Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service s1

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service CORE 1022 Introduction to Public Policy, Fall 2016 Tuesdays, 2:00-4:10 12 Waverly, Room L120

Instructor

John Gershman Puck, 3018212-992-9888 [email protected] Office Hours: Mondays, 3:00-5:00 p.m. and by appointment

INTRODUCTION TO PUBLIC POLICY The goal of this course is to deepen students’ understanding of the way in which public policy is made, with a particular emphasis on the roles advocacy campaigns and ideas (sometimes shaped by policy analysis) play in that process. We will look at the processes of policy formation at three distinct levels of policymaking and governance: at the national level in the U.S. and other OECD countries, in the developing country context, and at the transnational (international, multilateral) level. The emphasis will be on social and environmental policy, with some discussions of other issues.

The public policy field is dominated by perspectives and approaches grounded in efforts to explain the U.S. policymaking process. Recently, more systematic efforts at the comparative analysis of policymaking are being developed, which has served to highlight the institutional exceptionalism of the United States – an outlier of sorts. The goal of this course is to place the United States within a global and comparative context so as to gain a better understanding of the role that context plays in policymaking. In an era when “best practices” and policy innovations involve transnational communities of practice, it becomes increasingly important to understand the salience and significance of different lessons learned and policy experiences.

In addition to developing a solid understanding of the competing perspectives on explaining the relationships between power, knowledge, advocacy, and policymaking, we will explore four sets of questions:

1. How do we disentangle the dynamics of power, policy, and politics in the policy process? Or, another way, how do we explain how interests, institutions, ideas, and individuals interact to shape policy outcomes? 2. How do public service practitioners balance roles as an observer of the policymaking process and a participant in that process? 3. How do analysts balance (or not) concerns regarding efficiency, effectiveness, and equity? What indicators do we use to measure each of those objectives? 4. Do analytical tools designed for studying policymaking in the U.S. and other OECD countries travel well or do we need to develop new ones? 5. What, if anything, is distinctive about transnational policymaking processes?

1 LEARNING OBJECTIVES: By the end of this course students should be able to:

1. Identify and explain various approaches to explaining the process of policy formation. 2. Clearly articulate the relative roles that framing, deliberation, and implementation play in the policy formation process. 3. Explain different ways that concerns regarding efficiency, effectiveness, and equity are incorporated into the policy process and how each is measured. 4. Develop the competence to identify ways in which institutional context conditions the transferability of “best practices” or lessons learned from one policy domain to another, or one country to another. 5. Develop an analytical understanding of the relationship between justice, inequality, and citizenship, especially in the domains of politics and policymaking. 6. Develop reflective tools for practitioners to be able to understand and evaluate their own normative commitments and to understand not only what those norms are, but how they shape their practice (as analysts, advocates, managers, or leaders) and the practice of others.

COURSE REQUIREMENTS

Class participation (10%) 2 Policy Memos (15% each) Op-ed (10%) Final Project (25% (20% memo and 5% presentation) Final Exam (25%) --- Extra Credit (3%)

1. Class Participation: (10%) The course depends on active and ongoing participation by all class participants.

a. Participation begins with effective reading and listening. Class participants are expected to read and discuss the readings on a weekly basis. That means coming prepared to engage the class with questions and/or comments with respect to the reading. You will be expected to have completed all the required readings before class to the point where you can be called on to critique or discuss any reading. Before approaching each reading, think about what the key questions are for the week and about how the questions from this week relate to what you know from previous weeks. Then skim over the reading to get a sense of the themes it covers and, before reading further, jot down what questions you hope the reading will be able to answer for you. Next, read the introduction and conclusion. This is normally enough to get a sense of the big picture. Ask yourself: Are the claims in the text surprising? Do you believe them? Can you think of examples that do not seem consistent with the logic of the argument? Is the reading answering the questions you hoped it would answer? If not, is it answering more or less interesting questions than you had thought of?

