PSC 5243 Managing Public Programs
Thursdays 7-9:50pm, Kaufman Hall 231
Professor: Meeyoung Lamothe, Ph.D.
Office: Dale Hall Tower 217
Office Hours: TR 9:30-10:30am
Phone and e-mail: 325-6469; mlamothe@ou.edu
COURSE DESCRIPTION
Over the years, public management as a field of study has accumulated an impressive volume of research.
Scholarly topics and inquiries developed in this field are vast and far reaching. Some explore political, legal, and
structural constraints and boundaries of operating public organizations within the American constitutional framework.
Others focus on management skills and techniques that assist public managers to run programs effectively. Still many
other scholars study factors affecting public managerial behaviors, such as incentives and motivation, culture, and
leadership styles, to better understand and analyze administrative phenomena. The main purpose of this course is, first, to
provide a broad, introductory survey of academic works advanced in the field of public management, exploring all of
these aspects.
The second set of goals for this course is to fully utilize various theoretical perspectives and analytical
frameworks forwarded by scholars and apply them to examine real world public management issues and problems our
governments faced in the past and are dealing with in present times. While every managerial challenge has its uniqueness
that is best understood in its own historical context and individual organizational setting, it is also true that there are
common management aspects to be understood through established theoretical lenses and scholarly insights in order to
analyze problems more systematically. The purpose of this course is to encourage students to think critically and logically
about why and how these problems occur by parsing out idiosyncrasies and identifying generalizable patterns of behaviors
and underlying causes.
REQUIRED READINGS (BOOKS):

Carolyn J. Hill and Laurence E. Lynn Jr. 2009. Public Management: A Three-Dimensional Approach. CQ Press.

Cheryl Simrell King (ed.). 2011. Government is Us 2.0. M.E. Sharpe.

Thom Reilly. 2011. Rethinking Public Sector Compensation: What Ever Happened to the Public Interest? M.E.
Sharpe.
REQUIRED READINGS (D2L BOOK CHAPTERS/ARTICLES/CASE STUDIES):

See below course outlines.
OVERALL COURSE EXPECTATIONS
Considering that this is a graduate course, there are two main goals that I hope you will achieve throughout the semester.
The first goal is to gain substantive knowledge of the academic literature exploring the scope and nature of public
management. A great deal of theoretical as well as empirical studies have accumulated in this area over the past. To
achieve this goal, it is vital for you to thoroughly complete all the reading assignments each week before coming to the
class and be ready for active discussions of what you have read and digested.
The second goal is to practice and refine your research skills through an exercise of writing a full-fledged research design
paper. For the past few years, I have supervised several MPA students who strived to complete this critical task and
discovered that many of them were not well prepared to effectively take on this challenge by the time they reached the
stage to do so. This class, just as any other graduate courses you take over your period in the program, should be used as
a training ground for you to prepare yourself toward accomplishing this ultimate goal.
STUDENT ASSESSMENT
Participation: As a graduate course, your active participation in class is highly important and, for this reason, I will
assign 20% of your total grade based on the extent you participate and contribute to class discussions throughout the
semester. The detailed distribution of the 20% is as follows: 5% for your overall attendance; 5% for your contribution to
group activities; and 10% for your overall class participation throughout the semester.
Case Analysis Papers: You are responsible for submitting TWO mini analysis papers on the topics you select. Several
real world cases will be made available to you as part of the class reading assignments and you choose two cases of your
interest for written analyses. A sign-up sheet will be circulated sometime in the semester for this purpose. Analyzing a
case involves: 1) utilizing relevant literature to discuss the implication of the case in the context of public management
concepts and theories; 2) addressing a series of analytical questions given to you as part of the assignment. Each paper
accounts for 15% of your grade (30% total).
Discussion Leader: You are also responsible for leading TWO class discussions. Depending on the size of the class, three
to four discussion leaders will be assigned per group session (not every week has a group discussion segment, however).
Depending on the week’s topics, discussion leaders may assume slightly different tasks such as leading group discussions
or debating policy positions on certain issues. A short report (1-2 pages) is due a day after they serve as the leaders. This
accounts for 10% of your grade (5% per leader duty).
Research paper: You are required to write a 15 page research paper, which will account for 40% of the total grade. You
are scheduled to present your paper in the 15th week (11/29). The paper is due on December 6th (the last day of class).
Both mini prospectus and research paper guidelines will be available through D2L. The journal articles that are assigned
as the course readings will also serve as useful guides. When reading, pay close attention to how the authors of these
articles introduce their research questions in the beginning (setting the tone and direction of the paper) and how they
develop either their hypotheses or arguments solidly grounded on the accumulated past research (what’s been done so far
and how their research inquiries may fill a gap that exists or enhances past achievements). Also notice how they present
their research findings and conclude their papers in ways to tie the questions and findings to the relevant theories.
Note: No make-up work will be allowed without an excused absence. In these instances, the student must make
every effort, when possible, to inform the instructor PRIOR to the absence and, upon return, must supply written
documentation supporting the legitimacy of the absence. Late papers will be docked one full letter grade for each
24 hour period (or portion thereof) they are overdue.
Grading:




