NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service
EXEC-GP 2202 Global Public Policy Analysis
Thursdays, 2:00 – 4:00 pm
Fall 2014
Instructors
John Gershman
Puck, 3018 212-992-9888
john.gershman@nyu.edu
Office Hours: Mondays, 3:30 – 5:30 p.m. and by appointment
Paul Smoke
Puck, 3052 212-998-7497
paul.smoke@nyu.edu
Office Hours: Wednesday, 4:00-6:00 p.m. and by appointment
GLOBAL PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS
This lecture portion of this class is combined with CORE GP 1022(004), Introduction to Public Policy,
with NYU Wagner’s MPA students. While the readings and lectures are the same, the assignments are
different.
The goal of this course is to deepen students’ understanding of the way in which public policy is made,
with a particular emphasis on the roles advocacy campaigns and ideas (sometimes shaped by policy
analysis) play in that process. We will look at the processes of policy formation at three distinct levels of
policymaking and governance: at the national level in the U.S. and other OECD countries, in the
developing country context, and at the transnational (international, multilateral) level. The emphasis will
be on social and environmental policy, with some discussions of other issues.
The public policy field is dominated by perspectives and approaches grounded in efforts to explain the
U.S. policymaking process. Recently, more systematic efforts at the comparative analysis of
policymaking are being developed, which has served to highlight the institutional exceptionalism of the
United States – an outlier of sorts. The goal of this course is to place the United States within a global and
comparative context so as to gain a better understanding of the role that context plays in policymaking. In
an era when “best practices” and policy innovations involve transnational communities of practice, it
becomes increasingly important to understand the salience and significance of different lessons learned
and policy experiences.
In addition to developing a solid understanding of the competing perspectives on explaining the
relationships between power, knowledge, advocacy, and policymaking, we will explore four sets of
questions:
1. How do we disentangle the dynamics of power, policy, and politics in the policy process? Or,
another way, how do we explain how interests, institutions, ideas, and individuals interact to
shape policy outcomes?
2. How do public service practitioners balance roles as an observer of the policymaking process and
a participant in that process?
3. How do analysts balance (or not) concerns regarding efficiency, effectiveness, and equity? What
indicators do we use to measure each of those objectives?
4. Do analytical tools designed for studying policymaking in the U.S. and other OECD countries
travel well or do we need to develop new ones?
5. What, if anything, is distinctive about transnational policymaking processes?
LEARNING OBJECTIVES:
1
By the end of this course students should be able to:
1. Identify and explain various approaches to explaining the process of policy formation.
2. Clearly articulate the relative roles that framing, deliberation, and implementation play in the
policy formation process.
3. Explain different ways that concerns regarding efficiency, effectiveness, and equity are
incorporated into the policy process and how each is measured.
4. Develop the competence to identify ways in which institutional context conditions the
transferability of “best practices” or lessons learned from one policy domain to another, or one
country to another.
5. Develop an analytical understanding of the relationship between justice, inequality, and
citizenship, especially in the domains of politics and policymaking.
6. Develop reflective tools for practitioners to be able to understand and evaluate their own
normative commitments and to understand not only what those norms are, but how they shape
their practice (as analysts, advocates, managers, or leaders) and the practice of others.
COURSE REQUIREMENTS
1. Class Participation: (25%) The course depends on active and ongoing participation by all class
participants. In the large lecture as well as discussion sections.
a. Participation begins with effective reading and listening. Class participants are expected to
read and discuss the readings on a weekly basis. That means coming prepared to engage the
class with questions and/or comments with respect to the reading. You will be expected to
have completed all the required readings before class to the point where you can be called on
to critique or discuss any reading.
Before approaching each reading, think about what the key questions are for the week and
about how the questions from this week relate to what you know from previous weeks. Then
skim over the reading to get a sense of the themes it covers and, before reading further, jot
down what questions you hope the reading will be able to answer for you. Next, read the
introduction and conclusion. This is normally enough to get a sense of the big picture. Ask
yourself: Are the claims in the text surprising? Do you believe them? Can you think of
examples that do not seem consistent with the logic of the argument? Is the reading
answering the questions you hoped it would answer? If not, is it answering more or less
interesting questions than you had thought of? Finally, ask yourself: What types of evidence
or arguments would you need to see in order to be convinced of the results?
Now read through the whole text. As you read, check to see how the arguments are used to
support the claims of the author. It is rare to find a piece of writing that you agree with
entirely. So, as you come across issues that you are not convinced by, write them down and
bring them to class for discussion. Note when you are pleasantly (or unpleasantly) surprised;
for example, when the author produces a convincing argument you had not thought of.
