School of Public Policy Oregon State University Advanced Policy Theory I (4 Credits) PPL 613 Winter 2017 Tuesday, 9:00 to 12:50 pm from 01/09/2017 to 03/17/2017 Gilkey Hall 305 Version: 1/3/2017 Subject to Revision Professor: Michael D. Jones Office: 100D Bexell Hall Office Hours: Tuesday and Thursday, 1:30 to 2:30 Jones Email: michael.jones@oregonstate.edu Introduction This is the first of two courses on the foundations of public policy theory. As such, the focus of this course is on policy theory itself as said theory is understood by the academic subfield of Public Policy. The content of this course assumes that students have a basic understanding of common theories of the policy process as well as a basic understanding of dominant approaches in policy analysis. The need for this foundational knowledge is found in the goal of the course, which is to explore, analyze, and deconstruct the theoretical building blocks of said theory, while also examining a few less common theories as well. The questions we will ask are many: How does theory affect our understanding of reality and our vision of what reality ought to be? Is there a universally recognizable reality or does reality depend on individual perspectives? If the latter, whose reality are we to address through public policy? How do power relations affect the policy process? Through what institutions is policy accomplished, and with what consequences? Who is the we that decides? What explains decision-making? How are class, race, ethnicity, gender and other forms of difference accommodated in decision making? Are these processes compatible with the democratic ideal? How do ethics, morality, and values enter the policymaking process? Course Details This class is a 4 credit course with a prerequisite of PhD standing. Advanced Master s students may be enrolled in the course with approval by the instructor. The class will meet on a once per week basis for four hours, with all reading to be done prior to the start of class. Required Books Most of the course readings can be found on the course Canvas site. However, there are a few required books: Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2001. Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge university press. Lukes, Steven. Power: A radical view. Macmillan: London, 2002. Welch, Don D. 2014. A Guide to Ethics and Public Policy: Finding Our Way. New York: Routledge
Learning Outcomes As a result of actively participating in this course you will be able to: 1. Read and synthesize multiple sources of material related to public policy theory in order to advance your own theorizing regarding your research. This will be assessed through participation in weekly seminars, completion of written essays on selected topics, and application of theory to your ongoing research. 2. Evaluate the appropriate use of theoretical concepts in research design and implementation. This will be assessed through weekly seminar writings and completion of written essays on selected topics. 3. Communicate complex ideas about the role of theory in public policy research. This will be assessed through your participation in the weekly seminar and in seminar discussion leadership. Grading Letter Grade Percent of points possible* A [95-100%] A- [90-94%] B+ [87-89%] B [83-86%] B- [80-82%] C+ [77-79%] C [73-76%] C- [70-72%] D+ [67-69%] D [63-66%] D- [60-62%] F [0-59%] *Please note that grades are rounded up. For example, a 94.6 would be assessed an A letter grade. Course Requirements and Evaluation 20% Reading and active participation in class discussions. All assigned readings must be completed prior to class. Starting week 1, at the beginning of each weekly session, you will provide a typed and printed document detailing (a) question(s) or issue(s) pertaining to the week s readings. These printed documents will become the discussion agenda for the week. At the end of each session, there will be a short writing exercise summarizing the main points, issues to be continued, and questions about the topic. 40% Completion of four written essays (6-8 pages each) discussing and evaluating the weekly readings. You may select readings for any four weeks during the term as the subject of your review essays (save for those weeks where you are leading the discussions) These essays should not merely summarize the readings; they should offer a critical assessment of and/or engagement with ideas or issues in the readings. Papers are due at the beginning of the class session when the reading is discussed. Late essays turned in after the relevant class period will be subject to a full letter grade deduction per day that they are late. Essays should be typed, double-spaced,
and must conform to acceptable standards of grammar, punctuation, and citation format. 20% Leadership. Each student will participate in leading at least two discussions. You will be responsible for introducing readings for a class session and leading a discussion on one or more of the questions/issues brought by others in the class. You must be very familiar with the readings during your week as you won t know until class what questions are being posed by colleagues. You might also want to consider looking at some of the additional readings so you can bring different insights to the conversation. 20% Final Exam. One week prior to final exam week the instructor will circulate a comprehensive examination style question. Students will have one week to prepare and turn in an answer to the question. More detailed instructions will be given later in the quarter. Students with Disabilities Accommodations are collaborative efforts between students, faculty and Disability Access Services (DAS). Students with accommodations approved through DAS are responsible for contacting the faculty member in charge of the course prior to or during the first week of the term to discuss accommodations. Students who believe they are eligible for accommodations but who have not yet obtained approval through DAS should contact DAS immediately at 737-4098. See the website for more information: http://ds.oregonstate.edu/home/. Students Conduct You are expected to conduct yourself in compliance with the university s guidelines regarding civility and comply with all regulations pertaining to academic honesty. For more information, visit the university s comprehensive website at: http://oregonstate.edu/studentconduct/regulations/index.php. Other Course Policies Late assignments will be penalized a full letter grade for each day that they are late. This policy will be strictly enforced. Email and Course Communication: Please know that email is not my preferred mode of communication. If you have questions about the course, course material, etc., please use my office hours to come speak to me about your concerns. If my office hours do not work for you, please contact me and we can make arrangements. Extra credit will not be allowed in this course. All OSU academic regulations will be followed in this course. This includes the university policy concerning incompletes: "When a requirement of a course has not been completed for reasons acceptable to the instructor and the rest of the academic work is passing, a report of I may be made and additional time granted. The I is only granted at the discretion of the instructor. You are expected to do all required reading and participate in all course requirements. Plagiarism and cheating will not be tolerated in this course. Engaging in such behaviors will result in a failing course grade. You are to do ALL of your own work. Plagiarism is defined as representing (and using) another person's ideas, writings, and work as one's own. Appropriate citation must be used for all materials incorporated into your work.