Participation: 20% (5% attendance; 5% group contribution; 10% overall class participation)
Two Case Analysis Papers: 15% each (total 30%)
Discussion Leader: 10%
Research paper: 40% (5% presentation; 35% actual paper)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The Academic Honor System
The Academic Honor System of The University of Oklahoma is based on the premise that each student has the
responsibility to:
 uphold the highest standard of academic integrity in the student’s own work,
 refuse to tolerate violations of academic integrity in the University community, and
 foster a high sense of integrity and social responsibility on the part of the University community.
Violations of the Honor Code include, but are not limited to, taking or attempting to take any of the following actions:
 using unauthorized materials or receiving or rendering unauthorized assistance during an examination or in
connection with any work done for academic credit,
 selling, giving, or acquiring prior knowledge of any exam material, and
 committing the act of plagiarism - the deliberate copying, writing or presenting as one's own the information, ideas
or phrasing of another person without proper acknowledgment of the true source.
Students found in violation of the Honor Code may suffer a range of sanctions, at the instructor’s discretion, based on
the severity of the violation. These punishments could include loss of credit for the task in question, a failing grade in
the course, and/or university disciplinary action. Students are strongly urged to visit the University of Oklahoma
Provost’s Student Academic Integrity web site – (http://www.ou.edu/provost/pronew/content/integritymenu.html) – to
review the policies and what constitutes academic honor violations. A paper from this site (“Nine Things You Should
Already Know about Plagiarism”) has been posted to D2L and should be read by each student. Also, each student is
strongly encouraged to review the Interactive Tutorial: Avoiding Plagiarism which is linked to this page.
Students with disabilities
The University of Oklahoma is committed to providing reasonable accommodation for all students with disabilities. Any
student in this course who has a disability that may prevent him or her from fully demonstrating his or her abilities
should contact the instructor personally as soon as possible to discuss accommodations necessary to ensure full
participation and to facilitate your educational opportunities. Students with disabilities must be registered with the
Office of Disability Services prior to receiving accommodations in this course. The Disability Resource Center is located in
Goddard Health Center, Suite 166, phone 405/325-3852 or TDD only 405/325-4173. Their webpage can be accessed at:
http://drc.ou.edu/content/view/165/119/
Accommodations for Religious Observance
It is the policy of the University to excuse absences of students that result from religious observances and to provide
without penalty for the rescheduling of examinations and additional required class work that may fall on religious
Holidays. Students are expected to inform the instructor reasonably in advance of such schedule conflicts to allow for
accommodations to be planned.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
*****COURSE OUTLINES*****
Week 1 (8/23): Intro.

No particular readings assigned for the first week, except for the three short Washington Post articles about the
tragic deaths of four girls in D.C. These articles can be found in D2L (see also below the internet links for the
same articles – in case you would like to see the actual articles from the WP web sites).

