CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO

PPA 210:
Political Environment of Policy Making

 Spring, 2005, Section 2

 

Professor Ted Lascher                                            Meeting time and place:
3035 Tahoe                                                                 Wednesday, 6-8:50, ALP 205
278-4864 (office)                                                     
(530)758-5687 (home-                                             Office hours: Tuesday/Thursday
   no calls after 9:00 p.m.)                                           4:15-5:00, Wednesday 5:00-5:45,
tedl@csus.edu                                                            and by appointment

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).  Outcomes frequently reflect participants' skills, clout, etc.  Persuasive arguments and efforts to achieve mutual gain through negotiation are also important, although commonly underestimated.  Additionally, 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. At the same time, I intend that people appreciate the subtlety and importance of ethical obligations.

            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.

SPECIFIC LEARNING GOALS

            At the end of PPA 210 it is expected that students will:

  1. Appreciate the variety of political factors that influence whether policy proposals are likely to be adopted;

  2. Understand a useful way of thinking about how and why policies are adopted: the Kingdon “multiple streams” model;

  3.  Understand the critical role of “policy entrepreneurs” in policy development;

  4.  Understand how policy problems are identified and policies may be attached to them;

  5. Appreciate the role of the policy community in developing policy options;

  6. Understand the pervasive nature of collective action problems and their impact on political mobilization;

  7. Understand different ways that political conflict may be resolved;

  8. Understand the ethical subtleties of role obligations facing political entrepreneurs and other policy actors;

  9. Be able to engage in more effective policy negotiations and deliberations than would have been possible at the beginning of the course;

  10. Be able to move effectively between abstract political science concepts and concrete situations facing actual political actors; 

  11. Be able to write effective short memos and papers; and

  12. Appreciate that constructive policy change is possible to achieve even in a highly political environment.

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

            The following books are required and available at the Hornet Bookstore.

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

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

Roger Fisher and William Ury, with Bruce Patton, Getting to Yes: Negotiating
Agreement Without Giving In, 2nd Edition (New York, Penguin Books, 1991).

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

Burdett A. Loomis, Time, Politics, and Policies: A Legislative Year (Lawrence:
University Press of Kansas).

            There is also a short, required course packet containing case studies and a few essential articles.  That packet will be available early in the semester (but probably not at the beginning of it) at the Hornet Bookstore.  Additionally, there is one case study to be sold separately at the Bookstore (the voting rights case for the first day), and a few exercise related materials that will be distributed during class.

ASSIGNMENTS AND GRADING

            There will be two short papers, a take home 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%
Take home mid-term examination                          20%
Paper #2 (ethics paper)                                           20%
Final examination                                                      30%
Class participation                                                    15%

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.

CLASS SCHEDULE

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

A. Introduction      
 
January 26
 
Read: “The Voting Rights Act of 1965" (Kennedy School of Government case study, available separately at the Hornet Bookstore)
 
Discussion Questions
  1. Why did voting rights legislation make progress when it did? What factors needed to come together? 
  2. Who were the critical players in the voting rights case? Why?
 
B. The Kingdon Framework
 
February 2
 
Read: Kingdon, chapters 1-6
 
Discussion Questions
  1. What is the distinction Kingdon draws between "conditions" and "problems?"
  2. Why is this distinction important?
  3. What are Kingdon’s three “streams?”  How do they differ?
  4. With respect to the “problem stream,” what are “focusing events” and why are they so important?
 
February 9
 
Paper #1 (agenda setting memo) due
 
Read: Kingdon, chapters 7-10
 
Discussion
Come to class prepared to discuss your assignment
 
C. Tweaking the Kingdon Framework: The Importance of Time and Institutional           Rules
 
February 16
 
Read: Loomis, chapters 1-4, 6-7, 10-11 (skim the remainder)
 
Discussion Questions
    1. How do trends, cycles, and deadlines differ? Why are they important?
    2. Why did some agenda items move forward more successfully than others in Kansas?
    3. What does the Loomis book suggest about how the Kingdon framework should be modified?

II. DEEPER INTO THE PROBLEM STREAM: FOCUSING EVENTS

February 23
 
Read: Scott, Althuas, et al., symposium in PS: Political Science and Politics, 35 (September, 2002), pp. 517-521, 523-540 (in course reader)
 
Discussion Questions
    1. What exactly is a focusing event?  What is not a focusing event?
    2. To what extent were the September 11 terrorist attacks like other focusing
      events?  To what extent were they different?

