Proseminar in Public Policy, Fall 2013
Political Science 811
Michigan State University
Monday, 3:00 to 5:50 pm; 104 South Kedzie Hall
Sarah Reckhow, Assistant Professor
Department of Political Science, Michigan State University
Office: 328 South Kedzie; Phone: 517-432-0028; Email: reckhow@msu.edu
Office Hours: Tuesday 3 to 5 pm, or by appointment
Overview:
The course is a weekly seminar to familiarize you with the academic literatures on public policy
and the policy-making process, primarily focusing on the United States. It should help prepare
you to take the field examination in public policy and to teach and conduct research in this field.
Course Requirements:
Reading: Every student must come prepared to discuss all of the required readings in class.
Participation: This is a seminar course, so there will be no formal lectures. Each student is
expected to participate in class discussions, offering questions and reactions to the weekly
readings.
Assignments:
The major assignment for the course is a final paper. You will also be responsible for weekly
reading response papers. Some weeks, I will provide a sample comprehensive exam question,
and you may use the question to frame your response. For two weeks during the semester, you
need to substitute a proposed original research design for your reading response paper. For your
research design assignments, you are encouraged to focus on a policy area or topic that you
intend to study. These assignments are due the day before class- Sunday.
The final course grade will be composed of the following:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Weekly Response Papers (~1 page, single-spaced)
Two Original Research Designs (~2 pages, single-spaced)
Final Paper
Reading Comprehension & Discussion Participation
30%
10%
35%
25%
Course Texts: The readings include journal articles and books. I will provide links to the
journal articles on the course website for you to print at home or read on your computer.
For the last week of class, I will seek your input to select readings for the class. On the first day
of class, August 28, be prepared to share a policy area or topic of particular interest to you,
which you plan to study in your own research. Our readings for the last week will include articles
selected to cover a variety of policy areas of interest to students in the class.
Books:

Baumgartner, Frank and Bryan Jones. 2009. Agendas and Instability in American
Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Second Edition.

Patashnik, Eric. 2008. Reforms at Risk: What Happens After Major Policy Changes are
Enacted. Princeton University Press.

Gilens, Martin. 2012. Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power
in America. Princeton University Press.

Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for
Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.
Schedule of Topics:
August 28 (Wednesday): Theory Building: Stages/Typologies
September 9: Critiques of a Rationalist or Stages Approach
September 16: No class
September 23: Punctuated Equilibrium
September 30: Historical Institutionalism
October 7: Networks and Coalitions
October 14: Public Opinion
October 21: Inequality and Democratic Responsiveness
October 28: Implementation
November 4: Sustaining Policy Reform
November 11: Privatization/Markets/Delegated Governance
November 18: Diffusion
November 25: Institutional Analysis and Development
December 2: TBA—Research on Specific Policy Areas
Theory Building: Stages and Typologies
Required Readings:
Smith and Larimer. 2013. “Does Politics Cause Policy? Does Policy Cause Politics?” in The
Public Policy Theory Primer. Westview Press.
Lowi, Theodore J. 1964. “American Business, Public Policy, Case Studies, and Political
Theory.” World Politics.
Schneider, Anne, and Helen Ingram. 1993. “Social Construction of Target Populations:
Implications for Politics and Policy.” American Political Science Review 87: 334–47.
Greenberg, G. et al. 1977. “Developing Public Policy Theory: Perspectives from Empirical
Research.” American Political Science Review. 71(4): 1532-1543.
Grossmann, M. 2013. “The Variable Politics of the Policy Process: Issue Area Differences and
Comparative Networks.” Journal of Politics.
Critiques of a Rationalist or Stages Approach
Required Readings:
Lindblom, Charles E. 1959. “The Science of ‘Muddling Through.’” Public Administration
Review. 19(2): 79-88.
Simon, Herbert. 2000. “Bounded Rationality in Social Science: Today and Tomorrow.” Mind
and Society. 1(1): 25-39.
Kingdon, John. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Chapters: 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 (I
will provide copies in class)
Recommended Readings:
Cohen, Michael D., James G. March, and Johan P. Oslen. 1972. “A Garbage Can Model of
Organizational Choice.” Administrative Science Quarterly. 17: 1-25.
Mucciaroni, Gary. 1992. “The Garbage Can Model and the Study of Policy Making: A Critique.”
Polity. 24: 459.
Durant, Robert F. and Paul F. Diehl. 1989. “Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policy: Lessons
from the U.S. Foreign Policy Arena.” Journal of Public Policy.
