PA 8030

Seminar in Public Policy Spring 2019

Page Hall 240 Mondays, 9:00-12:00

Professor: Dr. Stephanie Moulton E-mail: moulton.23@osu.edu Phone: 614.247.8161 Office: 310 U Page Hall Office Hours: By appointment

COURSE DESCRIPTION This seminar is designed to provide students with an overview of the scholarly study of public policy, broadly defined in this course to include policy research and policy analysis, as well as studies of the policy process and policy implementation. The course is intentionally interdisciplinary, combining insights from political science, economics, sociology, psychology, organizational theory and public administration to enhance students’ understanding of public policy. This course is the required course in the public policy stream for the Ph.D. in Public Policy and Management. It is designed to complement the materials covered in the public management and public economics streams of the doctoral curriculum. These streams are necessarily intertwined, and therefore some of the content covered in this course may build from and contribute to the materials covered in the other streams of the curriculum. Students are encouraged to build connections between courses. The course is divided into three sections: (1) policy problems and approaches to studying them; (2) policy processes; and (3) policy implementation and innovation. Within each section, the content is divided into three to five topical areas representing core areas of knowledge that students of public policy should be expected to obtain mastery of by the time that they take their candidacy exams. The readings each week consist of a combination of classic manuscripts and books, as well as contemporary applications and extensions. Students should come to class prepared to discuss and engage the assigned readings. Additional readings are provided for deeper exploration of particular topics and to assist students as they prepare for their candidacy exams. LEARNING OBJECTIVES After completing the course, students should be able to do the following: (1) Describe different scholarly approaches to understand and inform public policy; (2) Compare and contrast different perspectives employed to analyze policy processes; (3) Analyze the role of institutions and individuals in policy design and implementation; and (4) Articulate how your own research agenda will build from and extend public policy scholarship.

GRADED COMPONENTS The graded components in this course include: (1) class participation; (2) oral discussion facilitation; (3) written critical essays; and (4) a term paper. Each of the course components, and their contribution to the final grade, is discussed in detail below. Grade Distribution: Class Participation 10% Oral Discussion Facilitation (4@5% each) 20% Critical Essays (3 @ 15% each) 45% Policy Problem Paper 25% Transformation of numerical grade to a letter grade will be according to the schedule below: A 93-100 B+ 87-89.9 C+ 77-79.9 D+ 67-69.9 A- 90-92.9 B 83-86.9 C 73-76.9 D 60-66.9 B- 80-82.9 C- 70-72.9 E < 60 Participation (10% of Final Grade) Informed participation is necessary for the success of this seminar. Students are required to complete and contemplate the readings before class, and they are required to demonstrate this preparation by contributing meaningfully to seminar discussions. Every week, I will document each student’s contribution as having been good, adequate, or inadequate. To get full participation credit, students will need to have received a rating of “good” more often than not, and they cannot have received a rating of “inadequate.” Your contribution will be evaluated based on your preparation and engagement with class discussion, not on your demonstrated mastery of the material. Some of the materials will be quite dense, and it may be difficult to see the connections between the readings. The critical essay prompts for each week should provide guidance for the main points to identify in the readings. I expect that you will read the materials prior to class and document any questions, confusion or concerns that you have with the readings. Oral Discussion Facilitation (20% of Final Grade, 4 @ 5% each) The readings for each week consist of a combination of classic manuscripts and contemporary applications. The contemporary applications are provided as examples of attempts to build from or extend the topic under study on a given week. All students are expected to read (skim) the application manuscripts each week. In addition, you will be assigned to lead discussion of an application manuscript three times during the semester. Your oral facilitation should demonstrate your ability to think critically about the content of the manuscript and to locate the manuscript within the larger context of the field. Your oral facilitation should include the following components: (1) a concise summary of the essential purpose of the manuscript, the methodological approach and key findings; (2) your analysis of the primary contributions of the manuscript to the study of public policy, including how it builds from or extends prior research; and (3) unanswered questions raised by the manuscript and/or areas for future inquiry that could extend the manuscript. You will be evaluated based on your facilitation of discussion in class; you will not be expected to turn in a written paper. However, you may bring written notes with you to class to help guide your facilitation. In addition to the three application manuscripts, you will be asked to facilitate discussion for one chapter of the Poverty Knowledge book.

