PLCY
231: Normative Dimensions of Policy Analysis -
Theories,
Methods, and Ethical Foundations for Analyzing Decision in Public Policy
Fall 2005 Course Syllabus
Instructor: Mort
Webster
Meeting Time: Tuesdays
& Thursdays, 3:30-4:45 pm
Location: Hamilton
517
Office: Abernathy
Hall 217
Office hours: T-TH,
1:00 – 3:00 pm and by arrangement
Phone: 843-5010
Email: mort@email.unc.edu
Course Web Page: http://www.unc.edu/~mort/plcy231.html
Introduction
Analysis of
public policy is concerned with the decisions by individuals and institutions
that determine policy. Why are particular decisions made? What decisions could have been made that were
not? How can we help individuals and organizations make “better” decisions?
The
literature across the social science disciplines is rich with theories and
methods for analyzing decisions. As a
public policy researcher, one can choose from among these diverse theoretical
approaches in the effort to further knowledge and understanding. But it is critical to understand the
underlying assumptions before adopting any particular approach, and evaluate
whether it is appropriate to apply in the new context. How should we pick and choose among the tools
in our toolbox?
The
fundamental question of this course is:
What approaches
should we use to answer or inform “What
should X do?”?
In this
course, we will take a whirlwind tour through welfare economics, public choice,
collective choice, institutional rational choice, and other models of how
individuals and groups (societies) make choices, along with criticisms of each
theory. We will also examine the
philosophical and ethical underpinnings of these approaches, since we need to
think carefully about what we mean by a “better decision”. Finally, we will briefly look at two
methodologies sometimes employed in public policy research – multi-attribute
decision theory and game theory – and learn (or review) a bit of the mechanics
as well as evaluating their advantages and disadvantages.
My main objectives for this course are that by the end of
the semester you will be able to:
- Apply different theories and
methods for analyzing decisions to different public policy situations;
- Evaluate
the relative advantages and disadvantages of alternative approaches in
terms of the insights they are
likely to generate;
- Critique
the appropriateness of each approach to a situation in terms of its
underlying assumptions;
- Create
a mental “road-map” of the literature and how each piece relates to
the others, and to the goals of public policy research, and
- Identify
the gaps in existing
theories/tools for public policy research.
We will achieve these goals by:
- Covering
the major theoretical approaches to analyzing decision, and the critiques
and proposed alternatives to each;
- Introducing,
as appropriate, additional analytical methods not covered in ECON 200,
PLCY 289, and PLCY 232;
- Considering
each theory/method in the context of several specific policy issues that
we will follow throughout the semester.
Throughout the course, several cross-cutting themes will
consistently rear their ugly heads, including:
- The
tensions between positive and normative analysis,
- The
tension between individual and group/collective choice,
- The
difficulty of quantifying preferences and values,
- The
fundamental question of what makes a decision “better,” and
- Our
role as public policy researchers.
Course Mechanics:
This class will be a seminar in the
classical sense of the word – an exploration into new territories with a peer
group of researchers. Research into
educational methods has shown that the best learning outcomes occur in “active
learning” situations. In particular,
graduate seminars should ideally consist of 80%-90% of students
talking. My role is really to play
facilitator or “traffic-cop”.
As such, we will all alternate
responsibility for describing and leading discussion on one of the required
readings for each day. Each reading for
the following week will be assigned (through your own voluntary choice) to one
of you, who will be responsible for:
1) Providing
the rest of us a one page outline of the author’s key points, and
2) Leading
the discussion in class as it relates to that reading.
Because many of you may be unfamiliar with techniques in
leading discussions, I will provide you with guidance and structure for how to
do this effectively, especially in the first few weeks.
Finally, because each member of the
class has their own research interests and expertise in a particular policy
area, we are each responsible for relating the week’s material to our
area. Each will present why the
particular approach is or is not appropriate, is applicable, what problems
arise, what insights may be generated, examples of previous applications in
this field, etc.
Course Requirements:
Class Participation 30%
(Includes leading discussions on assigned readings and handing in 1-page
outlines for that reading)
4 1-2 page
papers 20%
1 Problem
Set 10%
Term Paper 40%
There will be one or two problem
sets designed to aid your understanding and ability to apply concepts from
decision analysis and game theory, respectively. These will consist of a set of
quantitative problems to solve on paper and/or on computer.
The 4 short writing assignments
require that you think through how you would apply a method/approach we have
covered to a particular policy problem and context, and evaluate its
appropriateness, usefulness, and implications.
