Queens University of Belfast
School of Politics, International Studies and Philosophy
PAI3068
Politics, Public Administration and Policy-Making
Convenor: Dr Muiris MacCarthaigh
Spring Semester: 2013-14
Module Convenor: Dr Muiris MacCarthaigh
Room 023.01.005
Email address: [email protected]
Consultation Hours: Mondays 10-11 & 1-2 or by appointment
Timetable
Seminars Monday 2-4pm, Room 26UQ/01/005
Assessment:
Coursework: Two assessed coursework assignments 35% and 55% (details below), Seminar participation 10%.
Deadlines: Assignment 1 (35%): Monday 31st March,
Assignment 2 (55%): Friday 16th May
Examination: No exam
School of Politics, International Studies and Philosophy Student Handbook
This module guide should be read in conjunction with the Undergraduate Student Handbook which contains important details of School policies. A copy of the Undergraduate Student Handbook can be obtained from the School Office (25 University Square) or downloaded from the resources section of any PAI or PHL
MODULE DESCRIPTION
This Module explores the inter-play and inter-dependencies between politics, public
administration and policy making. Beginning with a presentation of prominent theories and comparative frameworks for understanding how governments seek to pursue their policy goals, the Module progresses to examine a number of key issues in contemporary public governance. Topics to be studied include changing political-administration relationships, policy implementation, accountability, regulatory governance, and administrative reform. Students will also study the role played by international organisations in national policy-making, including the statistical datasets and publications produced by them. A number of current and former officials will also share their insights on these issues with students during the Module.
MODULE AIMS:
On completion of this Module, students will have considerably enhanced their understanding of how government works beyond the public political arena, and the challenges faced by political executives in translating their preferences into action. Students will also become conversant with some of the most prominent issues and theories in contemporary public administration, and how we can better understand the relationship between politics and bureaucracy. Considerable emphasis will be placed on combining theoretical learning with real-world practice, and providing students with high-quality competence in respect of the dominant theories and schools of thought concerning the organisation and management of contemporary government.
LEARNING OUTCOMES:
On successful completion of this module, students will:
Be knowledgeable of key ideas and theories concerning public administration and policy-making in a political environment.
Have an advanced understanding of current scholarship on contemporary themes in public administration and management
Understand how models and frameworks for understanding the policy process translate into advancing solutions to real-world problems
Be able to critically engage with current debates on administrative and political reform
Have a greater appreciation of how politics and administration interact and shape policy
Demonstrate awareness of official sources of information on national and international public administration issues
SKILLS
This module will assist in developing students’ skills in a number of important areas. These include:
Intellectual skills
Managing & Prioritizing Knowledge: identify relevant and subject-specific knowledge, sources and data; manage such information in an independent manner
Analytical Thinking: identify, understand, interpret and evaluate relevant subject-specific arguments made by others; construct independent arguments
Critical & Independent Thinking: ability to think critically and construct one’s own position in relation to existing and ongoing debates in the field
Professional and career development skills
Communication Skills: ability to communicate clearly with others, both orally and in writing
Diversity: ability to acknowledge and be sensitive to the range of cultural differences present in the learning environment
Self-Reflexivity: ability to reflect on one’s own progress and identify and act upon ones own development needs with respect to life-long learning and career
development
Time Management: ability to negotiate diverse and competing pressures; cope with stress; and achieve a work / life balance
Technical and practical skills
Information Technology: demonstrate the knowledge and ability to use contemporary and relevant ICT
Data Generation: Enhanced ability to navigate through databases of official statistics Organizational skills
Efficient and effective work practice: demonstrate ability to work efficiently to deadlines
Clear organisation of information: show efficiency in the organisation of large
amounts of complex information and the ability to identify, describe and analyse the key features of the information
Organisation and communication: demonstrate ability to use evidence to develop logical and clear arguments; show aptitude for the effective use of information in a direct and appropriate way
Enterprising thinking: Demonstrate ability to think and argue in novel and
enterprising ways, to display originality of thought and argument and the ability to clearly support arguments in innovative ways
ASSESSMENT
The assessment structure for this module is as follows: Coursework: 90%
- Students must submit two written assignments for this Module as follows: o Assignment 1 (35%): 1500-2000 words
o Assignment 2 (55%): 2500-3000 words Seminar participation: 10%
- Seminars will consist of a lecture followed by a tutorial-style class discussion, including some guest speakers for specific topics. Each student will also be required to summarise a key reading at a one Seminar.
