SUP922/Government2340: Spring 2013
Proseminar on Inequality and Social Policy
Tuesdays: 2-4:00 pm in CGIS, S354
Professors:
Offices:
Office hours:
e-mail:
Assistants:
e-mail:
Amitabh Chandra
Taubman 344
Mondays: 2-5pm
Amitabh_Chandra@harvard.edu
Brittany Hill
brittany_hill@hks.harvard.edu
Jennifer Hochschild
CGIS K412 (1737 Cambridge St.)
Mondays: 2-5 pm
Hochschild@gov.harvard.edu
Felicia Share
felicia_share@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.
Academic 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 2013: 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 2012, 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. Most of the readings are available on a CD in the Harvard Kennedy School
(HKS) library. You can copy this CD onto your laptop and make one (1) copy for your
personal use. Reproducing the CD for any other purpose is illegal.
The CD contains both required and recommended readings. 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. For these too, you
may make one (1) copy for your personal use only.
Some of the books are available at the Coop. They are:








Atul Gawande, Better: A Surgeon's Notes on Performance (Picador, 2008)
Martin Gilens, Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in
America (Princeton University Press, 2012)
Albert Hirschman, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms,
Organizations, and States (Harvard U Press, 1971)
Lawrence Jacobs and Theda Skocpol, Health Care Reform and American Politics,
revised and expanded ed., (Oxford U Press, 2012)
Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public
Service, 30th Anniversary Expanded Ed. (Russell Sage Foundation, 1980)
Eric Patashnik, Reforms at Risk: What Happens After Major Policy Changes Are
Enacted (Princeton University Press, 2008)
Brian Steensland, The Failed Welfare Revolution: America's Struggle over
Guaranteed Income Policy (Princeton University Press, 2007)
Kay Lehman Schlozman, Sidney Verba, Henry E. Brady The Unheavenly Chorus:
Unequal Political Voice and the Broken Promise of American Democracy (Princeton
University Press, 2012)
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 Tuesday class are due by midnight on the Sunday prior to
2
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
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: Two per class, except for first class where there are three. Students
will start each week’s discussion. Assignments for the first 6 weeks have been made
below, in topic headings for each session; assignments for the second six weeks will be
made early in the semester. Discussion leaders should meet with the instructor on
Monday 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. 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:
May 1, 2013. 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 2013, 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, 2013: 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 2013):
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.
Readings and Topics for Spring 2013
NOTE: Beth Truesdale, a student in the Social Policy program who took this course several
years ago, has offered to meet with the class at 2 p.m. on some weeks. She will give a 10-minute
mini-lecture on a statistical and methodological issue raised by one of the papers assigned for
that week, before our official start time of 2:10. This pre-class session is voluntary, but we
recommend that you attend some or all.
January 29: Linkages between Health and Healthcare
Discussion led by Walsh, Cohodes and Gidron:
1. Banks, James, Smith James P. 2010. “International Comparisons in Health Economics:
Evidence from Aging Studies.” Annual Review of Economics.
2. Baumgardner, James R., Bilheimer, Linda T, Booth, Mark B., Carrington, William J.,
Duchovny , Noelia J., and Werble , Ellen C. 2012. “Cigarette Taxes and the Federal
Budget: Report from the CBO.” The New England Journal of Medicine.
3. Bleakley, Hoyt, 2010. “Health Human Capital and Development.” Annual Review of
Economics. Vol 2. 283-310.
4
4. Das J, Holla A, Das V, Mohanan M, Tabak D, Chan B. 2012. “In urban and rural India, a
standardized patient study showed low levels of provider training and huge quality gaps.”
Health Affairs. Dec;31(12):2774-84.
5. Cutler, David, Angus Deaton and Adriana Lleras-Muney. 2006. “The Determinants of
mortality.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 20(3): 97-120.
