Politics
851 – The Public Policy Process
January
2005
Wednesday
1:00-4:00
AQ6036
M. Howlett
AQ 6043
604.291.3082
Office Hours: Wed 12:00-1:00
Overview:
This course is designed to
review relevant theoretical materials pertaining to public policy-making and
test key hypotheses in the policy sciences through empirical examinations of
Canadian cases in public policy-making. Policy theory related to the stages of
the policy cycle; the impact of policy ideas, institutions and actors on policy
outcomes; and the concepts of
policy styles, and policy regimes will be reviewed and tested against
examples of Canadian policy making behaviour. Throughout the course an emphasis
will be placed on methodological aspects of operationalizing key concepts in
the field.
Required
Texts:
None.
Course Readings have been placed on reserve in Bennett Library. Due to library
restrictions on course materials these are listed both for Pol851 and for other
graduate politics courses (pol 892).
Grading:
Class
Presentations:
At the beginning of term, each student will be assigned two weeks for which he/she will be responsible for commenting on the theoretical and methodological issues raised in that week’s readings. Missed assignments will receive a zero (0) grade. Students who are not presenting are expected to comment and critique class presentations and contribute to the development of a common understanding of conceptual and methodological issues of interest to political scientists engaged in public policy research.
Paper
Topics:
By
mid-term, each student will identify a specific topic area and methodological
issue which will be the subject of their term paper. These topics and issues
will be investigated through examination of a specific empirical case of
Canadian public policy-making. Preliminary drafts of the term papers will be
presented to class in Weeks XII-XIII. Papers are due on the last day of class,
with the exception of those students presenting in Week XIII who will be
granted an automatic one week extension. Late papers will lose 10% per day
late.
a.
Policy Analysis and Political Science:
Garson, G. David. “From Policy Science to Policy
Analysis: A Quarter Century of Progress.” In W. N. Dunn, ed(s), Policy
Analysis: Perspectives, Concepts,
and Methods, Greenwich,
Conn.: JAI Press, 1986. 3-22.
Hawkesworth, Mary. “Epistemology and Policy
Analysis.” In W. Dunn and R. M. Kelly, ed(s), Advances in Policy Studies, New Brunswick: Transaction Press,
1992. 291-329.
Torgerson, Douglas. “Between Knowledge and
Politics: Three Faces Of Policy Analysis.” Policy Sciences. 19, no. 1
(1986): 33-59.
Webber, David J. “Analyzing Political
Feasibility: Political Scientists' Unique Contribution to Policy Analysis.” Policy
Studies Journal. 14, no. 4 (1986): 545-554.
b.
Policy Cycles:
Lyden, Fremont J., George A. Shipman, and Robert
W. Wilkinson. “Decision-Flow Analysis: A Methodology for Studying the Public
Policy-Making Process.” In P. P. Le Breton, ed(s), Comparative
Administrative Theory,
Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1968. 155-168.
deLeon, Peter. “The Stages Approach to the
Policy Process: What Has It Done? Where Is It Going?” In P. A. Sabatier, ed(s),
Theories of the Policy Process,
Boulder: Westview, 1999.
19-34.
Howlett, M. and M. Ramesh. Studying Public
Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems Toronto: oxford University
Press, 1995 Chapter 1
Sabatier, Paul A. “Toward Better Theories of the
Policy Process.” PS: Political Science and Politics. 24, no. 2 (1991):
144-156.
c.
Policy Regimes
Eisner, Marc Allen. “Discovering Patterns in
Regulatory History: Continuity, Change and Regulatory Regimes.” Journal of
Policy History. 6, no. 2 (1994): 157-187.
Orren, Karen and Stephen Skowronek. “Regimes and
Regime Building in American Government: A Review of Literature on the 1940s.” Political
Science Quarterly. 113, no. 4 (1998-99): 689-702.
Wilson, Carter A. “Policy Regimes and Policy
Change.” Journal of Public Policy. 20, no. 3 (2000): 247-271.
Esping-Andersen, Gosta. “Power and
Distributional Regimes.” Politics and Society. 14, no. 2 (1985):
223-256.
d.
Policy Subystems
Knoke, David. “Networks as Political Glue:
Explaining Public Policy-Making.” In W. J. Wilson, ed(s), Sociology and the
Public Agenda, London: Sage,
1993. 164-184.
McCool, Daniel. “The Subsystem Family of
Concepts: A Critique and a Proposal.” Political Research Quarterly. 51,
no. 2 (1998): 551-570.
