Institute of Social Sciences

PhD Programme in Political Science and International Relations

POLS 605 Comparative Politics (2009-2010 Spring)

(Working Copy, Subject to Change, 23 Feb 2010)

Prerequisites: None Special Requirements: None

Instructor: Ihsan Yilmaz Office: FA-604 E-mail: iyilmaz@fatih.edu.tr

Office Hours: M. 11-12, Tu. 16-17, Th. 12-13

Course Objectives
1. This course emphasizes substantial reading, intensive writing, careful analysis,
systematic evaluation, rigorous training in conceptual ability, research ability, critical
thinking, and writing, speaking and leadership skills.
2. Critically discussing and analyzing series of key issues in comparative politics
3. Examining and taking position in the debates in which comparativist political
scientists have engaged to address the key concepts, issues, and concerns.
4. Communicating this understanding while synthesizing knowledge from various
sources.
5. Organizing their research objects, categorizing materials and sources and being able to
produce clear outlines of this research.
6. Wedding empirical research to abstract conceptualization and sophisticated and
theoretically informed analysis.

Course description
This course introduces students to the comparative politics field. It is organized as a seminar
that surveys major topics in comparative politics for Ph.D. students, addressing topics of
special importance in the sub-field, even though it does not claim to be exhaustive. This class
aims to familiarize students with the main theories and types of analysis within the field of
comparative politics, and to offer pragmatic applications for them. It is designed to help
students think theoretically and critically about the study of comparative politics. In this
seminar, we examine the historical development and trends of comparative politics and
studies. We also focus on the logic and process of comparison and methodologies in
comparative political studies, in addition to exploring some major theories in comparative
politics, such as political system, state and society, elections, party systems, development,
modernization, democracy, democratic transitions, interdependency, dependency,
underdevelopment, transnationalism and globalization.
The course has three major goals:
 To introduce the students to the conceptual foundations of comparative politics;
 To enhance students’ analytical and critical-thinking skills

POLS 605 Comparative Politics, Ihsan Yilmaz, 1/12

  To promote students’ awareness of the main approaches, issues and concerns within
the discipline
While reviewing some major concepts, questions and issues that comparative politics scholars
are currently examining, this course’s main goal is to prepare the students conceptually and
intellectually for undertaking quality comparative academic work. To this end, the seminar
endeavors to focus on the major substantive, theoretical and empirical research questions
concerning comparative politics. The literature to be read and discussed should only be
considered a sampling of a very diverse field. The seminar meetings themselves aim at
constructive criticism and analysis of these works. Students are also advised to relate these
discussions and questioning to their own academic interests.

Through seminars, critical reading, and informed discussion, this course will enable students
to evaluate and engage ongoing debates regarding comparative politics. Students’ both
reaction and research papers will develop their cognitive skills and prepare them to write
analytically about an issue with considerable significance in the study of comparative politics
and political science.

Attendance
You are expected to attend all classes. If you are not able to come to class, you need to notify
me by e-mail before the class, explaining your excuse. Those who attend less than 70% of the
class time will fail.

Grading Policy (Option A) Grading Policy (Option B)

Weekly Reaction Papers (20%)
Leading the Discussion (15%)
Participation in Class Discussions (15%)
Research Paper (30%)
Final Exam (20%)
Weekly Reaction Papers (30%)
Leading the Discussion (15%)
Participation in Class Discussions (15%)
Final Exam (40%)

Please notify me by e-mail which option you have chosen by 28 February 2010.

Weekly Reaction Papers

The reading load for this course is necessarily heavy. The reading may prove overwhelming at
times. Please note that it is your responsibility to get a copy of the reading material either in
soft or hard copy.
For every week, every student must e-mail me a short written reaction paper (by Monday
17.00, so that I can have a look at them and print them for the class) that answers the
following five questions for each required reading (chapter & paper):
1) Sum up the most important argument of each article and book chapter. What major point is
the author trying to make?
2) Identify the methodology that the author uses to support his/her argument, in one sentence.
3) Give one important insight and/or fact that you gained from this reading, again in one
sentence. That is, what do you now understand or know that you didn’t before doing this
reading? What was most valuable to you about this reading?
4) Give one major critique of the reading, again in one sentence - consider methodology,
logic, biases, omissions, etc. Does the author prove his/her argument convincingly?