2 Finally, ask yourself: What types of evidence or arguments would you need to see in order to be convinced of the results? Now read through the whole text. As you read, check to see how the arguments are used to support the claims of the author. It is rare to find a piece of writing that you agree with entirely. So, as you come across issues that you are not convinced by, write them down and bring them to class for discussion. Note when you are pleasantly (or unpleasantly) surprised; for example, when the author produces a convincing argument you had not thought of. In class itself, the key to quality participation is listening. Asking good questions is the second key element. What did you mean by that? How do you/we know? What’s the evidence for that claim? This is not a license for snarkiness, but for reflective, thoughtful, dialogic engagement with the ideas of others in the class. Don’t be shy. Share your thoughts and reactions in ways that promote critical engagement with them. Quality and quantity of participation can be, but are not necessarily, closely correlated. b. Participants are also expected to follow the news, reading at least one major US newspaper daily, a newsweekly (The Economist, Time, Newsweek), and at least one major international newspaper (The Guardian, Financial Times, The Independent, Toronto Globe and Mail, Sydney Morning Herald for those who only read English; other papers for those able to read languages other than English). You should also be familiar with the main journals in public policy and policy analysis. Depending on your particular area of expertise, these could include general journals like Public Administration and Development, Policy Sciences, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Journal of Public Policy, etc. For issues covered in developing countries, this would include World Development, Journal of Development Studies, Studies in Comparative and International Development, World Politics, Comparative Politics, Comparative Political Studies, Development and Change, New Political Economy, and Governance. For those with an explicit interest in International Organizations, in addition to the development journals listed above, you should look at International Organization, Global Governance, International Studies Quarterly, and Review of International Political Economy. c. There will be two simulations and numerous class case discussions. The simulations will require some additional writing and preparation that will count towards your participation grade.

2. Memos (15%x2) You will write three different kinds of memos over the course of the semester. The first will be an policy memo (based on the Centropico case (see syllabus), the second a strategy memo (based on the Republica Case, see syllabus), and the third type is a mix of a background and strategy memo, and is discussed below as part of the semester long project. You will be able to revise your first memo for a better grade. A boot camp on policy memos will be held on September 16. RSVP here http://wagner.nyu.edu/events/wagner-09-16-2016. Videos and other materials will be made available for those unable to attend.

3 Due Dates: Policy Memo. We will discuss the assignment in class on September 20, so be sure to have read the case by then. The memo is due by 11:59 PM September 25 via NYU Classes. Policy memo rewrites must be submitted by 11:59 PM October 31 1 via NYU Classes. Strategy Memo will be due by 11:59 PM on November 13.

3. Op-Ed: (10%) One op-ed (700-750 words, about 3 pages double-spaced -- word limit is rigid) on an important current policy issue. For guidance on writing an op-ed, see the Writing Resources folder under the “Resources” tab on the NYU Classes website. The op-ed piece should include a word count of the text of the op-ed. It should also contain a heading, a byline (your name), and a credit statement. The words in these items do not count towards the limit of 700-750 words. The credit statement comes at the end of the op-ed piece and identifies you for the reader. (For example: “A student at the Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, Jane Doe is a former Peace Corps volunteer and worked for a time on the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.) The credit line has a 35-word limit. Op-eds can be rewritten once to improve the grade by no more than two steps (i.e. from a B to an A-). The op-ed is due by 11:59 PM October 23 via NYU Classes. Op-ed rewrites must be submitted by 11:59 PM December 1 via NYU Classes.

4. Presentation and Individual Final Memo: (25%: 5% for presentation and 20% for the memo) You will have the opportunity to dig into aone particular policy issue over the course of the semester. See separate sheet to be distributed in second class. (More details to follow.). Presentations will occur during the end of the semester. There will be three presentation bootcamps available (you only need to attend one): Wednesday, October 26 from 9:00-10:00 am at The Puck, Rudin Forum Thursday, October 27 from 5:30-6:30 pm at the Global Center Colloquium Room (238 Thompson Street, 5th Floor) Thursday, October 27 from 7:00-8:00 pm at the Global Center Colloquiuml Room The Final memo will be due Sunday, December 18 at 11:59 PM via NYU Classes.

5. Take-Home Final Exam: (25%) (We will talk about this in more detail in class.) The final exam will require you to answer a couple of questions covering material over the whole semester (with an emphasis on the second half). The Final Exam will be due Sunday December 18 at 11:59 PM via NYU Classes.

6. Extra Credit You can earn up to 3 points in extra credit by attending 2 sessions of a legislative or executive agency meeting (or at least 4 hours), or attending night court or other courtroom session for at least 4 hours, and writing a 1-2 page reflection on the experience, drawing as appropriate on issues and concepts raised in class. The paper needs to be submitted by 11:59 PM, December 1. Via NYU Classes. Options would include:

4  Attending a community board meeting (http://www.nyc.gov/html/cau/html/cb/cb.shtml)  Attending a NYC Board of Corrections meeting (http://www.nyc.gov/html/boc/html/meetings/meetings.shtml)  Attend arraignments or a trial at Manhattan court (or other borough court). Manhattan’s “night court” runs from 5 PM -1 AM depending on volume (http://www.new-york-arraignments.com/manhattan/)  Attend a NYC city council hearing or a participatory budgeting neighborhood assembly (http://council.nyc.gov/html/home/home.shtml)\  Or another option approved by me.