Burstein, Paul. “Policy Domains: Organization,
Culture and Policy Outcomes.” Annual Review of Sociology. 17(1991):
327-350.
Milward, H. Brinton and Gary L. Walmsley.
“Policy Subsystems, Networks and the Tools of Public Management.” In R.
Eyestone, ed(s), Public Policy Formation, Greenwich: JAI Press, 1984.
3-25.
Overview:
Howlett, Michael and M. Ramesh. Studying
Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2003
(second edition). Chapter 2
Sabatier, Paul A. Theories of the Policy
Process. Boulder: Westview
Press, 1999.
Birkland, Thomas A. An Introduction to the
Policy Process; Theories, Concepts, and Models of Public Policy Making. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, 2001.
Approaches:
Dobuzinskis,
Laurent, Michael Howlett, and David Laycock, ed. Policy
Studies in Canada: The State of the Art. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996.
Theories:
Baumgartner, Frank R. and Bryan D. Jones. Agendas
and Instability in American Politics.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.
Kingdon, John W. Agendas, Alternatives and
Public Policies. Boston:
HarperCollins College Publishers, 1995.
Cobb, R., J.K. Ross, and M.H. Ross. “Agenda
Building as a Comparative Political Process.” American Political Science
Review. 70, no. 1 (1976): 126-138.
Methods:
Howlett,
Michael. “Issue-Attention and Punctuated Equilibria Models Reconsidered: An
Empirical Examination of the Dynamics of Agenda-Setting in Canada.” Canadian
Journal of Political Science. 30, no. 1 (1997): 3-29.
Howlett, Michael. “Predictable and Unpredictable
Policy Windows: Issue, Institutional and Exogenous Correlates of Canadian
Federal Agenda-Setting.” Canadian Journal of Political Science. 31, no.
3 (1998): 495-524.
Soroka, Stuart N. Agenda-Setting Dynamics in Canada Vancouver: UBC
Press, 2002
Theories:
Linder,
Stephen H. and B. Guy Peters. “Policy Formulation and the Challenge of
Conscious Design.” Evaluation and Program Planning. 13(1990): 303-311.
Jordan, A. Grant. “Iron Triangles, Woolly
Corporatism and Elastic Nets: Images of the Policy Process.” Journal of
Public Policy. 1, no. 1 (1981): 95-123.
deLeon,
Peter. “Policy Formulation: Where Ignorant Armies Clash By Night.” Policy
Studies Review. 11, no. 3/4 (1992): 389-405.
Weiss,
Carol H. “Research for Policy's Sake: The Enlightenment Function of Social
Science Research.” Policy Analysis. 3, no. 4 (1977): 531-545.
Dowding,
Keith. “Model or Metaphor? A Critical Review of the Policy Network Approach.” Political
Studies. 43(1995): 136-158.
Methods:
Howlett,
Michael. “Do Networks Matter?
Linking Policy Formulation Processes to Policy Outcomes: Evidence From Four Canadian Policy Sectors
1990-2000.” Canadian Journal of Political Science. 35, no. 2 (2002)
235-268
Zahariadis, Nikoloas and Christopher S. Allen.
“Ideas, Networks, and Policy Streams: Privatization in Britain and Germany.” Policy
Studies Review. 14, no. 1/2 (1995): 71-98.
Schneider, Mark et al. “Building Consensual
institutions: Networks and the National Estuary Program.” American Journal
of Political Science. 47, no. 1 (2003): 143-158.
Landry, Rejean, Moktar Lamari, and Nabil Amara.
“The Extent and Determinants of the Utilization of University Research in
Government Agencies.” Public Administration Review. 63, no. 2 (2003):
192-205.
Theories:
Simon, Herbert A. “The Structure of Ill
Structured Problems.” Artificial Intelligence. 4(1973): 181-201.
Lindblom, Charles E. “The Science of Muddling
Through.” Public Administration Review. 19, no. 2 (1959): 79-88.
Smith, Gilbert and David May. “The Artificial
Debate Between Rationalist and Incrementalist Models of Decision-Making.” Policy
and Politics. 8, no. 2 (1980): 147-161.
Cohen, M., J. March, and J. Olsen. “A Garbage
Can Model of Organizational Choice.” Administrative Science Quarterly.
17, no. 1 (1972): 1-25.
Allison, Graham. Essence of Decision:
Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Boston: Little Brown, 1971.