In class itself, the key to quality participation is listening. Asking good questions is the
second key element. What did you mean by that? How do you/we know? What’s the evidence
for that claim? This is not a license for snarkiness, but for reflective, thoughtful, dialogic
engagement with the ideas of others in the class. Don’t be shy. Share your thoughts and
reactions in ways that promote critical engagement with them. Quality and quantity of
participation can be, but are not necessarily, closely correlated.
b. Participants are also expected to follow the news, reading at least one major US newspaper
daily, a newsweekly (The Economist, Time, Newsweek), and at least one major international
newspaper (The Guardian, Financial Times, The Independent, Toronto Globe and Mail,
2
Sydney Morning Herald for those who only read English; other papers for those able to read
languages other than English).
You should also be familiar with the main journals in public policy and policy analysis.
Depending on your particular area of expertise, these could include general journals like
Public Administration and Development, Policy Sciences, Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, Journal of Public Policy, etc. For issues covered in developing countries, this
would include World Development, Journal of Development Studies, Studies in Comparative
and International Development, World Politics, Comparative Politics, Comparative Political
Studies, Development and Change, New Political Economy, and Governance. For those with
an explicit interest in International Organizations, in addition to the development journals
listed above, you should look at International Organization, Global Governance,
International Studies Quarterly, and Review of International Political Economy.
2. Op-Ed: (10%) One op-ed (700-750 words, about 3 pages double-spaced -- word limit is rigid)
on an important current policy issue.
For guidance on writing an op-ed, see the Writing Resources folder under the “Resources” tab on
the NYU Classes website. The op-ed piece should include a word count of the text of the op-ed. It
should also contain a heading, a byline (your name), and a credit statement. The words in these
items do not count towards the limit of 700-750 words. The credit statement comes at the end of
the op-ed piece and identifies you for the reader. (For example: “A student at the Robert F.
Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, Jane Doe is a former Peace Corps volunteer and
worked for a time on the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.) The credit line has a
35-word limit. Op-eds can be rewritten once to improve the grade by no more than two steps (i.e.
from a B to an A-). The op-ed is due by 11:59 PM September 24 via NYU Classes. Op-ed
rewrites must be submitted by 11:59 PM November 15 via NYU Classes.
3. Policy Memos: (10% each, total 20%) There are two policy memos in the course. The first is due
September 17 by 11:59 PM via NYU Classes. You may revise and resubmit this memo for an
increase in grade by no more than two steps (eg, from a B to an A-). Revised memos should be
submitted by October 1, by 11:59 PM via NYU Classes. The second policy memo is due by
11:59 PM on October 15 via NYU classes. (We will discuss more about policy memos in the
second class session).
4. Final Paper and Presentation: (45%) You have a range of options for the final paper and
presentation, but it should be a paper that is both useful to you in professional life as well as an
engagement with one or more themes of the course. This could be a research paper on a policy
about which you want to deepen your knowledge, an examination of a policy advocacy campaign
or the policy history of an issue, an overview of the role of foundations and philanthropy in a
particular sector, etc.(We will talk about this in more detail in class.)
WRITING
Writing is an important part of being a policy analyst and advocate. For some useful thoughts on how to
approach policy writing, see Michael O’Hare’s memo to his students in the spring 2004 issue of the
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management (available in the Writing Resources folder on NYU Classes).
Also see Catherine F. Smith, Writing Public Policy: A Practical Guide to Communicating in the Policy
Making Process (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). For an enjoyable and valuable (although not
uncontested) critique of PowerPoint presentations as disastrous to effective communication, see Edward
Tufte, The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint (NYU Classes).
3
GRADING
Students are expected to turn in assignments on time. There are acceptable reasons for submitting an
assignment late, and all that is required is some communication from the student to us to inform me that
such a situation has arisen. For those without acceptable reasons for submitting late assignments, the
penalty will be one-third of a grade per day.
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
Anyone in the class who has a disability that may require some modification in seating, testing, or class
requirements, please see me as soon as possible and be sure that any paperwork from the Moses Center is
provided.
REQUIRED TEXTS
(available at the NYU Bookstore)
David Weimer and Aidan R. Vining, Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice (Prentice Hall, 2011)
Deborah Stone, Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making (W.W. Norton, 2011)
Eugene Bardach, A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem
Solving (CQ Press, 2005)
All readings available on NYUClasses unless otherwise indicated.