1: Jan 10, 2017 Our Journey Begins: Policy Sciences, Policy Analysis, and Theories of the Policy Process Policy Sciences 1. Lasswell, Harold. 1970. The Emerging Conception of the Policy Sciences, Policy Sciences, (1): 3-14. 2. Farr, James, Jacob S. Hacker, and Nicole Kazee. 2006. The Policy Scientist of Democracy: the Discipline of Harold D. Lasswell. American Political Science Review, 100 (4) 1-9. 3. deleon, Peter, and Danielle M. Vogenbeck. 2007. The Policy Sciences at a Crossroads. In Handbook of Public Policy Analysis, (eds) Frank Fischer, Gerald J. Miller, and Mara S. Sidney. pp. 3-14. 4. Wagner, Peter. 2007. Public Policy, Social Science, and the State: An Historical Perspective. In Handbook of Public Policy Analysis, (eds) Frank Fischer, Gerald J. Miller, and Mara S. Sidney. pp. 16-29. Policy Analysis and the Policy Process 5. Weimer, David. Theories of and in the Policy Process. The Policy Studies Journal, 36 (4): 489-495. 6. Sabatier, Paul A. 2007. The Need for Better Theories. In Theories of the Policy Process, Second edition, Paul A. Sabatier (ed.), Boulder: Westview Press. 3-17. 7. Weible, Christopher M. 2014. Introducing the Scope and Focus of Policy Process Research and Theory. In Theories of the Policy Process, 3rd edition, Paul A. Sabatier and Christopher M. Weible. Boulder: Westview Press, 3-16. 8. Weimer, David L., and Aidan R. Vining. 2011. What is Policy Analysis? in Policy Analysis, 5th Edition, pp. 23-38. Discussion Leader(s): Mike Jones 2: Jan 17, 2017 Philosophy of the Social Sciences and Meta-Theory (Theory about Theory) 1. Machlup, Fritz. 1994. Are the Social Sciences Really Inferior. In Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, (eds) Michael Martin and Lee C. McIntyre, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 5-19. 2. Fay, Brian, and J. Donald Moon. 1994. What Would an Adequate Philosophy of Social Science Look Like. In Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, (eds) Michael Martin and Lee C. McIntyre, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 21-35. 3. Maxwell, Nicholas. 2005. "Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos and aim-oriented empiricism." Philosophia 32.1 (2005): 181-239. Policy Meta-Heuristics 4. Werner, Jann, and Kai Wegrich. 2007. Theories of the Policy Cycle. In Handbook of Public Policy Analysis, (eds) Frank Fischer, Gerald J. Miller, and Mara S. Sidney. pp. 43-62. 5. Schlager, Edella. 1999. A Comparison of Frameworks, Theories, and Models of Policy Processes, Chapter 10, in Theories of the Policy Process 2 nd Edition, Paul Sabatier (ed), Boulder: Westview Press: 293-319.
6. Cairney, Paul, and Tanya Heikkila. 2014. A Comparison of Theories of the Policy Process, Chapter 10, in Theories of the Policy Process 2 nd Edition, Paul Sabatier and Christopher Weible (eds), Boulder: Westview Press: 363-390. Discussion Leader(s): Muhamed Elkaramany & Benjamin Wickizer 3: Jan 24, 2017 Foundational Social Science Debates and Concepts Modernity and Postmodernity 1. Thiele, Leslie Paul. Modernity and Postmodernity, Chapter 4, in Thinking Politics, Perspectives in Ancient, Modern, and Postmodern Political Theory. New York: Chatman House, pp. 65-99. Ontology and Epistemology 2. Marsh, David, and Paul Furlong. 2002. A Skin not a Sweater: Ontology and Epistemology in Political Science Chapter 1, in Theory and Methods in Political Science, Second Edition. Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 17-41. Structure and Agency 3. McAnnulla, Stuart. 2002. Structure and Agency, Chapter 13, in Theory and Methods in Political Science, Second Edition. Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 271-291. Atomism and Holism 4. Fay, Brian. 1996. Do We Need Others To Be Ourselves?, Chapter 2, in Contemporary Philosophy of Social Science, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers: pp. 30-49. 5. Fay, Brian. 1996. Does our Culture or Society Make us What we are?, Chapter 3, in Contemporary Philosophy of Social Science, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers: pp. 50-71. In Public Policy 6. Jones, Michael D., and Claudio M. Radaelli. 2015. The Narrative Policy Framework: Child or Monster? Critical Policy Studies 9 (3): 339-355. Discussion Leader(s): Trevor Plendl & Brian Trick 4: Jan 31, 2017 Explanation, Prediction, and Method in Public Policy Explanation and Prediction 1. Hempel, Carl G. 1994. The function of General Laws in History, In Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, (eds) Michael Martin and Lee C. McIntyre, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 43-53. 2. Hayek, F.A. 1994. The Theory of Complex Phenomena, In Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, (eds) Michael Martin and Lee C. McIntyre, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 55-70.
