FPA GOV Syllabus

8/9/2019 FPA GOV Syllabus

1/28

Foundations

of

Public

AdministrationGovernance Syllabus

Laurence E. Lynn, Jr

1

PAR

(c) 2010 ASP

TheFoundationsofPublicAdministrationSeriesisacollectionofarticleswrittenbyexpertsin20

contentareas,providingintroductoryessaysandrecommendingtoparticlesinthosesubjects.

Governance

Laurence E. Lynn, Jr.

About This Course

Governance refers to how actors are organized and managed in order to accomplish purposes they have in

common. These actors may be multinational organizations, governments, public agencies, private corporations,

communities, or natural persons. More succinctly, governance is the provision of guidance and direction, theexercise of authority.

The concept of governance thus applies to a single business corporation such as General Motors, an NGO suchas Mdecins Sans Frontires, or public agency such as the Transportation Security Administration; to a

particular country such as the United Kingdom, to consociations such as the European Union, and to globalentities such as the United Nations Development Program or the World Banks International Development

Association. Governance can be defined with respect to a shared purpose, such as economic development or

HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment, or to a specific policy domain, such as homeland security or globalclimate control.

Creating and sustaining effective governance is a major concern of policy makers in national governments andin regional and international organizations. The quality of governance is an issue in foreign and national

security policy, international development policy, and virtually every domain of domestic policy. The sense of

urgency that often infuses discussions of governance has as its sources both the globalization of the forces

confronting national and international policy makers, from climate change to financial instability and terrorism,and the spread of democracy movements and democratic reforms, which accelerated following the end of the

Cold War.

Policy debates concerning governance engender considerable controversy . Many scholars and practitioners,

for example, argue that, as a broad generalization, governance is, or should be, post-bureaucratic and that the

boundaries between states and the institutions of civil society, especially in advanced democracies, are being

redrawn to reduce governments role in societal guidance and direction. Others dispute this view and argue thattrends in the forms and instruments of governance prove the adaptability, not the obsolescence, of traditional

hierarchical/bureaucratic governance and confirm the historical path dependence of national institutional

development. This course will explore these and other, more specific issues that arise in contemporary debateson governance in a globalizing world.

The goal of the course is twofold. The first is to familiarize students with the many different definitions,concepts, and models of governance that will be encountered in discussions of public policies toward


2/28

Foundations

of

Public



2

PAR

(c) 2010 ASP

governance and governance reform in professional literature. The second is to equip students with the critical

analytical tools and skills to evaluate the impact of various forms of governance, and of various proposals for

governance reform, on the achievement of shared purposes and on the interactions between the state, orgovernments, and civil society. Why does governance take the forms and evolve in the ways that it does both

nationally and internationally? How do systems of governance work? How can we explain the success or

failure of governance reforms? In the light of the answers to such questions, how can, or should, governance

problems be solved?

Within this broad consideration, specific questions such as the following will be considered: Why did the

United Nation Oil for Program in Iraq failor did it? Why did integration into the European Union havesuch different effects in Spain and Portugal? Under what circumstances should policy makers prefer (a)

markets, (b) hierarchy, and (c) networks when designing public policies and programs? Why did Great Britain

and Germany react so differently to the neo-liberal administrative reform movement called New PublicManagement?

A number of concepts useful to the analysis and comparison of governance systems will be introduced. Theseinclude transaction costs, common property resources, veto players, path dependence, chain of delegation, and

principal-agent relationships. These concepts are useful in expanding ones grasp of why we observe what we

do in governance systems and how those systems might be changed to produce different outcomes.

Course Objectives

Upon successful completion of this course, students should demonstrate a range of knowledge and skill

competencies. These competencies, which comprise the course objectives, are listed below.

Knowledge Competencies

Upon successful completion of this course, students should be able to:

1. Explain the different meanings of the concept of governance found in professional literature and discourse

and, in addition;

2. Comprehend and explain theories that might account for the emergence of various forms of governance;

3. Argue on behalf of their own views concerning the applicability of the concept of governance to publicadministration policy and practice;

4. Explain the types of evidence that are used to support various arguments and proposals for different

approaches to governance policy and practice; and

5. Demonstrate in-depth familiarity with the issues and controversies in the study and practice of governance.


3/28

Foundations

of

Public



3

PAR

(c) 2010 ASP

Skill Competencies

Upon successful completion of this course, students should be able to:

1. Understand and critically evaluate the quality of arguments in professional literature concerning governance;

2. Analyze the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches to governance in the developed anddeveloping worlds and in supranational organizations;

3. Locate and use information concerning governance gathered through library, electronic, and field research;and

4. Produce arguments professionally and persuasively in class discussions, in written assignments, and in oralpresentations.

Course Readings

All assigned readings are available on electronic reserve, on-line (at the cited URL), or as class handouts.

