THEORY & METHODOLOGY IN THE STUDY OF PUBLIC POLI

Syllabus THEORY & METHODOLOGY IN THE STUDY OF PUBLIC POLI - 59601 Last update 02-10-2013 HU Credits: 2 Degree/Cycle: 2nd degree (Master) Responsible Department: The Federmann School of Public Policy and Government Academic year: 1 Semester: Yearly Teaching Languages: Hebrew Campus: Mt. Scopus Course/Module Coordinator: Moshe Maor Coordinator Email: msmaor@mscc.huji.ac.il Coordinator Office Hours: Mon. 17:00-18:00, Wed. 13:45-14:15 Teaching Staff: Prof Moshe Maor page 1 / 10

Course/Module description: This seminar aims at critically presenting approaches and theories to the study of public policy and public administration, with a special focus on bureaucratic politics Course/Module aims: -To investigate the status of the fields of study in terms of the level of existing theoretization, theoretical agreement and differences of opinion in the various topics, the theoretical possibilities latent in certain subjects, the theoretical "minefields" in a range of other subjects, and the main theoretical lacunas in the areas studied; - To investigate the changes which have taken place in the study of public policy and administration in recent years; - To discuss core elements and features of complex policy processes and bureaucratic organizations and to systematically and meticulously investigate them in light of the insights which have been gained in other disciplines during the last decade; - To discuss topics which concern the theoretical and methodological forefront of the study of public policy and administration, with a special focus on bureaucratic politics Learning outcomes - On successful completion of this module, students should be able to: - Describe and evaluate the main theories and approaches in the areas of public policy and public administration, as well as the requirements and standards of research and writing; - To apply critical thinking in the aforementioned areas; - Devise research questions and methods to analyse, explain and evaluate public policy and public administration phenomena; - Interpret policy processes and the behavior of bureaucratic organizations by relying on theories and concepts studied in class; Attendance requirements(%): Compulsory Attendance, except in cases of Army service or birth Teaching arrangement and method of instruction: - Lectures in class page 2 / 10

Course/Module Content: PUBLIC POLICY What is Originality in the Social Science Policy Agendas, Focusing Events, Interest Involvement Punctuated Equilibrium and Agenda Change Advocacy Coalition Framework The Dynamics of Non Proportional Policy Response Policy Implementation Mechanisms and Causality Policy Feedback Historical Explanations BUREAUCRATIC ORGANIZATIONS Weberian/Contingency Theory Contractual Theory: The Principle-Agent Approach The Behavioral Approach Cultural Approaches Reputational Approaches Required Reading: COURSE GUIDE Lecture 1. What is Originality in the Social Science Guetzkow, J. and M. Lamont. 2004. What is Originality in the Humanities and the Social Sciences, American Sociological Review, 69: 190-212. Solomon, M. 2004. Messing with Common Sense, Science, 305: 44-45. Lecture 2. Policy Agendas, Focusing Events, Interest Involvement Sabatier, P. 2007. The Need for Better Theories, In: Sabatier, P. (ed.) Theories of the Policy Process, 2nd edition, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Chs. 1 & 11 Zahariadis, N. 2007. The Multiple Streams Network: Structure Limitations and Prospects, In: Sabatier, P. (ed.) Theories of the Policy Process, 2nd edition, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Ch. 3. page 3 / 10

Birkland, T. 1998. Focusing Events, Mobilization, and Agenda Setting, Journal of Public Policy 18: 53-74. Boscarino, J. 2009. Surfing for Problems: Advocacy Group Strategy in Forest Policy, Policy Studies Journal 27 (3, 2009): 415-435. Lecture 3. Punctuated Equilibrium and Agenda Change True, J., B. Jones, and F. R. Baumgartner, 2007. Punctuated-Equilibrium Theory: Explaining Stability and Change in American Policymaking, In: Sabatier, P. (ed.) Theories of the Policy Process, 2nd edition, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Ch. 6. Workman, S., B. D. Jones, and A. Jochim. 2009. Information Processing and Policy Dynamics, Policy Studies Journal 37 (1): 75-92. Jones, B.D., and F.R. Baumgartner. 2012. From There to Here: Punctuated Equilibrium to the General Punctuation Thesis to a Theory of Government Information Processing, Policy Studies Journal 40(1): 1-19. Wolfe, M., B.D. Jones and F.R. Baumgartner. 2013. A Failure to Communicate: Agenda Setting in Media and Policy Studies, Political Communication 30(2): 175-192. Pralle, S. B. 2003. Venue Shopping: Political Strategy and Policy Change: The Internationalization of Canadian Forest Advocacy, Journal of Public Policy 23: 233-260. Lecture 4. Advocacy Coalition Framework Sabatier, P. and C. Weible, 2007. The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Innovations and Clarifications, In: Sabatier, P. (ed.) Theories of the Policy Process, 2nd edition, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Ch. 7. Weible, C., P. Sabatier, and K. McQueen, 2009. Themes and Variation: Taking Stock of the Advocacy Coalition Framework, Policy Studies Journal 37(1): 121-140 Mintrom, M. and P. Norman, 2009. Policy Entrepreneurship and Policy Change, Policy Studies Journal 37(4): 649-677. Lecture 5. The Dynamics of Non Proportional Policy Response Maor, M. (2012). Policy Overreaction, Journal of Public Policy 32(3): 231-259. page 4 / 10