Method 5: Feb 7, 2017 Theorizing Power 3. King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton University Press, 1994. Chapter 1, pp. 3-31. 4. Guba, Egon G., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 1994. "Competing paradigms in qualitative research." Handbook of qualitative research 2.163-194. 5. Yanow, Dvora. 2007. Qualitative-Interpretive Methods in Policy Research. In Handbook of Public Policy Analysis, (eds) Frank Fischer, Gerald J. Miller, and Mara S. Sidney. pp. 405-413. Discussion Leader(s): Muhammed Elkaramany & Najam Uz Zehra Gardezi 1. Bachrach, Peter, and Morton S. Baratz. "Two faces of power." American political science review 56.04 (1962): 947-952. 2. Lukes, Steven. Power: A radical view. Macmillan: London, 2002. 3. Thiele, Leslie Paul. Politics, Power, and the Public Good, Chapter 3, in Thinking Politics, Perspectives in Ancient, Modern, and Postmodern Political Theory. New York: Chatman House, pp. 46-64. Discussion Leader(s): Anna Karmazina & Benjamin Wikizer 6: Feb 14, 2017 Rationality and Decision-making 7: Feb 21, 2017 Institutions 1. Kalberg, Stephen. 1980. Max Weber s Types of Rationality: Cornerstones for the Analysis of Rationalization Processes in History. The American Journal of Sociology, 85 (5): 1145-1179. 2. Grigss, Steven. 2007. Rational Choice in Public Policy: The Theory in Critical Perspective. In Handbook of Public Policy Analysis, (eds) Frank Fischer, Gerald J. Miller, and Mara S. Sidney. pp. 173-185. 3. Andrews, Clinton J. 2007. Rationality in Policy Decision Making. In Handbook of Public Policy Analysis, (eds) Frank Fischer, Gerald J. Miller, and Mara S. Sidney. pp. 161-172. 4. Jones, Bryan D. Politics and the architecture of choice: Bounded rationality and governance. University of Chicago Press, 2001. pp 3-108. Discussion Leader(s): Najam Uz Zehra Gardezi & Muhammed Elkaramany 1. Rothstein, Bo. 1996. Political Institutions: An Overview. Chapter 4, in The Handbook of Political Science, Robert E. Goodin and Hans-Dieter Klingemann (eds), New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 133-166. 2. Downs, Anthony. 1957. Introduction, in An Economic Theory of Democracy, Boston: Addison-Wesley, 3-20. 3. Elinor Ostrom, 1991 Rational Choice Theory and Institutional Analysis: Toward Complementarity, The American Political Science Review, Vol.85, No. 1, 237-243. 4. Jones, Bryan D. Politics and the architecture of choice: Bounded rationality and governance. University of Chicago Press, 2001. pp 131-225.
Discussion Leader(s): Anna Karmazina & Benjamin Wickizer 8: Feb 28, 2017 Conceptualizing Values and Belief Systems 1. Geertz, Clifford. 1994. Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture. In Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, (eds) Michael Martin and Lee C. McIntyre, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 213-231. 2. Jost, John T., Christopher M. Federico, and Jaime L. Napier. "Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities." Annual review of psychology 60 (2009): 307-337. 3. Wildavsky, Aaron. "Choosing preferences by constructing institutions: A cultural theory of preference formation." American Political Science Review81, no. 01 (1987): 3-21. 4. Mamadouh, Virginie. "Grid-group cultural theory: an introduction." GeoJournal47, no. 3 (1999): 395-409. 5. Walzer, Michael. 1983. Complex Equality, Chapter 1, in Spheres of justice: A defense of pluralism and equality. Basic Books. pp. 3-30. Discussion Leader(s): Muhammed Elkaramany & Najam Uz Zehra Gardezi 9: Mar 7, 2017 Ethics and Public Policy 1. Sullivan, Eileen, and Mary Segers. 2007. Ethical Issues and Public Policy. In Handbook of Public Policy Analysis, (eds) Frank Fischer, Gerald J. Miller, and Mara S. Sidney. pp. 309. 2. Welch, Don D. 2014. A Guide to Ethics and Public Policy: Finding Our Way. New York: Routledge Discussion Leader(s): Brian Trick & Benjamin Wickizer 10: Mar 14, 2017 Putting it all Together 1. Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2001. Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge university press. Final Exam Question Issued to Class Discussion Leader(s): Anna Karmazina & Trevor Plendl 11: Final Exam Due by 8am