Aside from formal assessment, students will also be provided with preliminary feedback on their progress in Week 3 of the course, by means of a class quiz. This exercise does not count towards assessment for the course and should be seen as a feedback exercise to guide further learning.
1. Attendance and Tutorial Participation
Students are expected to attend all two-hour Seminars for the Module. The Seminar will consist of a lecture followed by a tutorial-style discussion. Each student will also be asked to present a short summary of a key reading for each topic as part of their participation.
Students receive a mark out of 10 for their participation and general contribution to tutorials on all undergraduate modules excluding the dissertation, internship or project. This mark will count as 10% of the overall mark for the module. Marks will be awarded for individuals not groups. For further details, see the School’s Undergraduate Student Handbook.
This module is worth 10 credits on the ECTS scale (equivalent to 20 Queen’s University CATS points, Credit Accumulation and Transfer Scheme). This is calculated by the University as the equivalent of 200 hours’ academic study over the course of the semester (12 ‘teaching’ weeks plus the three week examination period). Students should therefore expect to spend on average at least 13 hours each week undertaking academic study associated with this module.
2. Coursework Assignments
The first assignment is worth 35% of the overall assessment, and should be 1500-2000 words in length.
The second assignment is worth 55% of the overall assessment, and should be 2500-3000 words in length.
The word count shall include all references in the text, all footnotes and all endnotes but exclude the bibliography.
The word count shall be indicated following the title of assignment.
Where the word count exceeds the upper limit of the specified range a penalty shall be imposed. Where the word count exceeds the upper limit of the specified range:
- by up to 25% a penalty of 10 percentage points shall be imposed; - by up to 50% a penalty of 15 percentage points shall be imposed; - by up to 75% a penalty of 20 percentage points shall be imposed; - by up to 100% a penalty of 25 percentage points shall be imposed; - by more than 100% a penalty of 30 percentage points shall be imposed.
The submission deadline is: 1200 noon on Monday 31st March (Assignment 1)
Friday 16th May (Assignment 2)
The successful submission of assignments is a two stage process:
1. You must upload an electronic copy of your assignment onto the TurnitinUK website prior to the deadline indicated.
2. A single copy of each assessed assignment must be submitted to the School Office (25 University Square) on or before 1200 noon on the due date indicated. When submitting this paper copy, you must complete and sign an ‘Essay Cover Sheet’,
available from the School Office. TurnitinUK: www.submit.ac.uk/
A link to this website is also provided in the School webpages (see ’Education’) To upload your coursework you will need:
the password: pisp (all lower case) and
The Class ID no.: 672588
Marks and formative feedback for this assignment will be returned to the student within two weeks of the submission date, unless otherwise specified for special circumstances. Marks cannot be awarded twice for the same piece of work. Any answer reproducing work previously submitted for assessment will be awarded a mark of ZERO. The module convenor will be happy to clarify what constitutes unacceptable repetition of module material.
3. Examination
Assignment Questions
Assignment 1: (35%, 1500-2000 words) Answer one of the following:
1. Is increased politicisation of public administration inevitable?
2. Identify and explain two schools of thought as to how we can best understand the policy-making process.
3. What does street-level bureaucracy mean and why is it deemed important for understanding the process of policy implementation?
4. Is it fair to characterise state agencies as unaccountable? Assignment 2 (55%, 2500-3000 words)
Answer one of the following:
1. What is meant by regulatory governance, and how does it contrast with traditional understandings of how government operates?
2. What is evidence-based policy-making, and what does it propose to solve?
3. Is it fair to characterise current administrative reforms as representing a post-NPM era?
4. Is the role played by international organisations in comparing national policy
performance a good or bad development in your view? Use examples in your answer.
