88093 - Policy Design In A Compartive Perspective

Learning outcomes

At the end of the course, the students: have acquired a fine-grained knowledge of the main theoretical and methodological constitutive elements of the  policy design approaches; have acquired a deep knowledge of the policy instruments approach; know in a detailed way the characteristics  of the policy design in comparative perspective in at least two policy fields; can  critically analyze the processes of policy design; can set up a research project on comparative policy design; are able to elaborate policy reccommendations and reports.

Course contents

_{This course focuses on policy design intended as an approach through which policy can be not only analyzed and explained but also prescribed. The course is divided in two parts. In the first part, the students will be given the main theoretical concepts and frameworks of the policy design approach. The main questions addressed will be:} What is Policy Design? Who Designs Public Policies? Why Do They Do It? How and When Do Designs Come About? What is Good Policy Design? How Do We Know? How Should the Design of Specific Policies be Evaluated? Can the Design of Public Policies be Improved to Solve Complex Problems? Particular analytical attention will be devoted to which actors design and to which kind of policy instruments policy designers have at their disposal to deal with collective problems. The second part of the course will be devoted to the empirical application of the policy design approach to the comparative analysis in two sectors: environmental policy and higher education policy

Readings/Bibliography

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.

Teaching methods

The programme consists of two parts: the first part is based on lecturing, while second is based on active involvement of the students who will present some of the texts in the syllabus while debating both analytical and substantive issues.

Assessment methods

Students’ learning will be assessed in the following way: a mid-term written exam (30%); the quality of involvement in the class activities (20%); final oral examination (50%)

• The mid-term test (at the end of the first part of the course) consists of 5 open questions on the theoretical topics
• The oral exam consists of the discussion of a paper that each student should prepare after having agreed the topic with the teacher.

Teaching tools

Web resources

Office hours

See the website of Giliberto Capano