4
OVERVIEW OF COURSE
September 4
WEEK 1 Interests, Institutions, Ideas, and Individuals in the Power,
Politics, and Policymaking Process
Discussion Section: Student Group Info Fair, Rudin Forum
September 11
WEEK 2 Ethics and Policymaking
Discussion Section: Faculty-Student Reception, Rudin Forum
September 17
1st Memo Due
September 18
WEEK 3 Where do States Come From, Why are They Different, and
What Difference Does it Make?
Discussion Section: TBD
September 25
WEEK 4 Powering, Puzzling: Problems and Policymaking
Discussion Section: TBD Initial Presentation of Final Projects
October 2
WEEK 5 Agenda Setting and Framing
Discussion Section: XPS Speaker
October 9
WEEK 6 Disruption and Contention as Politics and Policymaking
Discussion Section: XPS Speaker (Dean Sherry Glied)
October 16
WEEK 7 Bringing It All Together: The ACA, One Year On
Guest Lecture: Dean Sherry Glied
Discussion Section: Presentation By Peter Ellis, World Bank
Mulberry Conference Room, Puck Building
October 23
WEEK 8 Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene on the Global Agenda
Guest Lecture: Archana Patkar*
Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council
Discussion Section: Faculty Research Dinner, Rudin Forum
October 30
WEEK 9 Rationality and Decision-Making of Policymakers and Citizens
Discussion Section: Simulation
November 6
WEEK 10 Implementation
Discussion Section: XPS Speaker
November 13
WEEK 11 What’s the Value of a Life? Cost Benefit Analysis
Discussion Section: TBD
November 20
WEEK 12 Evidence-Based Policymaking
Guest Lecture: Ani Dasgupta, World Bank*
Discussion Section: Discussion with Ani and Submit Drafts of Final Papers
November 27
THANKSGIVING BREAK
December 4
5
WEEK 13 The Judicialization of Policymaking and the Rise of Rights
Discussion Section: Presentations and Feedback on Drafts of Final Papers
December 11
WEEK 14 How Policy Makes Politics
Discussion Section: Wrap Up
December 18
Final Paper Due via NYU Classes
WEEK 1: INTERESTS, INSTITUTIONS, IDEAS, AND INDIVIDUALS IN THE POWER,
POLITICS, AND POLICYMAKING PROCESS
1. David von Drehle, Triangle: The Fire that Changed America. NY, Atlantic Monthly Press: 2003.
2. Richard Locke, Boston Review and respondents
http://www.bostonreview.net/forum/can-global-brands-create-just-supply-chains-richard-locke
3. H&M Case http://globalens.com/casedetail.aspx?cid=1429373
4. Deborah Stone, Policy Paradox, Introduction and Chapter 1.
5. David Weimer and Aidan Vining, Policy Analysis, Chapter 2.
WEEK 2: ETHICS AND POLICYMAKING
1. Weimer and Vining, Policy Analysis, Chapter 3.
2. Michael Walzer, 1973, “Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands,” Philosophy & Public Affairs
2(2): 160-180.
3. Dennis F. Thompson, 2012, “Designing Responsibility: The Problem of Many Hands in Complex
Organizations,” in The Design Turn in Applied Ethics, Joroen van den Hoven, Seumas Miller, and
Thomas Pogge (eds.), Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4. David Cole, 2009, “What to Do About the Torturers?” The New York Review of Books.
5. Rosemary O’Leary, 2010, “Guerrilla Employees: Should Managers Nurture, Tolerate, or Terminate
Them?” Public Administration Review 70(1): 8-19.
6. Case: A Duty to Leak? Available for download from the Kennedy School Case Web
http://www.case.hks.harvard.edu/ Caseweb 1728.0
Purchase but no need to read before class:
Kennedy School Caseweb 761.2 Rural Reform in Centropico
WEEK 3: WHERE DO STATES COME FROM, WHY ARE THEY DIFFERENT, AND WHAT
DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?
1. Charles Tilly, 1990, Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990-1992. Cambridge, MA:
Blackwell Publishers, Inc. [Excerpts]
2. John D. Stephens, 2007, “Democratization and Social Policy Development in Advanced Capitalist
Societies,” in Democracy and Social Policy, Yusuf Bangura (ed.), London: Palgrave.