Please note: readings marked with are required of all students other than Ph.D. students, although they areencouraged to read whatever materials interest them. Ph.D. students are required to familiarize themselves withall the assigned readings.

Class Participation

In general, the first half of each class will be devoted to discussion of the days assigned readings. Students are

expected to come to class prepared with questions, critical comments, and insights based on the readings. Eachstudent should send a one-page summary of these questions and comments to other members of the class no

later than the previous evening via the course listserv. The second half of each class will be devoted to a

discussion and analysis of assigned teaching and research cases.. Evaluation of class participation will be basedon the quality (analytic insights, mastery of concepts, being on point), not the quantity of student contributions.

Students are expected to attend each class. If a student is unable to attend on any given day, he or she should

notify the instructor in advance. One excused absence will be allowed without penalty.


4/28

Foundations

of

Public



4

PAR

(c) 2010 ASP

Assignments

Students are required to complete the following assignments:

Questions/Comments on Readings - As discussed above, students are expected to circulate

questions/comments on the readings by the night before scheduled classes.

Case Analyses Students areexpected to complete four case analysis memos of 3-5 double-spaced

pages each (discussed further below);

Course Paper Students areexpected to completea 12-15 double-spaced page analysis of an issue or

problem of governance chosen by the student (also discussed further below).

Course Grades

The maximum score for the entire course is 100 points, which may be earned as follows:

questions/comments on course reading and participation in case discussions: 20 points;

case analyses: 10 points each, for a total of 40 points;

course paper: 40 points.

Making Good Arguments

In analyzing course readings, in all written assignments, and in class discussions, students are expected to knowand demonstrate the qualities of a persuasive argument. To a significant extent, discussion of public programs

and policies and their implementation takes the form of argument: discourse intended to persuade policy

makers, employees, and stakeholders of a particular point of view and to build political and organizationalsupport for it. Reasoned persuasion is, and should be, a basic competency in public administration practice.

In a good argument,

(1) a clear point is stated or claimis made this is what I want you to believe is true;,

(2) the point or claim is backed up with reasonsthat support the main point;

(3) facts or data evidence- are provided that support those reasons and points/claims;


5/28

Foundations

of

Public



5

PAR

(c) 2010 ASP

(4) a general principle, or warrant, is stated or implied that links the evidence with the main point; and

(5) potential criticisms are addressed and qualifications are acknowledged.

These elements are shown schematically in the following diagram:

Figure 3.1:

Elements of an Argument

I claim that because of these reasons which I base on this evidence

CLAIM REASON EVIDENCE

I acknowledge these questions, objections,

and alternatives, and I respond to them with these arguments

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND RESPONSE

The principle thatlets me connect my

reason and claim is

WARRANT

Source: Joseph M. Williams, Gregory G. Colomb, Jonathan DErrico, and Karen Tracey,

The Craft of Argument, with Readings(New York: Longman, 2003): 35.


6/28

Foundations

of

Public



6

PAR

(c) 2010 ASP

In-Class Case Discussions

Each class will feature a case discussion. These cases are of two types: teaching cases and research cases.

Teaching cases take a reader to ground level of governance. Research cases and articles take readers to the

heights, where one can view broader patterns. Teaching cases are, in effect, telling anecdotes that may be

helpful in interpreting the practical implications of broad patterns of change.

A typical teaching casetells a story (that is, describes a sequence of events: something happened, then

something else happened, then something else happened, and so on) about a governance problem or issue. Atypical case brings you to a point at which a decision must be made or action taken or recommended by an actor

in the case. Case discussions will generally focus on the actions or problems of public officials in the case as

they are caused or influenced by contextual factors.

Another quality of a good teaching case is that there the right answers are not obvious. Rather, many answers

(decisions, solutions, actions) are possible, each of which has advantages and disadvantages and about the

merits of which reasonable people can disagree.

To prepare for the in-class case discussions (and for written analyses of cases), students will want to do a deep

(or close) reading of the case. That is,read the case at least twice (sometimes more). Become immersed in thecase and become familiar with the basic situation it represents: inhabit the situation.

Students will be asked to make a convincing argument (see above discussion of good arguments) about the

case, supporting their answers with evidence form the case. Students can expect to be asked: What would youdo and why? Good arguments require a close and insightful1reading of the case.

Students may be asked to play the roles of actors in the case. Brief, spontaneous, in-class role plays may

occur. These should be taken seriously (that is, students should imagine themselves in the positions of the actorsin the case), but it is fine to have some fun with it.

Students may believe that more information is needed for a good decision than is included in the case. That

could be right. But in the real world, enough information is often not available, and one is expected to workwith the information that one has, i.e., information in the case.

In addition to specific questions that apply to each case, students will find it helpful to keep these generalquestions in mind:

Can you summarize the case in one succinct sentence?

Who is the main decision maker, and what specific decisions does he or she have to make?