February 5: Determinants of Health
Discussion led by Asad and Bau
1. Ludwig, Jens, Sanbonmatsu, Lisa, Gennetian, Lisa, Adam, Emma, Duncan, Greg J., Katz
, Lawrence F., Kessler, Ronald C., Kling, Jeffrey R., Lindau, Stacy Tessler, Whitaker,
Robert C. and McDade, Thomas W. 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., Liebman, J. B. and Katz, L. F. 2007, “Experimental Analysis of
Neighborhood Effects.” Econometrica, 75: 83–119
5. Christakis, Nicholas A. and Fowler, James H. 2007. “The Spread of Obesity in a Large
Social Network over 32 Years.” The New England Journal of Medicine.
February 12: Health Insurance Design
Discussion led by Bell and Linos
1. Aviva Aron-Dine, Liran Einav, and Amy Finkelstein. 2013. “The RAND Health
Insurance Experiment, Three Decades Later.” Forthcoming. Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 27(1).
2. Chandra, Amitabh, Jonathan Gruber and Robin McKnight. 2010. “Patient Cost-Sharing
and Hospitalization Offsets in the Elderly.” American Economic Review 100, 1, 193-213.
3. Finkelstein, Amy, Taubman, Sarah, Wright, Bill, Bernsteina, Mira, Grubera, Jonathan, .
Newhousead, Joseph P., Allenc, Heidi, Baickera, Katherine Baickera. 2012. “The
Oregon Health Insurance Experiment: Evidence from the First Year.” The Quarterly
Journal of Economics.
5
4. Sommers , Benjamin D., Baicker , Katherine, and Epstein, Arnold M. 2012. “Mortality
and Access to Care among Adults after State Medicaid Expansions.” The New England
Journal of Medicine.
February 17: Health Insurance Markets
Discussion led by Feigenbaum and Leenman
1. Finkelstein, Amy, and Kathleen McGarry. 2006. "Multiple Dimensions of Private
Information: Evidence from the Long-Term Care Insurance Market." American
Economic Review, 96(4): 938-958.
2. Chandra, Amitabh, Gruber, Jonathan and McKnight, Robin. 2011. “The Importance of
the Individual Mandate — Evidence from Massachusetts.” The New England Journal of
Medicine. 364:293-295.
3. Albaluck, Jason and Gruber, Jonathan. 2011. “Choice Inconsistencies among the Elderly:
Evidence from Plan Choice in the Medicare Part D Program.” American Economic
Review. 1180-1210.
4. Einav, Liran, Amy Finkelstein, Iuliana Pascu, and Mark R. Cullen. 2012. "How General
Are Risk Preferences? Choices under Uncertainty in Different Domains." American
Economic Review, 102(6): 2606-38.
February 26: Productivity in Healthcare
Discussion led by White, Wu
1. Gawande, Atul. Better: A Surgeon's Notes on Performance. Metropolitan Books, 2007.
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, Baicker, Katherine, Skinner, Jonathan, S. 2012. “Saving Money or
Just Saving Lives? Improving the Productivity of US Health Care Spending.” Annual
Review of Economics.(4) 33-56.
4. Ebbeling CB, Swain JF, Feldman HA, et al. 2012. “Effects of Dietary Composition on
Energy Expenditure During Weight-Loss Maintenance.” JAMA. 307(24):2627-2634.
5. 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.
6
March 5: Topics in Healthcare
Discussion led by: Schueler and Jaeger
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., Berlin, Jesse A., Harless, William, Kerner, Jon F., Sistrunk, Shyrl,
Gersh, Bernard J., Phil, D. Dubé, Ross, Taleghani, Christopher K., Burke, Jennifer E.,
Williams, Sankey, Eisenberg, John M., Ayers, William, and Escarce, José J. 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 Staiger, Douglas. O. 2010. “Identifying Provider Prejudice in
Healthcare.” NBER Working Paper.
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. Vol. 99, No. 16: pp. 10929-10934
March 12: Making Social Policy Choices in Public or Private Arenas
Discussion led by TBA
1. Albert Hirschman, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. Harvard University Press, 1971.
Skim chapter 1; appendices are optional.
2. Edward Lindblom, Politics and Markets. Basic Books, 1977. Chapters 5, 6, 13, 14.
3. Terry Moe, Schools, Vouchers, and the American Public. Brookings Institution Press,
2001. Chapters 1, 8, 10.
4. Vanessa Bouche and Craig Volden. 2011. “Privatization and the Diffusion of
Innovation,” Journal of Politics, 73 (2): 428-442.