Zahariadis, Nikolaos, and Christopher S. Allen. 1995. “Ideas, Networks, and Policy Streams:
Privatization in Britain and Germany.” Policy Studies Review.
Bendor, Moe and Shotts. 2001. “Recycling the Garbage Can: An Assessment of the Research
Program.” American Political Science Review.
Simon. 1997. Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative
Organizations. The Free Press.
Punctuated Equilibrium
Required Reading:
Baumgartner, Frank and Bryan Jones. 2009. Agendas and Instability in American Politics.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Second Edition.
Adler and Wilkerson. 2012. “Problem Solving and Policy Focal Points.” in Congress and the
Politics of Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press.
Explore these websites: http://www.policyagendas.org/; http://www.comparativeagendas.org/
Recommended Readings:
Jones and Baumgartner. 2005. The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems.
University of Chicago Press.
Jones, B., T. Sulkin, and H. Larsen. 2003, Policy Punctuations in American Political Institutions.
American Political Science Review.
Robinson, S., F. Caver, K. Meier, and L. O’Toole. 2007. “Explaining Policy Punctuations.”
American Journal of Political Science.
Jones, Baumgartner, and Talbert. 1993. “The Destruction of Issue Monopolies in Congress.”
American Political Science Review.
Jones. 1998. “Policy Punctuations: U.S. Budget Authority, 1947-1995.” Journal of Politics.
Jordan, Meagan. 2003. “Punctuations and Agendas: A new look at local government budget
expenditures.” JPART. 15.
May, Sapotichne, and Workman. 2009. “Widespread Policy Disruption: Terrorism, Public
Risks, and Homeland Security.” Policy Studies Journal.
Historical Institutionalism
Required Readings:
Pierson, Paul. 2000. “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics.” The
American Political Science Review.
Hacker, Jacob S. 2004. “Privatizing Risk without Privatizing the Welfare State: The Hidden
Politics of Social Policy Retrenchment in the United States.” The American Political Science
Review.
Sheingate, Adam. 2003. “Political Entrepreneurship, Institutional Change, and American
Political Development.” Studies in American Political Development.
Skocpol, Ganz, and Munson. 2000. “A Nation of Organizers: The Institutional Origins of Civic
Voluntarism in the United States.” American Political Science Review. 94(3).
Teles, Steven. December 2012. “Kludgeocracy: The American Way of Policy.” New America
Foundation.
Recommended Readings:
Paul Pierson. Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 2004.
Thelen, Kathleen. How Institutions Evolve: The Political Economy of Skills in Germany, Britain,
the United States and Japan, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Thelen, Kathleen. "Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics." Annual Review of
Political Science 2 (1999): 369-404.
Stephen Skowronek, The Politics Presidents Make: Leadership from John Adams to Bill Clinton.
Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1997.
Jacob S. Hacker, The Divided Welfare State: The Battle Over Public and Private Social Benefits
in the United States (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).
Paul Pierson, "When Effect Becomes Cause: Policy Feedback and Political Change," World
Politics, Vol. 45, No. 4, July, 1993, 595-628.
Steven M. Teles, Whose Welfare? AFDC and Elite Politics (Lawrence: University of Kansas
Press, 1996).
Networks and Coalitions
Required Readings:
Weir, Margaret. 2006. “When Does Politics Create Policy? The Organizational Politics of
Change.” in Rethinking Political Institutions: The Art of the State. Ed. Shapiro, Skowronek, and
Galvin. New York: NYU Press.
Heclo, Hugh. 1978. “Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment” in Anthony King, ed. The
New American Political System. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
Grossmann, M. Forthcoming. “The Long Great Society.” The Artists of the Possible. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Weible, C. 2005. “Beliefs and perceived influence in a natural resource conflict: an advocacy
coalition framework approach to policy networks.” Political Research Quarterly. 58.
Ansell, Reckhow, and Kelly. 2009. “How to Reform a Reform Coalition: Outreach, Agenda
Expansion, and Brokerage in Urban School Reform.” Policy Studies Journal. 37(4): 717-743.
Recommended Readings:
Sabatier, Paul, and Hank Jenkins-Smith. 1993. Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy
Coalition Approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Sabatier, Paul. 1988. “An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of
Policy-Oriented Learning Therein.” Policy Sciences 21: 129–68.
Zafonte, Matthew, and Paul Sabatier. 1998. “Shared Beliefs and Imposed Interdependencies as
Determinants of Ally Networks in Overlapping Subsystems.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 10
(4): 473–505.