1 Insight = clear or deep perception of a situation, grasping the inner nature of things.


7/28

Foundations

of

Public



7

PAR

(c) 2010 ASP

Who are the other important actors in the case, and what are their objectives?

What are the key issues, facts or assumptions that must be resolved in order to reach a decision?

What is the context (or environment) that the main decision maker and other actors are operating

in?

What alternatives should the decision maker consider, and what are the consequences of each

course of action?

What wouldyou do in these circumstances and WHY: what is your argument?

A research case is a published research article or a report or study of some kind, which poses issues and

questions and proposes answers based on the author(s) research.

Different discussion questions arise with research cases. What is the authors argument? Is that argument

convincing? Why or why not? Are the findings broadly applicable to many contexts or relevant only to

specific or limited contexts? How might policy makers use the authors findings? The purpose of studying and

discussing research cases is to enhance student familiarity with how the scientific and other evidence thatfrequently informs policy debates is produced and used to make a point.

Case Analysis Memos

Students are expected to complete four case analysis memos. Two of the assigned cases must be analyzed byall students:

The United Nations Oil-for-Food Program

A Partnership in Troubled Waters

Students may choose any other two teaching or research cases in the syllabus to analyze.

Memos are due on the day the case will be discussed in class.

Each case analysis memo should be addressed either to the decision-maker in a teaching case or to the

instructor in other cases(as someone who has asked, What can I learn from this article/report?) Follow the

guidance for analyzing cases in the preceding section of this syllabus.


8/28

Foundations

of

Public



8

PAR

(c) 2010 ASP

Course Paper

As described in the first paragraph of this syllabus, the concept of governance can be applied to organizations,consociations, and policies. Students may choose a subject for their course paper to which the concept of

governance can be applied, presumably a subject that reflects their career, policy, or organizational interests.

The paper should identify problems or issues of governance that are the focus of the papers analysis. Thatanalysis should (1) describe the governance of the subject area, (2) show how governance contributes to or

causes the problems or issues under analysis, and (3) suggest how governance reforms might contribute to

resolving these problems or issues. The paper should use concepts and analytic frameworks from coursereadings to provide logical structure to the analysis and the basis for deriving conclusions and

recommendations.

The final paper should begin with a one- or two-paragraph summary of the papers argument then cover the

three topics described in the previous paragraph of this syllabus.

A 1-2 page prospectus that describes the subject and the way the student will research it is due on the 5th

weekof class. A 2-page progress report what each student has done and learned so far -- is due the 10

thweek of

class. The final paper is due on the last day of class, during which summaries of findings will be presented and

discussed.


9/28


10/28

Foundations

of

Public



10

PAR

(c) 2010 ASP

Kettl, Donald F. 2000. The Global Public Management Revolution: A Report on the Transformation of

Governance. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Koppell, Jonathan GS. 2010. World Rule: Accountability, Legitimacy, and the Design of Global Governance.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kjaer, A 2004. Governance. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Koliba, Christopher, Jack W. Meek, and Asim Zia. 2010. Governance Networks in Public Administration andPublic Policy. London: CRC Press.

Kooiman, Jan. 2003. Governing as Governance. London: Sage.

Lynn, Laurence E., Jr., Carolyn J. Heinrich, and Carolyn J. Hill. 2001. Improving Governance: A New Logic

for Empirical Research. Washington, D.C., Georgetown University Press.

Peters, B. Guy. 1996. The Future of Governing: Four Emerging Models. Lawrence, KS: University Press of

Kansas.

Srensen, Eva and Jacob Torfing. 2007. Theories of Democratic Network Governance. Cheltenham, UK:Edward Elgar.

Stivers, Camilla. 2008. Governance in Dark Times: Practical Philosophy for Public Service. Washington,D.C.: Georgetown University Press.


11/28

Foundations

of

Public



11

PAR

(c) 2010 ASP

Schedule of Course Topics and Assignments

Week 1:Governance Definitions, Issues, and Controversies

Lynn, Laurence E., Jr. 2010. Governance. Public Administration Review Foundations of PublicAdministration Series. At: http://www.aspanet.org/scriptcontent/index_par_foundationsseries.cfm.

Jackson, Peter M. 2009. The Size and Scope of the Public Sector. In T. Bovaird and E. Loffler, eds.

Public Management and Governance,Second Edition. London: Routledge, pp. 27-40.

Bovaird, Tony and Elke Lffler. 2009. The Changing Context of Public Policy. In T. Bovaird and E

Lffler, eds., Public Management and GovernanceSecond Edition. London: Routledge, pp. 15-26.

Van Kersbergen, Kees and Frans Van Waarden. 2004. Governance as a Bridge Between Disciplines

cross-Disciplinary Inspiration Regarding Shifts in Governance and Problems of Governability

Accountability, and Legitimacy. European Journal of Political Research 43:2: 143-171.

Brinkerhoff, Derick W. and Jennifer M. Coston. 1999. International Development Management in a

Globalized World. Public Administration Review 59:4: 346-361.

