SUP 922/Government 2340: Spring 2015
Proseminar on Inequality and Social Policy
Monday: 2-4pm in CGIS, K450
v6 1/8/15
Professors: Amitabh Chandra
Offices:
Taubman 344
Office hours: Monday: 1-2p and 4-6p
e-mail: Amitabh_Chandra@harvard.edu
Assistants: Wendy Carney
e-mail: Wendy_Carney@Harvard.EDU
Jennifer Hochschild
CGIS K412
Monday: 2-5 pm
Hochschild@gov.harvard.edu
Felicia Share
fshare@hds.harvard.edu
The proseminar is a required three-semester sequence for second and third year doctoral
students in Government and Social Policy, Sociology and Social Policy, and the
Multidisciplinary Program on Inequality and Social Policy.
Space permitting, other students may take the first two semesters if they have completed
both a year of doctoral work and two semesters of statistics. Enrollment in the third
semester is limited to students for whom it is required. Enrollment in both the second
and third semesters is limited to students who have completed the previous semester.
FAS designates the first semester of the Proseminar as Sociology 296a and the second
semester as Government 2340. HKS designates the first semester as SUP 921 and the
second semester as SUP 922.
Objectives: The proseminar has four main academic objectives:
1. Familiarizing students with some of the key policy choices that affect economic,
social, and political inequality in rich democracies.
2. Examining what we know and what we can learn about the causes, consequences,
and means of affecting these policies.
3. Helping students develop a more interdisciplinary view of the world.
4. Helping students write a publishable paper on a policy-related question. Our
definition of a “policy-related question” is that it should have obvious implications
for some actual or potential government policy.
Overview of Spring 2015: The spring semester is divided into three parts. Chandra will
lead the first six classes, which focus on the interplay between health, healthcare, and
health insurance from the perspective of economics, medicine, and health services
research.
1
Hochschild will lead the next six classes, which will focus on the role of political activity,
governmental institutions, and policy choices in shaping public-sector activities that
exacerbate or mitigate various forms of inequality.
In the final two classes (weeks 13 and 14, scheduled for the last two weeks of the
semester), students will each present a 10 minute summary of the research that they have
been working on since Fall 2014, after which both faculty and other students will make
comments and suggestions.
Reading: We will read and discuss the equivalent of roughly five to six research papers
each week. You should read all the required papers.
Some readings are available electronically through Hollis (url is included in the syllabus),
or available as a pdf under Additional Readings on the course website. You can copy
these onto your laptop and make one copy for your personal use. Reproducing the papers
for any other purpose is illegal.
Some of the books are available at the Coop. They are:

Andrea Campbell, Trapped in America’s Safety Net (University of Chicago
Press, 2014)
 Atul Gawande, Better: A Surgeon's Notes on Performance (Picador, 2008)
 Atul Gawande, Being Mortal (Deckle Edge, 2014)
 Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz, The Race between Education and Technology
(Harvard University Press, 2008)
 Albert Hirschman, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms,
Organizations, and States (Harvard University Press, 1971)
 Eric Patashnik, Reforms At Risk: What Happens after Major Policy Changes Are
Enacted (Princeton University Press, 2008)
 Thomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century (Harvard University Press,
2014)
You also need to get a copy of Alan Murray, Showdown at Gucci Gulch (Vintage, 1988).
It is not at the Coop, but is available on Amazon.com for $.01.
Format of classes: Classes will start promptly at 2:10pm.
Memos: During the first six weeks all students, including auditors, must write six memos
of no more than 500 words about the readings and help lead one class discussion.
Memos about the reading for a Monday class are due by midnight on the Friday prior to
class. Note that since the main purpose of the memos is to enhance the quality of class
discussion, late memos will not count towards your quota.
Everyone is expected to read their classmates’ memos, so you should deposit your memo
in the appropriate dropbox on the course website. Recipients often use e-mail subject
2
lines to file memos, so subject lines need to follow a common format. The subject line
should read:
“[YOUR NAME] - Proseminar memo for [SEMINAR DATE]”
Insert the date of the seminar, not the date on which you are writing the memo.
Discussion Leaders: Generally two per class (occasionally three). Discussion leaders will
start each week’s seminar. Assignments have been made below, in topic headings for
each session. Students are free to swap with sessions with each other, and this doesn’t
require approval of the instructor, but the assigned student on the syllabus is the one who
bears responsibility for ensuring that there is a leader for their material.