3. Jeffrey Herbst and Greg Mills, “The Invisible State,” Foreign Policy, June 24, 2013.
WEEK 4: POWERING, PUZZLING, AND POLICY
1. Kevin B. Smith and Christopher W. Larimer, 2009, “Public Policy as a Concept and a Field (or
Fields) or Study,” in The Public Policy Theory Primer, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
2. Weimer and Vining, Chapter 5
3. Bill Shore, Darell Hammond, & Amy Celep, “When Good Is Not Good Enough,” Stanford Social
Innovation Review, Fall 2013
4. Cynthia Gibson, Katya Smyth, Gail Nayowith, and Jonathan Zaff, “To Get to the Good You Have to
Dance With the Wicked,” SSIR Blog September 19, 2013
http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/to_get_to_the_good_you_gotta_dance_with_the_wicked
5. . Julia Coffman, 2007, “Evaluation Based on Theories of the Policy Process,” The Evaluation
Exchange: Harvard Family Research Project 8(1): 6-7.
6
WEEK 5: AGENDA SETTING AND FRAMING
1. Deborah Stone, Policy Paradox, Chapters on Causes and Numbers
2. Lawrence R. Jacob and Suzanne Mettler, 2011, “Why Public Opinion Changes: The Implications for
Health and Health Policy,” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 36(6): 917-933.
3. Frameworks Institute, E-workshop on Strategic Frame Analysis, http://sfa.frameworksinstitute.org/
4. Clifford Bob, 2002, “Merchants of Morality,” Foreign Policy 129: 36-45.
5. Max Rose and Frank Baumgartner, “Framing the Poor: Media Coverage and U.S. Poverty Policy,
1960–2008,” Policy Studies Journal 41(1) 2013.
For further reading:
a. Dennis Chong and James N. Druckman, 2007, “Framing Public Opinion in Competitive
Democracies,” American Political Science Review 101(4): 637-655.
b. Frank R. Baumgartner, Suzanna Linn, and Amber E. Boydstun, 2010, “The Decline of the Death
Penalty: How Media Framing Changed Capital Punishment in America,” in Winning with Words:
The Origins & Impact of Political Framing, Brian F. Schaffner and Patrick J. Sellers (eds.), New
York: Routledge, 159-184.
c. Frank R. Baumgartner, Jeffrey M. Berry, Marie Hojnacki, David C. Kimball, and Beth L. Leech,
2009, Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, Chapter 9: “Washington: The Real No-Spin Zone,” 166-189.
d. James N. Druckman, 2001, “On the Limits of Framing Effects: What Can Frame?” The Journal
of Politics 63(4): 1041-1066.
e. James N. Druckman and Kjersten R. Nelson, 2003, “Framing and Deliberation: How Citizens’
Conversations Limit Elite Influence,” American Journal of Political Science 47(4): 729-745.
WEEK 6: AGENDAS AND POWER: DISRUPTION AND CONTENTION IN SOCIAL
MOVEMENTS
1. Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward, “Rule Making, Rule Breaking, and Power,” in, Thomas
Janoski Robert R., Alford, and Alexander M.,Hicks,.eds Handbook of Political Sociology : States,
Civil Societies, and Globalization. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). pp. 33-53.
2. Frances Fox Piven, Challenging Authority, Chapters 1,2, 5, 6 and epilogue.
3. Michael Lipsky, 1968, “Protest as a Political Resource,” The American Political Science Review
62(4): 1144-1158.
4. Manual Pastor, and Rhonda Ortiz, Making Change: How Social Movements Work and How to
Support Them, Program for Environmental and Regional Equity, University of Southern California,
2009
5. Eli D. Friedman, 2009, “External Pressure and Local Mobilization: Transnational Activism and the
Emergence of the Chinese Labor Movement,” Mobilization 14(2): 199-218.
WEEK 7: BRINGING IT TOGETHER: THE ACA, ONE YEAR ON
Guest Lecture: Dean Sherry Glied
Readings TBA
WEEK 8: WATER, SANITATION, HYGIENE: BUILDING A GLOBAL AGENDA
Guest Lecture: Archana Patkar, Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative
Council
Readings TBA
WEEK 9: RATIONALITY AND DECISION-MAKING OF POLICYMAKERS AND
CITIZENS
7
1. Deborah Stone, Policy Paradox, Decisions.
2. Larimer and Smith, Public Policy Primer, Chapter 3
3. Cass R. Sunstein, Simpler: The Future of Government, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2013)
selections,
4. Sendihl Mullaniathan and Eldar Shafir, Scarcity, (NY: Macmillan, 2013) selections [NYU Classes]
5. Eldar Shafir, Living Under Scarcity, TEDX Talk http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/TEDxMidAtlantic2011-Eldar-Shaf
WEEK 10: IMPLEMENTATION
1. Weimer and Vining, Policy Analysis, Chapters 12 and 13.
2. Michael Lipsky, 2010, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, New
York: Russell Sage Foundation, selections [NYU Classes]
3. Charles Sabel, 2013, “Rethinking the Street-Level Bureaucrat: Tacit and Deliberate Ways
Organizations Can Learn,” in Economy in Society: Essays in Honor of Michael J. Piore, edited by Paul
Osterman, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 113-142.