Doherty, Joe, Pascal De Decker, Volker Busch-Geertsema, Eoin OSullivan, Ingrid Sahlin, Antonio Tosiand Johu Patari. 2004. The Changing Role of the State: The Sate and the Housing Markets of

Europe. Brussels, Belgium: European Federation of National Organisations Working with the

Homeless, 24 pp.

Kaul, Ingrid. Bye-bye Westphalian State, Hello Intermediary StateWhy Fair Multilateralism Matters.

Unpublished manuscript. At: http://www.ingekaul.net/pdf/upload110908/IS-paper.pdf.

TEACHING CASE: The Turbot War: Canada, Spain and Conflict Over The North Atlantic Fishery,Electronic Hallway, The University of Washington, 15pp.

See assignment appended to this syllabus.

Week 2: Governance as Ordered Rule


12/28

Foundations

of

Public



12

PAR

(c) 2010 ASP

Michalski, Wolfgang, Riel Miller, and Barrie Stevens. 2001. Governance in the 21st century: Power inthe global knowledge economy and society. In Governance in the 21st century, 726. Paris:Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Enriques L, Volpin P. 2007. "Corporate governance reforms in Continental Europe." Journal ofEconomic Perspectives21:1: 117140.

Silk, Thomas. 2004. Ten Emerging Principles of Governance of Nonprofit Corporations and Guides toa Safe Harbor. International Journal for Nonprofit Law7:1. At:

http://www.icnl.org/knowledge/ijnl/vol7iss1/art_3.htm.

Andrs-Alonso, Pablo de, Natalia Martin Cruz and M. Elena Romero-Merino. 2006. The Governance ofNonprofit Organizations: Empirical Evidence From Nongovernmental Development Organizations

in Spain.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 35:4: 588-604.

RESEARCH CASE:Spain and Portugal in the European Union:

See Assignment appended to this syllabus.


13/28

Foundations

of

Public



13

PAR

(c) 2010 ASP

Week 3: Governance as Government

Bell, S., and Hindmoor, A. 2009.Rethinking governance: The centrality of the state in modern society.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapter 1: A state-centric relational approach, pp. 1-19.

Paquet, Gilles. 2001. The New Governance, Subsidiarity, and the Strategic State. Governance in the 21st

Century. Paris: OECD, pp.184-214.

Thompson, E. Maunde. 1886. Untitled Review. The English Historical Review, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 568-574.

Morrison, Donald. 1945. Public Administration and the Art of Governance. Public AdministrationReview 5:1: 83-87.

RESEARCH CASE: Guo, Chao. 2007. When Government Becomes the Principal Philanthropist: TheEffects of Public Funding on Patterns of Nonprofit Governance. Public Administration Review

67:3: 458-473.

See assignment appended to this syllabus.


14/28

Foundations

of

Public



14

PAR

(c) 2010 ASP

Week 4: Governance as GoodGovernment

The World Bank. 1997. World Development Report 1997: The State in a Changing World: Chapter 1

Overview, pp. 1-15, The Evolving Role of the State, pp. 19-28. Access on UT Library

netLibrary.

Andrews, Matt. 2010. Good Government Means Different Things in Different Countries.

Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions23:1:735.

Boyle, Richard. 2009. Performance Reporting Insights from International Practice. Washington, DC

IBM Center for the Business of Government, 34pp.

Ohiorhenuan, John F. E. and Zoe Keeler. 2008. International Political Economy and AfricanEconomic Development: A Survey of Issues and Research Agenda.Journal Of African Economies:

17:AERC Supplement 1:i140i239.

RESEARCH CASE: Harlow, Carol and Richard Rawlings. 2006. Promoting Accountability in

Multilevel Governance: A Network Approach. European Governance Papers No. C-06-02, pp. 1

41.


15/28

Foundations

of

Public



15

PAR

(c) 2010 ASP

Week 5: Governance as Rule of Law

Prado, Mariana Mota and Michael J. Trebilcock. 2009. Path Dependence, Development, and the Dynamics

of Institutional Reform. University of Toronto Law Journal 59:3: 341-380.

Lynn, Laurence E., Jr. 2006. New Public Management: Delegation and Accountability. PublicManagement: Old and New, Chapter 7: New Public Management: Delegation and Accountability,

pp. 136-156.

Mashaw, Jerry L. 2009. Due Processes of Governance: Terror, the Rule of Law, and the Limits of

Institutional Design. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, andInstitutions22:3: 353368.

Kay, Adrian and Robert Ackrill. 2009. Institutional Change in the International Governance ofAgriculture: A Revised Account. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration,

and Institutions22:3:483506.

TEACHING CASE: Aiding or Abetting? World Bank and the 1997 Judicial Reform Project.Kennedy School of Government Case Program C-15-04-1779.0.


