Institutions and Public Policies
A.Y. 2024/2025
Learning objectives
The course in Institutions and Public Policy (IPP) contributes to the main goal of the Master Programme in Political Science and Government of providing knowledge of the rules and dynamics underneath the functioning of legal and political institutions and developing the critical tools to analyze and evaluate legislative and governmental actions.
Expected learning outcomes
IPP lectures, materials, and exercises will make students able to:
- establish the relevance of policy designs in light of proper public policy theories;
- analyze policy designs to pinpoint their policy-effective components;
- make sense of policy-effective components in light of citizenship and democratization theories;
- identify assumptions, hypotheses, and evidence in argumentation, and establish the consequentiality of their linkages.
- establish the relevance of policy designs in light of proper public policy theories;
- analyze policy designs to pinpoint their policy-effective components;
- make sense of policy-effective components in light of citizenship and democratization theories;
- identify assumptions, hypotheses, and evidence in argumentation, and establish the consequentiality of their linkages.
Lesson period: Second trimester
Assessment methods: Esame
Assessment result: voto verbalizzato in trentesimi
Single course
This course can be attended as a single course.
Course syllabus and organization
Single session
Responsible
Lesson period
Second trimester
The course relies on the Ariel platform to circulate information, share materials, and manage assignments and essays. In case of emergency, lessons, too, will be held through the channel.
Course syllabus
A. Citizenship and democracy
Unit A introduces the theories of citizenship, their evolutions, and critiques, and places them against the backdrop of democratization theories.
B. Credible arguments
Unit B introduces Toulmin's model as the structure of reference for shaping rational arguments.
C. Politics and policies
Unit C addresses the relationship between politics and policy from Lowi's viewpoint that the latter determines the former.
D. Perspectives on the policymaking
Unit D introduces a selection of theories and models that cast light on the policymaking structure from different and partially complementary standpoints.
E. The rules of public policies
Unit E takes the tragedy of the commons as its starting point, then focuses on the regulatory fabric of public policies.
F. Atelier on policy rules
In the last unit, knowledge and competencies acquired in the previous units will be applied to actual claims and rules.
Unit A introduces the theories of citizenship, their evolutions, and critiques, and places them against the backdrop of democratization theories.
B. Credible arguments
Unit B introduces Toulmin's model as the structure of reference for shaping rational arguments.
C. Politics and policies
Unit C addresses the relationship between politics and policy from Lowi's viewpoint that the latter determines the former.
D. Perspectives on the policymaking
Unit D introduces a selection of theories and models that cast light on the policymaking structure from different and partially complementary standpoints.
E. The rules of public policies
Unit E takes the tragedy of the commons as its starting point, then focuses on the regulatory fabric of public policies.
F. Atelier on policy rules
In the last unit, knowledge and competencies acquired in the previous units will be applied to actual claims and rules.
Prerequisites for admission
The course does not assume any previous knowledge.
Teaching methods
Knowledge and competencies will be introduced by lectures, then developed and consolidated through assignments, essays, presentations, and discussions.
Teaching Resources
#02
*Marshall, TH. 1950. Citizenship and social class. In TH Marshall and T Bottomore, 1992. Citizenship and Social Class. Pluto Press, Part I.
*Turner, BS. 1990. Outline of a theory of citizenship. Sociology 24:2, 189-217.
*Lipset, SM. 1959. Some social requisites of democracy: economic development and political legitimacy. The American Political Science Review 53:1, 69-105.
*Lipset, SM. 1994. The Social requisites of democracy revisited. American Sociological Review 59:1, 1-22.
#03
*Turner, BS. 1997. Citizenship studies: A general theory. Citizenship Studies 1:1, 5-18.
*Walby S. 2014. Is citizenship gendered? In R Bellamy and m kennedy-macfoy, eds. Citizenship, Vol II. Routledge, Ch. 24.
* Fortier A-M. Pride politics and multicultural citizenship. In R Bellamy and m kennedy-macfoy, eds. Citizenship, Vol. II. Routledge, Ch. 26.