POLS 605 Comparative Politics, Ihsan Yilmaz, 2/12

5) If you heard the author presenting this work at a conference, what probing question would
you ask him/her? In your judgment, this question should be a possible exam question. In other
words, it should reflect the main insight(s) that need to be gained from the week’s readings
and should thus be a good exam question.
These reaction papers will be graded either “check,” “check-minus,” or “check-plus.” To earn
a check, you must answer all five questions for each reading, and the answers must reflect a
solid understanding of the readings (i.e., don’t try to do this after skimming the first and last
paragraphs of an article). On rare occasions, especially thoughtful sets of answers may receive
a check plus.
The point of these reactions papers is NOT TO SUMMARIZE the reading, but rather to raise
questions or discussion points for us to think about during the seminar. This is a seminar, and
thus what we cover will in part be governed by what you find perplexing.
Please note that readings are divided into two parts: required and recommended. Unlike the
usual practice, the recommended readings in this syllabus are not for further reading but for
those of you who are not from political science background, endeavoring to provide you with
introductory knowledge. A further reading list will also be given to the students.

Leading the Discussion

Assignments for leading the discussion will be made at the first meeting. Although every
student is expected to do the reading, the discussion leaders are expected to have digested and
analyzed the reading at a level that makes it possible for them to assume responsibility for
forming the discussion. Put differently, the role of the discussion leader goes beyond simply
summarizing the reading under question (presumably all will have read it). The leaders should
tease out special questions or problems that appear worthy of attention, and also endeavour to
show the relevance of the reading to broader issues under consideration. To aid in this, please
prepare a one page guideline to the discussion that can be shared with other seminar
participants. If the leader of the week does not come to the class without any very serious
excuse, s/he will fail the course with FF for obstructing the smooth running of the course.

Participation in Class Discussion

Because this is a discussion course, active participation is essential. We expect each person to
have read assigned selections every week for discussion and to be ready to contribute to the
conversation. Vigorous classroom participation is essential to making the course a success, as
will timely completion of the readings.
Everyone is expected to be present and to participate in discussions. If you wish to be a
member of the community of scholars, you incur obligations to listen to others and to help
build on their ideas.
Arrive on time and do not skip classes. Come prepared to join the conversation.
Always bring the readings to class. We will make frequent reference to them.

Research Paper
You are required to write a research paper on the course theme, which accounts for 30% of
your final grade. You can discuss an issue of your choice raised by the required readings. You
should structure your papers not as literature reviews but as topic or problem-focused essays,
in which you present an argument dealing with a particular research area (or areas) and use
materials from the assigned readings to support your argument.

POLS 605 Comparative Politics, Ihsan Yilmaz, 3/12

Make sure that your papers have a minimum of summary, are clearly argued, and do not
wander from one unrelated point to the next. Most importantly, let me know in the
introductory paragraph what your chosen focus is, how you are going to analyze it, and what
your main argument will be. Spelling, grammar, and style count. Include a complete
bibliography.
Your research paper should be 5000-7000 words (not counting the bibliography), double-
spaced, with reasonable margins and in 12-point font.
Your main sources of citation must be academic journals and books. At a minimum, you
should use 25 sources (with plenty footnotes) from academic journal articles and books.
Please keep quotations very short unless absolutely necessary. Since you are preparing for an
academic career, I encourage you to strive for the highest quality paper possible. Please
format and cite the paper using the Chicago Manual of Style (parenthetical citations). Please
refer to the following website for formatting guidelines:
http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html
As a general rule, a topic for the paper must be closely related to the course theme or some
aspects of the subject matter covered in this course. Therefore, a self-selected topic for the
paper must be submitted in writing and approved by me as early as possible.
You are required to submit a topic proposal, which includes such key research elements as
“what is your paper topic,” “what is your research question,” “why this question,” “how to
solve this question,” and “what are the major sources of your research,” before or on Tuesday
April 6, 2010. This way, I can help you narrow your topic and try to guide you towards
important sources.
I am always happy to read drafts of your paper and give you a feedback. Your paper is due
Friday June 11, 2010. Please submit it by only e-mail and make sure to receive a confirmation
of receipt. I will not grade late papers, because that would put those who complied with the
deadline at a disadvantage.

