UNIVERSITY of ALBERTA Comparative Public Administration POL S 354 LEC A1 Fall 2012 Day Tuesday & Thursday Time 9.30 am 10.50 am Room No. ED B 19 Dr Patrick von Maravić Department of Political Science 10-16 Henry Marshall Tory Building University of Alberta Edmonton, AB T6G 2H4 E-Mail: pvonmaravic@ualberta.ca Office Tel.: +1-780-492-3591 COURSE DESCRIPTION: Public administration plays a major role in the process of democratic decision-making and public policy-making. Against this background, this course provides a broad introduction to the structures, processes, and behavior of public administration in a historical-comparative perspective. In doing so, students will analyze the logic of modern public administrative systems and explore their role within the wider political, historical, and cultural frameworks in which they function. Throughout the course, reference will be given to the particular cases of selected European countries. The course begins by considering the comparative framework as well as the theoretical and historical development of systems of public administration in Europe. Based on this foundation, students will analyze the tasks of government, the problems of administrative structure and organization, the challenges of the budgetary process, the main characteristics of civil service systems, the role of bureaucrats in policy-making, the problem of accountability as well as current trends in public management reforms. The course concludes by surveying recent literature on the main characteristics and developments of public administrative systems in France, Germany, Great Britain, and Sweden. The course will continue in the Winter Term 2013 with a particular emphasis on management reforms and development administration. However, courses can be taken separately. The reading load for the course consists of sixty to seventy pages a week. The readings are selected to highlight the comparative perspective, but they pay particular attention to developments in selected European countries. Grades will depend on class participation, a comparative essay on administrative reforms, a fieldwork study, a written midterm exam, and a written exam at the end of the course. 1
COURSE PREREQUISITES: POL S 354 The course is based on materials from the required readings, discussions, online materials, and student s contributions to class discussions. Assigned readings should be read before each class and students will be required to respond to weekly readings. COURSE GOALS: After completing this course, students will have developed an understanding of the role of bureaucracy in modern Western democracies, an understanding of key resources of administrative systems, an understanding of the differences and similarities among selected European administrative systems, an awareness of the literature and research that informs current trends in public administration research. CLASS FORMAT: Classes will be organized as lectures. However, students are also expected to participate actively in class discussions. OFFICE HOURS: Tuesday, 2pm-5pm (please send an email before dropping by). REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION: The course is based on materials from the required readings, lectures, online materials, and discussions. Assigned readings should be read before each class. Student participation and engagement in discussion is expected and part of the overall grade. Required Readings: Textbook: B. Guy Peters 2010 The Politics of Bureaucracy (6 th Edition). New York: Routledge. Course Texts: You find copies of all book chapters in the reader - available in the UoA bookstore. However, you will NEED to look up all journal articles in the journal databases you find in the UoA library. Grading Policy: The course requirements are outlined below. Students should note that in all but exceptional situations, all components of the course must be completed to receive a passing grade. Policy regarding missed term work is outlined in Section 23.4(3) of the University Calendar. Tests and assignments will be assigned a letter grade. The instructor will not curve or adjust final grades according to any preset formula. Evaluation of the following course requirements will determine students grades: 1. Fieldwork & Presentation (in a group): 20% of course grade 2. Mid-Course Examination: 20% of course grade 3. Comparative Essay on Administrative Reform: 10% of course grade 2