Submission of assignments
A single copy of each assessed assignment must be submitted to the School Office (25 University Square) on or before 1200 noon on the due date indicated above.
When submitting an assessed assignment, you must complete and sign an ‘Essay Cover Sheet’ available from the School Office. The School uses a system of anonymous marking so do not include your name on the assignment.
All assignments are retained by the School for scrutiny by internal and external examiners. All assignments submitted after the deadline will be penalized 5 percentage points per day after 12 noon.
Conceptual Equivalents Marking Scale
The School of Politics, International Studies and Philosophy uses the University’s conceptual equivalent marking scheme for all undergraduate assessment. Individual pieces of work are allocated a ‘discrete’ mark. For further information on the University’s conceptual equivalent marking scheme and the marks used, see the School’s Undergraduate Student Handbook. This is available from the School Office and will be posted on the resources page on QOL for each module. This is University’s conceptual equivalent marking scale can also be accessed on line at:
http://www.qub.ac.uk/directorates/AcademicStudentAffairs/FileStore/Filetoupload,53857,en. pdf
Feedback
Students should note that feedback on their academic progress is available in a variety of forms, not just in terms of written feedback on set assignments:
Students can approach course convenors and other teaching staff in their set Office Hours (available from the School Office), or otherwise by appointment, to talk about their academic progress, issues relevant to the course, or to discuss in more detail the written feedback that they receive on set
assignments.
Students should meet with their Personal Tutors to discuss their overall academic progress at least once a semester. Bringing assignment marksheets to these meetings may help in discussing ways of improving assignment
performance and preparing for exams.
The school is introducing a “feedback day” where staff will be available to discuss assignments
The School is committed to return written feedback on set assignments to students within three weeks of the deadline for submission of coursework.
It is important that students who submit their essays by the deadline receive feedback in a timely fashion so that they can properly prepare for their exams or further assignments. Students can therefore expect to receive feedback on their essays within no later than three weeks of the submission deadline (this policy does not apply to students who submit their coursework after the deadline). Students will receive their essay report sheets individually by email. If students have not received feedback within three weeks of the deadline, they should contact their module convenor directly. Students who wish to discuss their grade should do so with the convenor during his or her office hours.
School of Politics, International Studies and Philosophy Student Handbook
This module guide should be read in conjunction with the Undergraduate Student Handbook which contains important details of School policies.
A copy of the Undergraduate Student Handbook can be obtained from the School Office (25 University Square) or downloaded from the resources section of any PAI or
PHL module on Queen’s Online.
Plagiarism
The School takes a very severe line on students who plagiarise work. Students who attempt to pass off another’s work as their own will receive a mark of ZERO. In some cases, acts of plagiarism can result in the student failing the
entire degree. Remember, plagiarism includes information from books, newspapers, journals and the Internet. All suspected cases of plagiarism will be
investigated in line with University procedures.
For details of University Regulations on Academic Offences, see:
http://www.qub.ac.uk/directorates/media/Media,408941,en.pdf.
The page also provides a link to guidance on how to identify and so avoid plagiarism. Please also refer to the School’s Student Handbook Guide for more information about referencing and plagiarism, as well as general advice on
essay-writing:
SEMINAR SCHEDULE
Week Date Topic
1 3 Feb. Introduction, overview and Module administration
2 10 Feb. Politics, policy-making, administration: Theories and trends 3 17 Feb. Comparative policy-making and administration
4 24 Feb. Political-administrative relationships and policy making 5 3 March Policy implementation and evaluation
6 10 March Autonomy and accountability within government
7 Reading Week
8 24 March Regulation and regulatory governance 9 31 March Public service reform
Easter
10 28 April Evidence-based policy making and performance
11 5 May* The role of international organisations in public policy and administration
12 12 May Review
*National Holiday – Seminar will be rescheduled Rag Day: 19 February 2014
St Patricks Day: 17 March 2014 Reading Day: 18 March 2014 Seminar Topics and Readings
Students should also search for reading and research material in relevant journals including:
Governance
International Public Management Journal
Journal of European Public Policy
Journal of Public Policy
Policy and Politics
Public Administration
Public Administration Review
Public Management Review
Public Policy and Administration
Regulatory Governance
Recommended Textbooks for the Module
Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2011) Public Management Reform (3
rdEd.)
