For the best doctoral dissertation completed and accepted in 2003 or 2004 in the field of comparative politics.

Award Committee: Anna M. Grzymala-Busse, University of Michigan, chair; Alan I. Abramowitz, Emory University; and Philip Manow, Max Planck Institute

Recipient:  Edmund Malesky, University of California, San Diego

Dissertation:  "At Provincial Gates: The Impact of Locally Concentrated Foreign Direct Investment on Provincial Autonomy and Economic Reform"

Dissertation Co-Chairs: Robert O. Keohane and Herbert Kitschelt, Duke University

Citation:  Malesky's dissertation addresses a major question in the study of comparative politics and international political economy:  the influence of foreign direct investment on institution-building. His central argument is that in some countries foreign investors managed to form coalitions with regional politicians to press the central government for further market preserving and enhancing reforms.

 This is a fascinating, novel and very convincing argument why some transformation countries managed to escape the 'partial reform equilibrium' and settled on a dynamic reform and growth path, while others remained stuck.  The dissertation combines a sophisticated large-n analysis with a well executed case study of the effects of foreign direct investment on economic development at the provincial level in Vietnam. Malesky skillfully demonstrates the mechanisms of the alliances between local elites and foreign investors, and how the former use pressure from the latter to build institutions at the national level. His impressive case study and rich comparative material highlight the central importance of 'reform coalitions' between foreign investors and regional politicians to press the central government for further market preserving and enhancing reforms.

 This is an extremely rigorous and systematic work: both in tracing the reinforcing dynamic of local government and foreign investor relations, and in showing how foreign direct investment leads to greater decentralization, empowering local leaders, and fomenting reform at the national levels. The work is explicitly comparative, both situating Vietnam in a larger set of cases, and showing how the correlations hold and causal relationships are generalizable. He explicitly tests the competing explanations, focusing on the partial-reform equilibrium model and showing how it both mischaracterizes the transition process, and tells us little about the dynamics of economic and political change.

 The result is a rich analysis of the interplay among foreign investors, provincial authorities, and national political leaders. The dissertation is an important contribution to the comparative political economy literature and to the debate about the salutary or detrimental effects of 'globalization'. His argument also speaks to the current discussion about good governance in centralized and decentralized political systems.

Honorable mention: Guillermo Trejo-Osorio, University of Chicago

 Trejo-Osorio's dissertation examines the variation in indigenous rebellion in Mexico, and provides a surprising explanation for the geographical pattern of protest and rebellion. Trejo-Osorio shows that the dismantling of two monopolies, the political monopoly of the PRI and the religious monopoly of the Catholic church, can explain the pattern of protest observable among Mexico's native population. These political and social variables were more important than impoverishment or economic grievances in explaining the level of insurgency in Mexico's indigenous areas.

Trejo-Osorio's argument is both innovative and very well documented. The unintended consequences of religious competition and the inadvertent role played by the Catholic Church speak to the growing field of religion and politics, and to all comparativists interested in institutional breakdown and social mobilization. The combination of careful examination of the causal processes, and the skillful use of evidence to buttress the argument, are very convincing. While this dissertation is focused on a single country, Mexico, the author's attempt to explain variations in insurgent behavior at the municipal level gives the study a strong comparative orientation.