4. Final Exam: 30% of course grade 5. Class Participation: 20% of course grade Notes on Assignments: 1. Fieldwork & Presentation What is it to be like to be working in a bureaucracy and how do views differ? What does bureaucracy actually mean? Are there any differences between a firefighter, a police officer, an auditor or a policymaker? Those and other questions are subject to a student research project that shall make them acquainted with specific types of public organizations as well as with ways of conducting research. The basic idea of this assignment is to find out about life in a bureaucracy. Students will work in groups to design a small research project that will consist of (1) designing the inquiry (October 2 nd 2012), (2) conducting research (week 5 & 6), and (3) presenting their findings in class (October 9 th 2012). A written, two page handout, is expected to outline the main research interest, the method of inquiry as well as the findings. This handout must be emailed to the instructor October 8 th, 12.30 pm. There is no way that you make up for missing this assignment! 2. Mid-Course Examination All topics, readings, and discussions in class week 1 through 7 - will be subject to the mid-course examination. 3. Comparative Essay on Administrative Reform What drives administrative reforms in Germany, France, Sweden, and the United Kingdom? Students are expected to analyze administrative reform strategies in two countries. The following questions shall guide this brief analysis 1.500 words of administrative reforms: (1) What are the main elements of the reform? (2) At what level of government do they take place? (3) What are the main drivers of reforms? This essay is due November 5 th at noon. Students email their essay to the instructor. CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT: How do I assess your work? I will look at the following aspects of your writings: Quality and depths of research 25 %: What kind and how many different sources (literature, documents etc.) have you read and analyzed? Have you read the most relevant literature?... Depth of analysis 25 %: Have you considered different aspects of a problem? To what extent have you weighed the pros and cons of an argument? How transparent are you in dealing with sources?... Organization 25 %: Is the argument well structured and follows a clear line of thought? Are there any redundancies in the text?... Style 25 %: How specific is your language and how much bias do you allow to distract the reader? Do you cite the work of those correctly whose ideas, theories, or findings have influenced your work (cf. APA Style)? Is your bibliography correct and complete?... 4. Final Exam All topics, readings, and discussions in class week 8 through 14 - will be subject to the final exam. 3
5. Class Participation The pattern of your attendance and the quality of your participation in and contribution to class discussions will subject to this part of your grade. No incomplete grades will be assigned in Political Science 354. GRADING SCHEME: Descriptor Letter Grade Grade Point Excellent A+ A A- 4.0 4.0 3.7 Good Satisfactory B+ B B- C+ C C- 3.3 3.0 2.7 2.3 2.0 1.7 Poor D+ Minimal Pass D Failure F 0 1.3 1.0 4
COURSE OUTLINE Week Date Topic Reading Assignment 1 Sep 6 Introduction to the course I) OVERVIEW EUROPEAN POLITICAL-ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS 2 3 Sep 11 Overview I: EPA 1. Lijphart 1999 Sep 13 Overview II: EPA 2. Lijphart 1999 Overview III: State and 3. Grimm 1987 Sep 18 administration in historical 4. Jos C.N. Raadschelders / perspective Mark R. Rutgers 1996 II) CONCEPTS & RESOURCES 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sep 20 Sep 25 Sep 27 Oct 2 Oct 4 Oct 9 Oct 11 Oct 16 Oct 18 Oct 23 Oct 25 Oct 30 Nov 1 The Bureaucracy 5. Gerth / Mills 1946 6. Olsen 2010 The structure & task of 7. Peters 2010 public administration 8. Lane 1993 Problems of organizational 9. Peters 2010 structure Preparing fieldwork No class!! Fieldwork presentation & discussion Political culture and administrative culture Civil service systems & recruitment ---- 10. Peters 2010 11. Peters 2010 12. McGregor Jr./Solano 1996 13. Aberbach et al 1981 14. Peters 2010 No. 1 Fieldwork ; due October 8 th, 12.30 pm Bureaucracy and bureaucrats in the political process Midcourse exam No. 2 Midcourse examination The politics of the budgetary 15. Peters 2010 process 16. Lindblom 1959 Administrative 17. Bovens 2005 accountability 18. Finer 1941 Administrative reform 19. Hood 1991 20. Peters 2010 3) COUNTRY PROFILES COMPARED 10 11 Nov 6 Nov 8 Nov 13 Nov 15 France: Characteristics of Administrative System France: Administrative reform(s) No class!! United Kingdom: Characteristics of Administrative System 21. Owen 2000 22. Rouban 2009 23. Bezes 2010 24. Kingdom 2000 No. 3 Comparative Essay on Administrative Reform ; due Nov 5 th at noon 5
