Carleton University, Arthur Kroeger College of Public Affairs
PAPM 2000 – Policy: Analysis, Implementation and Evaluation
Winter Term 2015
Version – January 4, 2015
Instructor: Alexandra Mallett
Office: River Building, Rm 5206
Tel: 613.520.2600 ext 2641
Fax: 613.520.2551
E-mail: [email protected]
Class: Tuesday 8:35 am to 10:25 am
Starts: January 6
Location: Tory Building 208
Office hours: Tuesday 1-3:00 pm or by appointment
Ends: April 7
Draft – Subject to Change
INTRODUCTION
The first part of PAPM 2000 considered the context in which policy making in Canada takes
place, the institutions involved in policy making, and theoretical approaches to understanding
policy and decision-making. This term you will move into the world of policy implementation
and evaluation. As you will see, this does not mean leaving one part of the policy cycle
(problem definition, agenda setting, and instrument choice) behind. Indeed, one of the goals of
the course is to acquaint you with the dynamic interactions among policy analysis and decisionmaking, implementation, and evaluation. We will examine the challenges of both
implementation and evaluation in this class.
The course will be divided into three parts. The first part of the course continues considering
the institutions that shape policy-making in Canada. The second part considers questions of
policy implementation and evaluation. The final and third part returns to a discussion of
contemporary policy issues. Current policy examples will be used throughout the course.
By the end of this term, you should have thought a lot about:
o How implementation and evaluation relate conceptually and practically to public policy
analysis;
o The contribution of different analytical approaches to thinking about implementation and
evaluation;
1
o The role of institutions in shaping implementation and evaluation of public policy;
o The challenges of implementation and evaluation in the context of contemporary constraints
on government and the rise and evolution of the “new public management” (NPM)
paradigm; and
o How all of the above will affect your approach, should you find yourself in the position of
public policy analyst, implementer, and/or evaluator.
READINGS
All required readings will be available through the cuLearn site or via the Carleton Library. All
of the articles should be available through the Library. You will need to be on campus to access
them (or be using a VPN from home).
REQUIREMENTS AND ASSESSMENT
It is expected that you will attend all lectures and tutorials. The lectures will provide a broad
overview of the theme selected for that week, as well as detailed analysis and examples. The
tutorials will be organized around readings that challenge you to engage in the week’s theme in
a different or novel way.
For this semester, your assessment will be as follows:
o
o
o
o
o
o
Tutorial attendance and participation
Two quizzes
Tutorial presentation
Tutorial paper (due one week after one of your tutorial presentation)
First paper (due Thursday, February 12)
Second paper (due Tuesday, April 7)
10%
5%
10%
10%
30%
35%
All papers should be submitted to the Kroeger College office before 4:30 pm on their due date.
Your grade for the winter term of PAPM 2000 will represent 50% of your final course grade.
EXTENSIONS
Extensions will not be granted for essays, except in cases of documentable illness or
family/personal emergency. Late assignments will incur a penalty of 3 marks per day
including weekend days.
TUTORIALS
Tutorials will meet under the guidance of one of the TAs each week starting the week of
Monday, January 12 and ending the week of Monday, March 30 (the specific day for your
tutorial depends on your schedule).
2
Tutorial attendance is mandatory (with the exception of properly documented cases of illness)
and forms part of the grade for the tutorial. Missing three tutorials will result in a participation
grade of 0%.
General participation in the tutorial discussions is crucial and weighted accordingly. Each
student will also lead the discussion of one reading, and will serve as a respondent to two
additional readings. The expectation is, however, that each week you will have read and
carefully considered the assigned readings.
Tutorial Format
The first meeting of the term will be a general discussion of the format and organization of
presentations. The following tutorials will be organized around students’ presentations and
discussion of the tutorial readings.
Presentations (worth 10% of term grade)
There will be two presentations per tutorial session. One student will be assigned to present on
each of the tutorial readings, and two additional students will be assigned the role of
respondents. Hence, each of you will be expected to make one oral presentation and to serve as
a respondent on two other occasions. You are welcome to trade reading assignments with your
classmates, but you must get approval to do so from your TA.
Your presentation must not exceed five minutes. Your TA will stop you at the five-minute
point. There are two reasons for this rule. First, it is to encourage you to focus on the most
important elements of the presentation, and the most critical points. We are not looking for a
summary of the reading. You are to assess and critique it. Highlight its strengths or weaknesses.