Jenkins-Smith, Hank, and Paul Sabatier. 1994. “Evaluating the Advocacy Coalition Framework.”
Journal of Public Policy. 14:175-203.
Weible, Christopher, and Paul Sabatier. 2005. “Comparing Policy Networks: Marine Protected
Areas in California.” Policy Studies Journal 33 (2): 181–201.
Mintrom, Michael, and Sandra Vergari. 1996. “Advocacy Coalitions, Policy Entrepreneurs, and
Policy Change.” Policy Studies Journal 24 (3): 420–34.
Public Opinion
Required Readings:
Jacoby and Schneider. 2001. “Variability in State Policy Priorities: An Empirical Analysis.”
Journal of Politics.
Christopher Wlezien, “The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending,”
American Journal of Political Science 39 (1995), 981-1000.
Bullock, John. 2011. “Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate.” American
Political Science Review.
Joe Soss and Sanford F. Schram, “A Public Transformed? Welfare Reform as Policy Feedback.”
American Political Science Review. 101(1) (2007): 111-27.
Page, Bartels, and Seawright. 2013. “Democracy and the Policy Preferences of Wealthy
Americans.” Perspectives on Politics.
Recommended Readings:
Jennings. 1979. “Competition, Constituencies, and Welfare Policies in the American States.”
American Political Science Review.
Wright, Erickson, and McIver. 1987. “Public Opinion and Policy Liberalism in the American
States.” American Journal of Political Science. 31(4).
Brown. 1995. “Party Cleavages and Welfare Effort in the American States.” American Politics
Science Review.
Stimson, Mackuen, and Erikson. 1995. “Dynamic Representation.” American Political Science
Review. 89(3).
Erikson, Robert S., Michael B. MacKuen, and James A. Stimson. 2002. The Macro Polity. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Campbell, Andrea. 2005. How Policies Make Citizens. Princeton University Press.
Inequality and Democratic Responsiveness
Required Readings:
Gilens, Martin. 2012. Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in
America. Princeton University Press.
Recommended Readings:
Bartels. 2010. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton
University Press.
Page and Jacobs. 2009. Class War? What Americans Really Think about Economic Inequality.
University of Chicago Press.
Hacker, Jacob and Paul Pierson. 2010. “Winner-Take-All Politics: Public Policy, Political
Organization, and the Precipitous Rise of Top Incomes in the United States.” Politics & Society.
38(2): 152-204.
Atkinson, Anthony B., Thomas Piketty, and Emmanuel Saez. 2011. “Top Incomes in the Long
Run of History.” Journal of Economic Literature. 49(1): 3-71.
Jacobs, Lawrence and Theda Skocpol. 2007. Inequality and American Democracy: What We
Know and What We Need to Learn. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Carnes. 2012. “Does the Numerical Underrepresentation of the Working Class in Congress
Matter?” Legislative Studies Quarterly.
Implementation
Required Readings:
Pressman and Wildavsky. 1984. “Preface to the First Edition,” “Appearances,” and
“Implementation as Evolution.” in Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington are
Dashed in Oakland; or Why It’s Amazing that Federal Programs Work at All; This Being a Saga
of the Economic Development Administration as Told by Two Sympathetic Observers who Seek
to Build Morals on a Foundation of Ruined Hopes. University of California Press.
B. Dan Wood & Richard W. Waterman, “The Dynamics of Political Control of the
Bureaucracy,” American Political Science Review 85 (1991), 901-28.
Milward and Provan. 2000. “Governing the Hollow State.” Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory.
Jacob and Levitt. 2003. “Rotten Apples: An Investigation of the Prevalence and Predictors of
Teacher Cheating.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics.
Recommended Readings:
deLeon, Peter and Linda deLeon. 2002. “What Ever Happened to Policy Implementation? An
Alternative Approach.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.
Hammond, Thomas H. and Jack H. Knott. 1996. “Who Controls the Bureaucracy?: Presidential
Power, Congressional Dominance, Legal Constraints, and Bureaucratic Autonomy in a Model of
Multi-Institutional Policymaking.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 12(1): 121168.
Miller, Gary J. 2005. “The Political Evolution of Principal-Agent Models.” Annual Review of
Political Science 8: 203-225.
Calvert, Randall, Matthew McCubbins, and Barry Weingast. 1989. A Theory of Political Control
and Agency Discretion. American Journal of Political Science.
Gill, Jeff. 1995. “Formal Models of Legislative/Administrative Interaction: A Survey of the
Subfield.” Public Administration Review.