16/28

Foundations

of

Public



16

PAR

(c) 2010 ASP

Week 6: New Governance GovernanceBeyondGovernment,

Governance,NotGovernment

Rhodes, Rod A. W. 1996. "The New Governance: Governing Without Government." Political Studies44 (4): 65267.

Hajer, Maarten, and Hendrik Wagenaar. 2003. Introduction. InDeliberative Policy Analysis:Understanding Governance in the Network Society, ed. Maarten A. Hajer and Hendrik Wagenaar.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Pierre, Jon and B. Guy Peters. 2000. Governance, Politics and the State. New York: Macmillan.Introduction, pp. 1-10, and Different Ways to Think About Governance, pp. 14-27.

Srenson, Eva. 2006. Metagovernance: The Changing Role of Politicians in Processes of DemocraticGovernance. American Review of Public Administration36:98-114.

Stoker, G. 1998. Governance as Theory: Five Propositions.International Social Science Journal, Vol.50, No. 1: 17-28.

Zhao, Yongfei and B. Guy Peters. The State of the State: Comparing Governance in China and the UnitedStates. Public Administration Review 69: s122-s128.

TEACHING CASE: A Partnership in Troubled Waters, Electronic Hallway, The University ofWashington, 31 pp.


17/28

Foundations

of

Public



17

PAR

(c) 2010 ASP

Week 7: New Governance - New Governance in Europe and in America

Europe

Klijn, Erik-Hans. 2008. Governance and Governance Networks in Europe: An Assessment of TenYears of Research on the Theme. Public Management Review, 10: 505-525.

Osborne, Stephen P. 2010. The (New) Public Governance: a suitable case for treatment? In S. P.Osborne, ed., The New Public Governance: Emerging Perspectives on the Theory And Practice of

Public Governance. London: Routledge, pp. 1-15.

Jann, Warner. 2003. State, Administration and Governance in Germany: Competing Traditions and

Dominant Narratives.Public Administration, 81:1: 95-118.

Skelcher, Chris. 2010. Fishing in Muddy Waters: Principals, Agents, and Democratic Governance inEurope. Journal of Public Administration Research and theory 20:i161i175.

United States

Salamon, Lester M. 2000. The New Governance and Tools of Government Action: An Introduction.Fordham Urban Law Journal28:1611-1674.

Peters, B. Guy, and Jon Pierre. 1998. "Governance without Government?: Rethinking PublicAdministration." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8 (2): 223-43.

Durant, Robert F. 2004. Toward a New Governance Paradigm for Environmental and Natural ResourcesManagement in the 21st Century?Administration & Society, Vol. 35, No. 6, 643-682.

Durant, Robert F. 2004. Toward a New Governance Paradigm for Environmental and Natural ResourcesManagement in the 21st Century?Administration & Society35:6:643-682. In Menzel, Donald C.

and Harvey L. White, eds. 2010. The State of Public Administration : Issues, Challenges, and

.Opportunities. Armonk, New York: M. E. Sharpe, pp. 257-271.

Macgillis, Alec. 2010. Are bigger health-care networks better or just creating a monopoly? Washington

Post, 16 August 2010.

RESEARCH/TEACHING CASE: Choi, Jin-Wook. 2007. Governance Structure and AdministrativeCorruption in Japan: An Organizational Network Approach. Public Administration Review 67:5:

930-942.


18/28

Foundations

of

Public



18

PAR

(c) 2010 ASP

Week 8: New Governance in Theory

Peters, B. Guy. 1996. The Future of Governance: Four Emerging Models, pp. 1-20.

Lynn, Laurence E., Jr., Robbie Waters Robichau, and Melissa Forbes. 2010. Governance and

Organizational Effectiveness: Toward a Theory of Government Performance. Unpublished

manuscript, 42 pp.

Tsebelis, George. 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work, 15pp.

Lynn, Laurence E., Jr. 2008. New Frontiers of Public Administration: The Practice of Theory and the

Theory of Practice, PS: Political Science and PoliticsXLI: 3-9.

Dixon, John and Rhys Dogan. 2002. Hierarchies, Networks and Markets: Responses to Societal

Governance Failure. Administrative Theory & Praxis24:1:175-196.

Werlin, Herbert H. 2003. Poor Nations, Rich Nations. A theory of Governance. Public AdministrationReview63:3: 329-342.

Catlaw, Thomas J. 2007. From Representations to Compositions: Governance Beyond the Three-SectorSociety.Administrative Theory & Praxis 29:2: 225-259.

McQuaid, R. W. 2010. Theory of Organizational Partnerships: Partnership Advantages, Disadvantages and

Success Factors. In S.P. Osborne, ed., The New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the

Theory and Practice of Public Governance. London: Routledge, pp. 127-148.

TEACHING/RESEARCH CASE: The United Nations Oil-for-Food Program. 2008. In Laurence E

Lynn, Jr. and Carolyn J. Hill, Public Management: A Three Dimensional Approach, pp. 61-64.