Critical Essays (45% of Final Grade, 3 @ 15% each) Each week, critical essay questions are posed that draw from the themes of the readings for a given week (see attachment and posted to Carmen), often building cumulatively on course materials from prior weeks. These questions simulate the types of questions that are asked on the candidacy exam. You will want to refer to these questions each week as you prepare for class, as they will help you focus your readings. In addition, you will select three questions throughout the semester for which you will submit a written response, one from each of the three sections of the course (Understanding and Informing Policy Problems, Policy Processes, and Policy Implementation and Diffusion). You are required to submit a draft of your response to the question to Carmen prior to the class session (Monday at 9:00 am) for which the question is provided. You may then revise your response after the class session, with a new response to be submitted by Friday (5:00 pm) of the final week for a given topic section. Do not delete your original response, but include your new response as a new document (with the suffix “revised” in the file name, in addition to the question number). Each essay response should be no longer than 2,000 words (about 4 pages, 12 point font, single spaced). Policy Problem Paper (25% of Final Grade) Public policy research is fundamentally problem oriented. Rather than starting with a general theory to test, policy research often starts with a social problem. The first task of the researcher is to define the problem to be studied, articulate a research question, and apply a conceptual framework to inform the research question. This is often the most challenging task of conducting policy research as many social problems are ill defined (“wicked problems”) that lack conceptual clarity or easy “solutions.” There is no one right way to inform a policy problem. Rather, it is the task of the researcher to identify “doable” questions to which the researcher can contribute in some significant way to further understanding. For this assignment, you will first identify a policy problem and compare and contrast at less three different conceptual approaches that have been previously applied to inform the problem. The three different conceptual approaches should represent different disciplinary perspectives (e.g., as indicated by different journal outlets ranked in different fields) and/or focus on different aspects of the policy process (e.g., agenda setting, bureaucratic control, implementation). You will then formulate a research question that can help inform gaps in understanding of the policy problem, and articulate a conceptual framework that is appropriate to inform the question. The chosen conceptual framework can be one of the three previously reviewed, a hybrid of the three, or a different framework altogether. You should start on your paper early in the semester, as we will discuss your progress on your paper (as a class) at various points throughout the semester. Your final term paper should be no longer than 5,000 words (about 10 pages, 12 point font, single spaced). You will also be asked to prepare a short (8-10 minute) presentation of your policy paper for class discussion on April 22.

TEXTS The following texts are required. Additional texts are optional (as noted under “Further Reading”). All other readings are available on Carmen. Students can access textbook information via the Barnes & Noble bookstore website: www.shopOhioState.com as well as from their BuckeyeLink Student Center. This information is disseminated by B&N to all area bookstores. You may buy from a store of your choice and/or shop for books (always use ISBN# for searches) online.

1. Weimer, David and Aidan Vining. (2017). Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice, 6th edition. New York, NY: Routledge Press. ISBN: 9781138216518

2. O'Connor, Alice. (2001). Poverty Knowledge: Social Science, Social Policy, and the Poor in Twentieth-Century US History. Princeton University Press. ISBN: 9780691102559

3. Stone, Deborah. (2002). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New

York/London: W.W. Norton & Company. ISBN 9780393976250

4. Kingdon, John. (2011, updated 2nd ed.). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Longman: Boston. ISBN 978-0-205-00086-9

DIVERSITY STATEMENT The Glenn College is committed to nurturing a diverse and inclusive environment for our students, faculty, staff, and guests that celebrates the fundamental value and dignity of everyone by recognizing differences and supporting individuality. We are dedicated to creating a safe space and promoting civil discourse that acknowledges and embraces diverse perspectives on issues and challenges that affect our community. ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT The Ohio State University and the Committee on Academic Misconduct (COAM) expect that all students have read and understand the University’s Code of Student Conduct and that all students will complete all academic and scholarly assignments with fairness and honesty. Failure to follow the rules and guidelines established in the University’s Code of Student Conduct may constitute “Academic Misconduct.” Sanctions for the misconduct could include a failing grade in this course and suspension or dismissal from the University. In the Ohio State University’s Code of Student Conduct, Section 3335-23-04 defines academic misconduct as: “Any activity that tends to compromise the academic integrity of the University, or subvert the educational process.” Examples of academic misconduct include (but are not limited to) plagiarism, collusion (unauthorized collaboration), copying the work of another student, and possession of unauthorized materials during an examination. Ignorance of the University’s Code of Student Conduct is never considered an “excuse” for academic misconduct.

If you have any questions about the above policy or what constitutes academic misconduct in this course, please contact me. Other sources of information on academic misconduct (integrity) to which you can refer include:

• The Committee on Academic Misconduct web page: http://oaa.osu.edu/coam.html • Eight Cardinal Rules of Academic Integrity: www.northwestern.edu/uacc/8cards.html

STUDENT MENTAL HEALTH As a student you may experience a range of issues that can cause barriers to learning, such as strained relationships, increased anxiety, alcohol/drug problems, feeling down, difficulty concentrating and/or lack of motivation. These mental health concerns or stressful events may lead to diminished academic performance or reduce a student’s ability to participate in daily activities. The Ohio State University offers services to assist you with addressing these and other concerns you may be experiencing. If you or someone you know is suffering from any of the aforementioned conditions, you can learn more about the broad range of confidential mental health services available on campus via the Office of Student Life Counseling and Consultation Services (CCS) by visiting https://ccs.osu.edu/ or calling 614-292- 5766. CCS is located on the 4th Floor of the Younkin Success Center and 10th Floor of Lincoln Tower. You can reach an on call counselor when CCS is closed at 614--292--5766 and 24-hour emergency help is also available through the 24/7 National Suicide Prevention Hotline at 1--800--273--TALK or at https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/ . Also, the OSU Student Advocacy Center is a resource to help students navigate OSU and to resolve issues that they encounter at OSU – visit http://advocacy.osu.edu/ . ADA Statement Students with disabilities that have been certified by the Office for Disability Services will be appropriately accommodated and should inform the instructor as soon as possible of their needs. The Office for Disability Services is located in 150 Pomerene Hall, 1760 Neil Avenue; telephone 292-3307, TDD 292-0901; http://www.ods.ohio-state.edu/.