WRITING Writing is an important part of being a policy analyst and advocate. For some useful thoughts on how to approach policy writing, see Michael O’Hare’s memo to his students in the spring 2004 issue of the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management (available in the Writing Resources folder on NYU Classes). Also see the guidelines for memo writing, sample memos, a sample of the guidance to policy staffers at the US Department of Health and Human Services on how to write memos, and see the guidelines for writing op-eds and sample op-eds. Also see Catherine F. Smith, Writing Public Policy: A Practical Guide to Communicating in the Policy Making Process (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). For an enjoyable and valuable (although not uncontested) critique of PowerPoint presentations as disastrous to effective communication, see Edward Tufte, The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint [NYU Classes].

Academic Honesty and Grading Policy This course will abide by the NYU Wagner School general policy guidelines on academic honesty and grading (including incomplete grades). It is each student’s responsibility to become familiar with these policies. All students are expected to pursue and meet the highest standards of academic excellence and integrity.

Academic Code: http://wagner.nyu.edu/students/policies/academic-code Grading: http://wagner.nyu.edu/students/policies/grading Incomplete Grades: http://wagner.nyu.edu/students/policies/incompletes

Students are expected to turn in assignments on time. There are acceptable reasons for submitting an assignment late, and all that is required is some communication from the student to us to inform me that such a situation has arisen. For those without acceptable reasons for submitting late assignments, the penalty will be one-third of a grade per day.

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES Anyone in the class who has a disability that may require some modification in seating, testing, or class requirements, please see me as soon as possible and be sure that any paperwork from the Moses Center is provided.

REQUIRED TEXTS Triangle: The Fire that Changed America All other readings available on NYUClasses unless otherwise indicated.

5 OVERVIEW OF COURSE

September 6 WEEK 1 Interests, Institutions, Ideas, and Individuals in the Power, Politics, and Policymaking Process

September 13 WEEK 2 Ethics and Policymaking

September 20 WEEK 3 Where do states come from?

September 27 WEEK 4 Powering, Puzzling: Problems and Policymaking

October 4 WEEK 5 Agenda Setting and Framing

October 11 WEEK 6 Disruption and Contention as Politics and Policymaking Guest Presentation by Honor Jones, member of New York Times opinion editorial staff

October 18 WEEK 7 How Policy Makes Politics

October 25 WEEK 8 Simulation

November 1 WEEK 9 The Making of the ACA, Guest Lecture: Dean Sherry Glied

November 8 WEEK 10 Rationality and Decision-Making of Policymakers and Citizens Guest Lecture, Professor Tatiana Homonoff

November 15 WEEK 11 What’s the Value of a Life? Cost Benefit Analysis

November 22 WEEK 12 Implementation

November 29 WEEK 13 Simulation

December 6 WEEK 14 Evidence-Based Policymaking and Wrap Up

December 18 Final memo and final Exam due

6 WEEK 1: INTERESTS, INSTITUTIONS, IDEAS, AND INDIVIDUALS IN THE POWER, POLITICS, AND POLICYMAKING PROCESS 1. David von Drehle, Triangle: The Fire that Changed America. NY, Atlantic Monthly Press: 2003. 2. Richard Locke, Boston Review and respondents http://www.bostonreview.net/forum/can-global-brands-create-just-supply-chains-richard- locke 3. H&M Case http://globalens.com/casedetail.aspx?cid=1429373

WEEK 2: ETHICS AND POLICYMAKING 1. Deborah Stone, Policy Paradox, Introduction and Chapter 1. 2. David Weimer and Aidan Vining, Policy Analysis, Chapter and 3. 3. Michael Walzer, 1973, “Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 2(2): 160-180. 4. Dennis F. Thompson, 2012, “Designing Responsibility: The Problem of Many Hands in Complex Organizations,” in The Design Turn in Applied Ethics, Joroen van den Hoven, Seumas Miller, and Thomas Pogge (eds.), Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 5. Rosemary O’Leary, 2010, “Guerrilla Employees: Should Managers Nurture, Tolerate, or Terminate Them?” Public Administration Review 70(1): 8-19. 6. Jill Goldenziel, “Migrant or refugee? That shouldn’t be a life or death question,” Monkeycage Blog, Washington Post, September 3, 2015. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/09/03/migrant-or-refugee- that-shouldnt-be-a-life-or-death-question/ 7. Case: A Duty to Leak? Available for download from the HBS Case Collection http://cb.hbsp.harvard.edu/cbmp/access/53688747 Also, purchase and read by September 20 761.1 Rural Reform in Centropico (A) from http://cb.hbsp.harvard.edu/cbmp/access/53688747

