|
1a. Students can identify and describe the fundamental assumptions underlying (basic) analytical models of collective decision-making and policy implementation and reflect on how these assumptions result in model predictions in specific political-administrative contexts.
1b. Students can apply these models to explain and predict the course and substantive outcomes of real-life policy-making processes.
1c. Students can design an actor-oriented strategy to improve the outcomes of policymaking for the actor’s benefit.
2a. Students have a basic understanding of the nature of policy evaluation, including an understanding of various evaluation models.
2b. Students can ex-ante and ex-post and assess the impact/ effects of public policies by applying different evaluation models to reconstructed policy problems.
3. Students can reflect on their skills and activities in a simulation of collective decision-making about a complex technological project.
4. Students can reconstruct a complex policymaking process and explain/ predict/ evaluate the course and outcomes of this complex process based on: (a) analytical models of collective decision-making, (b) models of policy evaluation. Students can (re-)design the policy process to steer the substantive policy outcomes as well as their impact/ effectiveness.
|
 |
|
Anyone who has been involved in complex policymaking (politicians, managers, lobbyists, citizens) notices that good ideas sometimes disappear during the decision-making process, while sub-optimal outcomes are chosen. This observation touches upon a core question of Public Administration: complex decision-making processes often produce outcomes that are contested and perceived as illegitimate—at least by some stakeholders. With only 20% information available, public leaders must select a course of action. The question is: how can we explain and steer the outcomes of policymaking, so that better and more impactful collective decision are adopted?
In this module students learn, in the first place, the intricacies of collective decision-making. They learn to understand analytically that there exists no design of decision-making that can fully protect groups of decision-makers from irrational decisions. From that axiomatic starting point, the module explores the conditions under which collective decision-making can become predictable (stable) and legitimate. We borrow from the fields of Political Science, Public Administration, Economics, and Law. Practically, students apply their knowledge using analytical models that allow them to (ex-post) explain or (ex-ante) predict why some collective outcomes can be attained, while other outcomes are unreachable in the dynamics of political interaction. Students practice and reflect on their political decision-making skills in a simulation of collective decision-making about a complex technological project.
Students learn, moreover, the determinants of policy success and failure. Students learn what policy evaluation entails and what functions it performs. Often, governments and public organizations have a legal obligation to carry out policy evaluations. Frequently, when introducing new statutory regulations, it is required that the new regulation must be evaluated within a certain period. Sometimes, evaluations are 'enforced' by 'external parties' (e.g., initiated by parliament towards administration). Public administrations can also take the initiative themselves to review policies. Students learn to understand and apply different models of evaluation and various methods and techniques of policy evaluation. Practically, students apply their knowledge in small groups to (ex-post) explain or (ex-ante) predict why some policies succeed or fail.
In the project, small project groups of students closely study a complex empirical policymaking process of their own choice, to explain and predict the outcomes of policymaking and their success or failure. Examples include: the location of new nuclear power plants, the development of the JSF fighter, the adoption and implementation of EU artificial intelligence policy, or the construction and planning of the new Berlin airport
|
|
|
|
|
| Bachelor Management, Society and Technology |
| | Verplicht materiaalBook| Shepsle, K. 2010. Analyzing Politics: Rationality, Behavior and Instititutions, 2nd Edition (New Institutionalism in American Politics). W.W. Norton & Company, ISBN 978-0-393-93507-3 |
| Course material| Several articles, to be announced via Canvas. |
|
|
Aanbevolen materiaal-WerkvormenHoorcollege| Aanwezigheidsplicht | | Ja |
| Overig onderwijs
| Presentatie(s)| Aanwezigheidsplicht | | Ja |
| Project begeleid| Aanwezigheidsplicht | | Ja |
| Project onbegeleid| Aanwezigheidsplicht | | Ja |
| Werkcollege| Aanwezigheidsplicht | | Ja |
|
|
ToetsenAnalytical Politics & Policy
Opmerking4 assignments, 1 written exam
| Policy Evaluation
Opmerking3 group assignments, 1 written exam
| Technological Projects
Opmerking1 individual assignment
| Project Advanced Stakeholder Analysis
Opmerking1 concept report, 1 final report, 1 presentation
|
|
| |