Discussion leaders should meet with the instructor well before class to plan this part of
the class, prepare a one page outline identifying the issues they think the class should
discuss, and bring enough copies for everyone to class. Discussion leaders will keep their
initial comments to no more than 10 minutes (that is, 10-15 minutes for all leaders, not
per person). Their main job thereafter is to ensure that discussion for the rest of the class
moves from one item to the next in a timely way.
Goals: Both memos and class discussion should (briefly!) cover at least four issues:
1. Summarize the salient points of the paper. If the paper performs original empirical
work (as distinguished from citing the work of others), be sure to explain what
data was used and what empirical strategy was used to arrive at the conclusion.
2. What is the most significant thing we learn from the paper, and why does it
matter?
3. Are there important methodological questions about the validity of the empirical
claims made in the papers? If so, which ones are most important and how do they
matter?
4. Do the papers have important policy implications, either explicit or implicit?
Under what conditions, if any, are those implications likely to hold?
Grading: Your paper counts for half of the grade in this class. The remaining grade will
depend on your instructors’ evaluation of your performance during the six week module
that each is responsible for (i.e. half determined by Chandra and half by Hochschild).
Second Semester Deadlines:
Comment [AC1]: Pam: please fill out
May 8, 2015. Research papers are due unless your advisor has given you an extension in
writing. If you want to receive an A.M, degree in May 2015, this is a hard deadline.
However, students who will be taking the third semester of the proseminar should plan to
spend a substantial part of the summer working on their paper. Your advisor can extend
the deadline as late as July 15. Advisors will set due dates that allows them to return
your paper by August 1.
3
July 15, 2015: No extensions for your second semester paper will be granted beyond this
date. Half your second semester grade will be based on the paper you submit by this
time.
Third semester (Fall 2015):
The third semester focuses on revising your second-semester paper for submission to a
scholarly journal. You will be paired with a speaker for the Monday seminar, who will
read and comment on your paper. You will also present your paper in the fall
Proseminar. Your presentation should be no more than 20 minutes; it will be followed by
20 minutes of comments from the outside speaker and 20 minutes of open discussion.
You are expected to attend your classmates’ presentations and to provide written
comments on their papers prior to their presentations. Writing these comments is a
prerequisite for receiving credit for the seminar, which in turn is necessary both to collect
an Inequality and Social Policy Fellowship and to receive a Social Policy degree.
Students taking the third semester of the proseminar must send their paper to the outside
speaker who will comment on it, and to members of the seminar, at least two weeks
before their presentation date. Those with early presentation dates should plan on making
final revisions in late August. Revised papers may be due as early as August 25.
Because your presentation date is also the date on which your commentator has agreed to
speak in the Monday seminar, it cannot be changed.
4
Readings and Topics for Spring 2015
January 26: Linkages between Health and Healthcare
Discussion led by Schachner, Sarsons
1. Cutler, David, Angus Deaton, and Adriana Lleras-Muney. 2006. “The Determinants of
mortality.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 20(3): 97-120.
2. Banks, James, and James P. Smith. 2010. “International Comparisons in Health
Economics: Evidence from Aging Studies.” Annual Review of Economics.
3. Das J, A. Holla, V. Das, M. Mohanan , D. Tabak, and B. Chan. 2012. “In urban and rural
India, a standardized patient study showed low levels of provider training and huge
quality gaps.” Health Affairs 31(12): 2774-84.
February 2: Neighborhoods and Social Determinants of Health
Discussion led by Fong, Benavidez
1. Ludwig, Jens, Lisa Sanbonmatsu, Lisa Gennetian, Emma Adam, Greg J Duncan,
Lawrence F. Katz, Ronald C. Kessler, Jeffrey R. Kling, Stacy Tessler Lindau, Robert C.
Whitaker, and Thomas W.McDade. 2011. “Neighborhoods, Obesity, and Diabetes: A
Randomized Social Experiment.” The New England Journal of Medicine.
2. The Healthy Study Group 2010. “A School-Based Intervention for Diabetes Risk
Reduction.” The New England Journal of Medicine.
3. Almond, Douglas, and Janet Currie. 2011. "Killing Me Softly: The Fetal Origins
Hypothesis." Journal of Economic Perspectives 25(3): 153-72.