Allison Klein and Joshua Zumbrun, “Bodies of 4 Gilrs Found in SE Home: Deaths Treated as Homicides,”
Wsahington Post, January 10, 2008, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/01/09/AR2008010901413.html
Sue Anne Pressley Montes, “Fenty Describes Missteps Before Girls Died: After Efforts to Help, Agency Erred in
Closing Cases, Mayor Says” Washington Post, January 12, 2008, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/01/11/AR2008011101761.html.
David Nakamura, “Fenty Seeks to Inspire, but Instead Infuriates,” Washington Post, January 20, 2008
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/19/AR2008011902286_2.html


Week 2 (8/30): Three Dimensions; Public-Private Difference.

Hill and Lynn:
o Ch.1. What is Public Management?
o Ch.2. Public Management’s Three Dimensions.

[D2L: Public-Private Difference] Graham T. Allison. 1983. Public and Private Management: Are They
Fundamentally Alike in All Unimportant Respects?
[D2L: Public-Private Difference] Jack Knott. 1993. Comparing Public and Private Management: Cooperative
Effort and Principal-Agent Relationships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 3(1):93-119.


[D2L: Supplemental Reading] Terrence M. Garrett. 2004. Whither Challenger, Wither Columbia: Management Decision
Making and the Knowledge Analytic. American Review of Public Administration 34:389.
Week 3 (9/6): Rule of Law.




Hill and Lynn, Ch. 4 Public Management’s Backbone: The Rule of Law.
[D2L: Rulemaking] David L. Weimer. 2006. The Puzzle of Private Rulemaking: Expertise, Flexibility, and Blame
Avoidance in U.S. Regulation. Public Administration Review 66(4): 569-582.
[D2L: Sunshine Law] Sanda F. Chance and Christina Locke. 2008. The Government-In-The-Sunshine Law Then
and Now: A Model for Implementing New Technologies Consistent with Florida’s Position As a Leader in Open
Government. Florida State University Law Review, Winter Issue.
[D2L: IG] Michael Johnston. 2010. Coherence, Contrasts, and Future Challenges for Inspectors General. Public
Integrity 12(4):345-357.
Week 4 (9/13): Structure.




Hill and Lynn, Ch. 5. The Structural Dimension (read only pp. 135-157).
[D2L: General Discussions on Structure] Lee G. Bolman and Terrence E. Deal. 2008. Ch. 3. Getting Organized
from Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. Jossey-Bass.
[D2L: Seminal Piece on Structure] John W. Myer and Brian Rowan. 1977. Institutionalized Organizations: Formal
Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83(2):340-363.
[D2L: Case Analysis] Charles R. Wise. 2006. Organizing for Homeland Security after Katrina: Is Adaptive
Management What’s Missing? Public Administration Review May/June. 302-318.
Week 5 (9/20): Structure (Contracts; Network and Collaboration; Ownership and Nonprofits)




Hill and Lynn, Ch. 5. The Structural Dimension (read pp. 158-187).
[D2L: Contract System Design] Meeyoung Lamothe. 2011. Redesigning the Hollow State: A Study of Florida
Child Welfare Service Reform Through the Lens of Principal-Agent Theory. International Journal of Public
Administration 34:497-515.
[D2L: Collaboration; Network Management] Robert Agranoff. 2007. Managing Within Networks. Georgetown
University Press.
o Ch.1. Public Networks (skim – pay attention to tables 1.1 and 1.2 for basic information regarding the
types of networks studied by the author).
o Ch.6. Collaborarchy: A Different Kind of Management?
[D2L: Supplemental Reading - Ownership] Anna Amirkhanyan. 2010. Monitoring Across Sectors: Examining the Effect of
Nonprofit and For-Profit Contractor Ownership on Performance Monitoring in State and Local Contracts. Public
Administration Review 7(5):742-755.
Week 6 (9/27): Culture.



Hill and Lynn. Ch. 6. The Cultural Dimension.
[D2L: PSM] James Perry and Lois Recascino Wise. 1990. The Motivational Bases of Public Service. Public
Administration Review 50(3):367-373.
[D2L: Institutional Norms and Values – a bit long, but should be an easy reading] Dilulio. 1994. Principled
Agents: The Cultural Bases of Behavior in a Federal Government Bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory 4(3): 277-318.

[D2L: High-Reliability Organizations] Todd R. LaPorte and Paula M. Consolini. 1991. Working in Practice But
Not in Theory: Theoretical Challenges of “High-Reliability Organizations.” Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory 1(1):19-47. (30 pages)
Week 7 (10/4): Craft.

