Public Affairs 8000 Public Policy & Management Foundations & Approach Fall Credit Hours. Wednesdays, p.m. Page Hall 240 SAMPLE

Transcription

1 Professor Jos C.N. Raadschelders 310c Page Hall Office hours: by appointment Public Affairs 8000 Public Policy & Management Foundations & Approach Fall Credit Hours Wednesdays, p.m. Page Hall 240 Course Description This course traces the intellectual currents in the study of public administration broadly defined (i.e., including public policy, public management, and governance literatures). The course provides an in-depth introduction to research and theory in the study. It is intended to familiarize students with major research streams in the study and with issues and debates involved in them. Further, it is intended to assist students in thinking about and planning their own research directions. Objectives The purpose of this course is to introduce doctoral students to the intellectual conversations about the nature and scope of the study of public administration in the United States. Where possible, comparative observations will be made (especially with regard to public administration in Europe). This introduction will facilitate the ability to: a) develop a conceptual map of the major contributors and their intellectual relationships; b) identify the major theoretical and practical issues and questions in the study and some of the answers that have been given; c) examine research approaches used to address public administration questions; d) develop the ability to think critically, synthetically, and to develop new theory; e) learn the craft of writing academic papers; f) develop familiarity with some of the literatures relevant to public administration. Course Assignments and Grading 1. readings presentations: 20% (weeks 3-4, 6-13; 10 presentations total) 2. seminar participation: 20% 3. one classic book presentation 10% (week 5) 4. one classic book report 10% (due week 5) 5. two primer book analyses and critiques: 20% (due before Thanksgiving) 6. research design paper: 20% Transformation of numerical grade to letter grade will be according to the schedule below: 1

2 A C E < 59.9 A C B C B D B D Assignments in detail 1. The first assignment: weekly reading presentations are to be prepared to discuss the readings for the day through the preparation of critiques of (some of) the week s readings (except weeks 1, 2 and 5; and write a critique of it; pay attention to whether the article contributes to research (theory, etc.) and/or practice. Each student will select in class one of the texts marked with * the week prior to the presentation. So the selections for week 3 are conducted in week 2, the selections for week 4 are picked in week 3, etc. Obviously, each student will pick a reading different from the others. All students are expected to read the reports for that week, prior to class. Prepare the memo according to the following presentation guidelines: - Summaries and critiques should be made available to the class by Tuesday night so that we have the time to read, think about, and formulate our questions before class on Wednesday. To make copies available, a copy of your review to everyone in class (including the instructor); - you will have ten minutes for your oral presentation. No more than half the time should be used for summarizing the author s main points; - your presentation should consist of: a) summary of author s main points, b) state what you found positive about the article, e.g., the theoretical approach, use of methodology, insights into the practice of administration, policy and management, contribution to research, relevance to practice, etc. c) state your critique, e.g., deficiencies in theory, weaknesses in research method, weak presentation, unclear tables/graphs, mismatch between main question and conclusion, level of generalizability (e.g., mismatch between title and actual content), d) state what you think the implication are for public administration, management and policy. The summary and critique should be 2-3 pages, double-spaced, have page numbers, 1 margins, and stapled in the top-left corner. 2. The second assignment: Seminar participation is dependent upon how well you summarize, critique, and present the article AND listen and react to the presentation made by your peers of their assigned articles. Class discussion will bring out the subtleties, connections to other works, and the relevance and power of these ideas for modern theory and practice. Your assignment includes reading others critiques the night before, listening to their presentation, and providing your own critique. Most of the readings tend to be quite short, but nonetheless, compact and intense. Each student is responsible for leading the class discussion on the article/chapter s/he presented, but others can be asked to comment about the reading. 2

