Politics of Russia
Political Science 780.003
Syracuse University
Prof. Brian Taylor
Fall 2004
Classroom: MAX315 Office: 531 Eggers
Class time: M 6:00-8:45 Office Hours: M 10-12, TH 3-4, or
by appointment
E-mail: bdtaylor@maxwell.syr.edu
Phone: 443-3713
COURSE DESCRIPTION
This course is a graduate-level survey of the major issues in contemporary politics in the post-Soviet region in general, and Russia in particular. The seminar will briefly examine the Soviet period, but the primary focus of the course is on the period since 1991. Topics to be examined include state collapse and state formation, political and institutional change, the politics of economic reform, and the domestic determinants of foreign policy. This is a course in comparative politics, so we are most interested in understanding domestic developments in Russia and other post-Soviet states, and what these developments tell us about classic issues of comparative analysis, such as the sources of political change, the consequences of different institutional arrangements, and state-society relations.
READINGS
Marshall Poe, The Russian Moment in World History (Princeton University Press, 2003).
Valerie Bunce, Subversive Institutions: The Design and the Destruction of Socialism and the State (Cambridge University Press, 1999).
Stephen Kotkin, Armageddon Averted: The Soviet Collapse 1970-2000 (Oxford University Press, 2001).
Michael McFaul, Russia’s Unfinished Revolution: Political Change from Gorbachev to Putin (Cornell University Press, 2001).
David Woodruff, Money Unmade: Barter and the Fate of Russian Capitalism (Cornell University Press, 1999).
Vadim Volkov, Violent Entrepreneurs: The Use of Force in the Making of Russian Capitalism (Cornell University Press, 2002).
Larry Diamond, Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999).
Richard Anderson et. al, Postcommunism and the Theory of Democracy (Princeton University Press, 2001).
Timothy Colton, Transitional Citizens: Voters and What Influences Them in the New Russia (Harvard University Press, 2000).
Marc Morjé Howard, The Weakness of Civil Society in Post-Communist Europe (Cambridge University Press, 2003).
William Zimmerman, The Russian People and Foreign Policy: Russian Elite and Mass Perspectives, 1993-2000 (Princeton University Press, 2002).
Additional articles and book excerpts will be made available in a format preferred by the majority of students at the first class session: electronic reserve, course packet, etc.
I would also recommend that those of you interested in current developments in the post-Soviet area sign up for the free email bulletins from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. At a minimum you might want to get Part I of the Newsline, but there are other options as well. See: http://www.rferl.org/subscribe/
COURSE EXPECATIONS AND GRADING
This course is a seminar; attendance and participation are essential. Each student is expected to complete all the readings each week and to contribute to the seminar discussion. You should bring the week’s readings to class. Additionally, by 12:00 on Monday each student should email me 2 questions about the week’s readings. These should be no more than a paragraph long, and should focus on some of the key themes of the readings. Failure to turn in questions on time will affect your participation grade. Turning in poorly thought out questions in a rush just to fulfill the letter of the assignment definitely will be noticed.
Each student will write three short (6-8 pages, double-spaced) review essays over the course of the semester. These essays will critically assess the readings for that week. They must be handed in at the class session for that week. We will assign these papers the first week, to get a good distribution.
The object of the papers is to identify the central issues that the assigned readings for the week address, to locate the authors’ positions vis-à-vis those issues, and to comment critically on the state of the debate and the value of the individual contributions to it. You should keep the following questions in mind. What are the central issues at stake in this literature? What are the principal arguments of the works under study? How does each relate to the debates in the field? What are the main theoretical or empirical strengths or weaknesses of the major studies? How valuable and viable is the theory that each proposes (if it proposes a theory)? How effectively does it marshal empirical evidence in support of the argument? Have the scholarly disputes in the readings been resolved, and what further work might be done to resolve them? Your paper should go beyond a summary of the readings toward critical commentary and a discussion of the issues that unite the works. See the final page of the syllabus for further discussion of these issues.