Important Due Dates

January 9: Sign up for oral discussion facilitation slots on google docs January 28: Oral presentation of Poverty Knowledge chapter February 22: Revised Critical Essay I due, post to Carmen March 29: Revised Critical Essay II due, post to Carmen April 19: Revised Critical Essay III due, post to Carmen April 22: Present Policy Problem Paper in class April 29: Policy Problem Paper due, post to Carmen

SCHEDULE

Part 1: Understanding and Informing Policy Problems Week 1 (1/7) Course Introduction & Public Policy Orientation

• Lasswell, H.D. (1951). The Policy Orientation. In H.D. Lasswell and D. Lerner, The Policy Sciences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 3-15.

• Dror, Y. (1967). Policy Analysts - New Professional Role in Government Service. Public Administration Review, 27: 197-203.

• Weiss, C. H. (1977). Research for policy's sake: The enlightenment function of social research. Policy analysis, 531-545.

• Weimer, D. L., & Vining, A. R. (2017). What is Policy Analysis? Chapter 1 in Policy analysis: Concepts and practice. 30-41. Routledge.

• Weimer, David L. (2008). Theories of and in the Policy Process. The Policy Studies Journal, 36(4): 489-495.

Further Reading: • Dewey, J. (1954). The Public and its Problems. Chicago: Swallow Press. (Excerpts) • Lasswell, Harold D. (1970). "The emerging conception of the policy sciences." Policy sciences

1.1: 3-14. o Farr, J., J.S. Hacker and N. Kazee (2006). The policy scientist of democracy: The discipline of

Harold D. Lasswell. American Political Science Review, 100: 579-587. o Brunner, R.D. (2008). The policy scientist of democracy revisited. Policy Sciences, 41: 3-19. o Farr, J., J.S. Hacker and N. Kazee (2008). Revisiting Lasswell. Policy Sciences, 41: 21-32.

• Rivlin, Alice. (1971). Systematic Thinking for Social Action. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

• Wildavsky, Aaron. (1987). Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis, 2nd ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

• Weiss, C. H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public administration review, 39(5), 426-431.

• Etzioni, A. (2006). The Unique Methodology of Policy Research. Chapter 40, in The Oxford handbook of public policy, 833-843.

• Weimer, D. L. (2012). The universal and the particular in policy analysis and training. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 14(1), 1-8.

• Adams, W.C., D.L. Infeld, L.F. Miniichelli, M.W. Russell (2014). Policy Journal Trends and Tensions: JPAM and PSJ. Policy Studies Journal, 42 (S1), S118-S137.

Week 2 (1/14) Policy Types & Taxonomies

• Lowi, Theodore J. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public administration review 32.4: 298-310.

• Wilson, James Q. 1980. CHAPTER 10. The Politics of Regulation. New York: Basic Books. • Salamon, Lester M. (2000). New Governance and the Tools of Public Action: An Introduction,

The. Fordham Urb. LJ 28: 1611. Application:

• Yi, Hongtao and Richard C. Feiock (2014). Renewable Energy Politics: Policy Typologies, Policy Tools and State Deployment of Renewables. Policy Studies Journal, 42 (3): 391-415.

Further Reading: • Spitzer, R. (1987). Promoting Policy Theory: Revising the Arenas of Power. Policy Studies

Journal, 15(4): 675-689.

o Kellow, A. (1988). Promoting Elegance in Policy Theory: Simplifying Lowi’s Arenas of Power. Policy Studies Journal, 16(4): 713-724.

o Lowi, T. (1988). An Assessment of Kellow’s Promoting Elegance in Policy Theory. Policy Studies Journal, 16(4): 725-728.

o Spitzer, R.J. (1989). From Complexity to Simplicity: More on Policy Theory and the Arenas of Power. Policy Studies Journal, 17(3): 529-536.

o Kellow, A. (1989, Spring). Taking the Long Way Home? A Reply to Spitzer on the Arenas of Power. Policy Studies Journal, 17(3): 537-546.

o Spitzer R.J. (1989, Spring). Complexity and Inductions: A Rejoinder to Kellow. Policy Studies Journal, 17(3): 547-549.

• Bobrow, Davis B. and John S. Dryzek. (1987). Policy Analysis by Design. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

• Schneider, Anne, and Helen Ingram. (1990). Behavioral assumptions of policy tools. The Journal of Politics 52.02: 510-529.

• Salamon, Lester M., and Odus V. Elliott. (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. Oxford University Press.