4. A. Peter McGraw, Alexander Todorov, and Howard Kunreuther, 2011, “A policy maker’s dilemma:
Preventing terrorism or preventing blame,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
115: 25-34.
5. Anna Persson, Bo Rothstein, and Jan Teorell, “Why Anticorruption Reforms Fail—Systemic
Corruption as a Collective Action Problem,” Governance: An International Journal of Policy,
Administration, and Institutions, Vol. 26, No. 3, July 2013 (pp. 449–471).” _160,” 449..471
WEEK 11: WHAT’S THE VALUE OF A LIFE? COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS
1. Weimer and Vining, Policy Analysis, Chapter 17.
2. “As U.S. Agencies Put More Value on a Life, Businesses Fret, New York Times [NYU Classes]
3. Cass Sunstein, Simpler, selections
4. Matthew Hutson, “Calculating the Value of a Life,” New Yorker, October, 2013
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/calculating-the-value-of-a-life
5. Center for Global Development, Priority Setting in Health: Building Institutions for Smarter Public
Spending (Washington, DC: 2012)
WEEK 12: EVIDENCE-BASED POLICYMAKING
1. Ron Haskins, Christina Paxson, and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, 2009, “Social Science Rising: A Tale of
Evidence Shaping Policy,” The Future of Children, Policy Brief. [NYU Classes]
2. Jens Ludwig, Jeffrey R. Kling, and Sendhil Mullainathan, 2011, “Mechanism Experiments and Policy
Evaluations,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 25(3): 17-38. [NYU Classes]
3. Jeffrey R. Kling, 2011, “CBO’s Use of Evidence in Analysis of Budget and Economic Policies,”
Congressional Budget Office, Presentation at the Annual Fall Research Conference, Association of Public
Policy Analysis & Management, Washington, D.C. [NYU Classes]
4. Jon Baron, 2012, “Applying Evidence to Social Programs,” The New York Times [NYU Classes]
For further reading:
Donald T. Campbell, 1969, “Reforms as Experiments,” American Psychologist 24: 409-429.
Rebecca Goldin, 2009, “Spinning Heads and Spinning News: How a Lack of Statistical Proficiency
Affects Media Coverage,” STATS.
Kristin Anderson Moore, Brett V. Brown, and Harriet J. Scarupa, 2003, “The Uses (and Misuses) of
Social Indicators: Implications for Public Policy,” Child Trends Research Brief #2003-01.
8
THANKSGIVING BREAK
WEEK 13: THE JUDICIALIZATION OF POLICYMAKING AND THE RISE OF RIGHTS
1. Deborah Stone, Rights.
2. Andrew Karch, 2009, “Venue Shopping, Policy Feedback, and American Preschool Education,” The
Journal of Policy History 21(1): 38-60.
3. Ran Hirschl, 2006, “The New Constitutionalism and the Judicialization of Pure Politics Worldwide,”
Fordham Law Review 75(2): 721-754.
4. Hualing Fu and Richard Cullen, 2008, “Weiquan (Rights Protection) Lawyering in an Authoritarian
State: Building a Culture of Public-Interest Lawyering,” The China Journal 59: 111-127.
WEEK 14: HOW POLICY MAKES POLITICS
1. Marie Gottschalk, 2009, “City on a Hill, City Behind Bars: Criminal Justice, Social Justice, and
American Exceptionalism,” Nanzan Review of American Studies 31: 33-58.
2. Vesla M. Weaver and Amy E. Lerman, 2010, “Political Consequences of the Carceral State,” American
Political Science Review 104(4): 817-833.
3. Alan M. Jacobs and R. Kent Weaver, “When Policies Undo Themselves: Self-Undermining Feedback
as a Source of Policy Change,” Governance, forthcoming.
4. Suzanne Mettler, 2010, “Reconstituting the Submerged State: The Challenges of Social Policy Reform
in the Obama Era,” Perspectives on Politics 8(3): 803-824.
9