19/28

Foundations

of

Public



19

PAR

(c) 2010 ASP

Week9:Change:Howmuch? Whatkind? Where?I- TheMatterofEvidence,

ResearchBasedonAggregateIndicators

See Aggregate Indicators Assignment appended to this syllabus.

Week10:Change:Howmuch? Whatkind? Where?II-AssessmentsofInstitutional

ChangeandReform

OECD. 2009. Overcoming Barriers to Administrative Simplification Strategies: guidance for policymakers. Paris: OECD, 55 pp.

Thompson, James R. 2002. Reinvention as Reform: Assessing the National Performance Review.Public Administration Review60:6:508-521.

Kuhlmann, Sabine, Jrg Bogumil, and Stephan Grohs. 2008. Evaluating Administrative Modernizationin German Local Governance: Success or Failure of the New Steering Model? PublicAdministration Review 68:5:851-863.

Walker, Richard M. and George A. Boyne. 2006. Public Management Reform and Organizational

Performance: An Empirical Assessment of the U.K. Labour Governments Public ServiceImprovement Strategy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 25:2: 371-393.

Carrothers, Thomas. 2002. The End of the Transition Paradigm. Journal of Democracy13:1: 5-21.

TEACHING CASE: Dealing with Corruption in the Police Force of La Paz, Kennedy School ofGovernment Case Program C-16-92-1104.0.


20/28

Foundations

of

Public



20

PAR

(c) 2010 ASP

Week11:Change:Howmuch? Whatkind? Where?III- EvidencefromTheory-

BasedEmpiricalResearch

Hill, Carolyn J. and Laurence E. Lynn, Jr. 2005. Is hierarchical Governance in Decline? Evidence fromEmpirical Research.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15:2: 173-195.

Lips, A. Miriam B., John A. Taylor, and Joe Organ.2009. Managing Citizen Identity Information in

EGovernment Service Relationships in the UK. Public Management Review11: 6:833-856.

McBeath, Bowen and William Meezan. 2010. Governance in Motion: Service Provision and Child

Welfare Outcomes in a Performance-Based, Managed Care Contracting Environment. Journal ofPublic Administration Research and Theory 20:i101-i123.

Jordan, Andrew, Rudiger K. W. Wurzel, and Anthony Zito. 2005. The Rise of New PolicyInstruments in Comparative Perspective: Has Governance Eclipsed Government? Political Studies

53: 477496.

RESEARCHCASE: Dollar, David and Jakob Svensson. 2000. "What Explains the Success or Failure ofStructural Adjustment Programmes?"Economic Journal, 110 (October), pp. 894-917.


21/28

Foundations

of

Public



21

PAR

(c) 2010 ASP

Week 12: What, Then,Is Governance?

Krahmann, Elke. 2003. National, Regional, and Global Governance: One Phenomenon or Many?Global Governance9:323-346.

Bevir, Mark, Rod A. W. Rhodes, and Patrick Weller, P. 2003b. Comparative Governance: Prospects and

Lessons. Public Administration81:1:191-210.

Drazen, Allan. 2008. Is There a Different Political Economy for Developing Countries? Issues,Perspectives, and Methodology. Journal Of African Economies: 17:AERC Supplement 1:i18i71.

Fredrickson, G. H. (2005). Whatever happened to public administration? Governance, governance

everywhere. In E. Ferlie, L.E. Lynn, Jr., and C. Pollitt (Eds.), The oxford handbook of public

management (pp. 282-304). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mamudu, Hadii M. and Donley T. Studlar. 2009. Multilevel Governance and Shared Sovereignty

European Union, Member States, and the FCTC. Governance: An International Journal of Policy,

Administration, and Institutions22: 1: 7397.

RESEARCH CASE: Callahan, Richard. 2007. Governance: The Collision of Politics andCooperation. Public Administration Review67:2: 290-301.


22/28

Foundations

of

Public



22

PAR

(c) 2010 ASP

Week 13: Governance: A Research Agenda

Osborne, Stephen P. 2010. Public governance and public services delivery: a research agenda for thefuture. In S. P. Osborne, ed., The New Public Governance: Emerging Perspectives on the TheoryAnd Practice of Public Governance. London: Routledge, pp. 411-426.

Heinrich, Carolyn J., Carolyn J. Hill, and Laurence E. Lynn, Jr. 2004. Governance as an OrganizingTheme for Empirical Research. In Patricia W. Ingraham and Laurence E. Lynn, Jr. eds., The Art ofGovernance: Analyzing Management and Administration. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown

University Press, pp. 3-19.

Heinrich, Carolyn J., Laurence E. Lynn, Jr., and H. Brinton Milward. 2010. A state of agents?Sharpening the Debate and Evidence over the Extent and Impact of the Transformation of

Governance.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20 (Supplement 1): i3-i19.