Week 3 (1/21) NO CLASS- MLK DAY

Week 4 (1/28) Approaches to Studying Policy Problems: “Poverty Knowledge”

• O'Connor, A. (2009). Poverty knowledge: Social science, social policy, and the poor in twentieth-century US history. Princeton University Press. Introduction, Chapter 11, and assigned chapters.

• Cellini, S.R., McKernan, S.M., and Ratcliffe, C. (2008). “The Dynamics of Poverty in the United States: A Review of Data, Methods, and Findings.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Vol. 27, No. 3, 577-605.

Application: For your assigned chapter, prepare a short (8-10 minute) presentation that provides an overview of the key events that took place during the time period covered by your chapter. In your overview, address the following questions: (1) What are the dominant disciplines or approaches during the time period? (2) What types of questions about poverty are asked during this period? (3) What is the role of practice and policymakers during this period?

Further Reading • Bobrow, Davis B., et al. (1977). "The place of policy analysis in political science: five

perspectives." American Journal of Political Science 21.2: 415-433. • Schneider, J. W. (1985). Social problems theory: The constructionist view. Annual review of

sociology, 11(1), 209-229. • Friedman, J. (1987). Chapter 2, “Two Centuries of Planning Theory: An Overview”; and Chapter

4, “Planning as Policy Analysis”, in Planning in the public domain: From theory to action. • Weiss, Carol H. (1987). Evaluating Social Programs: What Have We Learned? Society 25, no. 1:

40–45. • Stewart, J., & Ayres, R. (2001). Systems theory and policy practice: An exploration. Policy

Sciences, 34(1), 79-94. • DeLeon, P. (2006). The historical roots of the field. Chapter 2, in The Oxford handbook of public

policy, 39-57. • Shulock, N., 1999. The paradox of policy analysis: If it is not used, why do we produce so much

of it?. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, pp.226-244. • Blank, Rebecca M. (2002). What do Economists Have to Contribute to Policy Decision? The

Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 42: 817–824.

• Hird, J. A. (2005). Policy analysis for what? The effectiveness of nonpartisan policy research organizations. Policy Studies Journal, 33(1), 83-105.

• Lynn Jr, L. E. (1999). A place at the table: Policy analysis, its postpositive critics, and the future of practice. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 411-425.

• Radin, B. A. (2013). Beyond Machiavelli: Policy analysis reaches midlife. Georgetown University Press. Chapters 1-2: 10-52.

Week 5 (2/4) Economic Foundations of Policy Design and Analysis

• Weimer, D. and A. Vining (2017). Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice. Chapters 4-8, 59-181. Application:

• Carrell and Hoekstra (2012). “Family Business or Social Problem? The Cost of Unreported Domestic Violence,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 31(4): 861-75.

Further Reading: • Coase, Ronald. (1960). The Problem of Social Cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3(2):1-44. • Sen, Amartya. (1970). Collective Choice and Social Welfare. • Okun, Arthur. (1975). Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff. Washington, DC: Brookings

Institution Press. • Dahl, R. A., & Lindblom, C. E. (1953). Politics, Economics and Welfare: Planning and Politico-

Economic Systems Resolved into Basic Social Process. Harper. • Lindblom, C. E.(1977) Politics and Markets. New York: Basic. • Olson, Mancur. (1973). The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press. • Etzioni, A. (1985). Making policy for complex systems: A medical model for economics. Journal

of Policy Analysis and Management, 4(3), 383-395. • Bozeman, B. (2002). Public‐value failure: When efficient markets may not do. Public

administration review, 62(2), 145-161. • Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic

individualism. Georgetown University Press. • Bueno, Ethan de Mesquita. (2016). Political Economy for Public Policy. Princeton University

Press. Week 6 (2/11) Behavioral Foundations and the Design of Public Policy

• Jones, B. D. (2003). Bounded rationality and political science: Lessons from public administration and public policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(4), 395-412.

• Madrian, Brigitte C. (2014). Applying Insights from Behavioral Economics to Policy Design. Annual Review of Economics 6 (1): 663–88.

• Chetty, R. (2015). Behavioral economics and public policy: A pragmatic perspective. American Economic Review, 105(5), 1-33.

Application (choose one): • Allcott, H. (2011). Social norms and energy conservation. Journal of Public Economics,

95(9-10), 1082-1095. • Farrell, Mary and Smith, Jared and Reardon, Leigh and Obara, Emmi, Framing the Message:

Using Behavioral Economics to Engage TANF Recipients (March 9, 2016). OPRE Report 2016-02. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2801704

Further Reading:

• Lasswell, H. D. (1956). The decision process: seven categories of functional analysis. Bureau of Governmental Research, College of Business and Public Administration, University of Maryland.

• Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The quarterly journal of economics, 69(1), 99-118.

• Simon, H. A. (1985). Human nature in politics: The dialogue of psychology with political science. American Political Science Review, 79(2), 293-304.

• Tversky, A., D. Kahneman (1974). Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(27): 1124-1131.

