Public Policy: Theories, Traditions and Transitions Core Course, Public Policy Track
Doctoral Program in Political Science Fall/ Winter Term AY 2016-17
Lecturers: Agnes Batory and Sara Svensson Class times:
Credits: 4
Requirements: Participation 15%
Session presentation 10%
Session presentation and moderation 20%
Peer review 15%
Final paper (4000 words) 40%
Course objectives
The course provides an introduction to the concepts, theories and debates at the core of public policy as a field of scholarly inquiry. The course is designed to prepare the students for their dissertation research, and therefore provides for a broad discussion of public policy analysis that draws on insights and theories from political science, international relations, economics, law and sociology.
The main objective of this course is to develop an advanced understanding of major debates in contemporary public policy, theoretical approaches to the study of public policy as well as diverse methodological opportunities of researching various aspects of public policy-making.
The concern is to identify and analyze (a), major strands and traditions of public policy scholarship; (b) core concepts in policy analysis; (c) major methodological perspectives, debates and logics of research inquiry used for academic research on public policy; and (d) explanatory capacity of existing theoretical tools.
Particular attention is paid to the state-of-the-art in public policy research and practice. This is done through, for instance, including discussions from social constructivism and argumentative and interpretive research, and by including practical sessions helping to prepare participants for their future career as professional researchers.
Learning outcomes
By the end of the course, students will be able to:
identify the major theoretical debates in contemporary policy studies;
contrast and compare existing research on public policy, discuss theoretical traditions and frameworks and critically engage with their arguments;
interpret and judge different methodological strategies used in public policy research, and evaluate their core assumptions as well as their heuristic and explanatory potentials;
evaluate the relevance of existing frameworks and approaches for their own work;
have an understanding of the major challenges and requirements of doing advanced research professionally in an academic or practical context.
Course readings and seminar format
Students are expected to read all core readings (normally three pieces of literature per week), which are available on the course e-learning site. In addition, the syllabus contains further readings which are recommended for the session. Depending on class size, students may be assigned one recommended reading per session to feed into the discussion.
The format of the seminars may vary, but are generally discussion-based and therefore depend on participants’ ability and willingness to make informed contributions. A number of seminars will be moderated by students (see below under requirements).
Course structure
The course consists of 24 weekly seminars of 100 minutes, distributed over two terms (Fall and Winter). The seminars are led by one of the lecturers, students (see course requirements) or guest speakers from the faculty. The topics of the seminars are divided into four themes:
Public policy as a field of scholarly endeavor and profession
Understanding policy change and the policy cycle
Different approaches to policy analysis
Academic practice: doing research as your profession (this theme will appear as
‘excursions’ interjected throughout the course)
Overview of sessions Fall term
I. Introduction to policy studies
1 AB & SS Introduction: why are we here?
2 SS Public Policy as a discipline (?), subject and profession
3 AB Evidence-based policy making: does research influence policy?
4 AB Public Policy as a research field: dissertation workshop II. Understanding policy change and the policy cycle
5 SS The policy cycle approach to public policy studies
6 AB Problem formulation and agenda-setting I: The Garbage Can model and Multiple streams
7 SS Problem formulation and agenda-setting II: The Advocacy Coalition framework
8 AB Academic Practice Excursus 1: Writing peer-reviews for public policy journals
9 SS Policy formulation, decision-making and implementation 10 AB Compliance
11 SS Evaluation
12 AB Academic practice Excursus 2: A guide to the process of publishing your work
Winter term
13 AB Policy transfer and diffusion
14 SS Policy learning and policy translation 15 AB Policy success and policy failure
III. Approaches to policy analysis
16 SS Rational Choice & Public Choice
17 AB Institutionalism & New Institutionalism
18 AB Multi-level governance I: global public policy and global governance 19 SS Multi-level governance II: regional public policy
20 SS Multi-level governance III: local public policy 21 SS Critical/interpretive policy studies I
22 SS Critical/interpretive policy studies II
23 AB Academic Practice Excursus 3: navigating the academic job market 24 AB & SS Conclusion
Course Requirements Participation 15%
Session presentation 10%
Session presentation and moderation 20%
Peer review 15%
Final paper (4000 words) 40%
1. Seminar participation
Students are expected to attend each seminar and regularly participate in discussions.
