The Policy Process and Democracy

The Policy Process and Democracy
PAD 5005
Fall 2005
University of Colorado at Denver
Graduate School of Public Affairs
Dr. Peter deLeon
1380 Lawrence St., Suite 500
[email protected]
Office Hours: Mondays and Tuesdays 2-4 pm or by appointment
Tuesday 7 to 9:45 p.m.
NC 1511
Required Texts
Himelfarb, Richard. Catastrophic Politics. University Park: Penn State Press, 1995.
Janis, Irving. Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascos. 2nd ed.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1982.
Pressman, Jeffrey L., and Aaron Wildavsky. Implementation: How Great Expectations in
Washington are Dashed in Oakland… 3rd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press,
Derthick, Martha A., Up in Smoke. Washington DC: CQ Press, 2002. Any edition
Rivlin, Alice M., Systematic Thinking for Social Action. Washington DC: The Brookings
Institution, 1971.
Fareed Zakaria. The Future of Freedom. NY: W.W. Norton. 2003.
Recommended Texts
Brewer, Garry D., and Peter deLeon. The Foundation of Policy Analysis. Pacific Grove,
CA: Brooks/Cole, 1983. (Only used copies available and on library reserve.)
August 23
Introduction/Stages of the Policy Process
August 30
Policy Making in a Democratic System
Sept. 6,13
Policy Initiation
Sept. 20, 27
Policy Estimation
Oct. 4, 11
Policy Selection
Oct. 18, 25
Policy Implementation; also (take home) MID-TERM
Nov. 1, 8
Policy Evaluation
Nov. 15
Policy Termination - I
Nov. 22
Thanksgiving Break: No Class
Nov. 30
Policy Termination – II
December 6
(All Review Papers due)
Scope and Procedures
Course Objectives. The course offers a theoretical approach to understanding the process by
which public policy is created and implemented at all levels of American government. The
course presents a six-stage model of that process involving policy initiation, estimation,
selection, implementation, evaluation, and termination. Democracy as a political system is
emphasized, although other systems might be included in the discussions. The emphasis is on
process rather than substantive policy issues, although numerous examples of policy issues will
be used throughout the course. The class prepares students to recognize, understand, and work
within the policy process in their future work.
Additional Readings. Students are required to select and read three of the recommended or
suggested works listed below. Alternatives are permitted if approved by the instructor. Many of
those works are in the campus library. The purpose of these assignments is to encourage
students to expand their evidentiary bases and enhance their critical thinking capacities. Students
should start early to make sure they can obtain their chosen readings.
Review Essays. Students must submit three critical essays, each reviewing one of their suggested
readings. Please note: you may not use any of the six required texts for these essays. Each
essay much (a) explain what the author had to say and (b) assess how persuasive the author was
and why. Devote an equal amount of space to each part of your essay. Your essay should be
well-structured and have to introduction, body and summary. Each essay should be about four to
six pages long, and should be submitted by 5:00 p.m. the day the author’s topic is discussed in
class. Late papers will be accepted with the understanding that they will be penalized.
Class Discussions. Classroom discussion is a major component of the course. Students should
attend and participate in all class meetings. Student contributions should reflect knowledge
gained from (1) required readings, (2) supplemental readings, and (3) relevant personal
Grades. Thirty percent of each student’s grade will be based on a midterm examination. Another
thirty percent will be based on written reviews of supplemental readings (10% for each essay).
The remaining forty percent will be based on a comprehensive final examination. The final
course grades may be adjusted to reflect students’ contributions to classroom discussion.
Writing Standards. Student papers and examinations should evidence familiarity and critical
appreciation of both required and supplemental readings, including works not discussed in class.
Written work must reflect independent thought and be well-written and logically persuasive, as
well as being well-informed. If your paper is filled with grammatical errors, misspellings and/or
is incomplete, I will return it to you before reading it. Please keep in mind that style, grammar
and content are equally important in written assignments.