POLS 605 Survival Skills

Overview
This course provides an overview of some of the core concepts and works in comparative
politics. The syllabus is the product of a close review of related courses at comparable
universities, along with my and my colleagues’ thinking about what basic training in
Comparative Politics at a PhD level entails.

Schedule
This class meets for 3 hours; please arrive promptly so that we may utilize our time fully.
Habitual latecomers will not be tolerated.

Remember
That skimming is an important professional skill. You need to read purposively or
strategically, to identify:
• The main question the author wants to answer;
• The definition of the dependent variable, or what the author wants to explain;
• The main independent variables (causes, explanatory factors) the author thinks are
important;

POLS 605 Comparative Politics, Ihsan Yilmaz, 4/12

 • The theory, or logical argument, that knits independent to dependent variables in
causal explanations;
• The author’s research design: the main types of evidence the author uses to test his
or her ideas and the way the evidence was obtained.
Also remember that this course is mainly a “theory” course, not a “fact” course. You don’t
have to memorize the histories or facts presented in what you read.

Feeling lost?
Depending on the kind of preparation you had as an undergraduate, some of the terms,
methods, and basic facts assumed in the readings may be unfamiliar. Basic textbooks can help
fill in gaps.

Use me to facilitate your goal

Should you have any question about any aspect of this course or experience difficulty, please
do not wait until the last minute to discuss it with me. You may reach me either during my
office hours or by appointment. You may also talk with me right after class. Please take
advantage of all these opportunities. You can always reach me by e-mail but please restrict
yourself to short and technical queries. I do not have time to read and respond to long and
detailed e-mails. Such e-mails will not be replied. You should discuss your concerns with me
face-to-face.

Writing quality counts

Clear, careful writing is vital professional skill. It is essential for effective communication,
and it lowers the amount of time a reader has to spend to “get your message.” You should
check syntax, grammar, word choice, spelling, and neatness in your papers. Aim for a clear,
concise, professional tone. Better to demonstrate that you can clarify a previously murky
argument or to show that you can create new approaches when previous ones disappoint than
to belittle previous attempts.

Academic misconduct
Academic misconduct will not be tolerated. Examples of misconduct include violating rules
stated in this syllabus, cheating, plagiarism (please learn in detail and precisely what amounts
to plagiarism; not knowing is not an excuse), and dishonesty. All of the work you hand in
within this course is expected to be your own. Cheating or plagiarism is an insult to me, your
peers, and yourself; it is not to be tolerated and will be penalised with FF. Moreover, instances
of cheating and plagiarism will be handled according to the University disciplinary rules.

POLS 605 Comparative Politics, Ihsan Yilmaz, 5/12

 Reading Schedule
(Working Copy, Subject to Change, 23 Feb 2010)

1. Introduction to Comparative Politics

Required:
 W1-1 Michael J. Sodaro. 2008. Comparative Politics: What is it? Why Study it?
Comparative Politics: A Global Introduction. NYC, McGraw Hill. 3-30.
 W1-2 Michael J. Sodaro. 2008. Major Topics of Comparative Politics. Comparative
Politics: A Global Introduction. NYC, McGraw Hill. 31-59.
 W1-3 Gabriel A. Almond and G. Bingham Powell, Jr.1996. Issues in Comparative
Politics. Comparative Politics: A Theoretical Framework. 3-25.
 W1-4 B. Guy Peters. 1998. The Importance of Comparison. Comparative Politics:
Theory and Methods. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.1-27.

Recommended:
 W1-5 Rod Hague and Martin Harrop. 2007. Contents. Comparative Government and
Politics: An Introduction. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. iii-xvi.
 W1-6 Rod Hague and Martin Harrop. 2007. The Comparative Approach. Comparative
Government and Politics: An Introduction. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. 83-99.
 W1-7 Michael G. Roskin. 2007. Lessons of 9 Countries. Countries and Concepts:
Politics, Geography, and Culture, Prentice Hall. 572-576.

2. The Comparative Method

Required:
 W2-8 Gabriel A. Almond and G. Bingham Powell, Jr.1996. Concepts in Comparative
Politics. Comparative Politics: A Theoretical Framework. 26-40.
 W2-9 Michael J. Sodaro. 2008. Critical Thinking about Politics: Analytical
Techniques of Political Science – The Logic of Hypothesis Testing. Comparative
Politics: A Global Introduction. NYC, McGraw Hill. 60-97.
 W2-10 B. Guy Peters. 1998. The Logic of Comparison. Comparative Politics: Theory
and Methods. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. 28-57.