(Oxford: Oxford University Press). (available as ebook via QCAT)
Peters, B.G. (2010) The Politics of Bureaucracy (6
thEd.) (London:
Routledge).
Week 1: Introduction, overview and Module administration
No advance readings.
Week 2: Politics, policy-making, administration: Theories and trends
Learning outcomes: In this first substantive Seminar, we examine some of the key theories and models of public policy making and administration. By the end, students should: Have considered what is meant by policy-making and public administration
Be familiar with some of the dominant theories and models for understanding public administration and policy-making over the last century, and their interplay with politics
Be aware of how these theories and models translate into current debates and developments about reforming government
Required Readings
Peters, B.G. 2010. Chap 1
Pollitt and Bouckaert. 2011. Chap 6. Further Readings:
Cairney, P. (2012) Understanding Public Policy: Theories and Issues (Basingstoke, Palgrave), Chapter 2
Hill, M. (2009) The Public Policy Process, (Harlow: Pearson), Chapter 11
Hughes, O.E. (2003) Public Management and Administration: An Introduction (3rd ed)
(Basingstroke: Palgrave), Chapter 6 (available as e-book via QCAT) John, P. (2012) Analyzing Public Policy (Oxford, Routledge)
Lindblom, C.E. (1959) ‘The Science of “Muddling Through”’, Public Administration Review, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 79-88
Johnston Miller, K. and McTavish, D. (2014) Making and Managing Public Policy (London: Routledge), Chapter 3
Page, E.C. (2006) ‘The Origins of Policy’ in Moran, M.; Rein, M. and Goodlin, R.E. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, (Oxford: OUP), pp.207-227.
Week 3: Comparative policy-making and administration
frameworks for understanding various modes of policy making and administration internationally. By the end of this Seminar, students will:
Be familiar with different administrative traditions across the globe and how we might compare them
Have cognisance of the effects of these traditions on policy-making processes Required Readings
Pollitt and Bouckaert. 2011. Chap 3.
Chandler, J.A. (ed) (2002) Comparative Public Administration. London: Routledge, Introduction, (available as e-book on QCAT)
Further Readings:
Castles, F.G (1998) Comparative Public Policy: Patterns of Post-War Transformation (Chentenham: Edward Elgar), Chapter 8
Demmke, C. and Moilanen, T. (2010) Civil services in the EU of 27: Reform ourcomes and the future of the civil service, Frankfurt am Main: Lang. (e-book available at QCAT)
Dodds, A. (2013) Comparative Public Policy (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013). Hague, R. and Harrop, M. (eds) (2010) Comparative Government and Politics.
(Basingstoke: Palgrave), Chapter 17
OECD (2011; 2013) Government at a Glance. (Paris: OECD).
Painter, M. and Peters, B.G. (eds) (2011) Tradition and Public Administration. (Basingstoke: Palgrave), Chap. 2
Pierre, J and Ingraham, P.W. (Eds) (2010) Comparative administrative change and reform: lessons learned (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press). (e-book available on QCAT)
Pollitt, C. (2011) ‘Not Odious but Onerous: Comparative Public Administration’ in Public Administration Vol. 89.1, pp.114-127.
Week 4: Political-administrative relationships and policy making
Learning outcomes: The relationship between politicians and senior public servants is one of the most fascinating aspects of public policy-making, but quite different from the ‘Yes, Minister’ caricature. By the end of this Seminar, students will:
Be familiar with key theories concerning the effects of these relationships on policy-making
Required Readings
Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2011, Chapter 6 Peters, B.G., 2010, Chapter 6
Further Readings:
Hood, C and Lodge, M. (2006) The Politics of Public Service Bargains: Reward, Competency, Loyalty - and Blame (Oxford, Oxford University Press)
Hofstede, G. and G. J. Hofstede (2005) Cultures and Organizations. Software of the Mind. (New York, McGraw-Hill), Chapters 1 and 2.