Point out gaps in the reading’s argument. You should assume your classmates have read the
reading and are ready to engage in a spirited but respectful discussion of its key themes and
insights. Further guidance on what to cover in your presentation is offered below.
Second, the five-minute cap aims to leave sufficient tutorial time for discussion. The two
assigned respondents will initiate the discussion. These students will have two to three minutes
each to react to the presentations based on what they took from the reading and on their
assessment of the arguments and critiques raised by the presenter. (Note: you will not be
graded for your response, but it will be a factor the TAs use when assessing your tutorial
participation.)
Following the two respondents, each TA will guide you through another 10-15 minutes of
discussion on the reading. All section members are expected to engage in this part of the
discussion.
We suggest preparing for the presentation in two ways. First, take careful notes, which unpack
the reading’s argument. The following are some questions to consider in developing these
3
notes. Remember, these are your notes. They will be background material for your presentation,
but they are not the material you will want to present.
o
o
o
What is the author’s main argument? (In some cases, the author’s argument will be stated
clearly, in the introduction to the article or chapter. Take note – this is a very good way to
state your argument in essays! In other cases, you will have to infer the author’s argument
– that is, you will determine what the main argument is from your reading of the subarguments, examples, or ideas presented by the author).
What are the main points the author makes in support of this argument?
What information, data, metaphors, or examples does the author use to support the
argument? Is the evidence convincing? Are there gaps in the information? Are there key
assumptions the author makes in order for the argument to hold true? Does the author’s
argument make logical sense? That is, do the main points used to support the argument
follow logically, or do they contradict one another? Are all the points relevant to the main
argument? Do the metaphors used apply to the particular case?
Second, and drawing from your notes, develop your presentation in a way that analyzes and
critiques the article. In doing this, you want to draw out key themes, weaknesses, strengths, or
analytic points from the reading that you feel are relevant to and important for the focus of the
course. What is it about the author’s argument that makes it is very relevant to the future of
Canadian federalism? What is at the heart of concerns about the judicalization of Canadian
policy making? Are these concerns merited, why or why not? When you detail strengths,
weaknesses or key themes, be sure to state your analytic point clearly and concisely and then
use evidence from the reading to back up your claim. You want to use your presentation to
convince your audience – your tutorial-section classmates – that what you are telling them is
important.
Quizzes (worth 5% of term grade)
There will be two quizzes during the term. Each will take approximately 30 minutes and will be
administered during the in-class lecture. They will consist of a few multiple-choice questions
and a few questions requiring short written answers (a couple sentences). They will be based on
the lecture readings only.
First quiz: In-class on February 10
Will cover lecture readings for weeks 2, 3, 4, and 5.
Second quiz: In-class on March 17
Will cover lecture readings for weeks 6, 7, 8, and 9
4
Written work
Tutorial paper: (worth 10% of term grade)
The tutorial paper is to be submitted one week after your presentation, at the beginning of the
tutorial session. The paper should be 2-3 double-spaced, typed pages, with no more than 12
point, Times New Roman font, one-inch margins, and no fancy lettering or designs to take up
space (i.e., roughly 600-800 words). Clearly identify the reading under review, the date of the
tutorial, your name, and your TA’s name.
Think of the paper as a written version of the analysis you provided in your tutorial
presentation. You can even begin to draft the paper as you are preparing your presentation and
revise the paper according to the tutorial discussion. Your analysis can take its lead from the
tutorial discussion; however, you will be assessed on the basis of how well you have developed
your own ideas and assessment of the reading. The paper should seek to present a clear and
cogent argument built from the content of the reading.
This paper is intended to be an exercise in expository writing – it should have a beginning,
middle, and an end. Do not use point form or bullets. As with the presentation, you are not to
summarize the reading. It should be written in a way that seeks to convince your TA of the
point or points you wish to make.
First paper: (worth 30% of the term grade)
Due Thursday, February 12
This paper is designed to build from the final paper you wrote last term. You are to make the
paper a comparative assessment by examining how a second model does or does not help
explain the policy decision or non-decision in question. You will, in other words, compare and
contrast the strengths and weaknesses of the two models in your essay.
Your essay will have an introduction, which sets out the argument you will be making; a section
which outlines the policy you are examining; a section which outlines the two theories/models
you are examining; a section which examines how these two theories would explain your policy
decision; and a conclusion which sums up your argument about the application of the two
models to your case study. It should be approximately 10-12, double-spaced pages in length (12point font with one inch margins or roughly 2500 to 3000 words). It is due before 4:30 pm on
Thursday, February 12th. Please hand it in to the Kroeger College Office.
