Lecture Notes for February 2, 2009

UK: Culture or Economic Factors? Britain has had a stable democracy because different norms developed Contestation developed before a large percentage of the population could vote, setting precedents when the vote was eventually extended Gradual inclusion -> Initial elite has norms to lose and disagree within limit because of inter-elite ties -> Political game characterized by civility and willingness to lose -> New entrants to the vote learn these norms -> Stable democracy This argument can be extended to other situations Simultaneous inclusion and contestation -> Participants not taught norms of restraint and agreeing to lose -> Participants more likely to seek to maximize agendas and resist losing -> Politics characterized by conflict -> Unstable democracy Italy, France had simultaneous inclusion and contestation -> unstable Germany and Spain had inclusion before contestation -> unstable Similar to how the plurality of people who came to early America were German but learned English; the British came to America first and spoke English so the later groups of immigrants learned the language too Dahl argues people adapted to norms because of culture, not because of self-interest He traces people?s ideas to a tangible cause outside their heads He?s pessimistic about countries where inclusion and contestation happened together Dahl?s second explanation for agreeing to disagree and agree is wealth: the higher people?s incomes the more likely they are to have limited disagreements Wealth diffuses power throughout society so groups can pursue interests without anyone being able to impose its view Another theory is wealth reduces conflict between major classes: more economically-secure lower classes can afford to be more moderate which makes the middle and upper classes more secure including them in political process