WEEK 3: WHERE DO STATES COME FROM, WHY ARE THEY DIFFERENT, AND WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? 1. Charles Tilly, 1990, Warmaking and Statemaking [NYU Classes] 2. John Micklethwait and Adrian Woolridge, “ The State of the State: The Global Context for the Future of Government,” Foreign Affairs July/August 2014. 3. Michael Niemann, “War Making and State Making in Central Africa,” Africa Today [NYU Classes] 4. How municipalities in St. Louis profit from poverty https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/09/03/how-st-louis-county-missouri- profits-from-poverty/

7 WEEK 4: POWERING, PUZZLING, AND POLICY 1. Kevin B. Smith and Christopher W. Larimer, 2009, “Public Policy as a Concept and a Field (or Fields) or Study,” in The Public Policy Theory Primer, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 2. Weimer and Vining, Chapter 5 3. Joshua Newman & Brian Head, “The National Context of Wicked Problems: Comparing Policies on Gun Violence in the US, Canada, and Australia,” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 2015. 4. Levin K, Cashore B, Bernstein S, Auld G. “Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change.” Policy Sciences 45.2 (2012): 123-152. 5. Bill Shore, Darell Hammond, & Amy Celep, “When Good Is Not Good Enough,” Stanford Social Innovation Review, Fall 2013 http://ssir.org/articles/entry/when_good_is_not_good_enough 6. Cynthia Gibson, Katya Smyth, Gail Nayowith, and Jonathan Zaff, “To Get to the Good You Have to Dance With the Wicked,” SSIR Blog September 19, 2013 http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/to_get_to_the_good_you_gotta_dance_with_the_wicked 7. PATHWAYS FOR CHANGE: 10 Theories to Inform Advocacy and Policy Change Efforts [NYU Classes]

WEEK 5: AGENDA SETTING AND FRAMING a.i.1. Deborah Stone, Policy Paradox, Chapter on Causes a.i.2. Anthony Downs, “Up and Down with Ecology: The Issue Attention Cycle. Public Interest 28: 38–50, 1972. 3. Frameworks Institute, E-workshop on Strategic Frame Analysis, http://sfa.frameworksinstitute.org/ 4. Clifford Bob, 2002, “Merchants of Morality,” Foreign Policy 129: 36-45. 5. Max Rose and Frank Baumgartner, “Framing the Poor: Media Coverage and U.S. Poverty Policy, 1960–2008,” Policy Studies Journal 41(1) 2013. 6. Why It’s So Hard to Change Gun Laws, in one chart http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/08/26/why-its-so-hard-to-pass- gun-control-laws-in-one-graph/ 7. Matt Richtel, “It’s No Accident: Why Advocates Want to Speak of Car Crashes Instead,” NY Times May 23, 2016 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/science/its-no-accident-advocates-want-to-speak-of-car- crashes-instead.html?_r=0

See also http://crashnotaccident.com/

For further reading: a. Dennis Chong and James N. Druckman, 2007, “Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies,” American Political Science Review 101(4): 637-655. b. Frank R. Baumgartner, Suzanna Linn, and Amber E. Boydstun, 2010, “The Decline of the Death Penalty: How Media Framing Changed Capital Punishment in America,” in

8 Winning with Words: The Origins & Impact of Political Framing, Brian F. Schaffner and Patrick J. Sellers (eds.), New York: Routledge, 159-184. c. Frank R. Baumgartner, Jeffrey M. Berry, Marie Hojnacki, David C. Kimball, and Beth L. Leech, 2009, Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Chapter 9: “Washington: The Real No-Spin Zone,” 166- 189. d. James N. Druckman, 2001, “On the Limits of Framing Effects: What Can Frame?” The Journal of Politics 63(4): 1041-1066. e. James N. Druckman and Kjersten R. Nelson, 2003, “Framing and Deliberation: How Citizens’ Conversations Limit Elite Influence,” American Journal of Political Science 47(4): 729-745.