7
March 26: Incentives, Worldviews, and Actions of Public Officials
Discussion led by TBA
1. David Mayhew, Congress: The Electoral Connection. Yale University Press, 1974.
2. Richard Neustadt, Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents. Free Press 1990.
Chapters 3, 4, 5.
3. William Howell, Power without Persuasion. Princeton University Press, 2003.
Chapters 1, 4.
4. Terry Moe, “The Politics of Bureaucratic Structure” in Can the Government Govern?
John Chubb and Paul Peterson, eds. Brookings Institution Press, 1989.
5. Lawrence Jacobs and Theda Skocpol, Health Care Reform and American Politics,
revised and expanded ed. Oxford U Press, 2012. Chapters 2, 3.
April 2: Role of the Public and Groups in Making Policy Choices
Discussion led by TBA
1. Kay Lehman Schlozman, Sidney Verba, and Henry Brady. The Unheavenly Chorus:
Unequal Political Voice and the Broken Promise of American Democracy. Princeton
University Press, 2012. Chapters 11, 12, 14.
2. John Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Second ed. HarperCollins
1995. Chapter 8.
3. Robert Erikson, Michael MacKuen, and James Stimson. The Macro Polity. Cambridge
University Press, 2002. Chapters 1, 6, 8, 9.
4. Martin Gilens, Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in
America. Russell Sage Foundation and Princeton University Press, 2012. Chapters 3, 4.
April 9: Policy Implementation
Discussion led by TBA
1. Jeffrey Pressman and Aaron Wildavsky, Implementation. University of California Press,
1984. Chapters 3 (skim), 5, 6.
2. Eric Patashnik, Reforms at Risk: What Happens After Major Policy Changes Are
Enacted. Princeton University Press, 2008. Chapters 3, 5.
3. Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service,
30th anniversary expanded ed. Russell Sage Foundation, 1980. Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8.
8
4. John Brehm and Scott Gates, Working, Shirking, and Sabotage: Bureaucratic Response
to a Democratic Public. University of Michigan Press, 1997. Chapters 6, 7.
5. Jacobs and Skocpol, Health Care Reform and American Politics. Chapter 5.
April 16: Long-term Impact of Policy and Political Choices
Discussion led by TBA
1. Paul Pierson. 1993 “When Effect Becomes Cause: Policy Feedback and Political
Change,” World Politics 45(4): 595-626.
2. Jacob Hacker, “Privatizing Risk without Privatizing the Welfare State: The Hidden
Politics of Social Policy Retrenchment in the United States,” American Political Science
Review 98: 2 (May 2004): 243-60.
3. Bruno Palier and Kathleen Thelen “Institutionalizing Dualism: Complementarities and
Change in France and Germany,” Politics & Society 38: 1 (March 2010), 119-148.
4. Ira Katznelson and Suzanne Mettler, 2008. “On Race and Policy History: A Dialogue
About the G.I. Bill,” Perspectives on Politics. Vol. 6, (3): 519-37.
5. Alberto Alesina and Edward Glaeser, Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe: A World of
Difference. Oxford University Press, 2004. Chapters 4, 7.
April 23: Political and Policy Strategies for Creating Successful Social Policies
Discussion led by TBA
1. Richard Alba, Blurring the Color Line, Harvard University Press, 2009. Chapters 5, 6.
2. Schlozman, Verba, and Brady. The Unheavenly Chorus. Chapter 17.
3. Xavier de Souza Briggs, Democracy as Problem Solving: Civic Capacity in Communities
around the Globe. MIT Press, 2008. Chapters 9-11.
4. Vilsa Curto, Roland Fryer, Jr. and Meghan Howard. “It May Not Take a Village:
Increasing Achievement Among the Poor,” in Greg Duncan and Richard Murnane (eds.),
Whither Opportunity? Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances. Russell
Sage Foundation and Spencer Foundation, 2011. Chapter 23.
5. Brian Steensland, The Failed Welfare Revolution: America's Struggle Over Guaranteed
Income Policy. Princeton University Press, 2007. Chapters 4, 5, 7, 8.
April 30 and May 1: student presentations of second draft of Social Policy papers
9