A document providing clear guidelines on how to structure this analysis will be made available
through the course cuLearn site.
5
Second paper: (worth 35% of the term grade)
Due Tuesday, April 7
The second paper asks you to consider the issue of policy implementation OR policy evaluation
in relation to the policy issue you explored in your research paper in the first semester. (If you
are tired of this issue, you are welcome to pick another issue!).
The paper should discuss either:
-
-
If the policy has been implemented or evaluated, what were the issues or challenges that
arose in its implementation or evaluation? What can we learn about the challenges of
implementation or evaluation from the experience in this particular case?
Or, if the policy has not been implemented or evaluated, what might some of the
challenges be in implementing or evaluating the policy? I don’t expect you to do a full
evaluation of the policy – you just need to think about how you would go about
evaluating or implementing it, and what kinds of issues may arise if you were an
implementer or evaluator in this case.
The paper must draw on concepts from at least one of the readings from the course.
It should have five sections:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
An introduction, which states your thesis and sets the context for your argument
A description of your policy issue
A discussion of the concepts from the reading or readings that you will use
An analysis of the study, using concepts from the literature set out in section 2
A conclusion, which sums up your argument and possibly speculates on questions for
further research and investigation, and/or makes policy recommendations
The paper should be approximately 10-12 double-spaced pages in length, and is due before 4:30
pm on Tuesday April 7th. It is to be handed in to the Kroeger College Office.
NB: The deadline for the paper is equivalent to an exam deadline. No extensions will be given
except in cases of documentable illness or other circumstances beyond the student’s control, and
must be petitioned to the Registrar.
Reference Style for Written Work
You are required to use proper citations for all your written work. More details on academic
integrity are provided below. Please refer to these, if you are unfamiliar with the general rules
of proper attribution.
6
Please format according to the American Psychological Association (APA) style, 6th edition
(www.apastyle.org/).
An enormously powerful and useful tool is RefWorks
(www.library.carleton.ca/services/refworks). You can instantly transfer all the bibliographical
information from a book or article into folders in your RefWorks account, and then use them
through a simple program called “Write ‘n Cite” that inserts them in your paper and
automatically generates bibliographies according to different styles, including APA. A couple of
hours of investment will save you many, many more later on, not just for this course, but all
your courses and research papers.
ACADEMIC ACCOMMODATION
You may need special arrangements to meet your academic obligations during the term. For an
accommodation request the processes are as follows:
Pregnancy obligation: write to me with any requests for academic accommodation during the
first two weeks of class, or as soon as possible after the need for accommodation is known to
exist. For more details visit the Equity Services website:
http://carleton.ca/equity/accommodation/student_guide.htm
Religious obligation: write to me with any requests for academic accommodation during the
first two weeks of class, or as soon as possible after the need for accommodation is known to
exist. For more details visit the Equity Services website:
http://carleton.ca/equity/accommodation/student_guide.htm
Students with disabilities requiring academic accommodations: register with the Paul Menton
Centre for Students with Disabilities (PMC) for a formal evaluation of disability-related needs.
Documented disabilities could include but are not limited to mobility/physical impairments,
specific Learning Disabilities (LD), psychiatric/psychological disabilities, sensory disabilities,
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and chronic medical conditions. Registered
PMC students are required to contact the PMC, 613-520-6608, every term to ensure that I receive
your Letter of Accommodation, no later than two weeks before the first assignment is due or the
first in-class test/midterm requiring accommodations. If you only require accommodations for
your formally scheduled exam(s) in this course, please submit your request for accommodations
to PMC by the last official day to withdraw from classes in each term. For more details visit the
PMC website: http://www.carleton.ca/pmc/students/acad_accom.html
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY1
1
A modified version of Lisa Mills’ fall 2010 syllabus for PAPM 2000
7
Instructional offences, such as plagiarism and cheating, are serious and may incur severe
penalties. Please see the note on plagiarism below. Students should also consult the section of
the Undergraduate Calendar on Academic Standing and Conduct to familiarize themselves
with the regulations regarding instructional offences.