4. Kling, J. R., J. B. Liebman, and L. F. Katz. 2007, “Experimental Analysis of
Neighborhood Effects.” Econometrica 75: 83–119
5. Christakis, Nicholas A. and, James H. Fowler. 2007. “The Spread of Obesity in a Large
Social Network over 32 Years.” The New England Journal of Medicine
6. Cohen-Cole, Ethan, and Jason M. Fletcher. "Detecting implausible social network effects
in acne, height and headaches: longitudinal analysis." British Medical Journal.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/dec04_2/a2533
5
February 9: Health Insurance
Discussion led by Danieli, George
1. Finkelstein, Amy, Sarah Taubman, Bill Wright, Mira Bernsteina, Jonathan Gruber,
Joseph P. Newhouse, Heidi Allenc, Katherine Baicker,. 2012. “The Oregon Health
Insurance Experiment: Evidence from the First Year.” The Quarterly Journal of
Economics.
2. Sarah L. Taubman, Heidi L. Allen, Bill J. Wright, Katherine Baicker, and Amy N.
Finkelstein. “Medicaid Increases Emergency-Department Use: Evidence from Oregon's
Health Insurance Experiment, Science 17 January 2014: 343 (6168), 263-268.Published
online 2 January 2014 [DOI:10.1126/science.1246183]
3. Aviva Aron-Dine, Liran Einav, and Amy Finkelstein. 2013. “The RAND Health
Insurance Experiment, Three Decades Later.”. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(1).
4. Chandra, Amitabh, Jonathan Gruber, and Robin McKnight. 2010. “Patient Cost-Sharing
and Hospitalization Offsets in the Elderly.” American Economic Review 100 (1): 193213.
5. Chandra, Amitabh, Jonathan Gruber, and Robin McKnight. 2011. “The Importance of the
Individual Mandate — Evidence from Massachusetts.” The New England Journal of
Medicine. 364:293-295
February 16: No Class (Presidents Day)
February 23: Productivity in Healthcare
Discussion led by Moshowitz, Garin, Latura
1. Gawande, Atul. Better: A Surgeon's Notes on Performance and Being Mortal
2. Chandra, Amitabh, and Jonathan Skinner. 2012. "Technology Growth and Expenditure
Growth in Health Care." Journal of Economic Literature, 50(3): 645-80.
3. Chandra, Amitabh, Katherine Baicker, Jonathan Skinner. 2012. “Saving Money or Just
Saving Lives? Improving the Productivity of US Health Care Spending.” Annual Review
of Economics.(4) 33-56.
4. Chandra, Amitabh, Anupam B. Jena, and Jonathan S. Skinner. 2011. "The Pragmatist's
Guide to Comparative Effectiveness Research." Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(2):
27-46.
5. Chandra, Amitabh, Dhruv Khullar, and Thomas Lee. 2015. “Addressing the Challenge of
Gray-Zone Medicine,” New England Journal of Medicine, forthcoming.
6
March 2: Topics in Health
Discussion led by: Derenoncourt, Mbekeani, Lillios
1 William N. Evans and Timothy J. Moore, “Liquidity, Activity, Mortality.” Review of
Economics and Statistics, Forthcoming
2. William N. Evans and Steven Snyder, “The Impact of Income on Mortality: Evidence
from the Social Security Notch,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(3), 2006, 482495.
3. Christine Eibner and William N. Evans, “Relative Deprivation, Poor Heath Habits and
Mortality,” Journal of Human Resources, Summer 2005, 40(3): 591-620. Available at
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4129553?sid=21104918633831&uid=3739696&ui
d=2&uid=3739256&uid=2129&uid=70&uid=4
4. Figlio, David, Jonathan Guryan, Krzysztof Karbownik, and Jeffrey Roth. 2014. "The
Effects of Poor Neonatal Health on Children's Cognitive Development." American
Economic Review, 104(12): 3921-55. Available at
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.104.12.3921
March 9: Topics in Healthcare
Discussion led by Sarsons, McElroy, Schachner
1. Beauchamp, Jonathan P., David Cesarini, Magnus Johannesson, Matthijs J. H. M. van der
Loos, Philipp D. Koellinger, Patrick J. F. Groenen, James H. Fowler, J. Niels Rosenquist,
A. Roy Thurik, and Nicholas A. Christakis. 2011. "Molecular Genetics and
Economics."Journal of Economic Perspectives 25(4): 57-82.
2. Manski, Charles F. 2011. "Genes, Eyeglasses, and Social Policy." Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 25(4): 83-94.
3. Schulman, Kevin A., Jesse A. Berlin, William Harless, Jon F. Kerner, Shyrl Sistrunk,
Bernard J. Gersh, Phil D. Dubé, Taleghani, Christopher K. Ross, Jennifer E. Burke,
Sankey Williams, John M. Eisenberg, William Ayers, and José J. Escarce 1999. “The
Effect of Race and Sex on Physicians' Recommendations for Cardiac Catheterization.”