Teisman, Geert R. “Models for Research into
Decision-Making Processes: On Phases, Streams and Decision-Making Rounds.” Public
Administration. 78, no. 4 (2000): 937-956
Weiss, Carol H. “Knowledge Creep and Decision
Accretion.” Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization. 1, no. 3
(1980): 381-404.
Methods:
Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky. “Prospect
Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk.” Econometrica. 47(1979):
263-289.
Bendor, Jonathan. “A Model of Muddling Through.”
American Political Science Review. 89, no. 4 (1995): 819-840
Bendor, Jonathan and Thomas H. Hammond.
“Re-Thinking Allison's Models.” American Political Science Review. 86,
no. 2 (1992): 301-322.
Bendor,
Jonathan, Terry M. Moe, and Kenneth W. Shotts. “Recycling the Garbage Can: An
Assessment of the Research Program.” American Political Science Review.
95, no. 1 (2001): 169-190.
Mintz, Alex and Nehemia Geva. “The PoliHeuristic
Theory of Foreign Policy Decision Making.” In N. Geva and A. Mintz, ed(s), Decision-Making
in War and Peace: The Cognitive-Rational Debate, Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1997.
Theories:
Peters, B. Guy and F. K. M. Van Nispen, ed. Public Policy Instruments : Evaluating
the Tools of Public Administration.
New York: Edward Elgar, 1998.
Sabatier, Paul A. “Top-Down and Bottom-Up
Approaches to Implementation Research: A Critical Analysis and Suggested
Synthesis.” Journal of Public Policy. 6(1986): 21-48.
O'Toole, Laurence J. “Research on Policy
Implementation: Assessment and Prospects.” Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory. 10, no. 2 (2000): 263-288.
Hood, Christopher. The Tools of Government. Chatham: Chatham House Publishers,
1986.
Eliadis, Pearl, Margaret Hill, and Michael
Howlett, ed. Designing Government: From Instruments to Governance.
Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2004.
Howlett, Michael. “Managing the "Hollow
State": Procedural Policy Instruments and Modern Governance.” Canadian
Public Administration. 43, no. 4 (2000): 412-431.
Methods
Salamon, Lester M., ed. The Tools of Government: A Guide to
the New Governance. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2002.
Goggin, Malcolm L. et al. Implementation
Theory and Practice: Toward A Third Generation. Glenview: Scott, Foresman/Little, Brown, 1990.
McCubbins, Mathew D. and Arthur Lupia. “Learning
from Oversight: Fire Alarms and Policy Patrols Reconstructed.” Journal of
Law, Economics and Organization. 10, no. 1 (1994): 96-125.
Hawkins, Keith and John M. Thomas. “Making
Policy in Regulatory Bureaucracies.” In K. Hawkins and J. M. Thomas, ed(s), Making
Regulatory Policy, Pittsburgh:
University of Pittsburgh Press, 1989.
3-30.
Scholz, John T. “Cooperative Regulatory
Enforcement and the Politics of Administrative Effectiveness.” American
Political Science Review. 85, no. 1 (1991): 115-136.
Theories:
Weimer, David L. and Aidan R. Vining. Policy
Analysis: Concepts and Practice.
New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1999.
Patton, Carl V. and David S. Sawicki. Basic
Methods of Policy Analysis and Planning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993.
Palumbo, Dennis J. The Politics of Program
Evaluation. Beverly Hills:
Sage, 1987.
Nachmias, David. Public Policy Evaluation:
Approaches and Methods. New
York: St. Martin's Press, 1979.
Dobell, Rodney and David Zussman. “An Evaluation
System for Government: If Politics is Theatre, then Evaluation is (mostly)
Art.” Canadian Public Administration. 24, no. 3 (1981): 404-427.
deLeon, Peter. “Policy Evaluation and Program
Termination.” Policy Studies Review. 2, no. 4 (1983): 631-647.
Methods:
Geva-May, Iris. “When the Motto is 'Till Death
Do Us Part": The Conceptualization and the Craft of Termination in the
Public Policy Cycle.” International Journal of Public Administration.
24, no. 3 (2001): 263-288.
Kirkpatrick, Susan E., James P. Lester, and Mark
R. Peterson. “The Policy Termination Process: A Conceptual Framework and
Application to Revenue Sharing.” Policy Studies Review. 16, no. 1
(1999): 209-236.
Lewis, David E. “The Politics of Agency
Termination: Confronting the Myth of Agency Immortality.” The Journal of Politics. 64, no. 1 (2002):
89-107.
