Policy Process and Negotiation (U of Tokyo)
W1/W2 Terms Tue.: 13:00-14:45
Administration Bldg. #2, 6th floor, Room 623.
Co-taught with Professor Hideaki Shiroyama
This course provides an introduction to analytical frameworks and planning tools for improving policy processes. Its first part deals with key theories for analyzing policy processes. It starts with an overview of canonical theories on policy processes, such as problem definition, incrementalism, agenda setting, implementation, and bureaucracy. We will also discuss the influence of cultural and institutional contexts and the role of knowledge in the policy process. This course will also cover recent trends, such as policy networks, advocacy coalition, policy transfer, and deliberative democracy. The course will discuss the practice of policy-making in Japan as well. This segment of the course is structured around pre-class readings and in-class discussions. Students are asked to present a synthesized summary of their assigned readings in the class.
The second part of the course will deal with negotiation analysis. It starts with an overview of negotiation theory for managing stakeholders in policy processes. This part of the course will be primarily organized as a series of lectures by the instructor (no student presentations). Students are also asked to engage in role-play exercises to improve their negotiating skills.
Class participation is crucial. In Part I, two students in each session are asked to review articles/chapters of his/her choice (total number of articles to review per each student depends on the class size) and present their summaries in the class. Another student is asked to present an analysis of a case by applying the lessons from previous weeks. The instructor will facilitate discussion so that everyone in the classroom will have the basic theoretical understanding of the theories for public policy processes. In each class (including Part II), students will take a short quiz regarding the article discussed in the previous class.
At the end of the semester, students will be asked to submit an essay (5 pages not including references and footnotes, single-spaced, due on January 17, 2017 at 5PM by e-mail) that analyzes policy processes using the literature reviewed in this course. Submissions in the PDF or .doc format (not .docx) is much appreciated. The essay should discuss a public policy case of your interest. First, describe the case briefly. Second, analyze the case by applying lessons from multiple pieces of literature (more is better) covered in the class. Third, try to draw your own lessons from the analysis as the conclusion of the paper.
How each class works
PART 1. Developing a shared understanding of theory/literature
1. One of the students will make a short summary presentation on one of the assigned readings for 15minutes
2. Other students and the instructors will ask challenging questions for 5 minutes.
3. Another will make a short summary presentation on another assigned reading for 15minutes.
4. Other students and the instructors will ask challenging questions for 5 minutes.
5. Instructor will summarize the key lessons to be drawn from the reading materials.
PART 2. Applying lessons to analyzing an actual instance of policy-making
6. Still another student makes a presentation of an analysis of a case by applying the lessons in the previous week for 20 minutes (including Q&A/discussion).
PART 3. Wrapping up
7. All students are asked to take a short paper-based quiz on the reading.
9/27 Introduction to the course
Part I: Policy Processes
(8 lectures 10/4-11/22)
10/4 Incrementalism, Agenda Setting, and Problem Definition (MM) (No case discussion)
Kingdon, J. (1995). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Addison-Wesley. Chapter 9.
Lindblom, C. (1959). The Science of "Muddling Through", Public Administration Review, 19 (2), pp. 79-88.
Stone, D. (1988). Policy Paradox: the art of political decision making. New York, NY: W.W. Norton. Chapter 6.
Downs, A. (1972). "Up and down with ecology - the 'issue-attention cycle'," Public Interest, 28, pp. 28-50.
Lindblom, C. (1979) "Still muddling, not yet through," Public Administration Review, 39, pp. 517–526.
10/11 Institutional Design and Policy Transfer (MM)
Argyris, C. (1992). On Organizational Learning. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Chapter 1.;
DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Rev., 48, pp. 147-160.; or
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons. New York, NY: Univ. of Cambridge. Chapter 3.