The New England Journal of Medicine. 340:618-626.
4. Green, A. R., Dana Carney, D. J. Pallin, L. H. Ngo, K. L. Raymond, L. Iezzoni, and M.
R. Banaji. 2007. "Implicit Bias among Physicians and Its Prediction of Thrombolysis
Decisions for Black and White Patients." Journal of General Internal Medicine 22: 12311238.
5. Chandra, Amitabh and Douglas. O. Staiger. 2010. “Identifying Provider Prejudice in
Healthcare.” NBER Working Paper.
7
6. Goldman, Dana P. and James P. Smith. 2002. Can Patient Self-Management Help
Explain the SES Health Gradient? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
the United States of America . 99 (16): 10929-10934
7. Baumgardner, James R., , Linda T. Bilheimer, Mark B. Booth, William J. Carrington,
Noelia J. Duchovny, and Ellen C. Werble. 2012. “Cigarette Taxes and the Federal
Budget: Report from the CBO.” The New England Journal of Medicine.
March 16: No Class, Spring Break
March 23: Comparing Social Welfare Systems: What and Why?
Discussion led by McElroy and George
1. Andrea Campbell, Trapped in America’s Safety Net, chaps. 1-5.
2. Alberto Alesina and Edward Glaeser. 2004. Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe: A
World of Difference. Oxford University Press, chaps. 4, 6.
3. Bruno Palier and Kathleen Thelen. 2010. “Institutionalizing Dualism: Complementarities
and Change in France and Germany,” Politics & Society 38 (1): 119-148 (especially
pp.119-122, 133-139).
March 30: Should Social Welfare Be Provided Publicly or Privately?
Discussion led by Moskowitz and Sarsons
1. Albert Hirschman, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty, chaps. 1-5, 7-9.
2. Terry Moe, Schools, Vouchers, and the American Public. Brookings Institution Press,
2001, chap. 5.
3. Terry Moe and Paul Hill. 2012. “Moving to a Mixed Model,” in Jal Mehta, Robert B.
Schwartz, and Frederick M. Hess, eds. The Futures of School Reform. Harvard Education
Press.
4. Stone, Clarence, Jeffrey R Henig, Bryan D. Jones, and Carol Pierannunzi. 2001. Building
Civic Capacity : The Politics of Reforming Urban Schools. University Press of Kansas,
chaps. 2, 5.
8
April 6: Incentives, Worldviews, and Actions of Public Officials
Discussion led by Lillios and Fong
1. John Kingdon. 2010. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Update Edition, with an
Epilogue on Health Care. Pearson, chaps. 6, 8, Epilogue.
2. Alan Murray, Showdown at Gucci Gulch, chapters TBA
3. Dan Carpenter. 2010. Reputation and Power: Organizational Image and Pharmaceutical
Regulation at the FDA. Princeton University Press, chaps. 2, 12.
April 13: Policy Implementation
Discussion led by Schachner and Latura
1. Jeffrey Pressman and Aaron Wildavsky. 1984. Implementation: H. University of
California Press, chaps. 3 (skim), 5, 6, 10.
2. Eric Patashnik. 2008. Reforms at Risk: What Happens After Major Policy Changes Are
Enacted. Princeton University Press, chaps. 1-3, 5, 9.
3. Michael Lipsky. 2010. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public
Service, 30th anniversary expanded ed. Russell Sage Foundation, chaps. 2, 4, 5, 7, 9.
April 20: Long-term Impact of Policy and Political Choices
Discussion led by Derenoncourt, Benavidez, and Mbekeani
1. Thomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Introduction, chaps. 7-10, 12.
2. Claudia Golden and Lawrence Katz, The Race between Education and Technology,
chaps. 2, 6, 7, 8
April 27: Creating Successful Social Policies?
Discussion led by Danieli and Garin
1. Piketty, Capital, chaps. 13-16
2. Frederick Hess and Olivia Meeks, “ ‘Unbundling’ Schools and Schooling,” in Mehta et
al., eds. The Futures of School Reform.
3. Campbell, Trapped in America’s Safety Net, chap. 6
4. Golden and. Katz, The Race between Education and Technology, chap. 9
9
5. Kenneth Scheve and Matthew Slaughter. 2006. “Public Opinion, International Economic
Integration, and the Welfare State.” In Pranab Bardhan, Samuel Bowles, and Michael
Wallerstein, eds. Globalization and Egalitarian Redistribution. Russell Sage
Foundation.
May 4 and 11 (2:00-5:00 pm, tentatively): Student presentations of second draft of Social Policy
papers
10