3 Do not read from your critiques! You should understand the reading and your critique of the work sufficiently that you need only refer to your notes, not read from them The third and fourth assignment: Classic book presentation and report addressing one of the books marked with * in week 5. Each presentation should be about 15 minutes, followed by 15 minutes of discussion. 5. The fifth assignment: Write a critique of the books Kevin B. Smith and Christopher Larimer (2013, second edition), The Public Policy Theory Primer and H. George Frederickson, Kevin B. Smith, Christopher W. Larimer, and Michael J. Licari (2011, second edition), The Public Administration Theory Primer. You will present one of your critiques at the end of the semester. Prepare the critiques according to the following guidelines: a) summary of authors main arguments about the major developments in the study, and where the study needs to go to improve and develop further; b) evaluation of the authors analyses positive points: their observations about major developments in the study that deserve emphasis and their analyses about them; c) evaluation of authors analyses negative points: developments that they overemphasize and/or did not emphasize enough or left out and their analyses of developments you found lacking; d) implications conclusions about the state of the study and where it needs to go based in your analysis in points 1-3. Each critique should be 6 pages, double-spaced, have page numbers, 1 margins, and stapled in the top-left corner. 6. The sixth assignment: Write a research design for a public management or public policy problem. See week 2; the research design paper should be about 10 pages, double-spaced, have page numbers, 1 margins, and stapled in the top-left corner. Texts 1. Brian R. Fry, Jos C.N. Raadschelders (2013, third edition). Mastering Public Administration: From Max Weber to Dwight Waldo. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press; 2. H. George Frederickson, Kevin B. Smith, Christopher W. Larimer, and Michael J. Licari (2011, second edition), The Public Administration Theory Primer. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 3. Kevin B. Smith and Christopher Larimer (2013, second edition), The Public Policy Theory Primer. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Make-ups will only be given for those students who become ill or have a death in their immediate family. Papers which are one day late (i.e., after the hour on the day due in the seminar) will have the grade lowered by one-half. When two days late, a full letter grade will be subtracted. More than two day late and you will receive no points for the paper. No late presentations will be accepted. No incompletes will be given. However, if you have flu 3

4 symptoms coughing, sneezing, runny nose, fever, etc., do not come to class and contaminate your classmates. Please the instructor so that alternate arrangements can be made. Schedule NOTE: readings marked * will have to be selected Week 1, August 21: Introduction and the Big Ideas of Public Administration Introduction to class: expectations, reading as nourishment Lecture on the nature of the study: PA, PP, PM, Governance Discussion of prescribed readings: Robert Behn (1995). The Big Questions of Public Management. Public Administration Review, 33(4), John J. Kirlin (1996). The Big Questions of Public Administration in a Democracy. Public Administration Review, 56(5), Robert Agranoff and Michael McGuire (2001). Big Questions in Public Network Management Research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(3), ATTENTION: students are expected to read these three articles before class, but do not have to write a critique. Week 2, August 28: Research Design Read: Patricia M. Shields, Hassan Tajalli (2006). Intermediate Theory: The Missing Link in Successful Student Scholarship. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 12(3), Guest lecture: Dr. Craig Boardman Week 3, September 4: Public Management The Field Lecture: fragmentation of knowledge *Laurence E. Lynn (2007). Public Management: A Concise History of the Field. In Ewan Ferlie, Laurence E. Lynn, Christopher Pollitt (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Public Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press, *Jos Raadschelders (2011). The Future of the Study of Public Administration: Embedding Research Object and Methodology in Epistemology and Ontology. Public Administration Review, 71(6), *Johan P. Olsen (2004). Citizens, Public Administration, and the Search for Theoretical Foundations. PSOnline (January), *H. George Frederickson (2007). Whatever Happened to Public Administration? Governance, Governance Everywhere. In Ewan Ferlie, Laurence E. Lynn, Christopher Pollitt (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Public Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Charles R. Wise (1990). Public Service Configurations and Public Organizations: Public Organizations Design in the Post-Privatization Era. Public Administration Review, 50(2),

5 Keith Provan and Robin Lemaire (2012). Core Concepts and Key Ideas for Understanding Public Sector Organizational Networks: Using Research to Inform Scholarship and Practice. Public Administration Review, 72(5), ALL Christopher Pollit (2010). Envisioning Public Administration as a Scholarly Field in Public Administration Review, 70(Supplement 1), S292-S294. Week 4, September 11: Public Policy The Field Lecture: planning and the malleable society *Peter DeLeon (2008). The Historical Roots of the Field. In Michael Moran, Martin Rein, Robert E. Gooding (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Kevin B. Smith (2008). Economic Techniques. In Michael Moran, Martin Rein, Robert E. Gooding (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press,. *Jonathan Wolf and Dick Haubrich (2008). Economism and its Limits. In Michael Moran, Martin Rein, Robert E. Gooding (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press,. *John W. Kingdon (2011). How Does an Idea s Time Come? In John W. Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Longman, *Kenneth J. Meier (2009). Policy Theory, Policy Theory Everywhere: Ravings of a Deranged Policy Scholar. The Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), Rudolf Klein and Theodore Marmor (..). Reflections on Policy Analysis. Putting it Together Again. In Michael Moran, Martin Rein, Robert E. Gooding (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Week 5, September 18: Classics of Public Administration Lecture: science and Wissenschaft Prescribed reading: Fry and Raadschelders, chapters 1 10 (especially 10) General discussion of public administration as a study leading into the student presentations. Presentation and discussion of assigned books: Frederick W. Taylor (1967). The Principles of Scientific Management, New York: W.W. Norton. *Luther Gulick and Lyndall Urwick (eds.) (1937). Papers on the Science of Administration. Institute of Public Administration. *Mary Parker Follett (1940). Dynamic Administration, The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett, by Henry Metcalf and Lyndall Urwick, eds., New York: Harper Brothers. H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (eds.) (1958). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press. Elton Mayo (1960). The Human Problems of Industrial Civilization. New York: Viking. Chester Bernard (1968). The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. *Herbert Simon (1997). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations. New York: Free Press (or earlier printing). Charles Lindlom (1965). The Intelligence of Democracy: Decision-making Through Mutual Adjustment. New York: Free Press. 5