12 Nov 20 Nov 22 United Kingdom: Administrative reform(s) Germany: Characteristics of Administrative System 25. Goldsmith / Page 1997 26. Hood 1996 27. Derlien 1996 28. Goetz 1999 13 14 Nov 27 Nov 29 Dec 4 Germany: Administrative reform(s) Sweden: Characteristics of Administrative System Sweden: Administrative reform(s) Concluding session 29. Schroeter 2001 Kuhlmann / Bogumil 2008 30. Yates 2000 31. Wise 2002 32. Ehn 2003 No. 4 Final exam, 9:00 am Thursday December 13, 2012 Required Readings: Marked readings * are for Thursday sessions. Week 1 Week 2 1) A. Lijphart (1999): Patterns of Democracy. Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, Yale University Press, pp. 9-47, 171-184, 185-199. 2) A. Lijphart (1999): Patterns of Democracy. Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, Yale University Press, pp. 9-47, 171-184, 185-199. Week 3 3) D. Grimm (1987): The Modern State: Continental Traditions, in: Kaufmann, F.-X. et al. (eds.), Guidance and Control in the Public Sector, Berlin: DeGruyter, pp. 89-109. 4) Jos C.N. Raadschelders and Mark R. Rutgers (1996): The Evolution of Civil Service Systems. In: Hans A.G.M. Bekke, J. L. Perry, and Theo A. Toonen (eds.): Civil service systems in comparative perspective. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 67-99. 5) *H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (1946): From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 196-204, 214-216, 228-230. 6) *Johan P. Olsen (2010): Governing through Institution Building: Institutional Theory and Recent European Experiments in Democratic Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press: Chapter: Bureaucracy: An Instrument for Whom and for what Purpose Week 4 7) B. Guy Peters (2010): The Politics of Bureaucracy. New York: Routledge, pp. 1-33, 6 th edition. 8) Jan-Erik Lane (1993): The Public Sector. London: SAGE, pp. 12-47. 9) *B. Guy Peters (2010): The Politics of Bureaucracy. New York: Routledge, pp. 125-165, 6 th edition. Week 5 ---- 6
Week 6 10) *B. Guy Peters (2010): The Politics of Bureaucracy. New York: Routledge, pp. 33-79, 6 th edition. Week 7 11) B. Guy Peters (2010): The Politics of Bureaucracy. New York: Routledge, pp. 81-124, 6 th edition. 12) Eugene B. McGregor Jr. and Paul Solano (1996): Data Requirement and Availability. In: Hans A.G.M. Bekke, J. L. Perry, and Theo A. Toonen (eds.): Civil service systems in comparative perspective. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 42-64. 13) *Joel D. Aberbach, Robert D. Putnam, Bert A. Rockman (1981): Bureaucrats and Politicians in Western Europe. Harvard: Harvard University Press, pp. 1-23. 14) *B. Guy Peters (2010): The Politics of Bureaucracy. New York: Routledge, pp. 195-229, 6 th edition. Week 8 15) *B. Guy Peters (2010): The Politics of Bureaucracy. New York: Routledge, pp. 231-262, 6 th edition. 16) *Charles Lindblom 1959: The science of muddling through. In: Public Administration Review, 19, pp. 79-88. Week 9 17) Mark Bovens (2005): Public Accountability. In E. Ferlie, L. E. Lynn, & C. Pollitt (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Public Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 182 208. 18) H. Finer (1941): Administrative Responsibility in Democratic Government. Public Administration Review, 1(4), pp. 335 350. 19) *Christopher Hood (1991): A Public Management for All Seasons? In: Public Administration, vol. 69, pp. 3-19. 20) *B. Guy Peters (2010): The Politics of Bureaucracy. New York: Routledge, pp. 305-324, 6 th edition. Week 10 21) Barry Owen (2000): France. In: J.A. Chandler (ed.): Comparative Public Administration. London: Routledge, pp. 50-74. 22) Luc Rouban (2009): The French Paradox: a Huge but Fragmented Public Service. In: Hans-Ulrich Derlien and B. Guy Peters (eds.): The State at Work: Public Sector Employment in Ten Western Countries, vol. 1. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 222-248. 23) *Philippe Bezes (2010): Path-Dependent and Path-Breaking Changes in the French Administrative System: The Weight of Legacy Explanations. In: M. Painter and B. Guy Peters (eds.): Tradition and Public Administration. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 158-173. Week 11 24) John Kingdom (2000): Britain. In: J.A. Chandler (ed.): Comparative Public Administration. London: Routledge, pp. 14-49. 25) Charlotte Dargie and Rachel Locke (1999): The British Senior Civil Service. In: Edward C. Page and Vincent Wright (eds.): Bureaucratic Elites in Western European States. A Comparative Analysis of Top Officials. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 178-204. 26) *Christopher Hood (1996): United Kingdom: From Second Chance to Near-Miss Learning. In: Johan P. Olsen and B. Guy Peters (eds.): Lessons from Experience: Experiential Learning in 7
Administrative Reforms in Eight Democracies. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, pp. 36-71. 27) *Michael J. Goldsmith and Edward C. Page (1997): Farewell to the British State? In: Jan-Erik Lane (ed.): Public Sector Reform. London: Sage, pp. 147-167. Week 12 28) Hans-Ulrich Derlien (1996): Germany: The Intelligence of Bureaucracy in a Decentralized Polity. In: Johan P. Olsen and B. Guy Peters (eds.): Lessons from Experience: Experiential Learning in Administrative Reforms in Eight Democracies. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, pp. 146-179. 29) Klaus H. Goetz (1999): Senior Officials in the German Federal Administration: Institutional Change and Positional Differentiation. In: Edward C. Page and Vincent Wright (eds.): Bureaucratic Elites in Western European States. A Comparative Analysis of Top Officials. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 147-177. 30) *Eckhard Schroeter (2001): A Solid Rock in Rough Seas? Continuity and Change in the German Federal Bureaucray. In: B. Guy Peters and Jon Pierre (ed.): Politicians, Bureaucracts and Administrative Reform, London: Routledge, 61-72. 31) *Sabine Kuhlmann, J. Bogumil and S. Grohs (2008): Evaluating Administrative Modernization in German Local Governments: Success or Failure of the "New Steering Model"?. In: Public Administration Review, vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 851-863. Week 13 32) Jacqueline Yates (2000): Sweden. In: J.A. Chandler (ed.): Comparative Public Administration. London: Routledge, pp. 148-172. 33) Jon Pierre and Peter Ehn (1999): The Welfare State Managers: Senior Civil Servants in Sweden. In: Edward C. Page and Vincent Wright (eds.): Bureaucratic Elites in Western European States. A Comparative Analysis of Top Officials. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 249-265. 34) *Luis R. Wise (2002): Public Management Reform: Competing Drivers of Change. In: Public Administration Review, vol. 62, no. 5, pp. 555-567. 35) *Peter Ehn (2003): Swedish Bureaucracy in an Era of Change. In: Governance, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 429-458. LATE PENALTIES, PLAGIARISM & ACADEMIC HONESTY: Late assignments: It is your responsibility to inform the instructor as soon as it becomes clear that your work will be late. If you do not communicate in advance, and your reason for being late does not also explain this lack of communication, then you should be prepared to be penalized X% per day. Plagiarism & Academic Dishonesty: The University of Alberta is committed to the highest standards of academic integrity and honesty. Students are expected to be familiar with these standards regarding academic honesty and to uphold the policies of the University in this respect. Students are particularly urged to familiarize themselves with the provisions of the Code of Student Behaviour (online at http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/gfcpolicymanual/content.cfm?id_page=37633 ) and avoid any behaviour which could potentially result in suspicions of cheating, plagiarism, misrepresentation of 8
facts and/or participation in an offence. Academic dishonesty is a serious offence and can result in suspension or expulsion from the University. An important excerpt from the Code of Student Behaviour is appended at the end of this syllabus. Additional information and resources are available through the UofA s Truth in Education project: http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/tie/. DEFERRED EXAMINATION (if required) Section 23.3(2)c of the Calendar states: A deferred examination will not be approved if a student (a) has not been in regular attendance where attendance and/or participation are required, and/or, (b) excluding the final exam, has completed less than half of the assigned work. The instructor will inform the Faculty s Undergraduate Student Services Office when students have breached this requirement. 9