Hahn, Robert W. and Patrick Dudley. How Well
Does the Government Do Cost-Benefit Analysis. Washington D.C.:
AEI-Brookings Joint Centre for Regulatory Studies Working Paper, 2004
Gunton, Thomas. “Megaprojects and Regional
Development: Pathologies in Project Planning.” Regional Studies. 37, no.
5 (2003): 505-519.
Theories:
Hall,
Peter A. “Policy Paradigms, Social Learning and the State: The Case of Economic
Policy Making in Britain.” Comparative Politics. 25, no. 3 (1993):
275-96.
Blyth, Mark M. “"Any More Bright
Ideas?" The Ideational Turn of Comparative Political Economy.” Comparative
Politics. 29(1997): 229-250.
J. Goldstein and R. O. Keohane, ed(s), Ideas
and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions and Political Change, Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
1993. 3-30.
Braun,
Dietmar and Andreas Busch, ed. Public
Policy and Political Ideas.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1999.
Campbell,
John L. “Institutional Analysis and the Role of Ideas in Political Economy.” Theory
and Society. 27, no. 5 (1998): 377-409.
Methods:
Howlett,
Michael. “Policy Paradigms and Policy Change: Lessons From the Old and New
Canadian Policies Towards Aboriginal Peoples.” Policy Studies Journal.
22, no. 4 (1994): 631-651.
Goldstein,
Judith and Robert O. Keohane. “Ideas and Foreign Policy: An Analytical
Framework.” In J. Goldstein and R. O. Keohane, ed(s), Ideas and Foreign
Policy: Beliefs, Institutions and Political Change, Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
1993. 3-30.
Yee,
Albert S. “The Causal Effects of Ideas on Policies.” International
Organizations. 50, no. 1 (1996): 69-108.
Coleman, William D., Grace D. Skogstad, and
Michael Atkinson. “Paradigm Shifts and Policy Networks: Cumulative Change in
Agriculture.” Journal of Public Policy. 16, no. 3 (1996): 273-302.
Bhatia, V. and W.D. Coleman. “Ideas and
Discourse: Reform and Resistance in the German and Canadian Health Systems.” Canadian
Journal of Political Science. 36, no. 4 (2003): 715-740
Chadwick, Andrew. “Studying Political Ideas: A
Public Political Discourse Approach.” Political Studies. 48(2000):
283-301.
Muntigle, Peter. “Policy, Politics and Social
Control: A Systemic Functional Linguistic Analysis of EU Employment Policy.” Text.
22, no. 3 (2002): 393-441.
Theories:
Kiser, Larry L. and Elinor Ostrom. “The Three
Worlds of Action: A Metetheoretical Synthesis of Institutional Approaches.” In
E. Ostrom, ed(s), Strategies of Political Inquiry, Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982. 179-222.
March, James G. and Johan P. Olsen. Rediscovering
Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: The Free Press, 1989.
Clemens, Elisabeth S. and James M. Cook.
“Politics and Institutionalism: Explaining Durability and Change.” Annual
Review of Sociology. 25(1999): 441-466.
Mahoney,
James. “Path Dependence in Historical Sociology.” Theory and Society.
29, no. 4 (2000): 507-548.
Wilsford, David. “Path Dependency, or Why
History Makes It Difficult but Not Impossible to Reform Health Care Systems in
A Big Way.” Journal of Public Policy. 14, no. 3 (1994): 251-284.
Methods:
Ostrom,
Elinor. “A Method of Institutional Analysis.” In F. X. Kaufman, G. Majone and
V. Ostrom, ed(s), Guidance, Control and Evaluation in the Public Sector, Berlin: deGruyter, 1986.
Weaver,
R. Kent and Bert A. Rockman. “When and How do Institutions Matter?” In R. K.
Weaver and B. A. Rockman, ed(s), Do Institutions Matter? Government
Capabilities in the United States and Abroad, Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institutions, 1993. 445-461.
Hall,
Peter A. “The Change from Keynesianism to Monetarism: Institutional
Analysis and British Economic
Policy in the 1970s.” In S. Steinmo, K. Thelen and F. Longstreth, ed(s), Structuring
Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1992. 90-114.
Pierson,
Paul. “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics.” American
Political Science Review. 94, no. 2 (2000): 251-267.
Pierson,
Paul. “The Limits of Design: Explaining Institutional Origins and Change.” Governance.
13, no. 4 (2000): 475-499.
