|
Lehrende: Assistant Professor Yves Steinebach
Veranstaltungsart:
Seminar / Übung
Orga-Einheit: Politics, Administration & International Relations
Anzeige im Stundenplan:
Comp Public P P An.
Semesterwochenstunden:
3
Credits:
6,0
Standort:
Campus der Zeppelin Universität
Unterrichtssprache:
Englisch
Min. | Max. Teilnehmerzahl:
5 | 30
Prioritätsschema: Standard-Priorisierung
Inhalte:
This course analyzes public policy from a comparative perspective. It focuses on how political science explains cross-sectoral and-country differences in the processes and outcomes of public policy. The first part of the course concentrates on the process of policy-making. It examines the nexus between political parties, institutions, and societal actors on the one hand, and policy change on the other. The second parts looks on what happens after policies are adopted. It seeks to explain why some policies achieve their objectives whilst others do not and which measures governments may take to safeguard against policy failure. In the third block, the students are asked to apply the theories and concepts learned to analyze practical cases.
Lernziele:
The main aim of the course is to attain three larger learning targets. The first one is to increase the students' (1) understanding of what policies are and how it is possible to assess and compare them across different spatial contexts. The second key target is to get a better (2) understanding of the various factors determining the process of policy-making and thus the policy choices made. The third learning target is to gain a (3) better sense of the multiple aspects that determine to what extent policies do ultimatley achieve their intended objectives.
These broad research question can be usefully broken down into several sub-questions along which the course is structured and organized. These are the following:
What is a policy? What constitutes a policy? How is it possible to compare (different types of) polices?
Why are policy problems often 'wicked'? How can ‘organisational hypocrisy’ help to deal with multiple and diverging societal problems?
How does the institutional setup influence the processes and outcomes of policy-making?
What are social cleavages? What are the major social cleavages in modern times? How do they affect policy choices?
What are possible success/evaluation criteria of public policies?
Which instruments of state intervention do exist? How and by which criteria can they be classified? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the different instrument types?
What is policy implementation? Which analytical perspectives do exist to assess the process of policy implementation? To what extent do the analytical perspectives lead to different performance criteria?
What are the different phases of the implementation process? How can policy-makers increase the chance that their initial policy objectives are eventually achieved?
What is the ‘attribution problem’ in policy evaluation? What is the ‘independent variable problem’ of policy mixes in policy evaluation? To what extent is knowledge about the success/failure of policies generalizable?
What is policy accumulation/rule growth? Which factors drive policy accumulation? What are the implications of policy accumulation/rule growth for (a) the public sector and, (b) political and administrative sciences?
Weitere Informationen zu den Prüfungsleistungen:
The students are asked to give a presentation (mid-term) and to submit a written homewwork (end-term). Students are supposed to apply the theories and concepts learned to assess and evaluate practical/empirical cases on a subject of their own choice. All presentations will be held in the last block followed by a discussion involving all students.
Literatur:
Books:
Brunsson, Nils (2002). The Organization of Hypocrisy: Talk, Decisions and Actions in Organizations. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.
Engeli, Isabelle, Green-Pedersen, Christoffer & Lars Thorup Larsen (Eds) (2012). Morality Politics in Western Europe: Parties, Agendas and Policy Choices. Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan.
Tsebelis, George (2002). Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Part 1.
Lijphart, Arend (2012). Patterns of Democracy: Government form and Performance in Thirty-six Countries, 2nd Edition. New Haven, CT.: Yale University Press. Chapter 1, 2, & 3.
Articles:
Adam, Christian, Steinebach, Yves & Christoph Knill (2018). Neglected Challenges to Evidence-based Policy-making: The Problem of Policy Accumulation, Policy Science, early view.
Bates, Mary Ann & Rachel Glennerster (2017). The Generalizability Puzzle. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 1: 50-51.
Baumgartner, Frank R., Breunig, Christian. Green-Pedersen, Christoffer, Jones, Bryan D., Mortensen. Peter B.. Nuytemans, Michiel, & Stefaan Walgrave (2009). Punctuated Equilibrium in Comparative Perspective, American Journal of Political Science, 53(3), 603-620.
Bemelmans-Videc, Marie-Louise & Ray C. Rist, Evert O. Vedung (eds). Carrots, Sticks, and Sermons: Policy Instruments and their Evaluation, New Brunswick & London: Transaction Publication.
Bovaird, Tony (2012). Attributing Outcomes to Social Policy Interventions – ‘Gold Standard’ or ‘Fool's Gold’ in Public Policy and Management? Social Policy & Administration, 48: 1-23.
Capano, Giliberto (2009). Understanding Policy Change as an Epistemological and Theoretical Problem, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 11(1), 7-31
Castles, Francis G. & Herbert Obinger (2008) Worlds, Families, Regimes: Country Clusters in European and OECD Area Public Policy, West European Politics,31, 321-344.
Hall, Peter (1993). Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking inBritain,Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275-296.
Hausman, Daniel M. & Brynn Welch (2010). Debate: To Nudge or Not to Nudge, Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1), 123-136.
Head, Brian W. & John Alford (2015). Wicked Problems. Implications for Public Policy and Management, Administration & Society, 47(6): 711–739.
Knill, Christoph, Schulze, Kai & Jale Tosun (2012). Regulatory policy outputs and impacts: Exploring a complex relationship, Regulation & Governance, 6, 427-444.
Knill, Christoph, Steinebach, Yves, & Xavier Fernandez-i-Marín (2018). Hypocrisy as a crisis response? Assessing changes in talk, decisions, andactions of the European Commission in EU environmental policy, PublicAdministration, early view.
Lipsky, Michael (2010). Street Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. 30th Anniversary Expanded Edition. New York: The Russell Sage Foundation.
Lowi, Theodore J. (1971). Four Systems of Policy, Politics, and Choice. Public Administration Review, 32(4), 298-310.
Matland, Richard E. (1995). Reviewed Synthesizing the Implementation Literature: The Ambiguity-Conflict Model of Policy Implementation, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5(2), 145-174.
McConnell, Allan (2010).Policy Success, Policy Failure and Grey Areas Inbetween,Journal of Public Policy, 30(3), 345-362.
Ölander, Folke, & John Thøgersen (2014). Informing versus Nudging in Environmental policy, Journal of Consumer Policy, 37(3), 341-356.
Pressman, Jeffrey L. & Aaron Wildavsky (1984). How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland; Or, Why It's Amazing that Federal Programs Work at All, This Being a Saga of the Economic Development Administration as Told by Two Sympathetic Observers Who Seek to Build Morals on a Foundation.Berkeley, et al.: University of California Press.
Savage, Lee (2018). The politics of social spending after the Great Recession: The return of partisan policy making. Governance, early view.
Treib, Oliver (2014). Implementing and complying with EU governance outputs, Living Reviews in European Governance, 9(1).
Steinebach, Yves (2019). Instrument Choice, Implementation Structures, and the Effectiveness of Environmental Policies: A Cross-national Analysis, Environmental Politics, forthcoming.
Vedung, Evert (2010). Policy Instruments: Typologies and Theories, In:
Wallner, Jennifer (2008). Legitimacy and Public Policy: Seeing Beyond Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Performance, Policy Studies Journal, 36, 421-443.
|