• Conlisk, J. (1996). Why bounded rationality? Journal of economic literature, 34(2), 669-700. • Congdon, Kling and Mullainathan (2011). Policy and Choice: Public Finance through the Lens

of Behavioral Economics, Brookings Institution Press. • Shafir, E. ed., 2013. The behavioral foundations of public policy. Princeton University Press. • Wilson, R. K. (2011). The contribution of behavioral economics to political science. Annual

Review of Political Science, 14, 201-223. • Hodgson, G. (1998). Institutional Economic Theory: The Old Versus the New. In D.L. Prychitko

(ed.) Why Economists Disagree: An Introduction to the Alternative Schools of Thought. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.

• Amir, O., Ariely, D., Cooke, A., Dunning, D., Epley, N., Gneezy, U., ... & Prelec, D. (2005). Psychology, behavioral economics, and public policy. Marketing Letters, 16(3-4), 443-454.

• Keller-Allen, Chandra, and Rose Maria Li. 2013. “Psychological Science and Behavioral Economics in the Service of Public Policy.” Meeting Summary, National Institute of Health, National Institute on Aging, May 22, 2013. Washington, DC. Available online at: https://www.nia.nih.gov/sites/default/files/d7/psychological_science_and_behavioral_economics.pdf

Week 7 (2/18) Democratic Foundations and Public Policy

• Stone, D. (2002). Policy Paradox. The Art of Political Decision Making. New York/London: W.W. Norton & Company (Introduction and Part I, skim other chapters)

• Schneider, Anne, and Helen Ingram. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American political science review 87.02 (1993): 334-347.

• Mettler, S., & Soss, J. (2004). The consequences of public policy for democratic citizenship: Bridging policy studies and mass politics. Perspectives on politics, 2(01), 55-73.

Application: • Soss, J. (1999). Lessons of welfare: Policy design, political learning, and political

action. American Political Science Review, 93(2), 363-380. Further Reading:

• Schatschneider, E.E. (1975). The Semisovereign People. • Lowi, T. (1979). The End of Liberalism, 2nd Edition. Boston: Norton. • Skocpol, T., & Amenta, E. (1986). States and social policies. Annual Review of Sociology, 12(1),

131-157. • Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices.

Oxford University Press. • Hajer, M., Hajer, M. A., & Wagenaar, H. (Eds.). (2003). Deliberative policy analysis:

understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge University Press. • Schneider, A. L., Ingram, H. M., & Ingram, H. M. (Eds.). (2005). Deserving and entitled: Social

constructions and public policy. SUNY Press. • Walters, L. C., Aydelotte, J., & Miller, J. (2000). Putting more public in policy analysis. Public

Administration Review, 60(4), 349-359.

• Schneider, Anne, Helen Ingram, and Peter de Leon. (2014). “Democratic policy design: Social construction of target populations," Chapter 4 in Sabatier and Weible, 105-150

• Campbell, A. (2012). Policy Makes Mass Politics. Annual Review of Political Science 15: 333–51.

• Moynihan, D. P., & Soss, J. (2014). Policy feedback and the politics of administration. Public Administration Review, 74(3), 320-332.

• Bruch, S. K., Ferree, M. M., & Soss, J. (2010). From policy to polity democracy, paternalism, and the incorporation of disadvantaged citizens. American Sociological Review, 75(2), 205-226.

Part II: Policy Processes Week 8 (2/25) Incrementalism, Multiple Streams, Punctuated Equilibrium

• deLeon, Peter. (1999). The Stages Approach to the Policy Process. 19-34, in Sabatier, First Edition.

• Kingdon, J. (2010). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. (2d. ed., updated), Chapter 1, skim entire book.

• Jones, Bryan, Tracy Sulkin, and Heather A. Larsen. (2003). Policy Punctuations in American Political Institutions. American Political Science Review, 97(1):151–169, February 2003

Application: • Dowding, K., Hindmoor, A., & Martin, A. (2016). The comparative policy agendas project:

Theory, measurement and findings. Journal of Public Policy, 36(1), 3-25. • Jones, B. D. (2016). The comparative policy agendas projects as measurement systems:

Response to Dowding, Hindmoor and Martin. Journal of Public Policy, 36(1), 31-46. Further Reading:

• Lindblom, Charles (1959). The Science of ‘Muddling Through’. Public Administration Review, 19:79–88.

• Braybrooke, David and Charles Lindblom. (1963). A Strategy of Decision: Policy Evaluation as a Social Process. New York: The Free Press.

• Bendor, J. (1995). A Model of Muddling Through. American Political Science Review, 89:819–840.

• Cohen, M.D., March, J.G. & Olsen, J.P. (1972) A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice, Administrative Science Quarterly, 17 (1): 1-25.

• Baugmgartner, F. and Bryan Jones. (1994). Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University Press.

• Jones B, Tracy Sulkin, and Heather A. Larsen (2003). Policy Punctuations in American Political Institutions. American Political Science Review, 97(1):151–169.

• Jones, B. (2005). A Model for Policy Choice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(3): 325-351.

• Baumgartner, F. and Jones, B.D. 2015. The Politics of Information: Problem Definition and the Course of Public Policy in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

• Callander, S. (2011). Searching for Good Policies. American Political Science Review, 105:643– 662.

