This paper summarizes the findings of a study of syllabi for the core course in comparative politics offered by a sample of political science departments in the United States with field offerings in comparative politics granting annually more than one Ph.D. These courses are given a variety of names. Some simply specify the subdiscipline, for example, Princeton's “Comparative Politics,” MIT's “Field Seminar in Comparative Politics” or Illinois' “Core Seminar in Comparative Politics.” Others specify the aspect or aspects of the subdiscipline given principal attention, for example, Stanford's “Major Theories in Comparative Politics,” Kentucky's “Comparative Politics: Theory and Method,” or Indiana University's “Seminar in Comparative Politics: Issues and Approaches.” Each is intended to provide graduate students with an understanding of the fundamental ideas of comparative politics. The purposes of the study were to assess the state of the subdiscipline and to facilitate the exchange of ideas among those involved in teaching such core courses. We recognize that a syllabus indicates only a part of what is taught and learned in any course. Nevertheless, syllabi fairly well reflect the topics and scholarly readings deemed most important by teachers in the field.

Scholars in the subdiscipline of comparative politics frequently have noted the lack of agreement among comparativists on frameworks, methodologies and subject matter. Macridis and Brown in the 1961 edition of their reader described the field as “in a state of flux” (3). During the 1960s and 1970s, the lack of agreement probably increased. Kaufman and Rosenau in 1977 described the field as then “in a state of ferment” (45).