The papers will be evaluated according to the effectiveness and insight with which they illuminate the principal debates and scholarly contributions to them in an independent and critically-minded way. They obviously cannot cover all the conceivable issues raised by the readings, but they should certainly concentrate on the most important ones and eschew trivial issues.
These components of the course (participation, short essays) will comprise 55 percent of the grade.
The other major component of the class is a research paper. The research paper should be roughly 20-25 pages, double-spaced. I am fairly open to a variety of paper types, depending on the interests and background of the student. The one minimum standard is that the paper have SOMETHING to do with a Eurasian country (by which I mean primarily post-Soviet states, although I am open to persuasion on other countries). Ph.D. students also will be expected to employ some social science theory. Beyond that you can do something on a single country or multiple countries (including outside the region), contemporary or historical (although the paper should not be straight history), qualitative or quantitative. As I said, I am fairly open to letting you do what interests you. You are encouraged to consult with me about your paper topic as early and as often as you like (OK, within reason).
There will be several stages to the research paper. An initial, one page proposal with a one page bibliography is due on October 4. The proposal should lay out the issue/question and a rough idea about how you plan to answer this question. A lengthier, revised proposal is due on November 8. In this version you should already have a clearly formed question, a sense of the relevant literature, a good idea about how you will go about answering the question, and a more extensive bibliography. This document should be about five pages long. Failure to hand in any of the parts of the research paper assignment on time will result in a deduction from your final grade on the paper.
By November 22 you should be well into writing your paper. That class session will be devoted to a general discussion of your research papers and problems people may be having. See below for further instructions.
The final paper is due on December 8 by 10:00 a.m.
Students are encouraged to consult Stephen Van Evera, Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science (Cornell University Press, 1997), for a brief discussion of how to shape and write a research paper.
Grades will be based on the following:
Class participation 25%
Reaction/Discussion Papers 30%
Research Paper 45%
There is no final exam for the class.
COURSE POLICIES
Academic misconduct: SU's Academic Rules and Regulations require students to "exhibit honesty in all academic endeavors. Cheating in any form is not tolerated, nor is assisting another person to cheat. The submission of any work by a student is taken as a guarantee that the thoughts and expressions in it are the student's own except when properly credited to another. Violations of this principle include giving or receiving aid in an exam or where otherwise prohibited, fraud, plagiarism, . . . or any other deceptive act in connection with academic work. Plagiarism is the representation of another's words, ideas, programs, formulae, opinions, or other products of work as one's own, either overtly or by failing to attribute them to their true source" (Syracuse University Bulletin 2003-2004: p. 2). N.B. I take this VERY seriously.
Reasonable accommodation: If you have any disability that may prevent you from fully demonstrating your abilities in this course, you should contact me as soon as possible to discuss accommodations necessary to ensure your full participation and to facilitate your educational opportunities.
Religious holidays: In accordance with SU policy, I will excuse any absences that result from religious observances, provided that you notify me in advance of the planned absence.
COURSE SCHEDULE AND READINGS
August 30: Introduction
This meeting is primarily administrative, and a chance to get acquainted.
No class on September 6 (Labor Day).
Papers:
Readings:
Marshall Poe, The Russian Moment in World History, entire.
Valerie Bunce, Subversive Institutions, 20-55.
Stephen Kotkin, Armageddon Averted, 1-57.
Charles Tilly, Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990-1992 (Blackwell, 1992), 1-37, 187-191. (distributed in class)
Papers:
Readings:
Valerie Bunce, Subversive Institutions, 1-19, 56-164.
Stephen Kotkin, Armageddon Averted, 58-112.
Michael McFaul, Russia’s Unfinished Revolution, 33-117.
David Woodruff, Money Unmade, 56-78.
Papers:
Readings:
Vadim Volkov, Violent Entrepreneurs, entire.
Stephen Kotkin, Armageddon Averted, 142-170.
Max Weber, excerpt from “Politics as a Vocation,” in Gerth and Mills, eds., From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (Oxford University Press, 1946), 77-83. (packet or reserve)
William Reno, “Mafiya Troubles, Warlord Crises,” in Mark R. Beissinger and Crawford Young, eds., Beyond State Crisis? Postcolonial Africa and Post-Soviet Eurasia in Comparative Perspective (Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2002), 105-127. (packet or reserve)
INITIAL RESEARCH PAPER PROPOSAL DUE
Papers:
Readings:
Larry Diamond, Developing Democracy, 1-116, 261-278.