Horton, S. ‘New Public Management: Its impact on public servant’s identity’ International Journal of Public Sector Management. Vol. 19 (6), 2006, pp.533-42
Hughes, O.E. (2003) Public Management and Administration: An Introduction (3rd ed)
(Basingstroke: Palgrave), Chapter 11 (available as e-book via QCAT)
Pash, A. and Harris, J. (2013) Accountability at the Top: Supporting Effective Leadership in Whitehall (London: Institute for Government), available at
http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/Accounta
bility%20at%20the%20top%20-%20final.pdf
Week 5: Policy implementation and evaluation
Learning outcomes: How best policy can be implemented is a subject of constant political and public debate. So too is the methods through which the success of policy can be
evaluated. In this Seminar, the concepts are introduced and explored, and it is expected that on completion students:
Will be conversant in the main implementation theories and frameworks in contemporary public policy management
Be aware of a range of evaluation models currently used in public policy management, and their limitations
Have awareness of the inter-play between processes of evaluation and implementation
Required Readings
Hill, M. and Hupe, P. 2002. Implementing public policy: governance in theory and practice, London: Sage, Chapter 1 (available as e-book via QCAT)
Knill, C and Tosun, J. (2012) Public Policy: A New Introduction, (Basingstoke: Palgrave), Chapter 8.
Further Readings:
Hill, M. (2009) The Public Policy Process, (Harlow: Pearson), Chapter on Implementation Lipsky, M. (2010) Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public
Services, New York, Russell Sage Foundation (Preface)
Matland, R.E. (1995) ‘Synthesizing the Implementation Literature: The Ambiguity-Conflict Model of Policy Implementation’, Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 145-74
O’Toole, L.J. (1997) ‘Implementing Public Innovations in Network Settings’, Administration & Society, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 115-38
Peck, E. and P. 6 (2006) Beyond Delivery: Policy Implementation as Sense-Making and Settlement, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan (Chapter 1)
Week 6: Autonomy and accountability within government
Learning outcomes: Much of government organisation and re-organisation is concerned with finding a balance between levels of autonomy and accountability needed to perform a task. This is particularly the case in the creation of state agencies, which have proliferated in recent decades. In this Seminar, students will:
Consider different dimensions of autonomy and accountability Examine the use of state agencies
Consider the means through which such agencies secure autonomy and are held to account
Core Readings:
Peters, B.G. 2010. Chap 8
Behn, R. (2001) Rethinking Democratic Accountability. Washington D.C.; Brookings Institution Press (Chapters 1 and 3) (e-book available at QCAT)
Required Readings
Bovens, M. (2007) Analysing and Assessing Accountability A Conceptual Framework, European Law Journal, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 447–468.
Dubnick, M. ‘Accountability and the Promise of Performance: In search of the Mechanisms’ Public Performance and Management Review (2005) Vol. 28(3), pp.376-417
Flinders, M. 2011. ‘Daring to be a Daniel: The pathology of politicized accountability in a monitory democracy’, Administration & Society, 43(5), 595-619
Johnston Miller, K. and McTavish, D. (2014) Making and Managing Public Policy (London: Routledge), Chapter 3
MacCarthaigh, M. (2012) ‘From Agencification to De-Agencification: The changing bureaucratic model’, in O’Malley, E. and MacCarthaigh, M (eds) Governing Ireland: From Cabinet Government to Delegated Governance. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration. pp.128-51.
Mulgan, R. ‘Accountability: An Ever-Expanding Concept?’ Public Administration (2000) Vol. 78(3): 555-573.
Philp, M. (2009), Delimiting Democratic Accountability. Political Studies, Vol. 57: 28–53 Strøm, K. (2000) ‘Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies’, European
Journal of Political Research Vol. 37(3), 261–86.