• Weible (2014). Introducing the Scope and Focus of Policy Process Research and Theory, Chapter 1, in Sabatier & Weible

• Zahariadis, N. (2014). Ambiguity and Multiple Streams, Chapter 2 in Sabatier & Weible, 25-58 Week 9 (3/4) Policy Governance and Networks

• Berry, F. S., Brower, R. S., Choi, S. O., Goa, W. X., Jang, H., Kwon, M., & Word, J. (2004). Three traditions of network research: What the public management research agenda can learn from other research communities. Public Administration Review, 64(5), 539-552.

• Jenkins-Smith, H.C., Nohrstedt, D., Weible, C. and Ingold, K. (2018) The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Overview of the Research Program in Theories of the Policy Process, 4th ed., C.M. Weible and P. Sabatier, eds. NY: Westview Press.

• Yi, H., & Scholz, J. T. (2016). Policy networks in complex governance subsystems: Observing and comparing hyperlink, media, and partnership networks. Policy Studies Journal, 44(3), 248-279.

Application: • Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2005). Comparing policy networks: Marine protected areas in

California. Policy Studies Journal, 33(2), 181-201. • Yi, H. (2018). Network Structure and Governance Performance: What Makes a Difference?

Public Administration Review, 78(2), 195-205. Further Reading:

• Heclo, Hugh. (1978). Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment. In The New American Political System, edited by Anthony King, 87–124. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.

• Laumann, Edward O., and David Knoke. 1987. The Organizational State: Social Choice in National Policy Domains. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

• Ostrom, Elinor. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Dowding, Keith. 1995. “Model or Metaphor? A Critical Review of the Policy Network Approach. Political Studies: 136–58

• North, D. (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

• Hank C. Jenkins-Smith and Paul A. Sabatier. (1994). Evaluating the Advocacy Coalition Framework. Journal of Public Policy, 14:175–203.

• Sobeck, J. (2003). Comparing Policy Process Frameworks: What Do They Tell Us About Group Membership and Participation for Policy Development? Administration & Society, 35(3): 350-374.

• Weible, C.M., P.A. Sabatier, H.C. Jenkins-Smith, D. Nohrstedt, A.D. Henry, P. de Leon (2011). A Quarter Century of the Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Introduction to a Special Issue. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 349-393.

• Feiock, Richard C., and John T. Scholz, eds. 2010. Self‐Organizing Federalism: Collaborative Mechanisms to Mitigate Institutional Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.

• Lubell, Mark, Adam Douglas Henry, and Mike McCoy. 2010. Collaborative Institutions in an Ecology of Games. American Journal of Political Science 54 (2): 287–300.

• Lubell, M. (2013). Governing institutional complexity: The ecology of games framework. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 537-559.

• Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems. American Economic Review, 100(3), 641-672.

• Feiock, R. C. (2013). The institutional collective action framework. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 397-425

Week 10 (3/11) NO CLASS- Spring Break Week 11 (3/18) Political Control of Bureaucracy & Policy Outcomes

• McCubbins, M. D., Noll, R. G., & Weingast, B. R. (1987). Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 3(2), 243-277.

• B. Dan Wood and Richard W. Waterman. 1991. The Dynamics of Political Control of the Bureaucracy. American Political Science Review 85(3): 801-828

• Berry, C. Barry C. Burden, and William G. Howell. (2010). After Enactment: The Lives and Deaths of Federal Programs. American Journal of Political Science, 54(1):1–17.

Application: • Lawande, Kenneth. (2018). Who Polices the Administrative State? American Political Science

Review. Forthcoming. • Acs, A. (2015). Which Statute to Implement? Strategic Timing by Regulatory Agencies. Journal

of Public Administration Research and Theory, Further Reading:

• Wood, Dan and Richard Waterman (1994). Bureaucratic Dynamics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

• Howell, William G. and David E. Lewis. Agencies by Presidential Design. Journal of Politics, 64(4):1095–1114, November 2002

• McCarty, Nolan (2004). The Appointments Dilemma. American Journal of Political Science, 48(3):413–428.

• Whitford, Andrew B. (2002). Decentralization and political control of the bureaucracy. Journal of Theoretical Politics 14.2: 167-193.

• Moe, Terry (2012). Delegation, Control, and the Study of Public Bureaucracy. In Robert Gibbons and John Roberts, editors, Handbook of Organizational Economics. Princeton University Press.

• Joshua D. Clinton, David E. Lewis, and Jennifer L. Selin. (2014). Influencing the Bureaucracy: The Irony of Congressional Oversight. American Journal of Political Science, 58(2):387–401, 2014

• Kogan, V., Lavertu, S., & Peskowitz, Z. (2015). Performance federalism and local democracy: Theory and evidence from school tax referenda. American Journal of Political Science.

• Hollibaugh, Gary E., Jr. and Lawrence S. Rothenberg. (2018). “The Who, When, and Where of Executive Nominations: Integrating Agency Independence and Appointee Ideology.” American Journal of Political Science 62(2):296–311.

