88093 - POLICY DESIGN IN PROSPETTIVA COMPARATA

Conoscenze e abilità da conseguire

Al termine del corso, lo studente: conosce in modo approfondito i principali approcci teorici e metodologici del policy design; conosce in modo approfondito le teorie sugli strumenti di policy; conosce le caratteristiche sostantive del policy design in diversi paesi e settori di policy; è in grado di analizzare in modo critico i processi di policy design; è in grado di impostare un progetto di ricerca sul policy design comparato; è in grado di elaborare raccomandazioni e policy report.

Contenuti

Il corso focalizza la sua attenzione sul policy design come un approccio mediante il quale analizzare e “fare” le politiche pubbliche. Il corso si divide in due parti. Nella prima parte sono presentati gli elementi costitutivi del policy design, pertanto le domande su cui si focalizzerà l’attenzione sono: cos’è il policy design? Chi fa il policy design? Quali sono le caratteristiche costitutive dei processi di policy design? Come e perché il policy design ha successo o fallisce? In questa parte si concentrerà l’attenzione in particolare sugli attori del policy design e sugli strumenti di policy che gli attori possono utilizzare per affrontare la risoluzione di problemi collettivi. Attraverso quali processi e con quali strumenti si fa il policy design? Che cosa è e come si valuta un buon policy design? Nella seconda parte si analizzerà le caratteristiche del policy design e dei suoi effetti in prospettiva comparata in due settori di politica pubblica: le politiche universitarie e le politiche ambientali

Testi/Bibliografia

Theoretical readings

• Howlett, M. and Mukherjee, I. (eds). Handbook of Policy Formulation, Edward Elgar, 2017.
• Howlett, M. and Mukherjee, I. (eds). Routledge Handbook of Policy Design. Routledge, 2018.

Capano, G., and A. Lippi. (2017) How Policy Instruments are Chosen: Patterns of Decision Makers’ Choices. Policy Sciences 50 (2): 269–93.

Craft, Jonathan, and Michael Howlett. “Policy Formulation, Governance Shifts and Policy Influence: Location and Content in Policy Advisory Systems.” Journal of Public Policy 32, no. 2 (2012): 79–98. doi:10.1017/S0143814X12000049.

Dryzek, J. S., and B. Ripley. “The Ambitions of Policy Design.” Policy Studies Review 7, no. 4 (1988): 705–19.

Bobrow, Davis. “Policy Design: Ubiquitous, Necessary and Difficult.” In Handbook of Public Policy, edited by B. Guy Peters and Jon Pierre, 75–96. SAGE, 2006.

Howlett, M. “Managing the ‘Hollow State’: Procedural Policy Instruments and Modern Governance.” Canadian Public Administration 43, no. 4 (2000): 412–31.

Howlett, M (2011) Designing Public Policies: Principles and Instruments, New York: Routledge

Howlett, Michael, and Raul Lejano. “Tales from the Crypt: The Rise and Fall (and Re-Birth?) Of Policy Design Studies.” Administration & Society 45, no. 3 (2013): 356–80.

Ingram, H. and Schneider, A.I. (1990) The Behavioral Assumptions of Policy Tools. The Journal of Politics, 52(02), pp. 510–529.

Lascoumes, P. and P. Le Galès (2004), Gouverner par les instruments, Paris: Presse de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques.

Lascoumes P., and P. Le Galès (2007), ‘Understanding public policy through its instruments. From the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation’, Governance 20(1): 1–21.

Linder, S. H., and B. G. Peters. “From Social Theory to Policy Design.” Journal of Public Policy 4, no. 3 (1984): 237–59.

McDonnell, L. M. and Elmore, R.F. (1987) Getting the Job Done: Alternative Policy Instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133−152.

Mintrom, Michael, and Joannah Luetjens. “Design Thinking in Policymaking Processes: Opportunities and Challenges.” Australian Journal of Public Administration 75, no. 3 (September 1, 2016): 391–402.

Salamon, L.M. (2000) The New Governance and the Tools of Public Action: An Introduction. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 28(5), 1611-1674

Schneider, A., and H. Ingram. “Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy.” American Political Science Review 87, no. 2 (1993): 334–47.

Simons, Arno and Jan-Peter Voss. “Policy Instrument Constituencies.” In Handbook of Policy Formulation, edited by Michael Howlett and Ishani Mukherjee, 355–72. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2017.

van der Doelen F. (1998) The ‘give-and-take’ packaging of policy instruments: optimising legitimacy and effectiveness. In Carrots, Sticks and Sermons: Policy Instruments and Their Evaluation, Bemelmans-Videc M-L, Rist R, Vedung E (eds). Transaction: New Brunswick. 129–146.

Vedung, E. (1998) Policy Instruments: Typologies and Theories. In M.L. Bemelmans-Videc, R.C. Rist and E. Vedung (eds.), Carrots, Sticks, and Sermons: Policy Instruments and Their Evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, pp. 21–58.

Readings on Environmental Policy

Bouwma, I., D. Liefferink, R. van Apeldoorn and B. Arts (2016). Following Old Paths or Shaping. New Ones in Natura 2000 Implementation? Mapping Path Dependency in Instrument Choice. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning [https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/cjoe20/current], 18(2), pp. 214-233.

Damonte, A. (2014). Policy tools for green growth in the EU15: a Qualitative Comparative Analysis. EnvironmentalPolitics, 23(1), 18-40.