Recommended:
 W2-11 Arend Lijphart. 1971. Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method. The
American Political Science Review, Vol. 65, No. 3. 682-693.
 W2-12 Giovanni Sartori. 1970. Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics.
American Political Science Review 64, 4. 1033-1053.
 W2-13 Atul Kohli et al. 1996. The Role of theory in Comparative Politics: A
Symposium. 1-28.
 W2-14 Mahoney, James. 2007a. Qualitative Methodology and Comparative Politics.
Comparative Political Studies 40(2): 122-144.

POLS 605 Comparative Politics, Ihsan Yilmaz, 6/12

3. Constitutional & Representative Government

Required:
 W3-15 Michael J. Sodaro. 2008. The State and Its Institutions. Comparative Politics:
A Global Introduction. NYC, McGraw Hill. 124-146.
 W3-16 Jürgen Habermas and William Rehg. 2001. Constitutional Democracy: A
Paradoxical Union of Contradictory Principles? Political Theory. Vol. 29, No. 6 (Dec.,
2001), pp. 766-781.
 W3-17 Mainwaring, Scott and Matthew Shugart. 1997. Juan Linz, Presidentialism,
and Democracy: A Critical Appraisal. Comparative Politics. 29(4): 449-471.
 W3-18 Stepan, Alfred, and Cindy Skach. 1993. Constitutional Frameworks and
Democratic Consolidation: Parliamentarianism Versus Presidentialism. World
Politics. 46(1): 1-22.

Recommended:
 W3-19 Rod Hague and Martin Harrop. 2007. Constitutions and the Legal Framework.
Comparative Government and Politics: An Introduction. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
259-280.

4. Linking Society and State: Political Participation and Elections

Required:
 W4-20 Neil Boyle. 2009. Integration and political participation: Immigrants and the
2009 local elections in Ireland. Studies: An Irish Quarterly. 98(398). 59-69.
 W4-21 Ken’ichi Ikeda, Tetsuro Kobayashi, and Maasa Hoshimoto. 2008. Does
political participation make a difference? The relationship between political choice,
civic engagement and political efficacy. Electoral Studies. 27(1). 77-88.
 W4-22 Olgun Akbulut. 2005. The State of Political Participation of Minorities in
Turkey – An Analysis under the ECHR and the ICCPR. International Journal on
Minority and Group Rights. (12). 375–395.
 W4-23 Robert J. J. Voogt and Willem E. Saris. 2003. To Participate or Not to
Participate: The Link Between Survey Participation, Electoral Participation, and
Political Interest. Political Analysis. 11. 164-179.
 W4-24 Kate Kenski and Natalie Jomini Stroud. 2006. Connections between Internet
Use and Political Efficacy, Knowledge, and Participation. Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media. 50(2). 173–192.

Recommended:
 W4-25 Rod Hague and Martin Harrop. 2007. Political Participation. Comparative
Government and Politics: An Introduction. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. 165-184
 W4-26 Rod Hague and Martin Harrop. 2007. Elections and Voters. Comparative
Government and Politics: An Introduction. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. 185-208.
 W4-27 Rod Hague and Martin Harrop. 2007. Political Parties. Comparative
Government and Politics: An Introduction. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. 231-255.
 W4-28 Alan Ware. 1997. The Classification of Party systems. Political Parties and
Party Systems. Oxford University Press. 147-183.

POLS 605 Comparative Politics, Ihsan Yilmaz, 7/12

5. Authoritarianism, Totalitarianism, Autocracy

Required:
 W5-29 Hannah Arendt. 1963. A Classless Society. In: Harry Eckstein and David E.
Apter (eds) Comparative Politics: A Reader. London: The Free Press of Glencoe. 440-
458.
 W5-30 J. L. Talmon. 1963. The Rise of Totalitarian Democracy. In: Harry Eckstein
and David E. Apter (eds) Comparative Politics: A Reader. London: The Free Press of
Glencoe. 459-463.
 W5-31 Carl J. Friedrich and Zbigniew K. Brzezinski. 1963. Totalitarian Dictatorship
and Autocracy. In: Harry Eckstein and David E. Apter (eds) Comparative Politics: A
Reader. London: The Free Press of Glencoe. 464-473.
 W5-32 Frederic Volpi. 2004. Pseudo-Democracy in the Muslim World. Third World
Quarterly. Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 1061–1078.
 W5-33 Larry Diamond. 2002. Thinking about Hybrid Regimes: Elections without
Democracy. Journal of Democracy. Volume 13, Number 2. 21-35.