WEEK 6: AGENDAS AND POWER: DISRUPTION AND CONTENTION IN SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

1. Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward, “Rule Making, Rule Breaking, and Power,” in, Thomas Janoski Robert R., Alford, and Alexander M.,Hicks,.eds Handbook of Political Sociology : States, Civil Societies, and Globalization. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). pp. 33-53. 2. Frances Fox Piven, Challenging Authority, Chapters 1,2, 5, 6 and epilogue. 3. Saul Alinsky, Selections

WEEK 7: HOW POLICY MAKES POLITICS 1. Marie Gottschalk, 2009, “City on a Hill, City Behind Bars: Criminal Justice, Social Justice, and American Exceptionalism,” Nanzan Review of American Studies 31: 33-58. 2. Vesla M. Weaver and Amy E. Lerman, 2010, “Political Consequences of the Carceral State,” American Political Science Review 104(4): 817-833. 3. Suzanne Mettler, 2010, “Reconstituting the Submerged State: The Challenges of Social Policy Reform in the Obama Era,” Perspectives on Politics 8(3): 803-824. 4. Voting Rights, New York Times Magazine [Link on NYU Classes]

WEEK 8: SIMULATION

WEEK 9: BRINGING IT TOGETHER: THE ACA, THREE YEARS ON Guest Lecture: Dean Sherry Glied Readings TBA

9 WEEK 10: RATIONALITY AND DECISION-MAKING OF POLICYMAKERS AND CITIZENS; Guest Lecture Professor Tatiana Homonoff . 1. Larimer and Smith, Public Policy Primer, Chapter 3 2. Samuel Workman, Bryan D. Jones, and Ashley E. Jochim. 2009. “Information processing and policy dynamics.” Policy Studies Journal 37(1): 75-92. 3. Cass R. Sunstein, Simpler: The Future of Government, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2013) selections [NYU Classes] 4. Sendihl Mullaniathan and Eldar Shafir, Scarcity, (NY: Macmillan, 2013) selections [NYU Classes] 5. Eldar Shafir, Living Under Scarcity, TEDX Talk http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/TEDxMidAtlantic-2011-Eldar-Shaf

WEEK 11: WHAT’S THE VALUE OF A LIFE? COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS 1. Weimer and Vining, Policy Analysis, Chapter 17. 2. “As U.S. Agencies Put More Value on a Life, Businesses Fret, New York Times [NYU Classes] 3. Cass Sunstein, Simpler, selections 4. Matthew Hutson, “Calculating the Value of a Life,” New Yorker, October, 2013 http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/calculating-the-value-of-a-life 5. Center for Global Development, Priority Setting in Health: Building Institutions for Smarter Public Spending (Washington, DC: 2012)

WEEK 12: IMPLEMENTATION Guest Lecture by Professor Paul Smoke

1. Weimer and Vining, Policy Analysis, Chapters 12 and 13. 2. Michael Lipsky, 2010, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, selections [NYU Classes] 3. Charles F. Sabel and William H. Simon, “Due Process of Administration: The Problem of Police Accountability,”manuscript, 2014, selections TBD. 4. Judith Tendler and Sara Freedheim, “Trust in a rent-Seeking World: health and government transformed in Northeast Brazil. World Development 1994;22(12):1771–1791 5. 4. Paul Smoke, “Recentralization in developing countries: Forms, Motivations, Consequences,” [NYU Classes]

For further reading: Peter McGraw, Alexander Todorov, and Howard Kunreuther, 2011, “A policy maker’s dilemma: Preventing terrorism or preventing blame,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 115: 25-34. Charles Sabel, 2013, “Rethinking the Street-Level Bureaucrat: Tacit and Deliberate Ways Organizations Can Learn,” in Economy in Society: Essays in Honor of Michael J. Piore, edited by Paul Osterman, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 113-142.

10 160,” 449..4

WEEK 13: SIMULATION

WEEK 14: EVIDENCE-BASED POLICYMAKING Readings TBD

For further reading: Donald T. Campbell, 1969, “Reforms as Experiments,” American Psychologist 24: 409-429. Rebecca Goldin, 2009, “Spinning Heads and Spinning News: How a Lack of Statistical Proficiency Affects Media Coverage,” STATS. Kristin Anderson Moore, Brett V. Brown, and Harriet J. Scarupa, 2003, “The Uses (and Misuses) of Social Indicators: Implications for Public Policy,” Child Trends Research Brief #2003-01. 1. Ron Haskins, Christina Paxson, and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, 2009, “Social Science Rising: A Tale of Evidence Shaping Policy,” The Future of Children, Policy Brief 2. Jens Ludwig, Jeffrey R. Kling, and Sendhil Mullainathan, 2011, “Mechanism Experiments and Policy Evaluations,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 25(3): 17-38. 3. Jeffrey R. Kling, 2011, “CBO’s Use of Evidence in Analysis of Budget and Economic Policies,” Congressional Budget Office, Presentation at the Annual Fall Research Conference, Association of Public Policy Analysis & Management, Washington, D.C. 4. Jon Baron, 2012, “Applying Evidence to Social Programs,” The New York Times