Waterman and Meier. 1998. “Principal-Agent Models: An Expansion?” Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory.
Weingast. 1984. “The Congressional Bureaucratic System: A Principal Agent Perspective (with
Applications to the SEC).” Public Choice.
McCubbins, Mathew D. and Thomas Schwartz. 1984. “Congressional Oversight Overlooked:
Police Patrols versus Fire Alarms.” American Journal of Political Science 28: 165-179.
McCubbins, Mathew, Roger Noll, and Barry Weingast. 1987. "Administrative Procedures as
Instruments of Political Control." Journal of Law, Economics, and Organizations. 3(2): 243-77.
Meier and Waterman. 2004. “Principal-Agent Models: A Theoretical Cul-de-sac.” In Waterman
Rouse, and Wrights. Eds. Bureaucrats, Politics, and the Environment. University of Pittsburgh
Press.
Wilson, James Q. 2000. Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It.
Revised Edition. New York: Basic Books.
Fung, Archon. 2004. Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy. Princeton
University Press.
Sustaining Policy Reform
Required Reading:
Patashnik, Eric. 2008. Reforms at Risk: What Happens After Major Policy Changes are Enacted.
Princeton University Press.
Recommended Readings:
Berry, Burden, and Howell. 2010. “After Enactment: The Lives and Deaths of Federal
Programs.” American Journal of Political Science. 54(1): 1-17.
McConnell. 2010. “Policy Success, Policy Failure, and Grey Areas In-Between.” Journal of
Public Policy. 30(3): 345-362.
Patashnik and Zelizer. 2009. “When Policy Does Not Remake Politics: The Limits of Policy
Feedback.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association,
Toronto.
McDonnell, Lorraine. 2013. “Educational Accountability and Policy Feedback.” Educational
Policy. 27(2).
Weir, Rongerude, and Ansell. 2009. “Collaboration is Not Enough: Virtuous Cycles of Reform
in Transportation Policy.” Urban Affairs Review. 44(4).
Privatization/Markets/Delegated Governance
Required Reading:
Lipsky and Smith. 1989-1990. “Nonprofit Organizations, Government, and the Welfare State.”
Political Science Quarterly. 104(4).
Morgan and Campbell. 2011. “Exploring the Delegated Welfare State.” in The Delegated
Welfare State: Medicare, Markets, and the Governance of Social Policy. Oxford University
Press.
Mettler, Suzanne. 2010. “Reconstituting the Submerged State: The Challenges of Social Policy
Reform in the Obama Era.” Perspectives on Politics.
Schneider, Teske, Roch, and Marschall. 1997. “Networks to Nowhere: Segregation and
Stratification in Networks of Information about Schools.” American Journal of Political Science.
41(4).
Recommended Readings:
Ferris. 1986. “The Decision to Contract Out: An Empirical Analysis.” Urban Affairs Quarterly.
22(2).
Thompson and Elling. 2000. “Mapping Patterns of Support for Privatization in the Mass Public:
The Case of Michigan.” Public Administration Review. 60(4).
Smith and Lipsky. 1993. Nonprofits for Hire: The Welfare State in the Age of Contracting.
Harvard University Press.
Mettler. 2011. The Submerged State: How Invisible Government Policies Undermine American
Democracy. University of Chicago Press.
Burch. 2009. Hidden Markets: The New Education Privatization. Routledge.
Diffusion
Required Readings:
Mintrom and Vergari. 1998. “Policy Networks and Innovation Diffusion: The Case of State
Education Reforms.” The Journal of Politics. 60(1).
Simmons and Elkins. 2004. “The Globalization of Liberalization: Policy Diffusion in the
International Political Economy.” American Political Science Review. 98(1).
Shipan and Volden. 2006. “Bottom-up Federalism: The Diffusion of Antismoking Policies from
U.S. Cities to States.” American Journal of Political Science. 50(4): 825-843.
Baybeck, Berry, and Siegel. 2011. “A Strategic Theory of Policy Diffusion via
Intergovernmental Competition.” The Journal of Politics. 73(1): 232-247.
Recommended Readings:
Berry and Berry. 1990. “State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations: An Event History
Analysis.” American Political Science Review. 84(2).
Berry and Berry. 2007. “Innovation and Diffusion Models in Policy Research.” in Theories of
the Policy Process. Ed. Paul Sabatier.
Mooney. 2001. “Modeling Regional Effects on State Policy Diffusion.” Political Research
Quarterly. 54(1).