Cigler, Beverly A. 2010. Neglected Dimensions of Intergovernmental Relations and Federalism. In

Menzel, Donald C. II. White, Harvey L. 2010. The State of Public Administration : Issues,Challenges, and Opportunities. Armonk, New York: M. E. Sharpe, pp. 316-334.

Moore, Mark. and Hartley, Jean. 2010. Innovations in governance. In Stephen P. Osborne, Ed., The New

Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance.London: Routledge, pp. 52-71.

Week 14: Student Presentations of Course Papers; Review and

Summing Up


23/28

Foundations

of

Public



23

PAR

(c) 2010 ASP

L. E. Lynn2010

Assignment

Teaching Case: The Turbot War

1. Create a time line for this case.

2. What is the story line in this case?

3. Who are the influential actors or stakeholders?

4. How would you describe the governance of the North Atlantic turbot fishery? What governmentalentities and organizations were involved? What managerial and policy decisions were made?

5. Why is there a need for this type of governance? Why couldnt the commercial fishing industry solve

its problems without government intervention?

6, Is governance in this case effective? If so, why? What issues or questions are raised by this case?


24/28

Foundations

of

Public



24

PAR

(c) 2010 ASP

L. E. Lynn, Jr. 2010

Aggregate Indicators Assignment

The purpose of this class is to enable you to become familiar with sources of factual information, statistics, and

data on governance for countries worldwide. The reading listed below is the latest report from the World Bankwith findings based on analysis of its Worldwide Governance Indicators database. The Web sites provide

access to a wealth of quantitative information on governance.

Familiarize yourself with the Worldwide Governance Indicators project and with the findings in the recent

Governance Matters report (cited below). Then visit several Web sites and navigate them until you get a feel

for what kinds of information are available. Look at information for your own country, at comparative

information, and at specific types of indicators and other information that interest you. Notre the sources of themany indicators and measures that you review.

You should come to class prepared to talk about things you have found that interest or surprise you or that youthink are significant. Print out tables or graphs and explain what they mean. Do you think of these kinds of

evidence are useful or revealing? Is governance in your country, or aspects of governance in your country,

fairly and accurately portrayed?

Readings:

Apaza, Carmen R. 2009. Measuring Governance and Corruption through the Worldwide Governance

Indicators: Critiques, Responses, and Ongoing Scholarly Discussion. PS: Political Science & Politics42:1: 139-143.

Bandura, Romina. 2008. A Survey of Composite Indices Measuring Country Performance: 2008 Update.

UNDP/ODS Working Paper. New York: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Office ofDevelopment Studies.

Berkman, H. Scartascini, C., Stein, E. and Tommasi, M. 2008. Political Institutions, State Capabilities, and

Public Policy: An International Dataset. Washington, DC, United States: IDB Research Department,29pp.

Kaufmann, Daniel, Kraay, Aart and Mastruzzi, Massimo. 2007. Worldwide Governance IndicatorsProject: Answering the Critics. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4149. Available atSSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=965077.

Kaufmann, Daniel, Aart Kraay, and Massimo Mastruzzi. 2009. Governance Matters VIII: Aggregate and

Individual Governance Indicators 19962008. Policy Research Working Paper 4978. Washington, DC

The World Bank. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1424591#.


25/28

Foundations

of

Public



25

PAR

(c) 2010 ASP

Kurtz, Marcus J. and Andrew Schrank, A. 2007. Growth and governance: Models, Measures, and

Mechanisms.Journal of Politics, 69:2: 538-554.

Langbein, Laura and Knack, Stephen. 2008. The Worldwide Governance Indicators and Tautology: Causally

Related Separable Concepts, Indicators of a Common Cause, or Both? World Bank Policy Research

Working Paper Series 4669. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1233045.

Lwenheim, Oded. 2008. Examining the State: a Foucauldian Perspective on International GovernanceIndicators. Third World Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp 255 274.

Sutcliffe, Bob and Andrew Glyn. 2003. Measures of Globalization and their Misinterpretation. In Jonathan

Michie, ed.,Handbook of Globalization. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp. 61-78

Web sites:

The CIA World Fact Book (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/); click: Guide toCountry Comparisons;

Bertelsmann Transformation Index:http://www.bertelsmann-transformation-index.de/11.0.html?&L=1.

Simon Fraser Institute,Economic Freedom of the World: 2009 Annual Report (http://www.cato.org/pubs/efw/)

Click on Chapter 1, which provides a description of the index and the country tables.

The World Banks Worldwide Governance Indicators (www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance: click data, clickInteractive Web Access to Worldwide Governance Research Indicators Dataset, click Governance

Indicators webpage, which takes you to: http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/sc_country.asp);

The World Banks International Development Association (IDA) Resource Allocation Index (IRAI)

(http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/IDA/0,,contentMDK:21359477~menuPK:2626968~pagePK:51236175~piPK:437394~theSitePK:73154,00.html);

The World Bank Database on Political Institutions (http://go.worldbank.org/2EAGGLRZ40). This is a STATA

file (dta).