For Carleton’s regulations on academic integrity and academic integrity standards, please see
http://www.carleton.ca/calendars/ugrad/0910/regulations/acadregsuniv14.html
PLAGIARISM
The definition below is from Carleton University’s Academic Regulations, at
http://www.carleton.ca/calendars/ugrad/0910/regulations/acadregsuniv14.html
Plagiarism is presenting, whether intentional or not, the ideas, expression of ideas or work of
others as one's own. Plagiarism includes reproducing or paraphrasing portions of someone
else's published or unpublished material, regardless of the source, and presenting these as one's
own without proper citation or reference to the original source. Examples of sources from which
the ideas, expressions of ideas or works of others may be drawn from include but are not
limited to: books, articles, papers, literary compositions and phrases, performance
compositions, chemical compounds, art works, laboratory reports, research results, calculations
and the results of calculations, diagrams, constructions, computer reports, computer
code/software, and material on the Internet. Examples of plagiarism include, but are not limited
to:
o
o
o
o
o
submitting a take home examination, essay, laboratory report or other assignment
written, in whole or in part, by someone else;
using ideas or direct, verbatim quotations, paraphrased material, algorithms, formulae,
scientific or mathematical concepts, or ideas without appropriate acknowledgment in
any academic assignment;
using another's data or research findings;
submitting a computer program developed in whole or in part by someone else, with or
without modifications, as one's own; and
failing to acknowledge sources through the use of proper citations when using another's
works and/or failing to use quotation marks.
If you have any questions about how to handle a specific type of source, please feel free to ask.
Here are the specific pointers on avoiding plagiarism:
1) Acknowledge every source from which you have drawn information or ideas for your
paper. That is, even if you are not quoting directly from a source, you should still
acknowledge where the idea, argument, or information came from.
8
2) Place every direct quote from a source in quotation marks (or indent it), and provide an intext citation for the source.*
3) Express other authors’ ideas in your own words. If you are outlining someone else’s
argument, for example, outline it in your own words, and acknowledge the author at the
end of your summation of his or her argument or idea(s). Any words not in quotation
marks must be your own words. This advice has an intellectual as well as a legal purpose:
being able to express an author’s ideas in your own words is part of your learning
process.
*Nevertheless, try not to use quotes too frequently. Quotes should be used when they so
beautifully or aptly sum something up that you cannot say it any better. An essay is not a
collection of quotes.
9
CLASS SCHEDULE
Week 1 (January 6): Introduction
Part I. Institutions of Canadian Policy Making continued
Week 2 (January 13): The Charter and the Courts
Tutorials begin this week, Monday, January 12.
Lecture Reading:
Heather McIvor. 2006. Parameters of Power 4th ed. Toronto: Thomson Nelson, chap. 10.
Tutorial Reading:
Miriam Smith, 2007. “The Impact of the Charter: Untangling the Effects of Institutional Change”
International Journal of Canadian Studies 36: 17-40
Peter W. Hogg, Allison A. Bushell Thorton, and Wade K. Wright, 2007. “Charter Dialogue
Revisited – or ‘Much Ado About Metaphors’” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 45(1):1-66
Week 3 (January 20): The Constitution and Federalism
Lecture Reading:
Garth Stevenson. 2008. “Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations,” in Michael Whittington
and Glen Williams (eds.), Canadian Politics in the 21st Century, Seventh Edition, Toronto,
Thomson-Nelson
Tutorial Reading:
Roger Gibbons. 2006. “Canadian Federalism in an Age of Globalization” in Canada by Picasso:
The Faces of Federalism Conference Board of Canada
Antonia Maioni. 2006. “Quebec’s Blue Period” in Canada by Picasso: The Faces of Federalism
Conference Board of Canada
Week 4 (January 27): Electoral Reform
Lecture Reading:
Law Commission of Canada. 2009. Renewing Democracy: Debating Electoral Reform in
Canada.
10
Tutorial Reading:
Lawrence Leduc. 2009. “The Failure of Electoral Reform Proposals in Canada” Political Science
61(2): 21-40
Ailsa Henderson. 2006. “Consequences of Electoral Reform: Lessons for Canada” Canadian
Public Policy 32(1): 41-58
Week 5 (February 3): The Political Executive and the Federal Public Service
Lecture Reading:
Gregory J. Inwood. 2009. Understanding Canadian Public Administration, Toronto, Pearson
Education Canada, Ch. 5.
Tutorial Reading:
Peter Aucoin. 2012. "New Political Governance in Westminster Systems: Impartial Public
Administration and Management Performance at Risk." Governance 25 (2):177-199
Daivd Siegel and Ken Rasmussen eds. 2008. Professionalism and Public Service. IPAC. Chapter
3.