Richard Anderson et. al., Postcommunism and the Theory of Democracy, 1-95, 126-168.
Michael McFaul, Russia’s Unfinished Revolution, 1-29.
October 11: Political Institutions
Papers:
Readings:
Michael McFaul, Russia’s Unfinished Revolution, 121-306.
Gerald Easter, “Preference for Presidentialism: Postcommunist Regime Change in Russia and the NIS,” World Politics, 49 (January 1997), 184-211. (electronic – don’t forget the table!)
Jack Bielasiak, “The Institutionalization of Electoral and Party Systems in Postcommunist States,” Comparative Politics, 34, 2 (2002), 189-210. (packet or reserve)
October 18: Democratic Politics: Elections and Voters
Papers:
Readings:
Timothy Colton, Transitional Citizens, entire
Michael McFaul and Nikolai Petrov, “What the Elections Tell Us,” Journal of Democracy, 15, 3 (July 2004), 20-31. (electronic – either Project Muse or ProQuest PDF version)
Yuri Levada, “What the Polls Tell Us,” Journal of Democracy, 15, 3 (July 2004), 43-51. (electronic – either Project Muse or ProQuest PDF version)
Papers:
Readings:
Marc Howard, The Weakness of Civil Society, entire
Larry Diamond, Developing Democracy, 161-260.
James L. Gibson, “Social Networks, Civil Society, and the Prospects for Consolidating Russia's Democratic Transition,” American Journal of Political Science, 45, 1 (Jan. 2001), 51-68. (electronic – JSTOR)
November 1: The Politics of Economic Reform
Papers:
Readings:
David Woodruff, Money Unmade, 79-217.
Stephen Kotkin, Armageddon Averted, 113-141.
Joel Hellman, “Winners Take All: The Politics of Partial Reform in Post-Communist Transitions,” World Politics, 50, 2 (January 1998), 203-234. (packet or reserve – the Project Muse version is too clunky with all the figures and tables)
Juliet Johnson, A Fistful of Rubles: The Rise and Fall of the Russian Banking System (Cornell University Press, 2000), 1-25, 225-233. (packet or reserve)
November 8: Regional Politics
REVISED RESEARCH PAPER PROPOSAL DUE
Papers:
Readings:
Larry Diamond, Developing Democracy, 117-160.
Alfred Stepan, “Russian Federalism in Comparative Perspective,” Post-Soviet Affairs, 16, 2 (April-June 2000), 133-176. (packet or reserve)
Stephen Hanson, “Ideology, Interests, and Identity: Comparing the Soviet and Russian Secession Crises,” in Mikhail Alexseev, ed., Center-Periphery Conflict in Post-Soviet Russia: A Federation Imperiled (St. Martin’s Press, 1997), 15-46. (packet or reserve)
Henry Hale, “Making and Breaking Ethnofederal States: Why Russia Survives Where the USSR Fell,” Perspectives on Politics, forthcoming December 2004, xerox. (packet or reserve)
Nikolai Petrov and Darrell Slider, “Putin and the Regions,” in Dale Herspring, ed., Putin’s Russia: Past Imperfect, Future Uncertain (Rowman & Littlefield, 2003), 203-224. (packet or reserve)
James Hughes, “Chechnya: Understanding the Causes of a Protracted Post-Soviet Conflict,” Civil Wars 4, 4 (2001), 11-48. (packet or reserve)
Papers:
Readings:
Review Chapter 5 of Volkov, Violent Entrepreneurs.
Steven Miller and Dmitri Trenin, eds., The Russian Military: Power and Policy (MIT Press, forthcoming 2004).
Several chapters. This book will be published in September. At the moment I intend to assign the following 2 chapters:
Pavel Baev, “The Trajectory of the Russian Military: Downsizing, Degeneration, and Defeat.”