Maor, M. (2013). Policy Bubbles: Policy Overreaction and Positive Feedback, Governance Maor, M. (2013). Risk and Policy Underreaction, Working Paper, Available on-line at: http://www.moshemaor.net/publications/policy-anomalies Maor, M. (2013). Policy Anti-Bubbles: Policy Underreaction and Positive Feedback, Working Paper, Available on-line at: http://www.moshemaor.net/publications/policyanomalies Lecture 6. Policy Implementation Sabatier, P. A. 1986. Top-down and Bottom-up Approaches to Implementation Research: A Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis, Journal of Public Policy 6(1): 21-48. Elmore, R. F. 1979-80. Backward Mapping: Implementation Research and Policy Decisions, Political Science Quarterly 94(4): 601-616. Winter, S. C. 2006. Implementation In B. G. Peters and J. Pierre (eds.) Handbook of Public Policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Maynard-Moody, S. and S. Portillo. 2010. Street-Level Bureaucracy Theory, In: Durant, R.F. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of American Bureaucracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 252-277. Recommended Reading: Pressman, J. and A. Wildavsky. 1989. Implementation. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hill, M. and P. Hupe. 2002. Implementing Public Policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Wilson, J. Q. 1989. Bureaucracy. New York: Basic Books. Harald, S. 2005. Facts and Myths about Public Policy Implementation: Out-of Fashion, Old Fashioned, Allegedly Dead, but Still Very Alive and Relevant, Policy Studies Journal 33(4): 559-582. Olsen, J. P. 2005. Maybe it is time to Rediscover Bureaucracy, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16: 1-24. Bardach, E. 1977. The Implementation Game. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Goggin, M.L. et al., 1990. Implementation Theory and Practice, Toward a Third page 5 / 10

Generation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company. Lipsky, M. 1980. The Critical Role of Street Level Bureaucrats, In Lipsky, M. (ed.) Street Level Bureaucrats. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp 3-23. Lecture 7. Mechanisms and Causality Ylikoski, P. 2012. Micro, Macro, and Mechanisms, In: Kincaid, H. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Social Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 21-45. Kincaid, H. 2012. Mechanisms, Causal Modeling, and the Limitations of Traditional Multiple Regression, In: Kincaid, H. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Social Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 46-64. Gerring, J. 2012. Mere Description, British Journal of Political Science 42(4): 721-746. Gerring, J. 2005. Causation: A Unified Framework for the Social Sciences. Journal of Theoretical Politics 17(2): 163-198. Stone, D. A. 1989. Causal Stories and the Formation of Policy Agendas, Political Science Quarterly 104: 281-300. Recommended reading: Gerring, J. 2001. Social Science Methodology: A Critical Framework, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 200-243. Gerring, J. 2007. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mahoney, J. 2008. Toward a Unified Theory of Causality, Comparative Political Studies, 41: 412-436 Lecture 8. Policy Feedback Campbell, A.L. 2011. Policy Feedbacks and the Impact of Policy Designs on Public Opinion, Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 36(6): 961-973. Eric M. Patashnik, E.M. and Zelizer, J. 2010. When Policy Does Not Remake Politics: The Limits of Policy Feedback, Available on-line at http://www.law.yale.edu/ documents/pdf/news_%26_events/patashnik-zelizer_yalelawconference_2010.pdf Mettler, S. and J. Soss, 2004. The Consequences of Public Policy for Democratic Citizenship: Bridging Policy Studies and Mass Politics, Perspectives on Politics 2(1): 54-73. Lecture 9. Making Policy Stick page 6 / 10