In order to explore a wide range of policy areas, these will be based on
one of three Kennedy School Cases: arsenic in drinking water, incentives for
reproductive behavior, and an international trade case.
HW #0: Write a
SHORT (less than 2 pages) description of a normative public policy dilemma from
your intended area of thesis research.
Supply what you feel are the most important facts, background, and data
(in generic terms) so that your peers can use this problem to practice applying
the methods from this course.
HW #1: For the assigned policy issue, outline an
economic or political analysis based on the principles of rational choice and
utility theory. Include the question the
analysis should answer, the precise methodological approach, the sources of
data, what outcomes you expect to find, and the insights you expect to generate
from this analysis. Imagine this is the
executive summary of a research proposal: be as specific as you can about what
you would do without actually doing it.
HW #2: For the assigned policy issue, outline what
ethical/moral criteria should be included in a policy analysis and how you
would include these criteria within a quantitative methodology that you feel is
most appropriate OR propose an alternative framework for policy research to
address these ethical issues.
HW #3: A quantitative problem set to practice
decision analysis and multi-attribute utility concepts and applications.
HW #4: For the assigned policy issue, choose either a
multi-attribute decision theoretic or a game-theoretic approach, and outline
the analysis you would perform using it.
Again, write it as if this were a research proposal.
TERM PAPER: The term paper should be used to take a
first cut at applying the questions of analysis method in this course to your
own area of proposed research. Explore
the pros and cons of different analysis methods, and outline what combination
of tools and theory you think will be most appropriate and useful in doing your
dissertation work.
The three case studies for the writing assignments are:
A)
“Costa Rica’s Minister of
Education Faces a Dilemma (A)” – About an attempt to reform teachers’ pensions in
Costa Rica.
B) “Arsenic
in Drinking Water” – The politically contentious decision to revise the
standard by EPA administrator Christine Whitman.
C) “Banana
Wars: Challenges to the European Union’s Banana Regime” – examination of
decisions in the EU, US, and developing countries over the course of a trade
dispute within the WTO.
Course Materials:
2) The
only book I ask you to buy for this course is:
Allison, G. and P. Zelikow (1999).
Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Addison-Wesley, New York.
This is not at the bookstore – you
can order it from Amazom.com.
All other readings are on the
course homepage at:
http://www.unc.edu/~mort/plcy231.html
3) Three
cases from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government will be the basis for the
three short writing assignments. These
must be purchased on-line for a price of $12.20 (for all cases), and can be
accessed at http://www.xanedu.com.
Instructions for accessing the cases are below:
To access your CoursePack, students will need to do the following:
1. Open the XanEdu "Login/Register" page at: http://www.xanedu.com/login.shtml?PackId=241146
2. If you have previously registered for another CoursePack, log in. If not, click the "Student Registration" button under the "New Users Register Here" banner. Complete the registration page, and click Continue.
3. Confirm your CoursePack Selection, and complete the purchase form.
Choose one of these options for your CoursePack delivery:
RECOMMENDED:
Option 2: Digital access with desktop printing
Price: $12.20
You will have immediate access to your Digital CoursePack
You will not receive a printed copy of the CoursePack
You can print your CoursePack yourself, if your system hardware and connectivity supports downloading and printing very large files from the Internet. If you are not sure if your system supports this, we recommend that you select option #1 above.
4. After completing the purchase, you will be taken directly to "My XanEdu" where you can access your digital CoursePack.
Questions? Please contact XanEdu Customer Service at 1-800-218-5971.
Schedule of Topics and Readings
1)
Introduction to Course
Tuesday, August 31
- Course Overview
2)
A Case-Study in Applying Multiple Lenses: The Cuban
Missile Crisis
Thursday, September 1
Tuesday, September 6
Allison, G. and P. Zelikow (1999).
Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Addison-Wesley, New York.
Ch. 1&2: The Rational Actor
Model
Ch. 3&4: The Organizational
Behavior Model
Ch. 5&6: The Governmental
Politics Model
3)
Rationality, Choice, and Utility Theory from
Economics
Thursday, September 8
Tuesday, September 13
a. Kreps,
Ch. 1 (pp. 3-12), “An Overview”
2.1 (pp. 17-37), Preferences and
choices
3.1 (pp. 71-81) Von
Neumann-Morgenstern expected utility
3.4-3.6 (pp. 98-122) Subjective Probability,
Problems, Normative
b. Psychological
Criticism: Tversky and Kahneman (1974), “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics
and Biases”
c. Sen
(1977) “Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioural Foundations of Economic
Theory”
4)
Rationality in the Aggregate: Social Welfare
Functions, Public Choice, Collective Choice
Thursday, September 15 – Social Welfare Functions and
Arrow’s Result
a. Kreps
Ch. 5: “Social Choice and Efficiency” (pp. 147-184)
b. Arrow
(1950): “A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare”
c. Sen
(1977b): “Interpersonal Comparisons of Welfare”
Tuesday, September 20 – Public Choice
d.