Boushey. 2010. Policy Diffusion Dynamics in America. Cambridge University Press.
Institutional Analysis and Development
Required Readings:
Ostrom. 1990. Chapters 1, 2, 3 and 4 in Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions
for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.
Lubell, Schneider, Scholz, and Mete. 2002. “Watershed Partnerships and the Emergence of
Collective Action Institutions.” American Journal of Political Science.
Recommended Readings:
Ostrom, Elinor. 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton University Press.
Dietz and Ostrom. 2003. “The struggle to govern the commons.” Science.
Tang, Shui Yan. 1991. “Institutional Arrangements and the Management of Common-Pool
Resources.” Public Administration Review.
Agrawal and Ostrom. 2001. “Collective Action, Property Rights, and Decentralization in
Resource Use in India and Nepal.” Politics and Society. 29(4).
Feiock. 2007. “Rational Choice and Regional Governance.” Journal of Urban Affairs.
Research on Specific Policy Areas
TBA
Research Design: Guidelines
For two of the weeks this semester, you will submit a short research design paper (~2 pages,
single spaced). Base at least one of the papers on the readings for that week; the other paper may
draw on readings from a previous week.
What should your paper include? (does not need to be in this order)
-
-
-
A brief summary of relevant aspects of the theory (drawn from the readings) that you
plan to apply or test. For weeks when the reading does not propose a clear causal theory,
try to connect the concepts from that week (i.e. ACF; policy entrepreneurship; multiple
streams; privatization) to an outcome that you care about (i.e. the use of research in
policy formation; policy change; public engagement; etc.)
A brief discussion of the policy area, topic, place, or people that you would study (here
are some examples of what I mean: social welfare policy in Michigan; scientists involved
in climate change policy; forest preservation in India; attitudes toward immigration
policy in California cities, etc.)
Research question(s)
An explanation of how you would conduct a study to answer your question(s). Try to
include the following:
o How would you measure or assess the values of relevant concepts? What data or
information do you need? What are the independent and dependent variables?
o How would you gather information? Would you need to conduct a survey?
Analyze media accounts? Interview people? Use available data? (remember the
policy agendas website which has data related to the Baumgartner and Jones
book). (this section can be fairly brief- I’m not asking for a full research protocol)
o How will you know whether you have answered the question? What are you
looking for?
Final Paper
Due date: Wednesday, December 11 (submit online via D2L)
Detailed outline due: Monday, October 28 (in class)
Choices:
1. Critique of existing study and proposal for new analysis
2. Annual Review style article on major topic in policy literature
3. Original research paper
Requirements:
Length: ~15 pages, double spaced, Times New Roman
Topic: Must deal directly with theories and approaches discussed in the course
References: Must include and go beyond references in course syllabus (minimum 12 referenceslikely several more if you choose the annual review option); use proper citation format based on
a journal where you hope to publish in the future
Explanation of Choices:

Critique of existing study and proposal for new analysis
Select an existing published study of public policy—this may be a book or article we read (or
from the recommended readings). It may be something else that you choose, but please notify me
about your selection.
Write a critical review of the research, assessing the contributions and weaknesses. The major
weaknesses may be theoretical, empirical, or both. Based on the major weaknesses you identify,
propose a new analysis that would address the problem(s).
Address the following in your proposal for new analysis:
- Questions to answer
- Data to collect
- Methods of analysis
If possible, conduct preliminary analysis based on your proposal. You may consider contacting
the author of the original work to ask for their data.

Annual Review style article on major topic in policy literature
Select a topic related to the public policy literature of particular interest to you. You may choose
a key theoretical approach or you may select a policy area topic and consider how theories appy
to that topic.
Read a selection of recent articles in the Annual Review of Political Science to familiarize
yourself with the style of writing. (a recent example is Andrea Campbell’s piece in June 2012,
“Policy Makes Mass Politics.”)
Write a paper that traces the history/trajectory of the literature in this area, assesses the major
findings/contributions of your area of literature, cross-cutting themes and issues, implications
from major findings, weaknesses/challenges, and areas for future research. Highlight areas of
disagreement between studies or inconclusive findings.

Original research paper
Write a research paper based on original quantitative or qualitative analysis on a topic of your
choosing. You must select a topic related to public policy that applies theories and/or methods
covered in class. You may choose to gather data from one of the sources we cover in class (i.e.
Policy Agendas Project).
If you would like to choose this option, be prepared to contact me early in the semester
(sometime in September) to discuss your topic idea.