Participation is graded as follows: attendance (but no participation) will merit a C+; good faith efforts at participation lead to the B/B+ range; valuable contributions are in the B+/A range.
We expect attendance at seminar discussions throughout the semester. An absence must be reported in advance.
2. Session presentation and moderation
Each term, students are asked to take the lead on one topic. In the Fall term this takes the format of a short (15 minute) presentation, followed by questions for discussion. Presenters are asked to send their outline (slides or notes) to the lecturer of the given seminar at least two working days in advance. The grade will be based on the extent to which added value to the readings is provided in a clear and coherent manner that stimulates discussion.
In the Winter term students run a full seminar, which follows a format of the student’s choosing. The grade will be based both on the ability to meet predefined learning objectives for the session and the quality and clarity of content delivery.
3. Peer reviews
Students will be asked to review scholarly articles in the field of public policy. Reviews provide for substantiated critiques and take a position towards the scholarly contribution of the assessed article. The first of the peer reviews will be on a paper chosen by the course lecturers, and it is due in week 8 for the first Academic Practice excursus. The review should result in a recommendation to publish/not to publish in a journal pre-determined by the lecturer. This review will not be graded.
The second review will be done on an article of the students’ choice and field of interest, and will be graded. The second peer-review is due by the end of the Fall term (exact date tba).
4. Final paper
The final paper is a scholarly piece on a subject of your choice. It embeds the research question in a larger academic context, defines a framework of analysis, is empirically rich and follows standard models of research design/ inquiry. Students are strongly encouraged to pick one particular theory or model discussed during the course to inform their analysis. Final papers are 4,000 words of length (all inclusive, +/- 10% permissible; overlong or too short papers will be marked down). Students are expected to inform the instructors on the topic of the paper no later than one month before the submission. The final paper is due at the end of the course (late March/early April, tba).
Please note that late papers will be marked down by a third of a letter grade per day. Please also note that failing any requirement will mean a fail grade for the entire course.
1 AB & SS Introduction: why are we here?
1. Who are we, what are our backgrounds?
2. Our PhD research: topics, questions, proposed contributions, relation to public policy
3. Expectations from the course
4. The notion of “public policy” in our contexts 5. The structure of the course and key issues Required readings:
Upload your research proposal (the one you applied to CEU with or a new one-page summary) to the e-learning site. Read the proposals of your peers before the class. Think about commonalities and differences, especially in relation to ‘public policy’.
2 SS Public Policy as a discipline (?), subject and profession
1. Public policy as a discipline: evolution, conceptual field, research agenda
2. Public policy as a profession – a preliminary discussion.
Required readings:
Adams, William C., Donna Lind Infeld, Laura F. Minnichelli, and Michael W. Ruddell. 2014. Policy Journal Trends and Tensions: JPAM and PSJ.
Policy Studies Journal 42: S118-S137.
Dodds, Anneliese 2013. Why compare public policies? In Comparative Public Policy. Houndmills, Basington: Palgrave Macmillan, pp 5-20.
Mintrom, Michael. 2012. Developing as a policy analyst and advisor. In Contemporary Policy Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp 307- 313.
Further readings:
Cairney, Paul. 2012. Understanding public policy: theories and issues.
Chapter 1 and 2. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
DeLeon, P., 20016. ‘The Historical Roots of the Field’, in M. Moran, M.
Rein and R. E Goodin (eds) Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, OUP, 2006 [320.6 MOR]
Trousset, Sarah, Hank C. Jenkins-Smith, and Christopher Weible. 2014.
Recent developments in public policy research. Policy Studies Journal 42:
S1-S11.