• Konisky, David M. & Manuel P. Teodoro. (2016). “When Governments Regulate Governments,” American Journal of Political Science 60(3): 559-574.

• Clouser McCann, Pamela J. (2015). The strategic use of congressional intergovernmental delegation. The Journal of Politics, 77(3), pp.620-634.

• Bolton, A., Potter, R.A. and Thrower, S., 2015. Organizational capacity, regulatory review, and the limits of political control. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 32(2), pp.242-271.

Week 12 (3/25) Interest Groups, Agency Capture, & Policy

• Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014). Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on politics, 12(03), 564-581.

• Webb Yackee, Susan. (2006) Sweet-talking the Fourth Branch: The Influence of Interest Group Comments on Federal Agency Rulemaking. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,16(1):103–124.

• Malhotra, N., Monin, B., & Tomz, M. (2018). Does Private Regulation Preempt Public Regulation?. American Political Science Review, 1-19.

Application: • Haeder, S. F., & Yackee, S. W. (2015). Influence and the administrative process: Lobbying the

US President's Office of Management and Budget. American Political Science Review, 109(3), 507-522.

• Lavertu, Stéphane, Daniel E. Walters, and David L. Weimer. (2012) Scientific expertise and the balance of political interests: MEDCAC and Medicare coverage decisions. Journal of public administration research and theory 22(1): 55-81.

Further Reading: • Balla, S. J., & Wright, J. R. (2001). Interest groups, advisory committees, and congressional

control of the bureaucracy. American Journal of Political Science, 799-812. • Golden, M. M. (1998). Interest groups in the rule-making process: Who participates? Whose

voices get heard? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 245-270. • Sanford C. Gordon and Catherine Hafer. Flexing Muscle: Corporate Political Expenditures as

Signals to the Bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 99:245–261, 4 2005 • Rui J. P. De Figueiredo and Geoff Edwards. (2007). Does Private Money Buy Public Policy?

Campaign Contributions and Regulatory Outcomes in Telecommunications. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 16(3):547–576.

• Clare Leaver. Bureaucratic Minimal Squawk Behavior: Theory and Evidence from Regulatory Agencies. American Economic Review, 99(3):527–607, 2009

• Susan L. Mott. Promoting Agency Reputation Through Public Advice: Advisory Committee Use in the FDA. Journal of Politics, 72:880–893, July 2010

Part IV: Policy Implementation & Innovation Week 13 (4/1) Implementation

• Sabatier, Paul A. (1986). Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Implementation Research: A Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis.” Journal of Public Policy 6, no. 1: 21–48.

• Robichau, Robbie W. and Laurence E. Lynn, Jr. (2009) The Implementation of Public Policy: Still the Missing Link. Policy Studies Journal 37, no. 1: 21–36.

• May, Carl. Towards a General Theory of Implementation. (2013). Implementation Science 8. • Moulton, S., & Sandfort, J. R. (2017). The strategic action field framework for policy

implementation research. Policy Studies Journal, 45(1), 144-169. Application:

• Frank, K. A., Penuel, W. R., & Krause, A. (2015). What Is A “Good” Social Network for Policy Implementation? The Flow of Know‐How for Organizational Change. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34(2), 378-402.

• Sandfort, J., Ong, S. J., & McKay, C. (2018). Performance Management Regimes in Practice: Examining the Local Agencies Implementing Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. The American Review of Public Administration.

Further Reading • Pressman, J. and Aaron Wildavsky. (1984). Implementation, 3rd ed. Berkeley: University of

California Press. Chapter 1 (Appearances) (skim rest of book) • Elmore, Richard F. (1979). “Backward Mapping: Implementation Research and Policy

Decisions.” Political Science Quarterly 94, no. 4: 601-616. • Ingram, Helen, and Anne Schneider. (1990) "Improving implementation through framing smarter

statutes." Journal of Public Policy 10.01: 67-88. • Goggin, M.L. (1986). The Too Few Cases/Too Many Variables’ Problem in Implementation

Research. Western Political Quarterly, 39(2): 328-347. • Benny Hjern and David Porter. 1981. "Implementation Structures: A New Unit of Administrative

Analysis." Organizational Studies 2(3): 211-27. • Matland, Richard E. (1995). Synthesizing the Implementation Literature: The Ambiguity-Conflict

Model of Policy Implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 5(2): 145–174.

• O'Toole Jr, L. J. (2000). Research on policy implementation: Assessment and prospects. Journal of public administration research and theory, 10(2), 263-288.

• Saetren, H. (2005). Facts and myths about research on public policy implementation: Out‐of‐Fashion, allegedly dead, but still very much alive and relevant. Policy Studies Journal, 33(4), 559-582.

• Sandfort, Jodi R. (2010). Nonprofits within Policy Fields. Journal of Policy Analysis & Management 29: 637–644.

• Michael Hill and Peter Hupe. 2014. Implementing Public Policy: An introduction to the study of operational governance. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.

• Nilsen, Per, Christian Ståhl, Kerstin Roback, and Paul Cairney. (2013). Never the Twain Shall Meet?—A Comparison of Implementation Science and Policy Implementation Research. Implementation Science 8, no. 63.