Insurance Policy. If a student wishes to “purchase” insurance (either to enhance the possibility of
a very good grade or to diminish the chance of a poor grade), she or he might wish to invest in
grade “insurance” policy. Basically, with the consent of the instructor, the student will do a
fourth reading and writing assignment (identical to the three required), which, when accepted,
will suggest to the instructor that the student’s grade should be moved up one notch (i.e. a Bwould move to a B; a B+ would move to an A-) if the student’s calculated grade were on the
grading cusp. The standard arguments against insurance should be understood; there is a chance
that the student might not ever need the policy, or the policy might not be sufficient to raise a
very low grade (say a low B) to the next level (a B+); in either case, the insurance policy would
have gone for naught. Caveat emptor. If one wishes to ‘purchase’ insurance, you should notify
the instructor in writing by 6 September; i.e., there will be no later purchasers of insurance!
Grading Standards. To receive an “A” in this course, you must demonstrate a truly ‘superior’
mastery of the topic. This includes demonstrating mastery consistently in your review essays,
exams and in-class discussion. The distinction between an “A” and a “B” will hinge on the
student’s ability to 1) absorb and articulate explicit as well as implicit concepts; and 2)
demonstrate a capacity to think both concretely and abstractly. Students who merit an “A” will
be able to apply the theoretical concepts to practical, real-life scenarios. The grade of “B” will
be awarded to those students who perform above average. The grade of “C” will be given to
those students who are deemed to show no better than an average level of understanding of the
date, the University will not issue tuition refunds.
WEEK 1, August 23, 2005
Introduction and Overview of the Policy Process
Overview of the course. Review of syllabus and requirements. Introductions. Introduction of
the Policy Sciences. Overview of the stages of the policy process: initiation, estimations,
selection, evaluation, implementation and termination. Questions to think about and be prepared
to discuss in class: How is policy formed? Is it in a linear, step-by-step fashion? Is it an
incremental process? Is the policy process paradigm/model helpful, if so, how and why? If not,
how and why? Dan you trace any other political events using the stages process? Does the
model over-simply the problems at hand?
Required Readings:
Suggested Readings:
Brewer, Garry D., and Peter deLeon, The Foundations of Policy Analysis (Pacific Grove,
CA: Brooks/Cole, 1983).
Birkhead, Thomas. An Introduction to the Policy Process (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe,
Etzioni, Amitai. “Policy Research.” The American Sociologist 5 (June 1987,
Supplementary Issue): 8-12.
Lasswell, Harold D. “The Policy Orientation,” In The Policy Sciences, ed. Daniel Lerner
and Harold D. Lasswell, 3-15. Stanford, CA.: Stanford University Press, 1951.
Lasswell, Harold D. A Pre-vew of Policy Sciences. New York: American Eservier, 1971.
Lindblom, Charles E. “Policy Analysis.” American Economics Review 48 (June 1958):
May, Judith and Aaron Wildavsky, eds. The Policy Cycle. Beverly Hills: Sage
Publications, 1978.
Radin, Beryl A. Beyond Machiavelli. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2000.
Sabatier, Paul A. “Policy Change and Policy-Oriented Learning.” Policy Sciences, Vol
21, No. 2/3 (1988), pp. 129-168.
Other Suggested Readings:
Allison, Graham T. Essence of Decision. Boston: Little, Brown, 1971. 1997 ed. is OK
Builder, Carl. Masks of War. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1989.
Cyr, Arthur and Peter deLeon. “Comparative Policy Analysis.” Policy Science, Vol. 6
(December 1975): pp. 375-384. Compare to Peter deLeon and Phyllis Resnick Terry,
“Comparative Policy Analysis: Déjà Vu All Over Again?” Journal of Comparative Policy
Analysis, Vol. 1, No. 1 (September 1998), pp. 9-29.
Dror, Yehezkel. Design for Policy Sciences. New York: American Elsevier, 1971. Or Y.
Dror, Ventures in Policy Sciences. New York: American Elsevier, 1971.
Heidenheimer, Arnold J., et al. Comparative Public Policy: The Politics of Social Choice
in Europe and America. New York: St. Martins Press, 1988.
Hird, John A. “Policy Analysis for What?....” Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 33, NO. 1
(February 2005). Pp. 83-106.
Krugman, Paul. “For Richer…” New York Times Magazine. October 20, 2002, pp. 62
on. AND Michael Lewis, “In Defense of the Boom”, New York Times Magazine,
October 27, 2002.
Rivlin, Alice, Reviving the American Dream. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
White, Louise G. “Policy Analysis as Discourse.” Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management. Vol. 13, No. 3 (Summer 1994), pp. 506-525.
WEEK 2, August 30, 2005
Democracy and the Policy Sciences
What is the role of the policy analysts in a democracy? What is a democracy? How is it
practiced? What is the status of democracy in America? Does contemporary America reflect
what you think is a ‘democratic society’? What is the practice of democracy that you see carried
out at the local, state, and federal levels? Is there a difference between your ideal norm and the
practice of democracy that you observe around you? If there is a difference, is it an important
one? How do the (respective) roles of the bureaucracy, private, and non-profit sectors fit into
Required Readings:
 Fareed Zakaria, The Future of Freedom
Suggested Readings:
deLeon, Peter. “The Democratization of the Policy Sciences.” Public Administration
Review, Vol. 52, No. 2 (March/April 1992), pp. 125-129.
deLeon, Peter. “Democratic Values and the Policy Sciences.” American Journal of
Political Science, Vol. 39, No. 4 (November 1995), pp. 886-905.
deLeon, Peter. Democracy and the Policy Sciences, Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1997.
Giddens, Anthony. The Third Way. UK: Polity Press, 1998.
James A. Morone. “Introduction: The Democratic Wish” in The Democratic Wish: New
York: Harper Collins. Pp. 1-30. 1990.
Robert D. Putnam. “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital”, Journal of
Democracy, vol. 6, No. 1: 65-78. December 1995.
Weimer, David L. “Institutionalizing Neutrally Competent Policy Analysis
Resources…” Policy Studies Journal. Vol. 33, No. 2 (May 2005). Pp. 131-146.
Other Suggested Readings:
Bauer, Raymond A., and Kenneth J. Gergen, eds. The Study of Policy Formulation. New
York: The Free Press, 1968.
Beneviste, Guy. Mastering the Politics of Planning: Crafting Credible Plans and Policies
that Make a Difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989.
Beckman, Norman, ed. “A Symposium: Policy Analysis in Government.” Public
Administration Review 7 (May/June 1977): 221-253.
Dahl, Robert, On Democracy New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001.
Darton, Robert. The Great Cat Massacre… New York: Basic Books, 1984.
deLeon, Peter. Advice and Consent. New York: Russell Sage, 1989.
deLeon, Peter. “Models of Policy Discourse: Insights vs. Prediction.” Policy Studies
Journal, Vol. 26, No. 1 (1998). Pp. 147-161
Downs, Anthony. Inside Bureaucracy. Boston Little, Brown, 1967.
Dror, Yehezkel. “Policy Analysts: A New Professional Role in Government Service.”
Public Administration Review 27 (Sept. 1967): 197-203.
Goldhamer, Herbert. The Advisor. New York: Elsevier, 1977.
Jenkins-Smith, Hank. Democratic Politics and Policy Analysis. Pacific Grove, CA:
Brook/Cole, 1989.
Lasch, Christopher. The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy. New York:
Norton, 1995.
Lindblom, Charles E., and David K. Cohen. Usable Knowledge. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 1978.
Elkin, Stephen L. “Political Science and the Analysis of Public Policy.” Public Policy 22
(Summer, 1974): 339-422.
Florino, Daniel J. “Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk.” Science, Technology,
and Human Values. Vol. 12, No. 2 (Spring 1990), pp. 226-243.
Heineman, Robert A. The World of the Policy Analyst: Rationality, Values, and Politics.
Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House, 2000 eidtion.
Gilmour, Robert, and Alexis A. Halley, eds. Who Makes Public Policy. Chatham, N.J.:
Chatham House, 1994. Chaps 1 &11.
Lasswell, Harold D. “The Political Science of Science.” American Political Science
Review 50 (December 1956): 961-979.
Layzer, Judith D. “Citizen Participation and Government Choice in Local Environmental
Controversies. Policy Studies Journal. Vol. 30, No. 2 (2002). Pp. 193-207.
Leman, Christopher K., and Robert H. Nelson. “Ten Commandments for Policy
Economists.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 1 (Fall 1981): 97-117.
Meltsner, Arnold J. Policy Analysts in the Bureaucracy. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1976.