Buchanan and Tullock (1971) The Calculus of Consent
Ch. 1: “Introduction“
Ch. 2: “The Individualistic Postulate”
Ch. 3: “Politics and the Economic Nexus”
Ch. 4: “Individual Rationality in Social
Choice”
Thursday, September 22 – Collective Choice
*** HW #0 DUE ***
e. Mancur
Olson (1965) The Logic of Collective
Action
Ch. 1: “A Theory of Groups and Organizations”
f.
Elinor Ostrom (1990) Governing the Commons
Ch. 1: “Reflections on the Commons”
Ch. 2: “An Institutional Approach to the Study of …”
Ch. 6: “A Framework for Analysis…”
5)
Critiques, Responses, and Alternatives of Rational
Choice
Tuesday, September 27 – Critiques of Public and
Institutional Rational Choice
a. Criticisms:
Green and Shapiro,
Ch. 2: “The Nature of Rational
Choice Theory”
Ch. 3: “Methodological
Pathologies”
Ch. 6:
“Legislative Behavior and the Paradox of Voting” (pp. 98-146)
Thursday, September 29 – Response to Criticisms
b. Responses
to criticism:
Friedman (1996): Economic
Approaches to Politics (pp. 1-24),
Lohmann (1996): The Poverty of
Green and Shapiro (pp. 127-154).
Tuesday,
October 4 - Bounded Rationality and
Garbage Cans
c. Simon
(1988). “Rationality as Process and as Product of Thought.”
d. March
(1978) “Bounded Rationality, Ambiguity, and the Engineering of Choice” (pp.
33-57)
e. Kingdon
(1995) Ch. 5: “Processes: Origins, Rationality, Incrementalism, and Garbage
Cans” (pp. 71 – 89).
Thursday, October 6 – Discussion of Rationality Model
Applied to Cases (HW1)
*** HW #1 DUE ***
6)
Moral Philosophical Frameworks
Tuesday, October 11 – History of Western Political
Philosophy
a. S.E.
Frost, Basic Teachings of the Great Philosophers
Ch. 7: “Man and
the State” (pp. 175-206)
Thursday, October 13 – Utilitarianism
b. James
Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy
Ch. 7: “The
Utilitarian Approach” (pp. 96 – 106) and
Ch. 8: “The
Debate over Utilitarianism” (pp. 107 – 121).
Tuesday, October 18 - Rawls and Distributive Justice
c. Rawls
(1971). A Theory of Justice
Ch. 1: “Justice as Fairness” (pp.
3 – 53).
Ch. 2: “The Principles of Justice”
(pp. 54 – 117).
d. Hare
(1989) “Rawl’s Theory of Justice” (pp. 81-107).
e. Sen
(1989) “Rawls vs. Bentham: An Axiomatic Examination of the Pure Distribution
Problem” (pp. 283 – 291).
Thursday, October 20 ***
NO CLASS – Fall Break ***
Tuesday, October 25 – Nozick: Rights and Libertarianism
f.
Robert Nozick (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia
Ch. 3: “Moral
Constraints and the State” (pp. 26-53).
Ch. 7:
“Distributive Justice” (pp. 150-231).
Thursday, October 27 – Including Ethics in Economics?
g. Steven
Kelman, “Cost-Benefit Analysis: An Ethical Critique”
h. Hausman
and McPherson (1993). “Taking Ethics Seriously: Economics and Contemporary
Philosophy.” Journal of Economic
Literature 31 (2): 671-731.
Tuesday, November 1 – Philosophy and Sociology of Science
i.
Jasanoff (1986) “Contested Boundaries in
policy-relevant science” Social Studies of Science, 16: 273-296.
j.
Popper?
k. Kuhn?
Thursday,
November 3 - Discussion of
Moral Philosophical Frameworks Applied to Cases (HW2)
*** HW #2 DUE ***
7)
Multi-Attribute Utility Theory and Decision Analysis
Tuesday, November 8
Clemen, Making Hard Decisions: An Introduction to Decision Analysis
Ch. 4: “ Structuring
Decisions”
Ch. 13: “Risk Attitudes”
Thursday, November 10
Ch. 15: “Conflicting Objectives I: Fundamental Objectives and the
Additive Utility Function.”