3 AB Evidence-based policy-making: does research influence policy?
Does social science in general and policy studies in particular matter for the ‘real world’?
What is the role of ‘experts’ in the policy-making process?
How and to what extent does scientific evidence influence policy- making?
Is there a specific method or set of methods that is better suited for the production of policy-relevant ‘evidence’?
Required readings:
Lindblom, Charles. 1959. "The Science of Muddling Through." Public Administration Review 19 (2).
Wayne Parsons, ‘From Muddling Through to Muddling Up - Evidence Based Policy Making and the Modernisation of British Government’
Public Policy and Administration Autumn 2002 17: 43-60
Brian W. Head, ‘Three Lenses of Evidence-Based Policy’, Australian Journal of Public Administration 67 (2008): 1, pp 1-11.
Recommended readings:
Mark Goodwin, ‘Political Science? Does Scientific Training Predict UK MPs Voting Behaviour?’ Parliamentary Affairs April 1, 2015 68: 371-392 Kenneth E Warner, Jamie Tam, ‘The tobacco epidemic today: The impact of tobacco control research on policy: 20 years of progress’. Tobacco Control 2012;21:2 103-109
Ken Young, Deborah Ashby, Annette Boaz and Lesley Grayson (2002).
Social Science and the Evidence-based Policy Movement. Social Policy and Society, 1, pp 215-224
4 AB Public Policy as a research field: dissertation workshop
1. What makes a dissertation a ‘public policy’ dissertation?
2. How do public policy researchers position themselves vis-à-vis other disciplines?
Required readings:
Before the seminar, you should read one of the following two dissertations written with the Doctoral School’s public policy track
Adina Maricut (2016) Institutional development of the EU’s area of Freedom, Security and Justice: Roles, behaviours and the logic of justification.
Or:
Andreea Nastase (2012) Ethics management and individual views towards ethics in the European Commission.
I. Understanding policy change and the policy cycle
5 SS The stages approach to the policy approach: the policy cycle 1. The concept of “policy cycle”: is it a reliable tool for
understanding public policy change?
2. What avenues of inquiry does it offer, what are the limits?
3. What are the normative components of this approach?
4. Can it be combined with other theories of policy change?
Readings:
Werner Jann and Kai Wegrich, 2007. ‘Theories of the Policy Cycle’ in Frank Fischer, Gerald J Miller and Mara S Sidney, Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics and Methods, CRC Press, 2007.
Sophia Everett, 2003. The Policy Cycle: Democratic Process or Rational Paradigm Revisited? , Australian Journal of Public Administration, 62 (2):
65-70.
Norris, Pippa. 2011. Cultural Explanations of Electoral Reform: A Policy Cycle Model. West European Politics, 34: 3, 2011
Further readings:
Peter DeLeon. 1999. ‘The Stages Approach to the Policy Process: What has it Done? Where is Going? In Paul A. Sabatier (ed) Theories of the Policy Process, Westview Press.
Paul Sabatier. 2007. “The Need for Better Theories”, in Sabatier (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process. 2007 edition. Chapter 1
6 AB Problem formulation and agenda-setting I: The Garbage Can model, Multiple streams, and punctuated equilibrium
1. Organisational change and garbage can decision making
2. Multiple Streams: chance versus rationality; chaos versus order 3. Policy entrepreneurs and ‘windows of opportunity’
4. Punctuated equilibrium: incremental and radical policy change as a function of agendas
Readings:
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Jones Bryan D. "Agenda Dynamics and Policy Subsystems." The Journal of Politics 53.4 (1991): 1044-074
Kingdon, J. 1995. Agendas, alternatives and public policies, London:
Longman, 1995.
Nikolaos Zahariadis. 2007. ‘The Multiple Streams framework: Structure, limitations, prospects”, in Sabatier (eds), Theories of the Policy Process.
2nd ed. 2007.
Further readings:
Michael D. Cohen, James G. March, and Johan P. Olsen. “A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17.
