You can submit an answer using the "Questions" e-mail link at the What You Need to Know web site. (Look in the lower, right-hand section of that page.)
I'll post your answer (without your name) and a critique here in the "Comments" section for the question.
Here's Question No. 7 (It's a Short-Answer Concept question.):
Define "patron-client relationship" in a political context.
Explain how an effective patron-client network can promote stability in a political system. (3 point question)
(See pp. 33, 39, 126-134, 111-117, and 85-93 in What You Need to Know.)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Answer and ask questions as you prepare for the exam in May.
Worthwhile Links
- What You Need to Know
- What You Need to Know on Facebook
- teaching comparative blog
- Albany High School comparative blog
- AP Comparative Government and Politicsl (from the College Board)
- Research & Review links within countries
- Links to popular textbook sites
- CIA World Factbook
- Comparative Politics Resources
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(28)
-
▼
April
(22)
- Tips for FRQs
- Question No. 24
- Question No. 23
- Question No. 22
- Question No. 21
- Question No. 20
- Question No. 19
- Question No. 18
- Question No. 17
- Question No. 16
- Question No. 15
- Question No. 14
- Question No. 13
- Question No. 12
- Question No. 11 (for Monday 12 April)
- Question No. 10
- Question No. 9
- Question No. 8 (for Wednesday, 7 April)
- Question No. 7
- Question No. 6
- Question No. 5
- Question No. 4
-
▼
April
(22)
1 comment:
A student from the Singapore American School submitted a response to question #7:
Here's the question again: Define "patron-client relationship" in a political context.
Explain how an effective patron-client network can promote stability in a political system. (3 point question)
It's a two-part question. One point for a definition that describes a reciprocal relationship between a superior with political power and a subordinate who supports the superior in word and/or deed and benefits from "things" the superior has access to as someone with political power.
Two points are possible for describing how such an unequal, but reciprocal relationship can promote political stability (i.e. keeping things from changing).
Here's the student's response with my annotations (in italics):
"A political patron client system is the relationship between people running for office and other individuals or groups which can gather support (either in the form of votes or campaign funds) for those running in exchange for positions in the bureaucracy if the person they support wins."
Which parts of the definition are here?
reciprocity and implied inequality in political power
the support of the client is there and so is the benefit provided by the patron, even if it's more specific (and limiting) than desired by me and my rubric.
I'd rather the inequality be more explicit, but the fact that patron is identified as someone "running for office" is enough.
1 point
"Patron-clientalism promotes stability in that it keeps power with the political elite because it enables them to govern and select only loyal individuals to participate in the bureaucracy. Though the political elite are still accountable to the groups or individuals who supported them, nevertheless, patron-clientalism strengthens top-down governance establishing a definite hierarchy and thus maintains stability."
The "bureaucracy" limitation gets in the way here again, because clients' benefits are often less than a job. Benefits can be cash, food, garbage collection for a neighborhood, paved streets, main electrical lines, local libraries, Internet access, or local cops who look the other way when the client is doing something shady or who crack down on a clients' competition or rivals.
But, okay, the benefit is mentioned as is the established and maintained inequality ("establishing a hierarchy"). The patrons are enabled "to govern" and to give benefits to "loyal" individuals or groups. (I'm implying that "groups" part, because it's not part of the response, and that's where I'm having problems with this response.
Now, if AP exam readers were allowed to give half points, I might give this "explanation one and a half points. But AP readers are NOT allowed to give half points.
So, if I were reading this response at the AP reading, I'd be inclined to give it full credit. BUT, I might hand it to the person next to me at the table or to the table leader to find out if they agreed with me. If so, no problem. If we disagreed, we'd seek the judgement of another reader. If necessary, we would talk it over and reach a consensus. That's how things work at AP exam readings.
Since I'm the authority in charge here, I'd give this response 3 points out of 3. Well done.
Lesson here? Don't be any more specific and limiting than you have to be. Then again, don't be so general in your response so as to lose track of the context.
Post a Comment