SPECIALIZED SUPPORT & DISABILITY SERVICES: Students with disabilities or special needs that might interfere with their performance should contact the professor at the beginning of the course with the appropriate documentation. Every effort will be made to accommodate such students, but in all cases prior arrangements must be made to ensure that any special needs can be met in a timely fashion and in such a way that the rest of the class is not put at an unfair disadvantage. Students requiring special support or services should be registered with the office of Specialized Support & Disability Services (SSDS): http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/ssds/index.cfm. This is particularly important for students requiring special exam arrangements. Once you have registered with SSDS, it is your responsibility to provide the instructor with a "Letter of Introduction" and, if necessary, an "Exam Instruction & Authorization" form. AUDIO OR VIDEO RECORDING: Audio or video recording of lectures, labs, seminars or any other teaching environment by students is allowed only with prior written consent of the instructor or as part of an approved accommodation plan. Recorded material is to be used solely for personal study, and is not to be used or distributed for any other purpose without prior written consent from the instructor. FEELING OVERWHELMED? (In need of student, social, financial or security services?): The Student Distress Centre is there to listen, offer support, supply information and provide services: 6. Call: 492-HELP (492-4357) 7. Drop in: 030-N in the S.U.B. 8. Visit: www.su.ualberta.ca/sdc 9. Chat: http://www.campuscrisischat.com/ 10
EXCERPTS FROM THE CODE OF STUDENT BEHAVIOUR (UPDATED EFFECTIVE APRIL, 2008) 30.3.2(1) Plagiarism No Student shall submit the words, ideas, images or data of another person as the Student s own in any academic writing, essay, thesis, project, assignment, presentation or poster in a course or program of study. 30.3.2(2) Cheating 30.3.2(2) a No Student shall in the course of an examination or other similar activity, obtain or attempt to obtain information from another Student or other unauthorized source, give or attempt to give information to another Student, or use, attempt to use or possess for the purposes of use any unauthorized material. 30.3.2(2) b No Student shall represent or attempt to represent him or herself as another or have or attempt to have himself or herself represented by another in the taking of an examination, preparation of a paper or other similar activity. See also misrepresentation in 30.3.6 (4). 30.3.2(2) c No Student shall represent another s substantial editorial or compositional assistance on an assignment as the Student s own work. 30.3.2(2) d No Student shall submit in any course or program of study, without the written approval of the course Instructor, all or a substantial portion of any academic writing, essay, thesis, research report, project, assignment, presentation or poster for which credit has previously been obtained by the Student or which has been or is being submitted by the Student in another course or program of study in the University or elsewhere. 30.3.2(2) e No Student shall submit in any course or program of study any academic writing, essay, thesis, report, project, assignment, presentation or poster containing a statement of fact known by the Student to be false or a reference to a source the Student knows to contain fabricated claims (unless acknowledged by the Student), or a fabricated reference to a source. 30.3.6(4) Misrepresentation of Facts No Student shall misrepresent pertinent facts to any member of the University community for the purpose of obtaining academic or other advantage. See also 30.3.2(2) b, c, d and e. 30.3.6(5) Participation in an Offence No Student shall counsel or encourage or knowingly aid or assist, directly or indirectly, another person in the commission of any offence under this Code. The Truth In Education (T*I*E) project is a campus wide educational campaign on Academic Honesty. This program was created to let people know the limits and consequences of inappropriate academic behavior. There are helpful tips for Instructors and Students. Please take the time to visit the website at: http://www.ualberta.ca/tie 11