Verhoest, K.; Roness, P.G.; Verscheure, B.; Rubecksen, K. & MacCarthaigh, M. (2010) Autonomy and Control of State Agencies (Basingstoke: Palgrave), Chapter 3.
Verhoest, K.; Van Thiel, S.; Bouckaert, G. and Laegreid, P. (2012) Government Agencies: Practices and Lessons from 30 Countries (Basingstoke: Palgrave), Chapter 2
Week 7: READING WEEK
Week 8: Regulation and regulatory governance
Learning outcomes: This Seminar considered the emergence of national regulatory agencies and the idea of regulatory governance. Upon completion, students will:
Be familiar with the rationales for national regulatory agencies, and the problems associated with them
Be aware of how regulatory governance has changed the approaches governments take to policy problems
Required Readings
Baldwin, R., Cave, M. and Lodge, M. (2nd ed.) (2012) Understanding regulation: theory,
strategy and practice (Oxford: Oxford University Press) (Available as e-book via QCAT), Chapters 2-4.
Lodge, M and Weigrich, K. (2012) Managing Regulation: Regulatory Analysis, Politics and Policy (Basingstoke: Palgrave), Chapter 1.
Further Readings:
Ayres, Ian and John Braithwaite (1992). Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate (Oxford University Press)
Black, J. (2002). ‘Critical reflections on regulation’. Paper published by LSE Research Online, available at http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/35985/1/Disspaper4-1.pdf
Christensen, T. and P. Lægreid (2007) ‘Regulatory Agencies – the Challenges of Balancing Agency Autonomy and Political Control’, Governance, Vol. 20 (3), 497-519.
Hood, C., Scott, C., James, O., Jones, G and T. Travers (1999). Regulation inside Government (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
Jordana, J. and Levi-Faur, D. (Eds). (2004). The Politics of Regulation: Institutions and Regulatory Reforms for the Age of Governance (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar)
Lodge, M and Weigrich, K. (2012) Managing Regulation: Regulatory Analysis, Politics and Policy (Basingstoke: Palgrave), Chapters 2 and 10.
Lodge, M. (2001) ‘From Varieties of the Welfare State to Convergence of the Regulatory State? The ‘Europeanisation’ of Regulatory Transparency’ Queen’s Papers on
Europeanisation, No 10/2001 (Available at
http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/SchoolofPoliticsInternationalStudiesandPhilosophy/File Store/EuropeanisationFiles/Filetoupload,38428,en.pdf)
Majone, G. (1994). ‘The rise of the regulatory state in Europe’, West European Politics Vol. 17 (3), pp.77-101
Moran, M. (2002). ‘Understanding the regulatory state’, British Journal of Political Science Vol. 32 (2)
Week 9: Public service reform
Learning outcomes: Reform is a constant feature of public governance, and especially in relation to administrative organisation. The purpose of this Seminar is to:
Introduce students to reform rationales and concepts, and the concept of NPM Explore reform patterns in the developed world, and particularly since the financial
crisis of 2008
Consider what the objectives or reform are, and how we might assess them Required Readings
Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. 2011, Chapters 1 & 2 Peters, B.G., 2010, Chapter 9
Further Readings:
Christensen, T. and Laegreid, P. (2011) ‘Beyond NPM: Some Development Features’ in Christensen, T. and Laegreid, P. (eds) The Ashgate Research Companion to New Public Management (Farnham: Ashgate), pp.391-404 (e-book available at QCAT). Hood, C. (1991). ‘A public management for all seasons?’ Public Administration 69(1),
pp.3-19
McTavish, D. (2013) ‘”Who’s responsible for the state we’re in?” Government and Public Sector’ in Diamond, J. and Liddle, J. (Eds) Looking for Consensus? Civil Society, Social Movements and Crises for Public Management (Bingley: Emerald), pp3-25. OECD (2010) Public Administration after ‘New Public Management’ (Paris. OECD).
Ongaro, E. (2009) Public Management Reform and Modernization: Trajectories of Administrative Change in Italy, France, Greece, Portugal and Spain (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar)
Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2011) Public Management Reform. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), Chapter 7.