Hill and Lynn. Ch. 7. The Craft Dimension.

[Additional Information on Analysis and Argument – regarding Ashcroft (from Hill and Lynn. ch. 7, p.284)]: The
main purpose of the following readings is to provide additional background information concerning Ashcroft’s
management style and craftsmanship. Cursory review is acceptable and expected for these readings.
o Jeffrey Toobin, Ashcroft’s ascent. The New Yorker, April 15, 2002.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/04/15/020415fa_fact1
o “Managing the Departments: Grades for Bush’s Cabinet Secretaries,” National Journal, January 27, 2003.
http://www.govexec.com/management/2003/01/managing-the-departments-grades-for-bushs-cabinetsecretaries/13317/
o Chitra Ragavan, “Ashcroft’s Way: American’s Top Cop Has Been Demonized and Lionized. He’s a
Complex Guy All Right, Just Not the Guy Everyone thinks he is.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/040126/26ashcroft.htm

[Other Examples of Managerial Style] T.B.A.
Week 8 (10/11): Accountability.
 Hill and Lynn, Ch. 8. Accountability.
 [D2L: Case Study]: James Woolsey and the CIA: The Aldrich Ames Spy Case. Harvard Case Program.
 [D2L: Conceptual Discussions on Accountability] Richard Mulgan. 2000. “Accountability”: An Ever-Expanding
Concept? Public Administration 78(3):555-573.
 [D2L: Read the Highlighted Portion about Litigation as Accountability Mechanism] Charles F. Sabel and Willism
H. Simon. 2004. Destabilization Rights: How Public Law Litigation Succeeds. Harvard Law Review
117(4):1015-1101.
Week 9 (10/18): Reform
 Hill and Lynn, Ch. 9. Public Management Reform.
 [D2L: Performance Management] Donald Moynihan. 2006. Managing for Results in State Government:
Evaluating a Decade of Reform. Public Administration Review 66(1):77-89.
 [D2L: Types of Reform] Paul Light. 2006. The Tides of Reform Revisited: Patterns in Making Government Work,
1945-2002. Public Administration Review 6-19. (14 pages).
 [D2L: Response to Paul Light] Jonathan Koppell. 2006. Reform in Lieu of Change: Tastes Great, Less Filling.
Public Administration Review 66(1):20-23.
Week 10 (10/25): Public Sector Compensation.
 Thom Reilly. 2012. Rethinking Public Sector Compensation: What Ever Happened to the Public Interest? M.E.
Sharpe.
Week 11 (11/1): Guest Speaker.
 David Blatt from Oklahoma Policy Institute.
Week 12 (11/8): Government is Us 2.0.
 Ch.1. The Context: Citizens, Administrators, and Their Discontents.
 Ch.2. Citizens and Administrators: The Possibilities and Dilemmas.
 Ch.6. Models of Citizen Participation: Measuring Engagement and Collaboration.
 Ch.7. Democratic Governance Through Public-Nonprofit Partnerships: Reclaiming “A Usable Past” from the
Settlement House Movement.
 [D2L] Brian Adams. 2004. Public Meetings and the Democratic Process. Public Administration Review
64(1):43-54.
 [D2L] Gordon P. Whitaker. 1980. Citizen Participation in Service Delivery. Public Administration Review
40(3):240-246.
Week 13 (11/15): Government is Us 2.0.
 Ch.8. The EPA Seeks Its Role in Communities: Evolutionary Engagement.
 Ch.9. Obituary: Team Metro.
 Ch.10. Eliminating Institutional Racism Within Local Government: The City of Seattle Race and Social Justice
Initiative.
 Ch.11. A Case of Transformational Change: Making Sustainability Real in the City of Olympia.
 Ch.12. Think Global, Act Local? A Short Story.
Week 14 (11/22): Thanksgiving (no class).
Week 15 (11/29): Presentation.
Week 16 (12/6): Paper Due.
Note: The instructor reserves the right to make changes to this syllabus as necessary. Every effort will be made to give
students ample warning of changes.