CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO

PPA 210:
Political Environment of Policy Making
Spring, 2002

OVERVIEW

One of the recurring themes in American history is the desire to remove politics (that great beast!) from policy making. Fortunately or unfortunately, we live in the real world. In that environment, politics matters. Decision makers commonly hold different values and interests, and attempt to advance them through a variety of means (e.g., deployment of resources, advantageous issue framing, bargaining). Outcomes frequently reflect participants' skills, clout, etc. The role of political entrepreneurs is especially critical.

This course asks students to embrace the notion that politics matters, and then go beyond that. My aim is to develop your ability to diagnose the political factors that affect outcomes. The ultimate goal is to improve your effectiveness in the policy arena.

In emphasizing politics, I do not wish to argue that substantive arguments about the merits of policy are irrelevant. Indeed, during the semester we will consider evidence that policy deliberation not only should matter but does matter in the real world. Yet it's also crucial to understand how the political situation affects reasoning about the merits of policy choices.

This course focuses mainly (although not exclusively) on the development stage of the policy process, and particularly efforts to secure enactment of legislation. I find legislative battles especially useful for illustrating key analytical points. However, students should remain aware that politics enters other forums and stages, including policy implementation.

Additionally, we will consider in depth the ethics of political entrepreneurship, examining the obligations of entrepreneurs and the needed limits on their behavior.

CONDUCT OF THE SEMINAR

The term "seminar" is accurate. Conventional lectures will be limited and classes will be discussion oriented. While I will guide the conversation, summarize points, and draw lessons, the bulk of class time will be devoted to exchange about course topics, in-class exercises, etc.

Student participation is therefore not a luxury; it is essential to a successful course. I expect that students will come to class consistently, be prepared to discuss the week's readings, and be prepared to accept special in-class assignments such as leading a critique of a particular argument from the literature.

READINGS

All readings are available at the Hornet Bookstore. Many of the required readings are in a course packet. The packet contains articles, book chapters, and case studies (most from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, or KSG).

The following books are also required.

Thomas A. Birkland, After Disaster: Agenda Setting, Public Policy, and Focusing Events (Washington: Georgetown University Press, 1997)

Lydia Chávez, The Color Bind: California=s Battle to End Affirmative Action (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998)

John W. Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, 2^nd ed. (New York: HarperCollins, 1995)

James A. Stimson, Public Opinion in America: Moods, Cycles, and Swings, 2^nd ed. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1999)

ASSIGNMENTS AND GRADING

There will be two short papers, an in-class mid-term examination, and an in-class final examination. Assignment due dates are specified in the syllabus.

Course grades will be determined in accordance with the following weights:

Paper #1 (agenda setting memo)	15%
Mid-term examination	20%
Paper #2 (ethics paper)	15%
Final examination	30%
Class participation	20%

MAKE-UP ASSIGNMENTS AND MISSED CLASSES

Late assignments will not be accepted. At my discretion, a student who misses a deadline may be given a make-up assignment. Whether or not a penalty will be assessed depends on the reason (e.g., a family emergency constitutes a good reason; a competing requirement for another course does not).

You should inform me prior to class if you must miss class on a specific day. Except under very unusual circumstances, a student who misses three classes will be penalized one entire grade (e.g., a B+ for the course will become a C+), and a student who misses more than three classes will receive a failing grade.

DETAILED CLASS INFORMATION

I. THE POLITICS OF POLICY MAKING: AN OVERVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

A. Introduction: The Concept of the Policy Entrepreneur

January 30

Readings

"The Voting Rights Act of 1965," selection (KSG case)

Discussion Questions

1. What explains how so much legislative progress was made on voting rights in 1965- and not earlier?
2. Who was the policy entrepreneur (or were the policy entrepreneurs) in this case?
3. Who were the key "behind the scenes" players in this case?

B. The Kingdon Framework

February 6

Reading

Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, chapters 1-6

Discussion Questions

1. What is the distinction Kingdon draws between "conditions" and "problems?" Why is this distinction important?
2. 2. What is the "policy community?" How does that community influence the policy process?
3. How do entrepreneurs push forward policy ideas?

February 13

Paper #1 (agenda setting memo) due

Readings

Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, chapters 7-10

Nicolaous Zahariadis, "Ambiguity, Time, and Multiple Streams," in Paul A. Sabatier, ed., Theories of the Policy Process (Boulder: Westview Press, 1999), pp. 73-93

Discussion

Come to class prepared to discuss your assignment

II. DEEPER INTO THE PROBLEM STREAM: FOCUSING EVENTS

A. Focusing Events in General

February 20

Readings

Birkland, After Disaster, chapters 1-5

Discussion Questions

1. Why do some focusing events have a bigger impact than others?
2. More specifically, why have responses to earthquakes and hurricanes differed significantly?

B. The Ultimate Focusing Event: The September 11 Terrorist Attacks

February 27

Readings

Burt Solomon, "Shock Therapy," National Journal, November 3, 2001, pp. 3410-3419.

Shanto Iyengar and Adam Simon, "News Coverage of the Gulf Crisis and Public Opinion," in W. Lance Bennett and David L. Peletz, eds., Taken by Storm: The Media, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy in the Gulf War (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), pp. 167-185.

Birkland, After Disaster, chapter 6

Discussion Questions

1. What can we learn about the impact of September 11 by thinking about the impact Gulf War?
2. How were the September 11 terrorist attacks similar and different from other major national events?
3. What are the likely short term and long term effects of September 11 on the nation's policy agenda?