Patashnik, E.M. 2008. Reforms at Risk: What Happens after Major Policy Changes are Enacted. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, Chs. 3-8. Lecture 10. Historical Explanations Pierson, P. 2004. Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, Chapters 1-3 & Conclusion. Mahoney, J. et al. 2009. The Logic of Historical Explanation in the Social Sciences, Comparative Political Studies, 42(1): 114-146. Howlett, M. 2009. Process Sequencing Policy Dynamics: Beyond Homeostatic and Path Dependency, Journal of Public Policy, 29(3): 241-262. Waldner, D. 2012. Process Tracing and Causal Mechanisms, In: Kincaid, H. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Social Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 65-84. Recommended reading: Page, S.E. 2006. Path Dependency, Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 1: 87-115. Robinson, S.E. and Meier, K.J. 2006. Path Dependence and Organizational Behavior, The American Review of Public Administration, 36(3): 241-260. Pollitt, C. 2008. Time, Policy and the Past: Governing with the Past. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pollitt, C. 2012. New Perspectives on Public Services: Place and Technology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. BUREAUCRATIC ORGANIZATIONS Lecture 11. Weberian/Contingency Theory page 7 / 10

Weber, M. 1958. Bureaucracy, in: From Max Weber: Essays on Sociology, eds. H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (New York: Oxford University Press), 196-266. Stinchcombe, A. 1959. Bureaucratic and Craft Administration of Production, Administrative Science Quarterly 4: 168-187. Contractual Theory: The Principle-Agent Approach Wood, B.D. 2010. Agency Theory and the Bureaucracy, In: Durant, R.F. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of American Bureaucracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 181-206. The Behavioral Approach Jones, B.D. 2003. Bounded Rationality and Political Science: Lessons from Public Administration and Public Policy, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13(4): 395-412. March, J.G. M.D. Cohen and J.P. Olsen 1972. A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Decision Making. Administrative Science Quarterly 17(1): 1-25. Carpenter, D. 1996. Adaptive Signal Processing, Hierarchy and Budgetary Control in Federal Regulation, The American Political Science Review 90(2): 283-302. Lecture 12. Cultural Approaches Crozier, M. 1964. The Bureaucratic Phenomenon, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Introduction and Chs. 6 & 7. Kaufman, H. 1967. The Forest Ranger: A Study in Administrative Behavior, Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, Chs. I, VI & VII. Powell, W.W. and P.J. DiMaggio 1991. (eds) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Chs. 1-5. Recommended Reading: Brehm, J. and S. Gates. 1999. Working, Shirking and Sabotage. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, Ch. 1 & Conclusions Brehm, J. and Gates, S. 2008. Teaching, Tasks and Trust. N.Y.: Rusesell Sage Foundation, Chs. 1 & 8. Lecture 13-14. Reputational Approaches Carpenter, D. 2001. The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Networks, Reputations page 8 / 10

and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1962-1928. Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press, Introduction, Chapter One, Conclusion. Carpenter, D. 2010. Reputation and Power: Organizational Image and Pharmaceutical Regulation at the FDA, Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press. Introduction and Chapter 1. Maor, M. 2010. Organizational Reputation and Jurisdictional Claims: The Case of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Governance 23(1): 133-159. Maor, M. 2011. Organizational Reputations and the Observability of Public Warnings in 10 Pharmaceutical Markets, Governance 24(3): 557-582. Maor, M. and R. Sulitzeanu-Kenan. 2013. The Effect of Salient Reputational Threats on the Pace of FDA Enforcement, Governance 26(1): 31-61. Maor, M. 2013. Theories of Bureaucratic Reputation, Working Paper, Available online at: http://www.moshemaor.net/working-papers Maor, M., S. Gilad, and P. Ben-Nun Bloom. 2013. Organizational Reputation, Regulatory Talk and Strategic Silence, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23(3): 581-608. Gilad S., Maor, M. and Ben-Nun Bloom, P. 2013. Organizational Reputation, the Content of Public Allegations and Regulatory Communication, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory doi:10.1093/jopart/mut041 Additional Reading Material: Course/Module evaluation: End of year written/oral examination 0 % Presentation 0 % Participation in Tutorials 0 % Project work 0 % Assignments 0 % Reports 0 % Research project 0 % Quizzes 0 % Other 100 % Additional information: page 9 / 10

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Seminar meetings will take place on Mondays every two weeks throughout the academic year; Each student will initiate and moderate a discussion on a certain topic. Each student will submit eight reading reports. The report on each relevant subject is to be submitted before the lesson on that subject; Structure of Grade: Pass/Fail on the basis of the aforementioned requirements. page 10 / 10