1972. 1-25.
Robert Ackrill , Adrian Kay , Nikolaos Zahariadis, ‘Ambiguity, multiple streams, and EU policy’, Journal of European Public Policy Vol. 20, Iss. 6, 2013.
Paul Copeland , Scott James, ‘Policy windows, ambiguity and Commission entrepreneurship: explaining the relaunch of the European Union's economic reform agenda’; Journal of European Public Policy Vol. 21, Iss.
1, 2014.
7 SS Problem formulation and agenda-setting II: The Advocacy Coalition framework
1. Advocacy coalitions, iron triangles, issue networks, policy (epistemic communities): what are the conceptual boundaries?
2. How do advocacy coalitions change?
3. Conceptualising the networks: seeing policy change through the prism of networks
Readings:
Sabatier, Paul A., and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith. 2014. "The Advocacy Coalition Framework. Foundation. Evolution" In Theories of the policy process, 3rd edition, edited by Paul A. Sabatier, Christopher M. Weible.
183-224.
Daniel Kuebler.2001. Understanding Policy Change with the Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Application to Swiss Drug Policy. Journal of European Public Policy 8(4), 623-641.
Christopher M. Weible, Paul A. Sabatier, Kelly McQueen, ‘Themes and Variations: Taking Stock of the Advocacy Coalition Framework’, Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 2009.
Further readings:
Hanspeter Kriesi; Silke Adam; Margit Jochum, ‘'Comparative analysis of policy networks in Western Europe', Journal of European Public
Policy,13:3, 2006: 341 — 361
Matti, S., Sandstrom, A., The Rationale Determining Advocacy Coalitions:
Examining Coordination Networks and Corresponding Beliefs, Policy Studies Journal, Vol 39:3, 2011, pp 385-410
8 AB Academic Practice Excursus 1: Writing peer-reviews for public policy journals
Paper to be reviewed will be uploaded to e-learning prior to the session.
9 SS Policy formulation, decision-making and implementation
1. How are policy responses formulated and what are the tools available to government?
2. What can the field of public policy add to the understanding of decision-making?
3. What are the distinctive features of policy implementation? How are decisions different at this stage?
4. Can it be conceptualised as a separate stage in policy-making?
Readings:
Peters, Guy. 2015. “Policy instruments”, in “Advanced Introduction to Public Policy”. Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgars, pp 101-123.
Hill, Michael. 2013. Implementation: an overview. In The Public Policy Process, Sixth edition. Essex: Pearson Education Limited, pp 205-226.
R. W. Robichau & L. E. Lynn Jr.. 2009. “The implementation of Public Policy: Still the Missing Link”, Policy Studies Journal, 37:1.
Further readings:
John, Peter. 2011. “The tools of governments and policy outcomes” and
“Conclusions”, chapter 1 and 8 in “Making Policy Work”, New York:
Routledge. PP 1-17, 154-160.
P. J. May & S. Winter. 2009. “Politicians, Managers, and Street-Level Bureaucrats: Influences on Policy Implementation, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory (2009) 19:3, 453-476.
S. Winter. 2003. “Implementation Perspectives: Status and
Reconsideration”, in B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (eds) Handbook of Public Administration, Sage 2003, 350 PET.
10 AB Compliance, target compliance and creative compliance 1. How is compliance conceptualised in the literature?
2. Who do target groups comply with obligations?
3. What are the methodological challenges involved in studying compliance?
Readings:
R. Kent Weaver Compliance Regimes and Barriers to Behavioral Change Governance 27 (2014): 2, pp 243–265.
Feldman Y (2011) Five Models of Regulatory Compliance Motivation:
Empirical Findings and Normative Implications. In: Levi-Faur D (ed) Handbook on the Politics of Regulation, pp. 335–346. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Oliver Treib, "Implementing and complying with EU governance outputs", Living Rev. Euro. Gov. 9, (2014), 1.