Meltsner, Arnold J. Rules for Rulers: The Politics of Advice. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press, 1980.
Schön, Donald. The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books, 1983.
Steelman, Toddi A., and William Ascher, “Public Involvement Methods in Natural
Resources Policy Making,” Policy Sciences, Vol. 30: pp. 71-90.
Wildavsky, Aaron. Speaking the Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis.
Boston: Little, Brown, 1979. Chaps 1-4, 11, 16.
Weiss, Carol H., ed. Organization for Policy Analysis: Helping Government Think.
Newbury Park: Sage, 1992.
Wilson, James Q. Moral Judgment, NY: Basic Books, 1998.
Schick, Allen. “Beyond Analysis.” Public Administration Review 7 (May/June 1977):
Schor, Judith. The Over-Worked American. New York: Basic Books. 1992.
Stone, Deborah A. Policy Paradox. Glensville, Ill.: Scott Foresman, 1996.
Tribe, Lawrence H. “Policy Sciences: Analysis of Ideology.” Philosophy and Public
Affairs 21 (Fall 1972): 66-110.
WEEKS 3 & 4: September 6 and 13, 2005
Policy initiation is the beginning of the policy process. There are four major components that
fall under policy initiation: 1) recognition of the problem; 2) identification of the problem
context; 3) determination of goals and objectives; and 4) generation of policy options or
alternatives. In general, consider the following questions. Can you identify the problem? When
is it recognized as a problem by the individuals whom it affects and then by society at large?
What is the context for the problem? What are the appropriate goals for resolving the problem?
What options exist for remedying these problems?
Required Readings:
 Derthick, Martha A. Up in Smoke
Suggested Readings:
John W. Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policy. Boston: Little, Brown,
Lasswell, Harold D. “The Social Setting of Creativity.” In Creativity and its Cultivation,
ed. Harold H. Anderson. New York: Harper and Row, 1959, pp. 203-221.
Meier, Kenneth N. “Get Your Tongue Out of My Mouth ‘Cause I’m Kissin’ You
Goodbye: The Politics of Ideas.” Policy Studies Journal. Vol. 32, No. 2 (May 2004).
Pp. 225-234.
Rochefort, David, and Roger Cobb (eds.) The Problems of Problem Definition.
Lawrence, KS: The University of Kansas Press, 1995.
Reich, Michael. Toxic Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991.
Sanger, Mary Bryna, and Martin A. Levin. “Using Old Stuff in New Ways: Innovation as
a Case of Evolutionary Tinkering.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 11
(Winter, 1992, no.1): pp. 88-115.
Sobel, Dava, Longitude, NY: Penguin, 1997.
Woodward, Robert. The Agenda, New York: Pocket Books, 1995.
Wilensky, Harold L. Organizational Intelligence. New York: Basic Books, 1967.
Wolstetter, Roberta. Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision. Stanford: Stanford University
Press, 1964.
Other Suggested Reading:
Jervis, Robert. Perceptions and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton
University Press, 1976.
Barnett, H.G. Innovation: The Basis for Cultural Change. New York: McGraw-Hill,
Birmbaum, Jeffrey H., and Alan S. Murray. Showdown at Gucci Gulch. New York:
Random House, 1987.
Bok, Sissela. Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life. New York: Vintage, 1979.
OR Sissela Bok, Secrets. New York: Vintage, 1984.
Festinger, Leon. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press,
Hays, Scott P. “Patterns of Reinvention: The Nature of Evolution During Policy
Diffusion.” Policy Studies Journal. Vol. 24, No. 4 (Winter 1996), pp. 547-566.
Hirschman, Albert O. Shifting Involvements. Princeton: Princeton University Press,
Howlett, Michael, and M. Ramesh, “Policy Subsystem Configurations and Policy
Change.” Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 26, No. 3 (September 1998), pp. 461-481.
D. Kay. “Problem Definition and Policy Contraction.” Policy Studies Journal. Vol. 31,
NO. 1 (February 2003). Pp. 53-70.
Levine, Herbert M. et al. What if the American Political System were Different?
Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1992.
Miller, George A. “The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two.” The Psychology of
Communication. New York: Basic Books, 1967.
Roessner, J. David. “Federal Technology Policy: Innovation and Problem Solving in
State and Local Government.” Policy Analysis. Vol. 5 (Spring 1979): pp. 181-200.