Recommended:
 W5-34 Rod Hague and Martin Harrop. 2007. The State. Comparative Government
and Politics: An Introduction. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. 23-42
 W5-35 Rod Hague and Martin Harrop. 2007. Democracy. Comparative Government
and Politics: An Introduction. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. 43-60
 W5-36 Rod Hague and Martin Harrop. 2007. Authoritarian Rule. Comparative
Government and Politics: An Introduction. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. 61-82

6. Modernisation, Transition to Democracy, Democratisation

Required:
 W6-37 Danwart A. Rustow. 1970. Transitions to Democracy: Toward a Dynamic
Model. Comparative Politics. 2(3). 337-363.
 W6-38 Zehra F. Arat. 1988. Democracy and Economic Development: Modernization
Theory Revisited. Comparative Politics, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Oct., 1988), 21-36.
 W6-39 Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi. 1993. Political Regimes and
Economic Growth. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 7, No. 3 (Summer,
1993), 51-69.
 W6-40 Valerie Bunce. 2000. Comparative Democratization: Big and Bounded
Generalizations. Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 33 No. 6/7.703-734.
 W6-41 Thomas Carothers. 2002. The End of the Transition Paradigm. Journal of
Democracy. 13(1). 5-21.

Recommended:
 W6-42 Michael J. Sodaro. 2008. Democracy: What is it? Comparative Politics: A
Global Introduction. NYC, McGraw Hill. 171-193..
 W6-43 Michael J. Sodaro. 2008. Democracy: How does it work? Comparative
Politics: A Global Introduction. NYC, McGraw Hill. 194-220.
 W6-44 Michael J. Sodaro. 2008. Democracy: What does it take? Comparative
Politics: A Global Introduction. NYC, McGraw Hill. 221-241.

POLS 605 Comparative Politics, Ihsan Yilmaz, 8/12

7. Contention, Political Change, Reform, Revolutions

Required:
 W7-45 December Green and Laura Luehrman. 2007. Political Transitions: Real or
Virtual. Comparative Politics of the Third World: Linking Concepts and Cases.
Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. 331-342.
 W7-46 Ivo K. Feierabend, Rosalind L. Feierabend, Betty A. Nesvold. 1973. The
Comparative Study of Revolution and Violence. Comparative Politics. 5(3). 393-424.
 W7-47 Erich Weede and Edward N. Muller. 1998. Rebellion, Violence and
Revolution: A Rational Choice Perspective. Journal of Peace Research, 35(1). 43-59.
 W7-48 Charles Tilly. 2005. Revolutions. Regimes and Repertoires. Chicago and
London: The University of Chicago Press. 151-178.
 W7-49 McAdam, Tarrow, Tilly. 2007. Comparative Perspectives on Contentious
Politics. Chapter for revised edition of Mark Lichbach and Alan Zuckerman (eds.),
Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure: Advancing Theory in
Comparative Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1-42.

Recommended:
 W7-50 December Green and Laura Luehrman. 2007. From Ideas to Action: the Power
of Civil Society. Comparative Politics of the Third World: Linking Concepts and
Cases. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. 187-224.
 W7-51 Vickie Langohr. 2004. Too Much Civil Society, Too Little Politics”
Comparative Politics 36 (2): 181-204.

8. Dependency, World System, Globalization

Required:
 W8-52 Ronald H. Chilcote. 2002. Globalization or Imperialism? Latin American
Perspectives. 29(6). 80-84.
 W8-53 Andre Gunder Frank. 1975. Development and Underdevelopment in the New
World: Smith and Marx vs. the Weberians. Theory and Society. 2(4). 431-466.
 W8-54 Andre Gunder Frank. 1967. The Development of Underdevelopment.
Reprinted in 1981 in Michael Smith, Richard Little and Michael Shackleton (eds),
Perspectives on World Politics. 276-290.
 W8-55 Jeff Haynes. 2003. Tracing Connections between Comparative Politics and
Globalisation. Third World Quarterly. 24(6). 1029–1047.