III. DEEPER INTO THE POLITICAL STREAM: COLLECTIVE ACTION, MOBILIZATION, AND THE PUBLIC MOOD

A. The Collective Action Problem

March 6

Readings

Robert Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation (New York: Basic Books, 1984

Robert H. Frank, Luxury Fever: Why Money Fails to Satisfy in an Era of Excess (New York: The Free Press, 1999), pp. 146-158

In-Class Exercise

The Collective Action Game

Discussion Questions

1. What is the "collective action problem?" How may it affect people's willingness to engage in political action?
2. How can the collective action problem be overcome?

B. The Public Mood

March 13

Reading

R. Kent Weaver, Robert Y. Shapiro, and Lawrence R. Jacobs, "Poll Trends: Welfare," Public Opinion Quarterly 59 (1995): 606-627

Stimson, Public Opinion in America, chapters 1-4

Discussion Questions

1. What are the consistent features of the public's view of welfare? To what extent has opinion about welfare changed over time? Why?
2. What exactly is a "policy mood?"
3. Why do policy moods change over time?
4. How do changes in the public mood create opportunities and dangers for policy entrepreneurs?

March 20

Mid-Term Exam During the First Half of Class

Reading

Stimson, Public Opinion in America, chapters 5-6

Discussion Questions

1. What can we learn about public opinion from election results? What mistakes can we make in drawing inferences from elections?
2. What were key features of the policy mood in the 1990s?

IV. MOVING FROM AGENDA TO DECISION, PART ONE: BUILDING A WINNING COALITION

April 3 (no class March 27: spring break)

Reading

Chávez, The Color Bind, skim chapters 1-2 and the afterward, read chapters 3-8 more carefully

Discussion Questions

1. In the Proposition 209 campaign, how did each side believe it needed to frame the issue to be most successful? Why?
2. To what extent did Proposition 209 serve as a good grass roots organizing tool? Why?
3. How does a campaign to win an initiative contest differ from other types of political campaigns?

V. MOVING FROM AGENDA TO DECISION, PART TWO: NEGOTIATIONS

A. Simple Negotiations

April 10

Readings

Thomas Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980), pp. 21-46

Sissela Bok, "Lies for the Public Good," in Peter Madsen and Jay M. Shafritz,eds., Essentials of Government Ethics (New York: Meridian, 1992), pp. 218-232

Discussion Questions

1. What does it take to achieve success in a two-party, zero sum negotiation?
2. Can lying being justified in negotiations involving public services? If so,under what circumstances? If not, why not?

In-Class Exercise

"The Salty Dog"

B. More Complex Negotiations

April 17

Readings

David Lax and James Sebenius, The Manager as Negotiator (New York: The Free Press, 1986), pp. 29-45

"MAPO-Administration Negotiation, General Information" (to be distributed prior to class)

Discussion Questions

1. What does it take to be successful in a multi-party, non-zero sum negotiation?
2. What lessons from the "Salty Dog" exercise are applicable to "MAPO?" What lessons are not applicable?

In-Class Exercise

"MAPO-Administration Negotiation"

VI. THE ETHICS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP

April 24

Readings

Arthur Isak Applbaum, Ethics for Adversaries: The Morality of Roles in Public and Professional Life (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999)

David Nacht, "The Iran-Contra Affair," in Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson,eds., Ethics and Politics: Cases and Comments, 3^rd ed. (Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1997), pp. 57-66

David Rudenstine, "Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers," in Gutman and Thompson, Ethics and Politics, pp. 161-170

Discussion Questions

1. So... what should we think about Charles-Heri Sanson, the "executioner of Paris?" And if we condemn him, what does this imply for others who use their professional status to justify behavior that harms others?
2. Both Oliver North and Daniel Ellsberg acted as political entrepreneurs against the wishes of some political authorities. Was their behavior equally justified/equally unjustified?
3. Under what circumstances is it appropriate to disobey political authorities?

May 1

Paper #2 (ethics paper) due

Readings

"The Case of the Segregated Schools" (KSG abridged case)

Marissa Martino Golden, What Motivates Bureaucrats? Politics and Administration During the Reagan Years (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000), pp. 81-101

Discussion

Come to class prepared to discuss your assignment

VII. MOVING FROM AGENDA TO DECISION, PART THREE: DELIBERATION ON THE MERITS OF POLICY CHOICES

A. What Do We Want from Deliberation?

May 8

Written assignment #2 due

Film

"Twelve Angry Men" (to be viewed prior to class)

Readings

Edward L. Lascher, Jr., "Assessing Legislative Deliberation: A Preface to Empirical Analysis," Legislative Studies Quarterly (Winter, 1996), pp. 501-519

"California Welfare Reform" (KSG case)

Discussion Questions

1. If the jurors in "Twelve Angry Men" made a "good decision," why did this happen?
2. What exactly is "deliberation," and how would we know it when we saw it?
3. Why should we care if policy makers deliberate?
4. To the extent Swoap and Agnos made progress in their discussions, why did this occur? What were the consequences of their efforts?

B. Evaluating Real World Deliberation

May 15

Reading

"Against All Odds: The Campaign in Congress for Japanese-American Redress"(KSG case)

Discussion Questions

1. Why were the advocates of redress for Japanese-Americans able to overcome the odds and win a legislative victory?
2. To the extent there was something compelling about the arguments used by redress advocates, what was it?
3. Did participants in the redress debate engage in high quality deliberation? Why/why not?

BACK