Thompson, Dennis. Political Ethics and Public Office. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1987.
Warner, Kenneth. “The Need for Some Innovative Concepts of Innovation.” Policy
Sciences, Vol. 5 (December 1974): pp. 433-451.
WEEKS 5 & 6, September 20 and 27, 2005
Policy Estimation
Estimation seeks to identify the intended consequences of a policy. The goal of estimation is to
provide accurate information to the decision maker on which to select a policy. What criteria are
important for estimating policies? Why? What methods are appropriate for estimating which
type of policies? When should we use quantitative and qualitative methods of estimation? How
should we think about the tradeoffs between equality and efficiency?
Required Reading:
 Alice M Rivlin, Systematic Thinking for Social Action. Chapters. 1-4.
Suggested Reading:
Anderson, James A., “The Struggle to Reform Regulatory Procedures,” Policy Studies
Journal. Vol. 26, No. 3 (September 1998), pp. 482-498.
Amy, Douglas. “Why Policy Analysis and Ethics are Incompatible.” Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management. Vol. 3 (Summer 1984): pp. 573-591.
Danziger, Marie. “Policy Analysis Postmodernized.” Policy Studies Journal. Vol. 23, No.
3 (Fall 1995), pp. 435-450.
Leman, Christopher K. and Robert H. Nelson. “Ten Commandments for Policy
Economists.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Vol. 1, No. 1: 97-117. 1981.
MacRae, Duncan and Dale Whittington. Expert Advice for Policy Choice. Georgetown
University Press: Washington, DC: 1997. Introduction and Chapters 1-4.
Silver, Diana, Beth Wietzman, and Charles Brecher, “Setting an Agenda for Local
Action,” Policy Studies Journal. Vol. 30, No. 3 (2002). Pp. 362-378.
Strauch, Ralph. “A Critical Look at Quantitative Methods.” Policy Analysis, Vol. 2
(Winter 1976): pp. 121-144; OR Ralph Strauch, “Squishy Problems and Quantitative
Methods.” Policy Sciences, Vol. 6 (June 1975): pp. 174-184.
Torgerson, Douglas. “Between Knowledge and Power.” Policy Sciences, Vol. 19, No. 1
(July 1986), pp. 33-60.
Other Suggested Readings:
Adams, Charles F., et al. “Welfare Reform and Paternity Establishments: A Social
Experiment.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 11 (Fall 1992, No. 4): 665687.
Andrews, F.M., et al. Symposium: “Whatever Happened to Social Indicators?” Journal of
Public Policy, Vol. 9 (Oct-Dec., 1989).
Ascher, William. Forecasting: An Appraisal for Policy Making and Planners. Baltimore,
MD: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1978.
Brewer and deLeon (1983), part II.
Baum, Erica B. “When and Witch Doctors Agree: The Family Support Act and Social
Science Research.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 10, No. 4 (Fall
1991): pp. 603-615.
Downs, George, and Patrick Larkey. The Search for Governmental Efficiency. New
York: Random House, 1984.
Garrett Hardin, “Living on a Lifeboat.” Bioscience 24 (October 1974): 561-568, and
Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science 162 (December 13, 1968): 1234-48.
Gilovich, Thomas. How We Know What Isn’t So. New York: Free Press, 1991.
Hitch, Charles J. and Roland McKean. Economics of Defense in the Nuclear Age. New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1965.
Kaplan, Abraham. American Ethics and Public Policy. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1963.
Maier, Mark. The Data Game. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1991.
Nelson, Richard R. The Moon-Ghetto Metaphor. New York: Norton, 1975.
Phillips, D.C., “When Evaluators Disagree: Perplexities and Perspectives.” Policy
Sciences, Vol. 9 (June 1977): pp. 147-159.
Rein, Martin. Social Science and Public Policy. Baltimore: Penguin, 1976.
Luft, Harold S. “Benefit-Cost Analysis and Public Policy Implementation,” Public Policy
24 (Fall 1976): 437-62.
Paulos, John Allen. Innumeracy. New York: Hill and Wang, 1989.