6 *Dwight Waldo (1984). The Administrative State: A Study of the Political Theory of American Public Administration. New York: Holmes and Meier. ALL Kenneth J. Meier (2010). Governance, Structure, and Democracy: Luther Gulick and the Future of Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 70 (Supplement 1), S284-S291. ALL Michael Barzelay and Fred Thompson (2010). Back to the Future: Making Public Administration a Design Science. Public Administration Review, 70(Supplement 1), S295-S297. Week 6, September 25: Public and Private Management Lecture: demarcated sectors or embedded continuums. Hal G. Rainey and Young Han Chun (2009). Public and Private Management Compared. Stephanie Moulton (2009). Putting Together the Publicness Puzzle: A Framework for Realized Publicness. Public Administration Review, 69(5), *Hal G. Rainey (2011). Sampling Designs for Analyzing Publicness: Alternatives and Their Strengths and Weaknesses. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21 (Supplement 3), i321-i346. *Barry Bozeman and Stephanie Moulton (2011). Integrative Publicness: A Framework for Public Management Strategy and Performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21 (Supplement 3), i363-i380. Ronald C. Moe (2001). The Emerging Federal Quasi Government: Issues of Management and Accountability. Public Administration Review, 61(3), *Trevor L. Brown, Matthew Potoski, and David M. Van Slyke (2006). Managing Public Service Contracts: Aligning Values, Institutions, and Markets. Public Administration Review, 66(3), Charles R. Wise and Stephanie Moulton (2010). Shifting Boundaries between Public and Private Sectors: Implications from the Economic Crisis. Public Administration Review, 70(3), *Eva Whitesman (2010). Order Beyond Crisis: Organizing Considerations Across the Public Service Configuration Life Cycle. Public Administration Review, 70(3), Policy Letter Office of Management and Budget on Inherently Public Functions ALL Stephanie Moulton (2010). Integrating the Public in Public Administration: Envisioning the Scholarly Field in Public Administration Review, 70(Supplement 1), S317-S318. Week 7, October 2: Research Issues Lecture: knowledge and/ or publication as research objectives Laurence E. Lynn, Sr. (1994). Public Management Research: The Triumph of Art Over Science. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 13 (Spring), *Michael Spicer (2005). Determinism, Social Science and Public Administration. American Review of Public Administration, 35(3), *Kenneth J. Meier (2005). Public Administration and the Myth of Positivism: The Anti-Christ s View. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 27(4), Douglas Morgan, Kent Kirwan, John Rohr, David Rosenbloom and David Schaefer (2010). Recovering, Restoring, and Renewing the Foundations of American Public Administration: The Contributions of Herbert J. Storing. Public Administration Review, 70(4), James L. Perry (1991). Strategies for Building Public Administration Theory, Research in Public Administration, Vol. 1,