Genschel,
Philipp. “The Dynamics of Inertia: Institutional Persistence and Change in
Telecommunications and Health care.” Governance. 10, no. 1 (1997):
43-66.
Theories:
Heclo, Hugh. “Issue Networks and the Executive
Establishment.” In A. King, ed(s), The New American Political System, Washington D.C.: American Enterprise
Institute for Public Policy Research, 1978. 87-124.
Sabatier, Paul A. “An Advocacy Coalition
Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning Therein.” Policy
Sciences. 21, no. 2/3 (1988): 129-168.
Peters, Guy. “Policy Networks: Myth, Metaphor
and Reality.” In D. Marsh, ed(s), Comparing Policy Networks, Buckingham: Open University Press,
1998. 21-32.
Marsh, David and Martin Smith. “Understanding
Policy Networks: Towards a Dialectical Approach.” Political Studies.
48(2000): 4-21.
Rayner, J. , M.
Howlett, J. Wilson, G. Hoberg and B. Cashore ,“Privileging the Sub-Sector:
Critical Sub-Sectors and Sectoral Relationships in Forest Policy-Making.” Forest
Policy and Economics. 2, no. 3-4 (2001): 319-332.
Methods:
Heinz, John P. et al. “Inner Circles or Hollow
Cores.” Journal of Politics. 52, no. 2 (1990): 356-390.
Heinz, John P. et al. The Hollow Core:
Private Interests in National Policy Making. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993.
Laumann, Edward O. and David Knoke. The
Organizational State: Social Choice in National Policy Domains. Madison: The University of Wisconsin
Press, 1987.
Raab, Jorg. “Where Do Policy Networks Come From?”
Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory. 12, no. 4 (2002): 581-622.
Brandes, Ulrik et al. “Explorations into the
Visualization of Policy Networks.” Journal of Theoretical Politics. 11,
no. 1 (1999): 75-106.
Raab, Jorg and H. Brinton Milward. “Dark
Networks as Problems.” Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory. 13, no. 4 (2003):
413-440.
McGregor, Sue L. T. “Modeling the Evolution of a
Policy Network Using Network Analysis.” Family and Consumer Research Journal.
32, no. 4 (2004): 382-407.
Theories:
Gormley, William T. “Regulatory Enforcement.” Political
Research Quarterly. 51, no. 2 (1998): 363-383.
Howlett, Michael. “Beyond Legalism? Policy
Ideas, Implementation Styles and Emulation-Based Convergence in Canadian and
U.S. Environmental Policy.” Journal of Public Policy. 20, no. 3 (2000):
305-329.
Kagan, Robert A. “Adversarial Legalism and
American Government.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 10, no.
3 (1991): 369-406.
Vogel, David. National Styles of Regulation:
Environmental Policy in Great Britain and the United States. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986.
Freeman, Gary P. “National Styles and Policy
Sectors: Explaining Structured Variation.” Journal of Public Policy. 5,
no. 4 (1985): 467-496.
Methods:
Richardson, Jeremy, Gunnel Gustafsson, and Grant
Jordan. “The Concept of Policy Style.” In J. J. Richardson, ed(s), Policy
Styles in Western Europe,
London: George Allen and Unwin, 1982. 1-16.
May,
Peter J. and Soren Winter. “Regulatory Enforcement and Compliance: Examining
Danish Agro-Environmental Policy.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management.
18, no. 4 (1999): 625-651.
Howlett,
Michael. “Administrative Styles and the Limits of Administrative Reform: A
Neo-Institutional Analysis of Administrative Culture.” Canadian Public
Administration. 46, no. 4 (2004): 471-494.
Howlett,
Michael and Evert Lindquist. “Policy Analysis and Governance: Analytical and
Policy Styles in Canada.” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis. 6, no.
3 (2004): 225-249.
Kagan,
Robert A. “The Political Construction of American Adversarial Legalism.” In A.
Ranney, ed(s), Courts and the Political Process, Berkeley: Institute of
Governmental Studies Press, 1996. 19-39.
Kagan,
Robert A. “Should Europe Worry About Adversarial Legalism?” Oxford Journal
of Legal Studies. 17, no. 2 (1997): 165-183.
Kagan,
Robert A. and Lee Axelrad. “Adversarial Legalism: An International
Perspective.” In P. S. Nivola, ed(s), Comparative Disadvantages? Social
Regulations and the Global Economy, Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution
Press, 1997. 146-202.