Wettenhall, R. (2013), ‘A critique of the "administrative reform industry": reform is important, but so is stability’ Teaching Public Administration, 31 (2)pp. 149-164. See also www.cocops.eu
Week 10: Evidence-based policy making and performance
Learning outcomes: Evidence-based policy making (EBPM) has become a popular
catchphrase in Western political and administrative arenas, and can be understood as part of a wider agenda that seeks to improve the performance of government. In this Seminar:
The concept of EBPM is explored to understand what it means, and why it is deemed important
A number of dimensions of performance are also considered
We also examine some official statistics and how these relate to policy-making Required Readings
Lunn, P and Ruane, F. (2013) Using evidence to explore policy, Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, Chap 1.
Grelling, D. (2006) Performance Measurement: A remedy for increasing the efficiency of public services? in Van de Walle, S and Van Dooren, W. (Eds) Contingencies of Performance Measurement in the Public Sector (Bradford: Emerald), Chapter by Dorothea Greiling (Available as ebook via QCAT)
Further Readings:
Massey, A and Rentoul, J. (2007) ‘Evidence-based Policy Making’ in Bochel, H. and Duncan, S. (Eds) Making policy in theory and practice (Bristol: Policy Press)
Thaler, R.H. and Sunstein, C. (2009) Nudge : improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness (London: Penguin)
Van Dooren, W and Van de Walle, S. (2008) Performance Information in the Public Sector: How it is used (Basingstoke: Palgrave), Chapter 1
See also: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/behavioural-insights-team And European Statistics Code of Practice
Week 11: The role of international organisations in public policy and
administration
Learning outcomes: In this Seminar, the increasingly visible and influential role of
international organisations in policy making across a wide range of government functions is considered, with a view to:
Advancing student awareness of the databases and resources available to students and policy-makers
Critically analysing the effect of cross-national comparative studies by international organisations on national policy making and politics
Considering the future role such resources might usefully play Required Readings
Knill, C. and J. Tosun (2012) Public Policy: A New Introduction (Basingstoke: Palgrave) Macmillan (Chapter 10) SLC
OECD (2013) Government at a Glance. (Paris: OECD) Further Readings:
Carroll, P. and Kellow, A. (2011) The OECD: A Study of Organisational Adaptation. (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).
DiMaggio, P.J. and W.W. Powell (1983) ‘The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields’, American Sociological Review, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 147-160
Lenschow, A. (2006) ‘Europeanisation of public policy’, in J. Richardson (ed.) European Union: Power and policy-making, (London: Routledge).
Magetti, M. (2009) The Role of Independent Regulatory Agencies in Policy-Making: A Comparative Analysis Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 16.3m 450-70.
Maggetti, M. and Gilardi, F. (2011) The Policy-Making Structure of European Regulatory Networks and the Domestic Adoption of Standards. Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 18(6): 830-847
Pal, L. (2012) Frontier of Governance: The OECD and Global Public Management Reform, (Basingstoke: Palgrave).
Student Experience Bursary
Students wishing to purchase books using the Student Experience Bursary can do so using their Student Card at the "Pop-Up" Blackwell’s bookstore which will be open at the Students’ Union during the first 10 weeks of the autumn semester and the first five weeks of the spring semester. Students can also purchase books with the Student Experience Bursary by using their Student Card at Blackwell’s online site which may be accessed through the student portal.
School of Politics, International Studies and Philosophy Student Handbook
This module guide should be read in conjunction with the Undergraduate Student Handbook which contains important details of School policies.
A copy of the Undergraduate Student Handbook can be obtained from the School Office (25 University Square) or downloaded from the resources section of any PAI or
PHL module on Queen’s Online.
INTERESTED IN FURTHER STUDY?
The School of Politics, International Studies and Philosophy offers masters programmes in the following:
MA Cognitive Science
MA Comparative Ethnic Conflict MA European Union Politics MA Gender and Society MA International Relations MA Irish Politics
MA Legislative Studies and Practice MA Political Philosophy
MA Politics MRes Politics
MA Violence, Terrorism and Security For further details, see:
