be proud to be part of.
In addition to the introduction of the currency to be used by travelers, the EU has had to deal with the difficult issue of immigration. EuroSkeptics argue that immigration bring poor ethnic minorities with strong religious ties that creates an economic discrepancy that hurts citizens. This problem became apparent in social tension during the recent Paris Riots. Young, poor, uneducated minorities who live on the outskirts of major cities, like Paris, are treated with neglect by the French government. Haffner has this inherit acceptance of foreigners as people to learn from. “How much more interesting, more beautiful, and richer it made life that the world was not peopled exclusively by Germans! Our guests were all welcome, whether they came voluntarily, like the Americans and the Chinese, or as refugees, like the Russians. Our doors were flung open, the strangers were received with a friendly, curious goodwill and with a conscious determination to understand and learn to appreciate even what was most foreign to us” (Haffner 79). This is because immigrants have the ability to contribute to an economy and expand the view of the world of the natives. From Haffner’s perspective, a unified Europe that allows immigration should be acceptable.
One area of concern for Haffner would be the military component of the EU. A well-known perception of some EU citizens is that Americans will make the dinner and Europe will clean up the dishes. In an accurate response to the size of America’s military size, the EU has decided on a far less resourceful military and instead has focused on peacekeeping and, on another level, other areas of strength beside military powers. This is where the thinking of EU has succeeded through gains in new alliances and treaties in a global economy.
Haffner feared the ignorance of the consequences of strong nationalistic attitudes he saw in young Nazi Germans. This is a basic democratic process that Haffner would’ve like to lived under after WWI. The pressure on the mark made it frustrating for a generation of young Germans that strived for a German identity. This would be the main area of concern for Haffner. However, The European Union, through its unusual political transition of nation to state-nation, allows public criticism of policies in government and economics to be debated and implemented into its policies. The problems of the EU are open to debate and the status quo can change through a democratic process. That is the key to the peace and cooperation that is the vision of EU.
Works Cited

Haffner, Sebastian Defying Hitler: A Memoir. Picador; New York, New York, 2000.
Reid, T.R. The United States of Europe:The New Superpower and the End of American Supremacy. The Penguin Press, New York City, New York, 2004.
Spielvolgel, Jackson J. Western Civilization: Volume C: Since 1789. Thomson Wadsworth; Belmont, CA, 2006.