Part II. Policy Implementation and Evaluation
Week 6 (February 10): Approaches to Understanding Implementation
Reading:
Leslie A. Pal, Beyond Policy Analysis, Chap. 5. Read just the first section (up to New Public
Management in Canada)
Tutorial reading:
Paul Sabatier and Daniel Mazmanian. 1979. “The Conditions of Effective Implementation: A
Guide to Accomplishing Policy Objectives,” Policy Analysis 5(4): 481-504
Heather C. Hill. 2003. “Understanding Implementation: Street-Level Bureaucrats’ Resources for
Reform,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(3): 265-282
Optional: Paul G. Thomas. 2006. “From Good Intentions to Successful Implementation: The
Case of Patient Safety in Canada.” Canadian Public Administration, 49(): 415-440.
DATE OF FIRST IN-CLASS QUIZ
MIDTERM BREAK – NO CLASS ON FEBRUARY 17
11
Week 7 (February 24): Implementation and New Public Management
Reading:
Leslie A. Pal, Beyond Policy Analysis, Chap 5, from “New Public Management” to end of
Chapter.
Tutorial Reading:
Michael H. Hall and Paul B. Reed. 1998. “Shifting the Burden: How Much Can Government
Download to the Non-Profit Sector,” Canadian Public Administration 41(1): 1-20.
J.P. Boase. 2000. “Beyond government? The Appeal of Public-Private Partnerships,” Canadian
Public Administration 43(1): 75-92.
Week 8 (March 3): Policy Evaluation
Readings:
Leslie A. Pal, Beyond Policy Analysis, Chap. 7.
Carol H. Weiss. 1998. Evaluation Research: Methods for Assessing Program Effectiveness. New
Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Ch. 3.
Tutorial Readings:
David Osborne and Ted Gaebler, Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is
Transforming the Public Sector, Reading, Mass. AddisonWesley, 1992. Appendix B: The Art of
Performance Measurement.
Sherri Torjman, “Are Outcomes the Best Outcome?” Ottawa: The Caledon Institute, 1999: or,
Deborah Stone. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making, New York and London,
W.W. Norton and Company, 1997. Chapter 7, Numbers
Week 9 (March 10) Policy Evaluation continued: Participatory Evaluation
Lecture Reading and Tutorial Reading:
Cousins, J. B., and L. M. Earl. 1992. "The case for participatory evaluation." Educational evaluation
and policy analysis 14 (4):397-418.
Plottu, B., and E. Plottu. 2009. "Approaches to Participation in Evaluation: Some Conditions for
Implementation." Evaluation 15 (3):343-359. doi: 10.1177/1356389009106357.
12
Optional: Elizabeth Whitmore. 1998. We Need to Rebuild this House: The Role of
Empowerment in Evaluation in a Mexican Farmers’ Cooperative. In Edward Jackson and Yusuf
Kassam, Knowledge Shared: Participatory Evaluation in Development Cooperation, at
http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-88083-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
Optional: Ken J. Caine et al. 2007. “Partnerships for Social Change in the Canadian North:
Revisiting the Insider-Outsider Dialectic.” Development and Change, 38(3): 447-471.
Part III: Contemporary Policy Issues
Week 10 (March 17): Health care costs and the case of drug policy
Lecture Reading.
Jordan, J. 2009. "Federalism and Health Care Cost Containment in Comparative Perspective."
Publius: The Journal of Federalism 39 (1):164-186. doi: 10.1093/publius/pjn022.
Tutorial Reading:
McMahon, M., S. Morgan, and C. Mitton. 2006. "The Common Drug Review: a NICE start for
Canada?" Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 77 (3): 339-351.
Mintzes, B., S. Morgan, and J. M. Wright. 2009. "Twelve Years' Experience with Direct-toConsumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs in Canada: A Cautionary Tale." PLoS ONE 4
(5):e5699.
DATE OF SECOND IN-CLASS QUIZ
Week 11 (March 24): Private governance
Lecture and Tutorial Readings:
Dashwood, H. S. 2007. “Canadian Mining Companies and Corporate Social Responsibility:
Weighing the Impact of Global Norms.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 40 (1):129-156.
Auld, G., Gulbrandsen, L. H., & McDermott, C. 2008. “Certification Schemes and the Impact on
Forests and Forestry.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 33(1):187-211
Other readings to be announced
Week 12 (March 31): Guest Lecture – Tentative Topic: First Nations Governance in Canada
Lecture and tutorial readings to be announced
13
Week 13 (April 7): Closing thoughts on the course
There are no assigned readings
14