Further readings:
Uri Gneezy and Aldo Rustichini, ‘A fine is a prize’, Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 29, No. 1 (January 2000), pp. 1-17
Agnes Batory, ‘Defying the Commission: Creative compliance and respect for the rule of law in the EU’. Public Administration (forthcoming).
11 SS Evaluation and control: political games and governance trends
(1) When, why and how did evaluation become an important part of government?
(2) What is the political component of evaluation?
(3) What is the state-of-the-art in the research field on evaluation?
Readings:
Power, Michael. 1997. ‘The Audit Explosion’ and ‘Auditing and the Reinvention of Government’ (Chapter 1 and chapter 3) in The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp 1-14, and 41-68.
Vedung, Evert. 2010. Four Waves of Evaluation Diffusion, Evaluation, 16:3, 263-277.
Picciotto, Robert. 2015. Democratic evaluation for the 21st century, Evaluation, 21:2, 150-166
Further readings
M. Bovens, P. t’Hart & S. Kuipers ”The Politics of Policy Evaluation” M.
Rein & R. E. Goodin (eds) Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, Oxford University Press, 2006. [320.6 MOR]
Chelimsky, Eleanor (1987), “What Have We Learned About the Politics of Program Evaluation?” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 9(3), p.
199-213.
Hirschon Weiss, Carol 1999. The Interface between Evaluation and Public Policy. Evaluation 5(4), p. 468-486.
Hendriks, Carolyn M. 2013. Policy evaluation and public participation. In Eduardo Araral Jr, Scott Frizen, Michael Howlett, M Ramesh and Xun Wu (eds), Routledge Handbook of Public Policy, London and New York:
Routledge, 434 – 448.
Leeuw, Frans L and Steward I. Donaldson. 2015. Theory in evaluation:
Reducing confusion and encouraging debate, Evaluation, October 21: 4, 467-480
Vedung, Evert. 2013. ‘Six models’ of evaluation’, in Eduardo Araral Jr, Scott Frizen, Michael Howlett, M Ramesh and Xun Wu (eds), Routledge Handbook of Public Policy, London and New York: Routledge, pp 387- 400.
12 AB Academic practice Excursus 2: A guide to the process of publishing your work
Please see content on e-learning
Winter term: Please note that the reading lists below is indicative and will be confirmed when Winter term starts.
13 AB Policy transfer and policy diffusion
1. What are the core differences between `Policy Transfer' and
`Diffusion'?
2. How, when and why do ideas, norms and values as well as `best practices' and international standards spread?
3. Challenges of policy diffusion research Readings:
David P. Dolowitz and David Marsh, “Learning from Abroad: The Role of Policy Transfer in Contemporary Policy-Making”, Governance, 13. 2000.
Berry, F.S. and Berry, W.D., Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. In :P.A. Sabatier, ed. Theories of the policy process . Second edition 2007, Boulder CO.: Westview Press, 169-200
Tanja A. Börzel & Thomas Risse (2012) From Europeanisation to Diffusion: Introduction, West European Politics, 35:1, 1-19, Further readings:
Mark Evans, “Policy Transfer in Critical Perspective”, Policy Studies, 30(3), 2009.
Esther Ademmer. 2015. Interdependence and EU-demanded policy change in a shared neighbourhood. Journal of European Public Policy.
Vol. 22, No. 5, 671 –689.
Kurt Gerhard Weyland, “Theories of Policy Diffusion: Lessons from Latin American Pension Reform”, World Politics 57(2). 2005.
14 SS Policy learning and policy translation Readings (tbc):
Mukhtarov, Farhad. 2014. Rethinking the travel of ideas: policy
translation in the water sector. Policy & Politics, Volume 42, Number 1, January 2014, pp. 71-88(18)
Rhys Jones, Jessica Pykett, Mark Whitehead. 2014. The geographies of policy translation: how nudge became the default policy option.
Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 2014, volume 32, pages 54 – 69
Stone, Diane (2012) Transfer and translation of policy, Policy Studies, 33:6, 483-499,
15 AB Policy success and policy failure
1. How can we determine whether a policy has succeeded?
2. Why is the literature predominantly focused on policy failure?
3. What are the principal, common causes of policy failure?
Readings:
McConnell, A, 2010, ‘Policy Success, Policy Failure and Grey Areas In- Between’, Journal of Public Policy, 30, 3, 345-62
P. Dunleavy, “Policy Disasters”, Public Policy and Administration, 10:2 (1995), 52-70
Peters, B. Guy (2015) ‘State failure, governance failure and policy failure: Exploring the linkages’, Public Policy and Administration, Further reading:
Allan McConnell, ‘What is policy failure? A primer to help navigate the maze’ Public Policy and Administration July-October 2015 vol. 30 no. 3-4 221-242.
David Marsh and Allan McConnell, ‘Towards a framework for establishing policy success’, Public Administration 88 (2010) 2.
I. Approaches to policy analysis
16 SS Rational Choice & Public Choice
(1) What were the contributions of rational choice/public choice theory to academic and applied policy analysis?
(2) What are its legacies?
Buchanan, James and Gordon Tullock. 1962. The calculus of consent:
logical foundations of constitutional democracy. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press, 1992, c1962. Selected chapters (tbc)
Henderson, David R. 2013. Public Choice and Two of Its Founders: An Appreciation. In Public Choice, Past and Present The Legacy of James M.
Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, edited by Dwight R. Lee. New York.
Springer NY. CEU electronic resource.
Bertacchini, Enrico, Claudia Liuzza, Lynn Meskell and Donatella Saccone The politicization of UNESCO World Heritage decision making. Public Choice (2016) 167:95–129.
Further readings
Baden, John. 2013. Public Choice in the Big Sky. In “Public Choice, Past and Present The Legacy of James M. Buchanan and Gordon Tullock”, edited by Dwight R. Lee. New York. Springer NY. CEU electronic resource.
Cairney, Paul. Rational Choice. In Understanding Public Policy – theories and issues. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire ; New York : Palgrave Macmillan
Downs, Anthony. 1994 Inside bureaucracy. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press. Selected chapters.
Hill, Michael. 2013. Rational Choice. In ‘The Public Policy Process, Sixth edition’. Essex: Pearson Education Limited, pp. 92-107.
Hillman, Arye L., and Heinrich W. Ursprung, 2016. Academic exclusion:
some experiences. Public Choice (2016) 167:1–20
Niskanen, William. 1994 Bureaucracy and public economics. Aldershot, Hants, England : E. Elgar, c1994. Selected chapters (tbc)
17 AB Institutionalism & New Institutionalism
1. Political institutions in the policy process: How do we identify and define political institutions? What type of political
institutions exist?
2. Classical versus new institutionalism Required readings:
Immergut, Ellen. 1990. Institutions, Veto Points and Policy Results. A comparative analysis of Health Care. Journal of Public Policy 10:4, 391- 416.
Brooks, Clem and Jeff Manza. 2006. Social Policy Responsiveness in Developed Democracies. American Sociological Review 71: 474-494.
Tarik Abou-Chadi & Ellen M. Immergut. 2014. Public Opinion, Political Institutions and Welfare State Change. Paper for presentation at the 110th Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 28 – 31, 2014, Washington, DC.
Further readings:
Brooks, Clem and Jeff Manza. 2006. Why Do Welfare States Persist? The Journal of Politics, Vol. 68, No. 4, November 2006, pp. 816–827.
Amy Verdun. 2015. A historical institutionalist explanation of the EU’s responses to the euro area financial crisis. Journal of European Public Policy. Vol. 22, No. 2, 219 –237
Hall, P., Taylor R., Political science and the three new institutionalisms, 1996.
Cairney, Paul. 2012. Understanding public policy. Chapter 4.
Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lowndes, Vivien & Mark Roberts. 2013. Why Institutions Matter: The New Institutionalism in Political Science. Chapter 1 and Chapter 2.
London: Palgrave Macmillan. PP 1-45.
18 AB Multi-level governance I: global public policy and global governance Required readings:
Paul Stephenson (2013) Twenty years of multi-level governance:
‘Where Does It Come From? What Is It? Where Is It Going?’, Journal of European Public Policy, 20:6,817-837.
Anne-Marie Slaughter and Thomas N. Hale, Transgovernmental
Networks and Multi-level Governance in Enderlein et al eds. Multi-level governance. Edward Elgar, 2010.
Richard Stewart, ‘Enforcement of transnational public regulation’, in Fabrizio Cafaggi (ed) Enforcement of transnational regulation. E Elgar 2010.
Further reading:
Public Administration special issue, eds Stella Ladi, Diane Stone. Global Policy and Transnational Administration, Volume 93, Issue 4, Pages 839–1188
Gary Marks and Lisbet Hooghe (2004) ‘Contrasting Visions of Multi-level Governance’ in Ian Bache and Matthew Flinders (eds) Multi-level
Governance. Oxford University Press.
Simona Piattoni (2009) Multi‐level Governance: a Historical and Conceptual Analysis, Journal of European Integration, 31:2, 163-180.
Jan-Erik Lane, Globalization and Politics: Promises and Dangers; chapter 11: Could Mankind Extinguish itself? Ashgate 2006.
Roy Smith, Imad el-Anis, and Christopher Farrands, International Political Economy in the 21st Century. Chapter 5: National, international, regional and global governance. Routledge 2013.
19 SS Multi-level governance II: policy-making in administrative, functional and emerging regional spaces
(1) What is the difference between administrative and functional regional matters and how does the approach one takes on this matter for policy?
(2) Is there any evidence for a European or global sub-national regionalization trend?
(3) Do cross-border regions have a future in a rebordering Europe?
Marks, Gary, Liesbet Hooghe and Arjan H. Schakel. 2008. Patterns of Regional Authority. Regional & Federal Studies 18 (2-3), pages 167-181 Sara Svensson. 2013. Forget the policy gap: why local governments really decide to take part in cross-border cooperation initiatives in Europe.
Eurasian Geography and Economics. 54(4): 409-22.
Tatham, M. (2015) 'Regional Voices in the European Union: Subnational Influence in Multilevel Politics', International Studies Quarterly 59(2):
387–400.
Further reading
Greenwood, Justin (2011) Actors of the Common Interest? The Brussels Offices of the Regions, Journal of European Integration, 33:4, 437-451.
Perkmann. Markus. 2007. Policy entrepreneurship and multilevel governance: a comparative study of European cross-border regions, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 25, pp. 861-879.
Medve-Bálint, Gergő & Sara Svensson. 2013. Diversity and Development:
Policy Entrepreneurship of Euroregional Initiatives in Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 28 (1): 15-31.
Ojehag-Pettersson, Andreas. 2013. Production and Legitimization of Global Rationale, Space Craft Globalization and Governmentality in Regional Development. Karlstad University Studies. 2015:23
20 SS Multi-level governance III: Trends in local and urban public policy 1. What has been the contribution of urban policy planning to the
public policy field?
2. Is decentralization here to stay?
3. Do public policy theories worked out for national level work at the local scale?
Haus, Michael and Hubert Heinelt. 2005. How to achieve governability at the local level? Theoretical and conceptual considerations on a complementarity of urban leadership and community involvement. In Michael Haus, Hubert Heinelt and Murray Stewart. Urban Governance and Democracy: Leadership and Community involvement. New York: Routledge. p 12-39
Treisman, Daniel. 2007. The architecture of government: rethinking political decentralization. Introduction and conclusion. Cambridge; New York : Cambridge University Press.
Further readings:
Dahl, Robert A. 1966. Who governs? : Democracy and power in an American city. New Haven: Yale University Press. Selected chapters.