Recommended:
 W8-56 Immanuel Wallerstein. 1976. The Modern World-System. In I. Wallerstein,
The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European
World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press. 229-233.
 W8-57 December Green and Laura Luehrman. 2007. Globalization: Cause or Cure for
Underdevelopment? Comparative Politics of the Third World: Linking Concepts and
Cases. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. 107-138.
 W8-58 Ronald H. Chilcote. 1974. Dependency: A Critical Synthesis of the Literature.
Latin American Perspectives. 1(1). 4-29.

POLS 605 Comparative Politics, Ihsan Yilmaz, 9/12

  W8-59 Ronald H. Chilcote. 1978. A Question of Dependency. Latin American
Research Review. 13(2). 55-68.
 W8-60 Immanuel Wallerstein. 2004. World-Systems Analysis. In George Modelski
(ed) World System History in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems. EOLSS
Publishers, Oxford ,UK. 1-14.

9. Interdependency and Transnationalism

Required:
 W9-61 Robert O. Keohane and Jospeh S. Nye. 1998. Power and Interdependence in
the Information Age. Foreign Affairs. 77(5). 81-94.
 W9-62 William Wallace. 1986. What Price Independence? Sovereignty and
Interdependence in British Politics. International Affairs (Royal Institute of
International Affairs). 62(3). 367-389.
 W9-63 Alejandro Portes, Luis E. Guarnizo and Patricia Landolt, Guarniz. 1999. The
Study of Transnationalism: Pitfalls and Promise of An Emergent Research Field.
Ethnic and Racial Studies. 22(2). 217-237.
 W9-64 Rainer Bauböck. 2003. Towards a Political Theory of Migrant
Transnationalism. International Migration Review. 37(3).700-723.
 W9-65 Eva Østergaard-Nielsen. 2003. The Politics of Migrants' Transnational
Political Practices. International Migration Review. 37(3). 760-786.

Recommended:
 W9-66 Steven Vertovec. 1999. Conceiving and Researching Transnationalism. Ethnic
and Racial Studies. 22(2). 1-14.
 W9-67 Samuel P. Huntington. 1973. Transnational Organizations in World Politics.
World Politics. 25(3). 333-368
 W9-68 Joseph S. Nye, Jr. and Robert O. Keohane. 1971a. International Organization
25(3). 329-349
 W9-69 Joseph S. Nye, Jr. and Robert O. Keohane. 1971b. Transnational Relations and
World Politics: A Conclusion. International Organization 25(3). 721-748.

10. Religion, Society, State, Secularism

Required:
 W10-70 Jürgen Habermas. 2006. Religion in the Public Sphere. European Journal of
Philosophy. 14:1. 1–25.
 W10-71 John Keane, “The Limits of Secularism”, Tamimi&Esposito (eds) Islam and
Secularism in the Middle East, 29-37.
 W10-72 Peter L. Berger. Secularism in Retreat. In: Tamimi&Esposito (eds) Islam and
Secularism in the Middle East. 38-51.
 W10-73 Ihsan Yilmaz. 2002. Secular Law and the Emergence of Unofficial Turkish
Islamic Law. Middle East Journal. 56(1). 113-131.
 W10-74 Ihsan Yilmaz. 2005a. Post-Modern Muslim Legality and Its Consequences. In
Ihsan Yilmaz, Muslim Laws, Politics and Society in Modern Nation States: Dynamic
Legal Pluralisms in England, Turkey and Pakistan. Aldershot: Ashgate. 143-159.

POLS 605 Comparative Politics, Ihsan Yilmaz, 10/12

 Recommended:
 W10-75 Ahmet T. Kuru. 2007. Passive and Assertive Secularism: Historical
Conditions, Ideological Struggles, and State Policies toward Religion. World Politics.
59. 568-94.
 W10-76 Jürgen Habermas. 2005. Equal Treatment of Cultures and the Limits of
Postmodern Liberalism. The Journal of Political Philosophy: Volume 13, Number 1,
2005, pp. 1–28.
 W10-77 Elisabeth Shakman Hurd. 2008. Secularism and Islam. The Politics of
Secularism in International Relations. 46-64.