7 *Jos C.N. Raadschelders (1999). A Coherent Framework for the Study of Public Administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(2), Markus Haverland and Dvora Yanow (2012). A Hitchhikers Guide to the Public Administration Research Universe. Public Administration Review, 72(3), *Jennifer Dodge, Sonia M. Ospina, and Erica Gabrielle Foldy (2005). Integrating Rigor and Relevance in Public Administration Scholarship: The Contribution of Narrative Inquiry. Public Administration Review, 65(3), Larry Schroeder, et al. (2004). Routes to Scholarly Success in Public Administration: Is There a Right Path? Public Administration Review, 64(1), ALL Robert F. Durant (2010). Parsimony, Error Terms, and the Future of a Field. Public Administration Review, 70(Supplement 1), S319-S320. ALL Norma M. Riccucci (2010). Envisioning Public Administration as a Scholarly Field in 2020: Rethinking Epistemic Traditions. Public Administration Review, 70(Supplement 1), S Week 8, October 9: Decision Making and Strategic Management Lecture: decision making theories *Charles Lindblom (1959). The Science of Muddling Through. Public Administration Review, 19(1), Charles Lindblom (1979). Still Muddling, Not Yet Through. Public Administration Review, 39(6), Amitai Etzioni (1967). Mixed Scanning: A Third Approach to Decision Making. Public Administration Review, 27(5), *Amitai Etzioni (1986). Mixed Scanning Revisited. Public Administration Review, 46(1), *Graham Allison (1969). Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis. American Political Science Review, 63(3), Paul C. Nutt (2006). Comparing Public and Private Sector Decision-Making Practices. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(2), Barry Bozeman and Sanjay K. Pandey (2004). Public Management Decision Making: Effects of Decision Content. Public Administration Review, 64(5), John Bryson (2010), The Future of Public and Non-Profit Strategic Planning in the United States. Public Administration Review, 70(special issue), S255-S267. *John Bryson, Frances Berry and Kaifeng Yang (2010). The State of Strategic Management Research: A Selective Literature Review on Set of Future Directions. American Review of Public Administration, 40(5), Theodore H. Poister and George Streib (2005). Elements of Strategic Planning and Management in Municipal Government: Status after Two Decades. Public Administration Review, 65(1), Week 9, October 16: Accountability and Control Lecture: NPM and the rise of the regulatory state unintended consequences *Martin Landau and Russell Stout, Jr. (1979). To Manage is Not to Control: Or the Folly of Type II Errors. Public Administration Review, 34(2),

8 Philip H. Jos and Marti E. Tompkins (1994). Accountability: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Research in Public Administration, Vol. 3, *Mel Dubnick and Barbara Romzek (1993). Accountability and the Centrality of Expectations in American Public Administration. Research in Public Administration, Vol. 2, *Robert D. Behn (2003). Why Measure Performance? Different Purposes Require Different Measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5), *Carolyn Heinrich (2012). How Credible is the Evidence and Does it Matter: An Analysis of the Program Assessment Rating Tool. Public Administration Review, 72(1), Sally Coleman Selden & Jessica E. Sowa (2004). Testing a Multi-Dimensional Model of Organizational Performance: Prospects and Problems. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(3), Dale Krane (2001). Disorderly Progress on the Frontiers of Public Evaluation. International Journal of Public Administration, 24(1), Week 10, October 23: The Environment of Public Management and Policy Lecture: Why does the study of public administration have no boundaries? R.G. Tugwell and E.C. Banfield (1950). Grass Roots Democracy Myth or Reality. Public Administration Review, 10(1), *Robert Durant and William Resh (2010). Presidential Agendas, Administrative Strategies and the Bureaucracy. In George Edwards (ed.), Handbook of the American Presidency. New York: Oxford University Press. *Susan Webb Yackee (2006). Sweet-Talking the Fourth Branch: The Influence of Interest Group Comments on Federal Agency Rulemaking. The Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(1), *Scott R. Furlong (1998). Political Influence on the Bureaucracy: The Bureaucracy Speaks. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(1), Charles R. Wise and Rosemary O Leary (2003). Breaking Up Is Hard to Do: The Dissolution of Judicial Supervision of Public Services. Public Administration Review, 63(2), Steven J. Balla and John R. Wright (2001). Interest Groups, Advisory Committees, and Congressional Control of the Bureaucracy. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), *Kaifeng Young and Sanjay Pandey (2011). Further Dissecting the Black Box of Citizen Participation. Public Administration Review, 71(6), Week 11, October 30: Administrative Reform Lecture: Continuity, diversity and change as the normal situation, but what about planned reform? *James G. March and Johan P. Olsen (1983). Organizing Political Life: What Administrative Reorganization Tell US About Government. American Political Science Review, 77(2), Charles R. Wise (2002). Organizing for Homeland Security. Public Administration Review, 62(2), Stephen Page (2005). What s New about the New Public Management? Administrative Change in the Human Services. Public Administration Review, 65(6),