Ch. 16: “Conflicting Objectives II: Multi-Attribute Utility Models with
Interactions.”
Tuesday, November 15 – Examples of Using Decision
Analysis
a.
Webster, M. D. (2002). “The Curious Role of Learning: Should We Wait
for More Data?” The Energy Journal 23 (2), 97-119.
b.
Caulkins
(2002). “Using Models that Incorporate Uncertainty.” JPAM
c.
Gregory
and Failing (2002). “Using Decision Analysis to Encourage Sounds Deliberation:
Water Use Planning in British Columbia, Canada.” JPAM
Thursday, November 17 – Evaluating the Use of Decision
Analysis
*** HW #3 (DA) DUE ***
d. Bell,
Raiffa, and Tversky (1988). “Descriptive, Normative, and Prescriptive
Interactions in Decision Making.” In Decision Making: Descriptive,
Normative, and Prescriptive Interactions, Bell, Raiffa, and Tversky
(eds.). pp. 9-30.
e. Stone
(2002). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. Ch. 10: “Decisions.” (pp. 232-256)
8)
Game Theoretic Approaches
Tuesday, November 22 – Examples of Game Theory
a. Scharpf
(1997) Games Real Actors Play
i.
“Introduction.”
pp. 1-18.
ii.
Ch. 6: “Negotiated Agreements.” pp. 116-150.
b. Hammitt
and Adams (1996). “The Value of
International Cooperation for Abating Global Climate Change.” Resource and Energy Economics 18:
219-241.
Thursday, November 24 ***
NO CLASS – THANKSGIVING ***
Tuesday, November 29 – Critiques of Game Theory
c. Kreps
(1990). Game Theory and Economic
Modelling.
i.
Ch. 5: “The Problems of Game Theory” pp. 91-132
ii.
Ch. 6: “Bounded Rationality and Retrospection” pp.
133-185.
9)
Negotiation and Mediation
Thursday, December 1
a. Rubin
(1991) “Some Wise and Mistaken Assumptions about Conflict and Negotiation.”
b. Susskind
and Ozawa (1991) “Mediated Negotiation in the Public Sector.”
c. Raiffa
(1982). The Art and Science of Negotiation
Ch. 3: “Elmtree
House”
Ch. 4:
“Analytical Models and Empirical Results”
Ch.
11: “Tradeoffs and Concessions”
Ch.
12: “Panama Canal Negotiations”
Ch.
17: “Coalition Analysis”
Tuesday, December 6- Discussion of Decision Analysis or Game
Theory Applied to Cases (HW4)
*** HW #4 DUE ***
10)
Wrap-up: Drawing the Road-Map
Thursday, December 8
Thursday, December 15, 5:00pm
FINAL PAPER DUE
PLCY 231: Schedule at a Glance
|
Week of
|
Tuesday
|
Thursday
|
|
Aug. 31, Sept. 1
|
Course Introduction
|
Cuban Missile
Crisis I
|
|
Sept. 6, 8
|
Cuban Missile
Crisis II
|
Rational Choice I
|
|
Sept. 13, 15
|
Rational Choice II
|
Social Welfare
Functions and Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem
|
|
Sept. 20, 22
|
Public Choice
|
Collective
Choice
HW 0 Due
|
|
Sept. 27, 29
|
Critiques of
Rational Choice
|
Responses to
Critiques
|
|
Oct. 4, 6
|
Bounded Rationality
and Garbage Cans
|
HW 1
Discussion
HW 1 Due
|
|
Oct. 11, 13
|
History of
Political Philosophy
|
Utilitarianism
|
|
Oct. 18, 20
|
Rawls
|
No Class
Fall Break
|
|
Oct. 25, 27
|
Nozick
|
Ethics in Economics
|
|
Nov. 1, 3
|
Philosophy and Sociology of Science
|
HW 2 Discussion
HW 2 Due
|
|
Nov. 8, 10
|
Decision Analysis and Decision Trees
|
Decision Analysis
and Multi-Attribute Utility Analysis
|
|
Nov. 15, 17
|
Examples of
Decision Analysis for Policy Research
|
Evaluation and
Critiques of DA
HW 3 DUE
|
|
Nov. 22, 24
|
Examples
of Game Theory
|
No Class
Thanksgiving
|
|
Nov. 29, Dec. 1
|
Critiques of Game
Theory
|
Negotiation Theory
|
|
Dec. 6, 8
|
HW 4 Discussion
HW 4 Due
|
Course Wrap-Up
|
Thursday, Dec 15,
5:00 P.M. FINAL PAPER DUE