11. Case Study: Muslim Politics

Required:
 W11-78 Dale F. Eickelman and James Piscatori. 1996. What is Muslim Politics?
Muslim Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 3-21.
 W11-79 Robert Hefner. 2005. Introduction: Modernity and Remaking of Muslim
Politics. Remaking Muslim Politics: Pluralism, Contestation, Democratization. 1-36.
 W11-80 Thomas J. Butko. 2004. Revelation or Revolution: A Gramscian Approach to
the Rise of Political Islam. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies. 31(1). 41–62.
 W11-81 Ihsan Yilmaz. 2009. Muslim Democrats in Turkey and Egypt: Participatory
Politics as a Catalyst. Insight Turkey. 11(2). 93-112.
 W11-82 June Edmunds. 2009. ‘Elite’ Young Muslims in Britain: From Transnational
to Global Politics. Contemporary Islam: Dynamics of Muslim Life. 4-24.

Recommended:
 W11-83 John L. Esposito and John O. Voll. 1996. Islam and Democracy. New York
and Oxford: Oxford UP. 3-51.
 W11-84 John L. Esposito, “Islam and Secularism in the Twenty-First Century.
Tamimi & Esposito (eds) Islam and Secularism in the Middle East, 1-12.
 W11-85 Ahmet T. Kuru. 2005. Globalization and Diversification of Islamic
Movements: Three Turkish Cases. Political Science Quarterly. 120(2). 253-274.

12. Case Study: Turkish Politics

Required:
 W12-86 Erik J. Zürcher. 1992. The Qttoman Legacy of the Turkish Republic: An
Attempt at a New Periodization. Die Welt des Islams. 32(2). 237-253.
 W12-87 Reşat Kasaba. 2001. Kemalist Certainties and Modern Ambiguities. In Sibel
Bozdoğan and Reşat Kasaba (eds) Rethinking Modernity and National Identity in
Turkey, University of Washington Press.
 W12-88 Çağlar Keyder. 2001. Whither the Project of Modernity’? Turkey in the
1990s. In Sibel Bozdoğan and Reşat Kasaba (eds) Rethinking Modernity and National
Identity in Turkey, University of Washington Press.
 W12-89 Haldun Gülalp. 2005. Enlightenment by Fiat: Secularization and Democracy
in Turkey. Middle Eastern Studies. 41(3). 351 – 372.
 W12-90 Ihsan Yilmaz. 2005b. State, Law, Civil Society and Islam in Contemporary
Turkey. Muslim World. 95. 385-411.

POLS 605 Comparative Politics, Ihsan Yilmaz, 11/12

  W12-91 Berna Turam. 2004. The Politics of Engagement between Islam and the
Secular State: The Ambivalences of Civil Society. The British Journal of Sociology.
55(2). 259-281.

Recommended:
 W12-92 Fuat E. Keyman and Berrin Koyuncu, ‘Globalization, Alternative
Modernities and the Political Economy of Turkey’, Review of International Political
Economy, Vol. 12, N. 1, February 2005.
 W12-93 Kim Shively 2008. Taming Islam: Studying Religion in Secular Turkey.
Anthropological Quarterly. 81 (3). 683-711.
 W12-94 Umit Cizre Sakallioglu. 1996. Parameters and Strategies of Islam-State
Interaction in Republican Turkey. International Journal of Middle East Studies. 28(2).
231-251.

13. Future Directions in Comparative Politics

Required:
 W13-95 B.Guy Peters. 1998. The Future of Comparative Politics. Comparative
Politics: Theory and Methods, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. 212-226
 W13-96 Howard J. Wiarda. 1998. Is Comparative Politics Dead? Rethinking the Field
in the Post-Cold War Era. Third World Quarterly. 19(5). 935 949.
 W13-97 Gerardo L. Munck and Richard Snyder. 2007. Debating the Direction of
Comparative Politics: An Analysis of the Leading Journals. Comparative Political
Studies. 40(1). 5-31.
 W13-98 James Mahoney. 2007. Debating the State of Comparative Politics: Views
from Qualitative Research. Comparative Political Studies. 40(1). 32-38.
 W13-99 Erik Wibbels. 2007. No Method to the Comparative Politics Madness.
Comparative Political Studies. 40(1). 39-44.
 W13-100 Gerardo L. Munck and Richard Snyder. 2007. Visions of Comparative
Politics: A Reply to Mahoney and Wibbels. Comparative Political Studies. 40(1). 45-
47.

POLS 605 Comparative Politics, Ihsan Yilmaz, 12/12