9 Charles R. Wise (2006). Organizing for Homeland Security after Katrina: Is Adaptive Management What s Missing? Public Administration Review, 66(3), *Paul C. Light (2006). The Tides of Reform Revisited: Patterns in Making Government Work, Public Administration Review, 66(1), *Donald P. Moynihan (2006). Managing for Results in State Government: Evaluating a Decade of Reform. Public Administration Review, 66(1), *Milena Neshkova and Tatiana Kostadinova (2012). The Effectiveness of Administrative Reform in New Democracies. Public Administration Review, 72(3), Gary J. Reid (2012). Commentary, Effectiveness of Administrative Reform. Public Administration Review, 72(3), Week 12, November 6: Comparative Public Management Lecture: Intellectual traditions in the study of public administration similarities and differences between the USA and European countries *Jody Fitzpatrick, et al. (2011). A New Look at Comparative Public Administration: Trends in Research and an Agenda for the Future. Public Administration Review, 71(6), , + four commentaries in same issue by Jos Raadschelders; Jamil Jreisat; Kristen Andersson; and Nilima Gulrasani and Kim Moloney. *R.A.W. Rhodes (2011). One-Way, Two-Way, or Dead-End Street: British Influence on the Study of Public Administration in America Since Public Administration Review, 71(4), *Christopher Pollitt and Geert Bouckaert (2003). Evaluating Public Management Reforms: An International Perspective. In Hellmut Wollmann (ed.). Evaluation in Public-Sector Reform: Concepts and Practice in International Perspective. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, *Lois R. Wise (2002). Public Management Reform: Competing Drivers of Change. Public Administration Review, 62(5), Eva Witesman and Charles R. Wise (2009). The Centralization/Decentralization Paradox in Civil Service: How Government Structure Affects Democratic Training of Civil Servants. Public Administration Review, 69(1), ALL Scott A. Fritzen (2010). Envisioning Public Administration as a Scholarly Field in 2020: Toward Global and comparative Administrative Theorizing. Public Administration Review, 70(Supplement 1), S300-S301. Week 13, November 13: Public Law and Public Administration Lecture: Path dependency understanding the presence of the legal past *Laurence Lynn (2009). Restoring the Rule of Law to Public Administration: What Frank Goodnow Got Right and Leonard White Didn t. Public Administration Review, 69(5), *Donald Moynihan (2009). Our Usable Past : A Historical Contextual Approach to Administrative Values. Public Administration Review, 69(5), Stephanie Newbold (2010). Toward a Constitutional School for American Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 70(4),

10 *Ronald Moe and Robert Gilmore (1995). Rediscovering Principles of Public Administration: The Neglected Foundation of Public Law. Public Administration Review, 55(2), *Rosemary O Leary and Charles R. Wise (1991). Public Managers, Judges, and Legislators: Redefining the New Partnership. Public Administration Review, 51(1), Robert Christensen and Charles R. Wise (2009). Dead or Alive? The Federalism Revolution and Its Meaning for Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 69(5), Philip J. Cooper (2005). George W. Bush, Edgar Allan Poe, and the Use and Abuse of Presidential Signing Statements. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 35(3), Mitchell A. Sollenberger and Mark Rozell (2011). Prerogative Power and Executive Branch Czars: President Obama s Signing Statements. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 41(4), Week 14, November 20: Presentation of Research Design Papers Week 15, November 27: Thanksgiving IMPORTANT INFORMATION ACADEMIC INTEGRITY (ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT) The Ohio State University and the Committee on Academic Misconduct (COAM) expect that all students have read and understand the University s Code of Student Conduct, and that all students will complete all academic and scholarly assignments with fairness and honesty. Failure to follow the rules and guidelines established in the University s Code of Student Conduct may constitute Academic Misconduct. Sanctions for the misconduct could include a failing grade in this course and suspension or dismissal from the University. In the Ohio State University s Code of Student Conduct, Section defines academic misconduct as: Any activity that tends to compromise the academic integrity of the University, or subvert the educational process. Examples of academic misconduct include (but are not limited to) plagiarism, collusion (unauthorized collaboration), copying the work of another student, and possession of unauthorized materials during an examination. Ignorance of the University s Code of Student Conduct is never considered an excuse for academic misconduct. If you have any questions about the above policy or what constitutes academic misconduct in this course, please contact me. ADA Statement Students who have documented any learning disabilities with the Office of Disability Services are encouraged to meet with the course instructors to discuss arrangements for any approved accommodations. Please contact the Office of Disability Services at if you have any 10

11 questions. Students requiring modified versions of written materials (large print, Braille, tape, etc.), class modifications (e.g. American Sign Language), or an alternate format for submission of written materials, please privately contact one of the instructors. Every effort will be made to work with you to accommodate your specific learning needs. 11