Primon, Steven A., and Tim W. Clark. “The Greater Yellowstone Park Debate.” Policy
Sciences, Vol. 29, No. 2 (May 1996), pp. 137-166.
Wirth L., “Responsibility of Social Science.” The Annuals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science. Vol. 249 (January 1947): pp. 143-151.
Yanow, Dora. “Practices of Policy Interpretation.” Policy Sciences. Vol. 28, No.2 (May
1995), pp. 111-126.
WEEK 7 & 8, October 4 and 11, 2005
Selection is the stage during which one of the estimated options is chosen. Selection is possibly
the most political stage of the policy process, and the policy analyst usually does not have a
premier role in this stage. Politics and ideology are expected to play a greater role in the
selection of a policy. Relevant Questions in this module: Are estimation and selection really
two separate processes? Is policy analysis political argument? If so, should it be? Can analytic
activity be insulated from political debate? If so, how?
Required Reading:
 Irving, Janis. Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes
Suggested Reading:
Allison, Graham T. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston:
Little, Brown, 1971. 1997 edition is also fine
Brewer and deLeon (1983), part III.
George, Alexander L. Presidential Decisionmaking in Foreign Policy: The Effective Use
of Information and Advice. Boulder, CO.: Westview Press, 1981.
Neustadt, Richard E. Presidential Power. New York: John Wiley, 1960 (or later edit.).
Neustadt, Richard E., and Harvey V. Fineberg. The Swine Flu Affair: Decision0making
on a Slippery Disease. Washington: USGPO, 1978.
Steinbruner, John. The Cybernetic Theory of Decision. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1974.
Stockman, David. The Triumph of Politics. New York; Harper and Row, 1987.
Wildavsky, Aaron. The New Politics of the Budgetary Process. Glensville, Ill: Scott
Foresman, 1988.
Other Suggested Readings:
Betts, Richard K. “Analysis, War and Decision: Why Intelligence Failures are
Inevitable.” World Politics. Vol. 31 (October 1978): pp. 61-89.
Braybrooke, David and Charles E. Lindblom. A Strategy of Decision: Policy Evaluation
as a Social Process. New York: Free Press, 1963.
Dahl, Robert A. Who Governs? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1961.
Hunter, Floyd. Community Power Structure. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North
Carolina Press, 1963.
Schulman, Paul R. Large-Scale Policy Making. New York: Elsevier, 1980.
Shlaim, Avi. “Failures in National Intelligence Estimates.” World Politcs 28 (April
1976): 348-380.
Skoepal, Theda. Boomerang. New York: Norton, 1996.
Waldman, Steven. The Bill. New York: Penguin, 1995.
WEEK 9: October 18, 2005
Mid-term examination. It will be handed out in class but done at home; all exams are due at the
beginning of class, October 25. Good times should be had by all!
WEEKS 9 & 10, Oct. 18 and 25, 2005
Policy implementation is (some claim) the most complex of the policy stages. At this point, the
theoretical ideals of the policy are transformed into concrete action. Relevant Questions: What
does it mean to have effective implementation? What contributes to strong and weak
implementation? When do ‘top-down’ or ‘bottom-up’ models of implementation make sense?
What behavioral assumptions need to be made to foster effective implementation? How do
states and the federal government work together to implement policy?
Required Reading:
 Pressman and Wildavsky. Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington Are
Dashed in Oakland. 3rd ed. Chapters. 1-8 and 11.
Suggested Reading:
Bardach, Eugene C. The Implementation Game. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1977.
Berman, Paul. “Thinking about Programmed and Adaptive Implementation: Matching
Strategies to Situations.” In Why Policies Succeed or Fail. Ed. Helen M. Ingram and
Dean E. Mann, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1980, pp. 205-227.
Brewer and deLeon (1983), part iv.
Bunker, Douglas R. “Policy Sciences Perspectives on Implementation.” Public Policy,
Vol. 26 (Spring 1978): pp. 185-228.
deLeon, Peter, “The Missing Link Revisited.” Policy Studies Review, Vol. 16, Nos. ¾
(Fall/Winter 1999), pp. 311-338.
Morison, Elting E. Men, Machines, and Modern Times. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
O’Toole, Laurence J., Jr. “Research on Policy Implementation: Assessments and
Prospectives.” Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory. Vol. 20 (2001). Pp.