Dolowitz, D. and Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from Abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy-making. Governance, 13(1), pp. 5-24.;
Goldfinch, S. (2006). Rituals of Reform, Policy Transfer, and the National University Corporation Reforms in Japan. Governance, 19(4), pp. 585-604.; or
Rose, R. (1991). What is Lesson-Drawing, Journal of Public Policy, 11, pp. 3-30.
10/18 Policy Processes (HS)
(No case discussion; only quiz and review of two readings)
Dunn, W. (2004). Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction (3rd Ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall). Chapter 2 (Policy Analysis in the Policy-Making Process)
Bardach, E. (1981). Problems of Problem Definition in Policy Analysis, Research in Public Policy Analysis and Management, 1, pp. 161-71;
Dunn, W. (2004). Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction (3rd Ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall). Chapter 3 (Structuring Policy Problems); or
Stone, D. (1989). Causal Stories and the Formation of Policy Agendas, Political Science Quarterly 104 (2), pp. 281-300.
10/25 Science Policy (MM)
Funtowicz, S. and Ravetz, J. (1993). Science for the Post-Normal Age, Futures, 25(7), pp. 739–755.
Pielke, R. (2007). The Honest Broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 2.
Stirling, A. (2010). Keep it complex. Nature 468, pp. 1029–1031.
11/1 Policy Processes in Japan (MM)
Freeman, L. A. (2000). Closing the Shop: Information cartels and Japan's Mass Media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. Chapter 3.
Schwartz, F. (1998). Advice and Consent: The politics of consultation in Japan. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 2.
Schwartz, F. and Pharr, S. (eds.) (2003). The State of Civil Society in Japan. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Introduction.
Westney, E. (1987). Imitation and Innovation: The transfer of Western organizational patterns to Meiji Japan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Chapter 1
11/8 Japanese Policy-making Processes (HS)
(No case discussion; only quiz)
11/15 & 22 Theory on Democracy, Participation, and Deliberation (MM)
Arnstein, S (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, pp.216-224.
Barber, B. (1984). Strong Democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley, CA: University of California. Chapter 9.
Carpenter, S. L., & Kennedy, W. J. D. (1988). Managing Public Disputes: A practical guide to handling conflict and reaching agreements. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Chapter 2 [no need to review the case descriptions]
Forester, J. (1999). The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Guttman, A. and Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Belknap. Chapter 2.
Hendriks, C. (2006). When the Forum Meets Interest Politics: Strategic Uses of Public Deliberation. Politics and Society. 34(4), pp. 571-602.
Peattie, L. (1968). Reflections on Advocacy Planning, Journal of the American Planning Association, 34 (2), pp. 80 – 88.
Reich, R. (ed.) (1988). The Power of Public Ideas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Chapter 6.
Schön, D. and Rein, M. (1994). Frame Reflection: toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books Chapter 2.
Part II: Negotiation
(3 lectures, 11/29 - 12/13)
11/29 Introduction to negotiation analysis (MM)
Position and Interests
Fisher, R. and Ury, W. (1991). Getting to Yes. NY: Penguin. Chapter 3.
Lax, D. and Sebenius, J. (1987). Manager as Negotiator, NY: Free Press. Chapter 4.
Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA)
Lax, D. and Sebenius, J. (1987). Manager as Negotiator, NY: Free Press. Chapter 3.
Shell, R. (1999). Bargaining for Advantage, NY: Penguin. Chapter 2 and 6.
Fisher, R. (1985). Art and Science of Negotiation, Harvard. Chapters 3 and 4.
Two party, single issue negotiation exercise
12/6 Mutual-Gains Negotiation (MM)
Lax, D. and Sebenius, J. (1987). Manager as Negotiator, NY: Free Press. Chapter 5.
Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably Irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions. New York, NY: Harper.
Cialdini, R. (1993). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. New York, NY: Morrow. Chapter 2.
Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Chapter 1.
12/13 Negotiation Simulation Exercise (MM)
Simulation instruction (to be distributed via e-mail)
12/20 Wrap-up (MM)