KOF Index of globalization (http://globalization.kof.ethz.ch/); click: Query the KOF Index of Globalization;

Overseas Development Institute (ODI) Governance Assessment (http://www.odi.org.uk/; in upper right handsearch window, type governance assessment; from the search results, find and click [PDF] Overview

of governance assessment frameworks;

;


26/28

Foundations

of

Public



26

PAR

(c) 2010 ASP

OECD Country Web Sites

(http://www.oecd.org/countrieslist/0,3025,en_33873108_33844430_1_1_1_1_1,00.html);

OECD International Budget Practices and Procedures Database (best with Internet Explorer)

(www.oecd.org/gov/budget/database);

UNDP Democratic Governance Web Site (http://www.undp.org/governance/);

Interamerican Development Bank, Political Institutions (IDB), State Capabilities, and Public Policy: An

International Dataset (http://www.iadb.org/aboutus/; click Research and Data at top of page; clickStatistics and Databases on left-side menu; click DataGov in text, which takes you to:

http://www.iadb.org/datagob/index.html;

United Nations Millennium Development Indicators (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mdg/);

Civicus Civil Society Index (at: http://www.civicus.org/csi/2/10-csi-home); on left-side menu, click CivilSociety Index (CSI); on page, click phrase online form in last line; register; search by individual

country;

Transparency International; Corruption Perceptions Index; Global Corruption Barometer(http://www.transparency.org/);

World Economic Forum(http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Global%20Competitiveness%20Report/index.htm);

The Ibrahim Index (Africa) (http://www.moibrahimfoundation.org/en/section/the-ibrahim-index);

Columbia University, Lehman Social Sciences Library: General Statistical Indicators International

(http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/indiv/lehman/guides/stats/int.html);


27/28

Foundations

of

Public



27

PAR

(c) 2010 ASP

L. E. Lynn, Jr. 2010

RESEARCH CASE:Spain and Portugal in the European Union

How would you explain differences in the economic performance of Portugal and Spain after they had

become members of the European Union?

Lessons of Spain and PortugalIn "International Herald Tribune" Tuesday, July 19, 2005. At:http://cronicalif.blogspot.com/2005/07/lessons-of-spain-and-portugal.html;

Economic and Social Research Institute. 1996. The Cases of Greece, Ireland, Portugal and

Spain. The European Commission, pp. 1-6;

Royo, Sebastin. 2007. Lessons from the Integration of Spain and Portugal to the EU. PS:

Political Science and Politics689-693;

McLean, Renwick, Financial History Lessons for Europes New Members, The New York

Times, July 26, 2005.


28/28

Foundations

of

Public



About the Author

PAR

LaurenceE.Lynn,Jr.isSidRichardsonResearchProfessorattheLyndonB.JohnsonSchoolofPublic

Affairs

at

the

University

of

Texas

at

Austin,

Professor

of

Public

Management

at

the

Manchester

Business

School,

and

the

Sydney

Stein

Jr.

Professor

of

Public

Management

Emeritus

at

the

University

of

Chicago.

His

previous

faculty

affiliations

have

included

the

John

F.

Kennedy

School

of

government

at

Harvard

University,

the

Irving

B.

Harris

School

Graduate

School

of

Public

Policy

Studies

at

the

University

of

Chicago,

and

the

George

Bush

School

of

Government

and

Public

Affairs

at

Texas

A&M

University,

and

the

Graduate

School

of

Business

at

Stanford

University.

He

spent

nearly

a

decade

in

senior

policy

making

positions

in

the

U.S.

Federal

Government.

His

research

is

concerned

with

conceptual

and

empirical

approachestothestudyofgovernanceandwithpublicmanagementtheoryandresearchmethods.His

most

recent

books

are

Public

Management:

Old

and

New,

Madisons

Managers:

Public

Administration

and

the

Constitution(withAnthonyM.Bertelli),andatextbook,PublicManagement:AThreeDimensionalApproach

(with

Carolyn

J.

Hill.

For

his

public

service,

Lynn

received

the

Secretary

of

Defense

Meritorious

Civilian

ServiceMedalandaPresidentialCertificateofDistinguishedAchievement. Forlifetimecontributionsto

public

administration

research

and

practice,

he

was

selected

as

a

John

Gaus

lecturer

by

the

American

Political

Science

Association,

a

recipient

of

the

Dwight

Waldo

and

Paul

Van

Riper

awards

by

the

American

Society

for

Public

Administration,

and

the

recipient

of

the

inaugural

H.

George

Frederickson

award

by

the

Public

Management

Research

Association.

[email protected]

Date post:	01-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	argosmexicano
View:	226 times
Download:	0 times

FPA GOV Syllabus

Documents