*Hartmmann E and Lang F. 2022. The crisis of social trust in non-violent routines. In J Mackert, H Wolf, BS Turner, eds. The Condition of Democracy. Routledge, Ch.5
*Bozoki A and Hegedüs D. 2022. The rise of authoritarianism in the European Union. In J Mackert, H Wolf, BS Turner, eds. The Condition of Democracy. Routledge, Ch. 8
#04
*Toulmin, SE. 2003. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge UP. Ch.3
*Toulmin, SE. 2006. Reasoning in theory and practice. In D Hitchcock, B Verheij (eds). Arguing on the Toulmin Model. Springer, Ch.2
#05
*Slob, WH. 2006. The voice of the other. In D Hitchcock, B Verheij (eds). Arguing on the Toulmin Model. Springer, Ch.11
*Kock, C. 2006. Multiple warrants in practical reasoning. In D Hitchcock, B Verheij (eds). Arguing on the Toulmin Model. Springer, Ch.16
*Fox J and Modgil S, 2006. From arguments to decisions. In D Hitchcock, B Verheij (eds). Arguing on the Toulmin Model. Springer, Ch.18
#07
*Lowi TJ, 1972. Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public Administration Review 32:4, 298-310.
*Lowi TJ, 1970. Decision-making vs. Policy-making. Public Administration Review 30:3, 314-25.
*Gustavsson S, 1980. Types of policy and types of politics. Scandinavian Political Studies 3, 123-142.
*Spitzer RJ, 1987. Promoting policy theory: revising the arenas of power. Policy Studies Journal 15:4, 675-89.
*Kellow A, 1988. Promoting elegance in policy theory: simplifying Lowi's arenas of power. Policy studies Journal 16:4, 713-724.
*Heckathorn DD and Maser S, 1990. The contractual architecture of public policy. The Journal of Politics 52:4, 1101-23.
#08
*Pizzorno A, 1970. An introduction to the theory of political participation. Social Science Information 9.5: 29-61.
*van Waarden F, 1992. Dimensions and types of policy networks. European Journal of Political Research 21: 29-52.
*Knill C and J Tosun, 2020. Public Policy: A New Introduction. Red Globe Press, Ch.3.
#10-11
*Torgerson D, 2007. Promoting policy orientation: Lasswell in context. In F Fisher, GJ Miller, M Sidney, eds. Handbook of Public Policy Analysis. Ch 2.
*Jann W and K Wegrich, 2007. Theories of the policy cycle. In F Fisher, GJ Miller, M Sidney, eds. Handbook of Public Policy Analysis. Ch 4
#12-13
*Cohen MD, March JG, and JP Olsen. 1972. A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative science quarterly Mar 1:1-25.
*Zohlnhöfer R and Rüb FW 2016. Decision-Making under Ambiguity and Time Constraints. Ecpr press.
#14-15
*Schneider AL and H Ingram, 1997. Policy Design for Democracy. University Press of Kansas.
*Sidney MS, 2007. Policy formulation: Design and tools. In F Fisher, GJ Miller, M Sidney, eds. Handbook of Public Policy Analysis. Ch 6.
#16-17
*Rhodes RAW, 1996. The new governance. Political Studies 44, 652-667.
*Bevir M, Democratic Governance. Princeton University Press, Ch. 8-9.
*Ansell C, Levi-Faur D, and J Trondal, 2017. An organizational approach to governance. In Id., eds. Governance in Turbulent Times, Oxford. Ch. 2
*Pulzl H and O Treib, 2007. Implementing public policy. In F Fisher, GJ Miller, M Sidney, eds. Handbook of Public Policy Analysis. Ch 6.
#19-20
Ostrom E, 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.
*Blomquist W, 2021. Linking the Origins and Extensions of Commons Theory. In: Foster SR, Swiney CF, editors. The Cambridge Handbook of Commons Research Innovations. Cambridge University Press 17-25.
*Follett AP, Daniels B, Petersen T. The Tragedy of Garrett Hardin's Commons. 2021. In: Foster SR, Swiney CF, editors. The Cambridge Handbook of Commons Research Innovations. Cambridge University Press 26-33.
