Pols 366 Options D And E Final Research Paper Due On 12/17 ✓ Solved

Pols 366 Options D And E Final Research Paperdue On 1217technical I

Your assignment is to compare two of our case countries (Japan, India, and China). Your paper should be 15-20 pages long and no longer than 20 pages. A good answer must include materials from class readings and lectures, as well as six solid references from outside sources which are peer reviewed and that analyze the concepts you are using and the connections between them (Wikipedia and other online sources are not appropriate for this assignment). Your paper should be double spaced in Times New Roman font 12 point; with page numbers and a title on the first page (a separate title page is not necessary).

Margins should be no larger than 1 inch on the sides and 1.25 inches top and bottom. Your paper will be graded on the following criteria:

  • You must answer all questions and provide reasons for your choices. Support your arguments with evidence and examples using clear and logical organization.
  • You must demonstrate an understanding of the concepts and ideas we have covered throughout the course and utilize theories of development and political participation from the last section of the course.
  • You must turn in an organization outline of your paper to share in class on April 30th as well as a 5-minute presentation on your cases or indicators which should include a visual component on May 5th or May 7th.

Option D – Legitimacy and Political Movements

Begin by explaining clearly the concepts of legitimacy and internal conflict; then choose a facet of legitimacy or political movements in two of our case countries and compare them. Give a detailed and clearly presented explanation of the legitimacy issue or the political movements you are examining. How have the two countries you have chosen to compare dealt with such issues? How have these problems influenced issues of governance and how do the political systems in the states you have chosen reflect values systems particular to that country or Asia in general?

Be mindful about the cases which you use to compare and develop that comparison in a separate section of your essay. The comparison should include the rationale for choosing these countries and cases — what have you learned from this comparison, what did you expect to find? How do these similarities or differences speak to the major themes of the course? Why is this comparison useful and/or illuminating?

Option E – Democracy and Development Indicators

Begin by explaining the concepts of democracy and development, then familiarize yourself with two or more websites that include indicators claiming to measure democracy and development. Examples include the UN Development Program on human development indicators and the World Bank Institute website on governance indicators as well as the International Parliamentary Union. Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the definitions and choice of indicators that these sites use. This should be a solid critique of what is included, implied, and omitted in the indicators.

Your next step is to analyze one set of indicators by comparing two or three of our case countries. You will need to explain the logic of your choice of countries in terms of the broader value to comparative politics. The central question to address is: what does the database tell you about the links between development and democracy in the countries you are comparing?

Construct and discuss at least one formal, comparative table using the database. Do not cut and paste from the website; instead, create your own table using Excel or another similar program. The final section of your essay will present an analysis of the data for your countries in terms of your understanding of development and democracy. Where and why are there similarities? Do some secondary research to determine why there might be similarities or differences. What do the data NOT tell you that would help answer your questions?

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

In this paper, I compare the political legitimacy and movements in Japan and India, focusing on how each country addresses internal conflict and legitimacy issues. I also analyze democracy and development indicators based on data from reputable sources to explore how these concepts interrelate in the two nations.

Conceptual Framework

Legitimacy in political science refers to the widespread acceptance of a government's authority, often rooted in legal, cultural, or ideological grounds. Internal conflict includes ethnic, political, or social strife that challenges state authority. Understanding how states manage legitimacy and conflict provides insight into their stability and governance.

Legitimacy and Political Movements in Japan and India

Japan's approach to legitimacy, rooted in post-war pacifism and constitutional democracy, emphasizes social consensus and political stability. Its political movements tend to focus on social issues and technological innovation rather than insurgency or ethnic strife. Conversely, India faces complex legitimacy challenges stemming from ethnic diversity, regional disparities, and historical tensions. Movements such as regional insurgencies and demands for autonomy exemplify struggles for legitimacy and recognition.

In Japan, legitimacy is sustained through institutional stability and the pacifist constitution, whereas in India, legitimacy often hinges on accommodating diversity, federalism, and electoral processes. These different approaches reflect their unique historical trajectories, cultural values, and societal structures.

Comparison and Analysis

The rationale for comparing Japan and India lies in their status as large, diverse Asian democracies with distinct approaches to internal conflict. The comparison reveals that Japan’s stability is reinforced by a strong institutional framework and cultural homogeneity, while India’s diversity necessitates flexible and inclusive governance mechanisms. Both cases demonstrate different pathways to maintaining legitimacy amid internal conflict, which impacts governance and policy-making.

These differences illuminate how cultural values and historical contexts influence political legitimacy and the management of internal conflict. The comparison enhances understanding of the spectrum of governance strategies in Asia and offers lessons for managing internal conflict and strengthening legitimacy.

Democracy and Development Indicators

To explore the link between democracy and development, I examined data from the World Bank Governance Indicators and UN Human Development Reports for Japan and India. The indicators include measures such as political stability, government effectiveness, and human development index scores.

The World Bank data show that Japan scores high on governance and development indices, reflecting strong institutions, economic stability, and social well-being. India’s scores are lower, indicating challenges in governance, policy implementation, and human development. These differences highlight the varied trajectories of democratic maturation and development in the two countries.

Constructing a comparative table clarified these disparities: Japan’s high governance effectiveness correlates with better development outcomes, whereas India’s mixed scores suggest areas for improvement. Secondary research attributes some of these differences to historical factors, institutional capacity, and cultural dimensions affecting governance and development policies.

However, the data omits qualitative aspects like social cohesion, informal institutions, and cultural values that significantly influence development and democracy. Recognizing these limitations underscores the importance of integrating quantitative data with contextual understanding.

Conclusion

The comparison of Japan and India illustrates how cultural, historical, and institutional factors shape legitimacy, internal conflict management, and development. While Japan’s model demonstrates stability through institutional strength, India’s approach emphasizes inclusiveness to accommodate diversity. Understanding these differences enriches the broader analysis of Asian political systems and provides insights into managing internal conflict and fostering sustainable development.

References

  • Ambedkar, B. R. (1949). The Problem of the Rupee. Bombay: University of Bombay.
  • World Bank. (2022). World Governance Indicators. Retrieved from https://databank.worldbank.org/source/

    worldwide-governance-indicators

  • United Nations Development Programme. (2022). Human Development Reports. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/indicators/137506
  • Kohli, A. (2004). State-Directed Development: Political Power and Industrialization in the Global Periphery. Cambridge University Press.
  • Parsons, T. (1951). Theories of Society. Free Press.
  • Sharma, S., & Kothari, S. (2017). Governance and Development in India. Oxford University Press.
  • Yamamoto, H. (2014). Japan’s Political Stability and the Role of Cultural Values. Journal of Asian Politics.
  • Sarkar, S. (2019). Ethnic Movements and Political Legitimacy in India. South Asian Studies.
  • Transparency International. (2022). Corruption Perceptions Index. Retrieved from https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2022/index
  • Przeworski, A., & Limongi, F. (1993). Modernization: Theories and Facts. World Politics, 46(2), 155-183.

Related Assignments