III. DEEPER INTO THE POLICY STREAM: IDEOLOGICAL TRENDS AMONG POLICY EXPERTS

March 2
 
Read: "The Emergence of Intellectual Conservatism and the Transformation of Economic Discourse," paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 2003 (in course reader)
 
Discussion Questions
    1. Why aren’t liberal professors very influential in the policy process?
    2. What have been the big changes over time with respect to the nature and influence of think tanks?
    3. What is the connection between think tanks and public policy?

IV. DEEPER INTO THE POLITICAL STREAM: COLLECTIVE ACTION, MOBILIZATION, AND BIASES IN POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

March 9
 
Read: Robert Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation, selection; Robert H. Frank, Luxury Fever, selection (both in course reader); Edward Lascher, “Lessons from the Collective Action Game” (to be distributed after the exercise)
 
In-Class Exercise: “The Collective Action Game”
 
Discussion Questions
    1. What is the “collective action problem?” 
    2. How may it affect people’s willingness to engage in political action?
    3. How can the collective action problem be overcome?
 
March 16
 
Take Home Mid-Term Exam Due
 
Read: Symposium on democracy and inequality in Perspectives on Politics, December, 2004, pp. 651-689
 
Discussion Questions
    1. How might rising inequality affect political participation, and why?
    2. Who’s to blame for lack of participation by low-income people?
    3. What, if anything, is the connection between the collective action problem and
      lack of political participation?

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

March 30 (no class March 23: spring break)
 
Read: Chávez, entire
 
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 ballot initiative campaign differ from other types of efforts to secure a policy change (e.g., an effort to win passage of a bill through the regular legislative process)?

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

April 6
 
Read: Fisher, Ury, and Patton, parts I and II
 
Discussion Questions
    1. Why is productive negotiation often so hard for people?
    2. How can people negotiate more effectively?
 
In-Class Exercise: “The Ugli Orange Case”
 
April 13
 
Read: Fisher, Ury, and Patton, parts III, IV, and V
 
Discussion Questions
    1. To what extent can someone negotiate effectively if the other party is in a stronger position?
    2. Is lying fair in negotiations?  Is it effective?
 
In-Class Exercise: “Bradford Development”

VII. THE ETHICS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP

April 20
 
Read: Applbaum, Ethics for Adversaries, chapters 1, 2, 4; Michael Quinlan “Ethics in the Public Service” (in course reader)
 
Discussion Questions
    1. 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. Consider the debate between Arthur Applbaum and Michael Quinlan.  Who do you find more convincing?  Why?
 
April 27
 
Paper #2 (ethics paper) due
 
Read: David Rudenstine, "Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers" and David  Nacht, “The Iran-Contra Affair” (both in course reader); Applbaum, chapters 9-10
 
Discussion Come to class prepared to discuss your assignment

VIII. MOVING FROM AGENDA TO DECISION, PART THREE: DELIBERATION

A. Deliberation and the Reasoning Process
 
May 4
 
Watch: "Twelve Angry Men" (to be viewed prior to class)
 
Read: Jason Barabas, "How Deliberation Affects Policy Opinions,” American Political Science Review, 98 (2004), pp. 687-701 (in course reader) 
 
Discussion Questions
    1. If the jurors in "Twelve Angry Men" made a "good decision," why did this happen?
    2. Why might deliberation improve the reasoning process? Why might deliberation fail to do so?
 
B. Deliberation and Moving Beyond Entrenched Positions
 
May 11
 
Read: "California Welfare Reform" (in course reader); Judith E. Innes and David
E. Booher, “Collaborative Policymaking: Governance Through Dialogue” (available in Deliberative Policy Analysis, if you purchased that book for PPA 270; also available at: http://www-iurd.ced.berkeley.edu/pub/WP-2000-05.pdf)
 
Discussion Questions
    1. To the extent Swoap and Agnos made progress in the welfare reform case, why did this occur?
    2. What circumstances encourage people to engage in genuine deliberation about what is right?  What circumstances encourage people to “play to the crowd?”
    3. To what extent can the lessons of the welfare reform case be applied in other circumstances?

BACK