Rabinovitz, Francine, et al., eds. “Special Issue: Policy Implementation Guidelines.”
Policy Sciences, Vol. 7, No. 4, December 1976.
Radin, Beryl, and Willis D. Hawley. The Politics of Federal Reorganization. Elmsford,
NY: Pergamon, 1988.
Rein, Martin and Francine Rabinovitz. “Implementation: A Theoretical Perspective.” In
American Politics and Public Policy, ed. W.D. Burnham and M.W. Weinberg, pp. 307335. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1980.
Scheberle, Denise. Federalism and Environmental Policy. Georgetown University Press:
Washington, DC. Introduction, Chapters 1, 2 and 3.
Wolf, Charles. Markets or Governments. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1990.
Other Suggested Readings:
deLeon, Peter, and Linda deLeon, “Whatever Happened to Policy Implementation?
Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, Vol. 21, No. 3. (October 2002). Pp.
Lipsky, Michael. “Street Level Bureaucracy and the Analysis of Urban Reform.” Urban
Affairs Quarterly 6 (July 1971): 391-409.
Matland, Richard. “Synthesizing the Implementation Literature.” Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory.” Vol. 5, No. 2 (April 1995), pp. 145-174.
May, Peter J. “Addressing Public Risks: Federal Earthquake Policy Design.” Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 10, No. 2 (Spring 1991): pp. 263-285.
Meier, Kenneth J., and Deborah R. McFarlane. “Statutory Coherence and Policy
Implementation.” Journal of Public Policy, Vol. 15, No. 3 (1996), pp. 281-298.
Nakamura, Robert T., and Frank Smallwood. The Politics of Policy Implementation.
New York: St. Martins, 1980.
Olson, Mancur. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1965.
WEEKS 11 & 12, Nov. 1 and 8, 2005
Policy Evaluation
During the evaluation stage, the analyst examines to policy to determine what happened. We
might pose such questions as: Were the declared standards and objectives achieved? Is so, why?
If not, why not? What criteria are important in determining how to evaluate a policy? Should
outcomes or the process be evaluated? What are the pitfalls of evaluation? What methods or
research designs are used in evaluation?
Required Reading:
 Rest of Rivlin, Systematic Thinking for Social Action, and Pressman and Wildavsky,
Suggested Reading:
Cook, Samuel R. “Ronald Reagan’s Indian Policy in Retrospect.” Policy Studies Journal,
Vol. 24, No. 1 (Spring 1996), pp. 11-26.
DeNeufville, Judith. “Validating Policy Indicators.” Policy Sciences, Vol. 10 (December
1987): pp. 171-188.
Gilsinan, James F., and L. Carl Volpe. “Do Not Cry Wolf Until You Are Sure.” Policy
Sciences. Vol. 17 (October 1984): pp. 179-191.
Murray, Charles. Losing Ground. New York: Harper and Row, 1984 (or later edition).
Phillips, D.C. “When Evaluator Disagree.” Policy Sciences. Vol. 8: 147-159. 1977.
Radin, Beryl A. “Evaluation on Demand: Two Congressionally Mandated Education
Evaluations.” Making and Managing Policy: Formulation, Analysis, Evaluation, ed. G.
Ronald Gilbert, 309-326. New York: Marcel-Dekker, 1984.
Wildavsky (1979), Chpts. 9-10.
Wiseman, Michael. “State Strategies for Welfare Reform: The Wisconsin Story.” Journal
of Policy Analysis and Management. Vol. 15, No. 4 (Fall 1996): pp. 515-546. Also see
Lawrence M. Meade, “Welfare Policy,” same issue, pp. 587-600.
Other Suggested Readings:
Aaron, Henry J. Politics and the Professors. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution,
Brewer and deLeon (1983), part V.
Campbell, Donald. “Reforms as Experiments.” Chpts. 12 in Readings in Evaluation
Research, ed. Francis Caro. New York: Russell Sage, 1977.
Grubb, Norton, and Lorraine M. McDonnell. “Combating Job Fragmentation…” Journal
of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Spring 1996), pp. 252-270.
Greenberger, Martin, et al. Caught Unawares. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1983.
Hatry, Harry, et al. Practical Program Evaluation for State and Local Government.
