Przeworski 2008, ‘Conquered or Granted? A History of Suffrage Extensions’

Notes

Don’t worry if you can’t make sense of Table 1. I can’t make sense of Table 1 either.

Questions

Read through the four-step summary of “the generic argument” on the second page of the article. In what way is this argument similar to that of Acemoglu and Robinson, and in what ways does it differ? (Przeworski answers this directly in the next paragraph… but try to figure it out on your own first.)

What are the main alternatives to the idea that elites grant the franchise to forestall an imminent revolt? What is the logic behind each alternative?

In both the “conquered” and the “granted” stories, the extension of the franchise ultimately occurs due to the elite’s calculation of its own self-interest. So then do these theories really differ? Why is it important to figure out which one is best supported by the data?

Given the set of theories he is interested in testing, why does Przeworski think it’s important to distinguish franchise extensions on class lines from those on gender lines?

How does Przeworski operationalize/measure the key independent variable(s) in each theory of why the franchise is extended? (Is there anything you think these measurements might miss about the key underlying concepts?)

Przeworski claims that the theoretical mechanism for pre-war franchise extensions must be fundamentally different than one that explains post-war extensions. Why?

What do Przeworski’s statistical findings show about the relationship between war and franchise extensions?

What does Przeworski ultimately conclude about the set of theories he examines? Which ones find the most (and least) support in the data?