Dibie, R. (ed.). Comparative Perspectives on Environmental Policies and Issues. Routledge, 2014

Duit A. (ed.) State and Environment: The Comparative Study of Environmental Governance. MIT press, 2014. Huang, R. and Chen, D. (2015). Does Environmental Information Disclosure Benefit Waste Discharge Reduction? Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics [https://link.springer.com/journal/10551], 129(3): pp. 535–552

Jordan, A., Wurzel, R., and Zito, A. (2005) The rise of ‘new’ policy instruments in comparative perspective. Political Studies, 53 (3), 477–496.

Jordan, A. & Matt E. (2014), Designing policies that intentionally stick: policy feedback in a changing climate. Policy Sciences 47(3): 227-243.

Macintosh, A.; Foerster, A. and MacDonald, J. (2014) Policy design, spatial planning and climate change adaptation: a case study from Australia, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 58(8) : 1432-1453.

Oecd. 2007. Instruments Mixes for Environmental Policy. Paris:Oecd.

Razzaque, J. Environmental Governance in Europe and Asia. A comparative study of institutional and legislative frameworks. Routledge, 2013.

Ring, Irene, and Christoph Schroter-Schlaack. 2010. Instrument Mixes for Biodiversity Policies. Leipzig: Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research.

Schaffrin, André, Sebastian Sewerin, and Sibylle Seubert. 2014. The Innovativeness of National Policy Portfolios – Climate Policy Change in Austria, Germany, and the UK. Environmental Politics 23(5):860–883.

Schmidt, T. and Sewerin, S. (2018) Measuring the temporal dynamics of policy mixes–An empirical analysis of renewable energy policy mixes’ balance and design features in nine countries [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733318300702] . Research Policy, available online 30 March.

Readings on Higher Education Policy

Capano, Giliberto. 2011. Government Continues to Do Its Job. A Comparative Study of Governance Shifts in the Higher Education Sector. Public Administration 89(4):1622–1642.

Capano, Giliberto, and Marino Regini. 2014. Governance Reforms and Organizational Dilemmas in European Universities . Comparative Education Review 56(1):73–103.

Capano, Giliberto, Marino Regini, and Matteo Turri. 2016. Changing Governance in Universities. Italian Higher Education in Comparative Perspective. London: Palgrave MacMillan.

Capano, Giliberto, and Matteo Turri. 2017. Same Governance Template but Different Agencies. Types of Evaluation Agencies in Higher Education. Comparing England, France, and Italy . Higher Education Policy30(2): 225–243.

Clark, Burton R. 1983. The Higher Education System. Academic Organization in Cross National Perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Dobbins, Michael, and Christoph Knill. 2014. Higher Education Governance and Policy Change in Western Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Enders, Jurgen, Harry De Boer, and ElkeWeyer. 2013. Regulatory Autonomy and Performance: The Reform of Higher Education Revisited. Higher Education, 65(1): 5–23.

Gornitzka, Åse, Maurice Kogan, and Alberto Amaral, eds. 2005. Reform and Change in Higher Education. Dordrecht: Springer.

Huisman, Jeroen, eds. 2009. International Perspectives on the Governance of Higher Education. London: Routledge.

Lazzaretti, Luciana, Ernesto and Tavoletti. 2006. Governance Shifts in Higher Education: A Cross National Comparison. European Educational Research Journal 5(1):18–37.

Maassen, Peter, and Johan P. Olsen, eds. 2007. University Dynamics and European Integration. Dordrecht: Springer.

Paradeise, Catherine, EmanuelaReale, Ivar Bleiklie, and Ewan Ferlie, eds. 2009. University Governance. Western European Comparative Perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.

Rabovsky, Thomas M. 2012. Accountability in Higher Education: Exploring Impacts on State Budgets and Institutional Spending Patterns. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 22(4):675–700.

Rosa, Maria Joao and Alberto Amaral (eds). 2014. Quality Assurance in Higher Education. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave-Macmillan.

Rutherford, Amanda, and Thomas Rabovski. 2014. Evaluating Impacts of Performance Funding Policies on Student Outcomes in Higher Education. The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science 655(1): 185­–209.

Shattock, Michael L., ed. 2014. International Trends in University Governance. London: Routledge.

Williams, Ross, Gaetan de Rassenfosse, Paul Jensen and Simon Marginson. 2013. The Determinants of Quality National Higher Education Systems. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 35(6), 599–611.

Metodi didattici

Il corso è strutturato in due fasi: nella prima fase il programma è presentato attraverso didattica frontale. Nella seconda fase si svolge attraverso una modalità seminariale in cui gli studenti sono chiamati a presentare parte dei testi e a dibattere delle principali questioni sostantive e analitiche.

Modalità di verifica e valutazione dell'apprendimento

L’apprendimento dello studente viene verificato secondo le seguenti modalità: una prova intermedia (30%), una prova orale (50%), e qualità della partecipazione alle attività seminariali (20%)

• La prova intermedia è costituita da 5 domande “aperte” sulla parte teorica del corso
• All’esame orale gli studenti presenteranno e discuteranno un paper su un tema a loro scelta (su cui si applicheranno ad un esercizio di policy design) concordato con il docente.

Strumenti a supporto della didattica

Web resources (documenti ufficiali di organizzazioni internazionali, governi, think-thanks)

 

 

Orario di ricevimento

Consulta il sito web di Giliberto Capano