• Weiss, M. J., Bloom, H. S., & Brock, T. (2014). A conceptual framework for studying the sources of variation in program effects. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33(3), 778-808.

• Sandfort, Jodi and S. Moulton. (2015). Effective Implementation in Practice: Integrating Public Policy and Management. (Chapter 2). Wiley/ Jossey-Bass.

• Frank, K. A., Xu, R., & Penuel, W. R. (2018). Implementation of Evidence‐Based Practice in Human Service Organizations: Implications From Agent‐Based Models. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 37(4), 867-895.

Week 14 (4/8) Street-Level Bureaucrats, Coproduction & Policy Outcomes • Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy, 30th ann. Ed.: dilemmas of the individual in public

service. Russell Sage Foundation. Preface, Chapter 1, Introduction to Parts II & III, and Chapter 14.

• Bovaird, Tony. (2007). Beyond Engagement and Participation: User and Community Coproduction of Public Services. Public Administration Review 67(5): 846–860.

• May, Peter J. and Soren C. Winter. (2007). “Politicians, Managers, and Street-Level Bureaucrats: Influences on Policy Implementation.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19, no. 3: 453–476

Application: • Garrow, Eve E. and Oscar Grusky. (2012). Institutional Logic and Street-Level Discretion: The

Case of HIV Test Counseling. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23(1): 103–131.

Further Reading: • Maynard-Moody, Steven Williams, and Michael Craig Musheno. (2003). Cops, teachers,

counselors: Stories from the front lines of public service. University of Michigan Press. • Schön, Donald A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New

York: BasicBooks. • Hill, Carolyn J. (2005). “Casework Job Design and Client Outcomes in Welfare-to-Work

Offices.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16, no. 2: 263–288. • Sandfort, Jodi R. (2000). Moving Beyond Discretion and Outcomes: Examining Public

Management from the Front-Lines of the Welfare System. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10(4): 729–756.

• Hill, H.C. (2003). Understanding Implementation: Street-Level Bureaucrats’ Resources for Reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13: 265-282.

• Yackee, S. W. (2013). Assessing regulatory participation by health professionals: A study of state health rulemaking. Public Administration Review, 73(s1), S105-S114.

• Huber, John and Charles Shipan. (2002). Deliberate Discretion? The Institutional Foundations of Bureaucratic Autonomy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

• Meier, K. J., & O'Toole, L. J. (2006). Political control versus bureaucratic values: Reframing the debate. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 177-192.

• Terry M. Moe. (2006). Political Control and the Power of the Agent. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 22(1): 1-29.

• Carpenter, D., & Krause, G. A. (2015). Transactional authority and bureaucratic politics. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 5-25.

Week 15 (4/15) Policy Innovation, Diffusion and Learning

• Berry F.S. and W.D. Berry. (2014). Innovation and Diffusion Models in Policy Research, Chapter 9 in Sabatier & Weible, 307-362.

• Shipan, Charles R. and Craig Volden. (2008). The Mechanisms of Policy Diffusion. American Journal of Political Science 52, 4: 840–57.

• Shipan, C. and Volden, C. (2012) Policy Diffusion: Seven Lessons for Scholars and Practitioners. Public Administration Review 72 (6): 788-796

Application: • Butler, D. M., Volden, C., Dynes, A. M., & Shor, B. (2017). Ideology, learning, and policy

diffusion: Experimental evidence. American Journal of Political Science, 61(1), 37-49. Further Reading:

• Walker, J. (1969) The Diffusion of Innovation Among the American States. American Political Science Review, 63 (3): 880-899.

• Mintrom, M. (1997). Policy Entrepreneurs and the Diffusion of Innovation. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3): 738-770.

• Berry, F. S., & Berry, W. D. (1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. American political science review, 84(2), 395-415.

• May, P.J. (1992) Policy Learning and Failure. Journal of Public Policy 12 (4): 331-354. • Volden, C. (2006). States as Policy Laboratories: Emulating Success in the Children’s Health

Insurance Program. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2): 294-312. • De Jong G.F., et al. (2006). Measuring State TANF Policy Variations and Change after Reform.

Social Science Quarterly, 87(4): 755-781. • Jensen, J.L. (2003). Policy Diffusion through Institutional Legitimation: State Lotteries. Journal

of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(4): 521-541. • Boushey, G. (2010) Policy Diffusion Dynamics in America. NY: Cambridge University Press • Gilardi, F. (2016). Four ways we can improve policy diffusion research. State Politics & Policy

Quarterly, 16(1), 8-21. • Nicholson-Crotty, S., & Carley, S. (2016). Effectiveness, Implementation, and Policy Diffusion:

Or “Can We Make That Work for Us?”. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 16(1), 78-97. • Yi, H., Berry, F. S., & Chen, W. (2018). Management Innovation and Policy Diffusion through

Leadership Transfer Networks: An Agent Network Diffusion Model. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(4), 457-474.

Week 16 (4/22) Student Presentations: Applications by Policy Area