Denters, Bas and Lawrence E. Rose. (2005). Towards Local Governance In Bas Denters and Lawrence E. Rose (Eds.) Comparing Local Governance:
trends and developments. New York: Palgrave macmillan, pp 1-11.
21 SS Critical/interpretive policy studies I: trends in social sciences and public policy studies
1. What are the ontological and epistemological foundations of this intellectual approach?
2. What is the standing of the approach in today’s academic and applied policy analysis?
Vivian Schmidt. 2011. Speaking of change: why discourse is key to the dynamics of policy transformation. Critical Policy Studies. Vol. 5, No. 2, 106–126.
Bacchi, Carol Lee. Women, policy and politics : the construction of policy problems. Chapter 1. Thousand Oaks, Calif. : Sage, 1999.
David Howarth and Steven Griggs. Poststructuralist policy analysis : discourse, hegemony, and critical explanation. In The argumentative turn revisited : public policy as communicative practice / edited by Frank Fischer and Herbert Gottweis. Durham : Duke University Press, 2012
Further readings:
Cairney, Paul. 2012. Understanding public policy. Chapter 11.
Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Serrano-Velarde, Kathia. 2015. Words into deeds: the use of framing strategy in EU higher education policy. Critical Policy Studies. Vol. 9, No.
1, 41–57.
Schmidt, Vivien. 2013. Democracy and Legitimacy in the European Union Revisited: Input, Output and ‘Throughput’. Political Studies, 61:
2-22.
Schmidt, Vivian. 2008. Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 2008.
11:303–26.
Stewart, Ellen A.. 2015. Seeking outsider perspectives in interpretive research: young adults and citizen participation in health policy. Critical Policy Studies, 2015 Vol. 9, No. 2, 198–215.
Wagenaar, H.. “Knowing” the Rules: Administrative Work as Practice”, Public Administration Review, 64:6 (2004), pp. 643–655.
Wood, Matthew. 2015. Puzzling and powering in policy paradigm shifts:
politicization, depoliticization and social learning. Critical Policy Studies.
Vol. 9, No. 1, 2–21.
22 SS Critical/interpretive policy studies II: methodological considerations 1. What does interpretative research add to our understanding of
public policy?
2. How do interpretative perspectives translate into empirical investigations?
Bacchi, Carol Lee. 2009. Analysing policy: what's the problem represented to be? Chapter 1. Frenchs Forest, N.S.W. : Pearson.
Yanow, Dora. 2014. Interpretive analysis and comparative research. In sabelle Engeli and Christine Rothmayr, eds., Comparative policy studies:
Conceptual and methodological challenges, ch. 7. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire ; New York, NY : Palgrave Macmillan.
Dombos, Tamas, Andrea Krizsan, Mieke Verloo and Violetta Zentai.
2012. Critical Frame Analysis: A Comparative Methodology for the 'Quality in Gender+ Equality Policies' (QUING) project. CPS working paper available at https://cps.ceu.edu/publications/working- papers/critical-frame-analysis-quing
Further readings:
Adasiunaite, Egle. 2016. The Language of Lithuanian Drug Policy: Is it the Problem? CEU Master Thesis Collection.
Soss, J. (2006). ‘Talking our way to meaningful explanations. A practice- centered view of interviewing for interpretive research’, in D. Yanow &
P. Schwartz-Shea (Eds.), Interpretation and method (pp. 127–149). New York and London: M.E. Sharpe.
Wueest, Bruno and Flavia Fossati. 2015. Quantitative discursive
institutionalism: a comparison of labour market policy discourse across Western Europe. Journal of European Public Policy. Vol. 22, No. 5, 708–
730
Yanow, Dora, “Interpretation in policy analysis: on methods and practice”, Critical Policy Studies, 1;1 (2007), pp. 110-122.
23 AB Academic Practice Excursus 3: navigating the academic job market Please see resources on elearning
24 AB & SS Conclusion