Washington, DC., Urban Institute, 1981.
Lasswell, Harold D. Politics: Who Gets What, Why and How. Cleveland; World
Publishing Co., 1958.
Lindenberg, Karen E., and Laura A. Reese. “Sexual Harassment Policy.” Policy Studies
Review. Vol. 24, No. 3 (Autumn 1996), pp. 387-403.
Rivera, Jorge, and Peter deLeon. “Is Greener Whiter? Voluntary Environmental
Performance in Western Ski Areas.” Policy Studies Journal. Vol. 32, No. 2 (August
2004). Pp. 417-438.
Sanders, Susan M. “The ‘Common Sense’ of the non-Profit Hospital Exemption.” Journal
of Policy Analysis and Management , Vol. 14, No. 3 (Summer 1995), pp. 446-466.
Saxe, Leonard, and Michelle Fine. Social Experimentation: Methods for Design and
Evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1981.
Schwarz, John E. Americas Hidden Success: A Reassessment of Twenty Years of Public
Policy. Rev. Ed. New York: Norton, 1988.
Sylvia, Ronald, et. al. Program Planning and Evaluation for the Public Manager. Pacific
Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. 1985.
Sweet, Barry. “Legal Challenges to Presidential Policies on the Use of Military Force.”
Policy Studies Journal. Vol. 24, No.1 (Spring 1996), pp. 27-41.
Richard M. Titmus, The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy. (New
York: Vintage, 1972), and Harry M. Sapolsky and Stan N. Finkelstein. “Blood Policy
Revisited—A New Look at the ‘Gift Relationship’.” The Public Interest. No. 46 (Winter
1977): pp. 15-27.
WEEK 13 and 14: Nov. 15 and 29, 2005
Policy Termination
Termination is the final stage of the policy process. If a policy is successful and accomplishes its
goal, it should be terminated. Right? Wrong, or at least that is what we observe in practice.
Termination is the least studied phase of the process. Why are government programs and
policies so difficult to end? What are the obstacles to termination? Are there alternative to
Required Reading:
 Richard Himelfarb, Catastrophic Politics. University Park: Penn State Press, 1995.
Suggested Reading:
Bardach, Eugene C. “Policy Termination as a Political Process.” Policy Sciences, Vol. 7
(June 1976): pp.123-131.
Daniel, Mark R. Terminating Public Policy. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1997.
deLeon, Peter. “Policy Termination as a Political Process,” in Dennis Palumbo, ed., The
Politics of Evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Frantz, Janet E. “Reviving and Revisiting a Termination Model. Policy Sciences, Vol. 25,
(1992): pp. 175-189.
Frantz, Janet E. “Political Resources for Policy Termination.” Policy Studies Journal.
Vol. 30, No. 1 (2002). Pp. 11-28.
Other Suggested Readings:
Brewer and deLeon (1983), part vi.
Bardach, Eugene and Robert A. Kagan. Going by the Book: The Problem of Regulatory
Unreasonableness. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1982.
deLeon, Peter. “Public Policy Termination: An End and a Beginning.” Policy Analysis,
Vol. 4 (Summer 1978): pp. 369-392.
Horwich, Mel. Clipped Wings: The American SST Conflict. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
Kecskemeti, Paul. Strategic Surrender. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univeristy Press, 1958.
Hirschman, Albert O. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1971.
Ikle, Fred Charles. Every War Must End. New York: Columbia University Press, 1991
Katezenback, Edward L. “The Horse Cavalry in the Twentieth Century: A Study in
Policy Response.” Public Policy, Vol. 8 (1958): pp. 120-149.
Kaufman, Herbert, Time, Chance and Organization. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 1991.
Sato, Hajime, “Abolition of Leprosy Isolation Policy in Japan.” Policy Studies Journal,
Vol. 30, No. 1 (2002). Pp. 29-46.
Traschys, Daniel. “Rational Decremental Budgeting: Elements of an Expenditure Policy
for the 1980’s.” Policy Sciences, Vol. 14 (December 1981): pp. 49-58.
Kotz, Nick. Wild Blue Yonder. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988.
McNamara, Robert S. In Retrospect. New York: Times Books, 1995.
WEEK 15: December 6, 2005
(In Class)