*Cole DH, Epstein G, McGinnis MD. 2014. Digging deeper into Hardin's pasture: the complex institutional structure of 'the tragedy of the commons'. Journal of Institutional Economics. 10.3:353-69.
#21-22
*Ostrom, E., 2009. Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton university press.
*Crawford, S.E. and Ostrom, E., 1995. A grammar of institutions. American political science review, 89.3: 582-600.
*Frantz, C.K. and Siddiki, S., 2021. Institutional Grammar 2.0: A specification for encoding and analyzing institutional design. Public Administration 99.2, pp.222-247.
*Siddiki, S., Heikkila, T., Weible, C.M., Pacheco‐Vega, R., Carter, D., Curley, C., Deslatte, A. and Bennett, A., 2019. Institutional analysis with the institutional grammar. Policy Studies Journal.
*Marshall, TH. 1950. Citizenship and social class. In TH Marshall and T Bottomore, 1992. Citizenship and Social Class. Pluto Press, Part I.
*Turner, BS. 1990. Outline of a theory of citizenship. Sociology 24:2, 189-217.
*Lipset, SM. 1959. Some social requisites of democracy: economic development and political legitimacy. The American Political Science Review 53:1, 69-105.
*Lipset, SM. 1994. The Social requisites of democracy revisited. American Sociological Review 59:1, 1-22.
#03
*Turner, BS. 1997. Citizenship studies: A general theory. Citizenship Studies 1:1, 5-18.
*Walby S. 2014. Is citizenship gendered? In R Bellamy and m kennedy-macfoy, eds. Citizenship, Vol II. Routledge, Ch. 24.
* Fortier A-M. Pride politics and multicultural citizenship. In R Bellamy and m kennedy-macfoy, eds. Citizenship, Vol. II. Routledge, Ch. 26.
*Hartmmann E and Lang F. 2022. The crisis of social trust in non-violent routines. In J Mackert, H Wolf, BS Turner, eds. The Condition of Democracy. Routledge, Ch.5
*Bozoki A and Hegedüs D. 2022. The rise of authoritarianism in the European Union. In J Mackert, H Wolf, BS Turner, eds. The Condition of Democracy. Routledge, Ch. 8
#04
*Toulmin, SE. 2003. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge UP. Ch.3
*Toulmin, SE. 2006. Reasoning in theory and practice. In D Hitchcock, B Verheij (eds). Arguing on the Toulmin Model. Springer, Ch.2
#05
*Slob, WH. 2006. The voice of the other. In D Hitchcock, B Verheij (eds). Arguing on the Toulmin Model. Springer, Ch.11
*Kock, C. 2006. Multiple warrants in practical reasoning. In D Hitchcock, B Verheij (eds). Arguing on the Toulmin Model. Springer, Ch.16
*Fox J and Modgil S, 2006. From arguments to decisions. In D Hitchcock, B Verheij (eds). Arguing on the Toulmin Model. Springer, Ch.18
#07
*Lowi TJ, 1972. Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public Administration Review 32:4, 298-310.
*Lowi TJ, 1970. Decision-making vs. Policy-making. Public Administration Review 30:3, 314-25.
*Gustavsson S, 1980. Types of policy and types of politics. Scandinavian Political Studies 3, 123-142.
*Spitzer RJ, 1987. Promoting policy theory: revising the arenas of power. Policy Studies Journal 15:4, 675-89.
*Kellow A, 1988. Promoting elegance in policy theory: simplifying Lowi's arenas of power. Policy studies Journal 16:4, 713-724.
*Heckathorn DD and Maser S, 1990. The contractual architecture of public policy. The Journal of Politics 52:4, 1101-23.
#08
*Pizzorno A, 1970. An introduction to the theory of political participation. Social Science Information 9.5: 29-61.
*van Waarden F, 1992. Dimensions and types of policy networks. European Journal of Political Research 21: 29-52.
*Knill C and J Tosun, 2020. Public Policy: A New Introduction. Red Globe Press, Ch.3.