Dmitri Trenin: “Conclusion: Gold Eagle, Red Star.”
(The assigned chapters are subject to change once I have had a chance to review the book. Chapters will either be added to the packet or distributed.)
Alexander Golts and Tonya Putnam, "State Militarism and Its Legacies: Why Military Reform Has Failed in Russia,” International Security, forthcoming 29, 3 (winter 2004/05). (To be distributed. I will be getting page proofs from the editor sometime in October, and will distribute at that point.)
Olga Kryshtanovskaya and Stephen White, “Putin’s Militocracy,” Post-Soviet Affairs, 19, 4 (2003), 289-306. (packet or reserve)
Brian Taylor, “Russia’s Passive Army: Rethinking Military Coups,” Comparative Political Studies, 34, 8 (October 2001), 924-952. (electronic – Ingenta version)
Nikolai Petrov, “The Security Dimension of the Federal Reforms,” in Peter Reddaway and Robert W. Orttung, eds., The Dynamics of Russian Politics: Putin's Reform of Federal-Regional Relations, Volume II (Boulder: Rowman & Littlefield, forthcoming 2005), xerox. (packet or reserve)
Note: This week of the syllabus is most likely to change, because several items on the reading list are still forthcoming. I will give you plenty of advance warning about any changes.
This week will be devoted to a general discussion on issues and problems people are encountering with their papers. Are there theoretical, methodological, or empirical problems you are having? Each student will give a 1-2 minute description of their project, and the top 2 or 3 problems they have encountered. We will then discuss potential solutions, starting with those encountered most frequently and continuing through as many as we can in the time available.
Papers:
Readings:
William Zimmerman, The Russian People and Foreign Policy, entire
Ted Hopf, Social Construction of International Politics: Identities and Foreign Policies, 1955 & 1999 (Cornell University Press, 2002), 153-257. (packet or reserve)
No papers this week.
Readings:
Michael McFaul, Russia’s Unfinished Revolution, 309-371.
Stephen Kotkin, Armageddon Averted, 171-196.
Thomas Carothers, “The End of the Transition Paradigm,” Journal of Democracy, 13, 1 (January 2002), 5-21. (electronic – Project Muse PDF version)
Lilia Shevtsova, “The Limits of Bureaucratic Authoritarianism,” Journal of Democracy, 15, 3 (July 2004), 67-77. (electronic – either Project Muse or ProQuest PDF version)
Stephen Sestanovich, “Force, Money, and Pluralism,” Journal of Democracy, 15, 3 (July 2004), 32-42. (electronic – either Project Muse or ProQuest PDF version)
Note: I reserve the right to add an article or two from the October 2004 version of Current History, which is always devoted to Russia and Eurasia.
RESEARCH PAPER DUE DECEMBER 8, 10:00 A.M.
QUESTIONS FOR THINKING ABOUT THE READINGS/PAPERS
A. What is the central argument?
-- What causal chain is posited?
-- What are the variables (Independent, Intervening, Dependent)? How are they defined and operationalized?
-- What explanations are offered for the posited connections between the variables?
-- Try to arrow diagram the argument (a à b à c, etc.)
B. What are the major strengths and weakness of the argument?
-- Does the posited causal chain make sense? Is it clear?
-- How does the author use evidence? Is disconfirming evidence supressed or ignored? Are alternative explanations dealt with adequately?
-- Are you satisfied with the amount and persuasiveness of the evidence? Can you think of disconfirming evidence?
-- Are there relevant variables ignored by the author?
-- If you think the argument has problems, can it be fixed? Or is it fatally flawed?
C. How does this argument connect to the larger comparative politics literature, or developments in other countries?
-- Does it relate to other works discussed in this class? To works you have discussed in other classes?
-- Does this argument apply to other countries or regions? Why or why not?
D. Your personal judgment.
-- How would you rate the importance of the works?
E. If you feel a bit unclear about the nature of theory, and how they are tested, you may wish to consult:
Stephen Van Evera, Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science, Cornell University Press.
King, Keohane, and Verba, Designing Social Inquiry, Princeton University Press.