#10-11
*Torgerson D, 2007. Promoting policy orientation: Lasswell in context. In F Fisher, GJ Miller, M Sidney, eds. Handbook of Public Policy Analysis. Ch 2.
*Jann W and K Wegrich, 2007. Theories of the policy cycle. In F Fisher, GJ Miller, M Sidney, eds. Handbook of Public Policy Analysis. Ch 4
#12-13
*Cohen MD, March JG, and JP Olsen. 1972. A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative science quarterly Mar 1:1-25.
*Zohlnhöfer R and Rüb FW 2016. Decision-Making under Ambiguity and Time Constraints. Ecpr press.
#14-15
*Schneider AL and H Ingram, 1997. Policy Design for Democracy. University Press of Kansas.
*Sidney MS, 2007. Policy formulation: Design and tools. In F Fisher, GJ Miller, M Sidney, eds. Handbook of Public Policy Analysis. Ch 6.
#16-17
*Rhodes RAW, 1996. The new governance. Political Studies 44, 652-667.
*Bevir M, Democratic Governance. Princeton University Press, Ch. 8-9.
*Ansell C, Levi-Faur D, and J Trondal, 2017. An organizational approach to governance. In Id., eds. Governance in Turbulent Times, Oxford. Ch. 2
*Pulzl H and O Treib, 2007. Implementing public policy. In F Fisher, GJ Miller, M Sidney, eds. Handbook of Public Policy Analysis. Ch 6.
#19-20
Ostrom E, 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.
*Blomquist W, 2021. Linking the Origins and Extensions of Commons Theory. In: Foster SR, Swiney CF, editors. The Cambridge Handbook of Commons Research Innovations. Cambridge University Press 17-25.
*Follett AP, Daniels B, Petersen T. The Tragedy of Garrett Hardin's Commons. 2021. In: Foster SR, Swiney CF, editors. The Cambridge Handbook of Commons Research Innovations. Cambridge University Press 26-33.
*Cole DH, Epstein G, McGinnis MD. 2014. Digging deeper into Hardin's pasture: the complex institutional structure of 'the tragedy of the commons'. Journal of Institutional Economics. 10.3:353-69.
#21-22
*Ostrom, E., 2009. Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton university press.
*Crawford, S.E. and Ostrom, E., 1995. A grammar of institutions. American political science review, 89.3: 582-600.
*Frantz, C.K. and Siddiki, S., 2021. Institutional Grammar 2.0: A specification for encoding and analyzing institutional design. Public Administration 99.2, pp.222-247.
*Siddiki, S., Heikkila, T., Weible, C.M., Pacheco‐Vega, R., Carter, D., Curley, C., Deslatte, A. and Bennett, A., 2019. Institutional analysis with the institutional grammar. Policy Studies Journal.
Assessment methods and Criteria
A-B. The application of Toulmin's model in class 6 will contribute to the final evaluation for up to 5 pts.
C. The debate on whether policies determine politics will contribute to the final evaluation for up to 5 pts.
D. The essay on complementarities and tensions of selected theories of the policy process will contribute to the final evaluation for up to 7 pts.
E. The deconstruction of an application of the IGT will contribute to the final evaluation for up to 5 pts.
F. The final essay will contribute to the evaluation for up to 11 pts.
The final colloquium will consolidate the points.
C. The debate on whether policies determine politics will contribute to the final evaluation for up to 5 pts.
D. The essay on complementarities and tensions of selected theories of the policy process will contribute to the final evaluation for up to 7 pts.
E. The deconstruction of an application of the IGT will contribute to the final evaluation for up to 5 pts.
F. The final essay will contribute to the evaluation for up to 11 pts.
The final colloquium will consolidate the points.
SPS/04 - POLITICAL SCIENCE - University credits: 9
Lessons: 60 hours
Professor:
Damonte Alessia
Shifts:
Turno
Professor:
Damonte AlessiaProfessor(s)
Reception:
Friday 13:30-14:30 (students) - 14.30-16.30 (thesis students and PhD candidates)
internal building, 2nd floor, room 12 | VirtualOffice channel in Teams