Designing Innovative Policy Arrangements Study Guide 2007 2008
Designing Innovative Policy Arrangements PAP-51806
Code Study points Lecturers
PAP-51806 6 ECTS Dr. A.R.P. Dewulf, Dr. R.A. Werkman & Prof. Dr. Ir. C.J.A.M. Termeer
Secretariat Period Time & place
room 3041, 3rd floor, Leeuwenborch 4 Tuesday, 15.30-18.00, C73, Leeuwenborch Wednesday, 13.30-15.15, C229, Forum 23-04-2008, 14.00-17.00, C72, Leeuwenborch
Exam
Public Administration and Policy Group Leeuwenborch Hollandseweg 1 6706 KN Wageningen
Updated 04/02/2008
2. Contents of the course
2.1 Learning outcomes After this course students will be able to: - know the main aspects of designing steering arrangements, process architecture and interventions; - translate policy and policy process problems into design questions; - apply and to critically reflect upon different design and intervention methods and tools; - to design innovations taking into account relevant organizational, institutional and decision making aspects.
2.2 Literature
Wicked problems
Hisschemoller, M., & Hoppe, R. (1995). Coping with intractable controversies: the case for problem structuring in policy design and analysis. Knowledge and Policy, 8(4), 40 60. Klijn, E. (2005) Networks and interorganizational management. Challenging steering, evaluation and the role of public actors in public management. In: Ferlie (Ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, pp. 257 281.
From start chapter until § 11.3.3.2
Rittel, H.W.J., & Webber, M.M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, pp. 155 169.
Collaborative governance
Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating. Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Chapter 2: The collaborative process. Huxham, C. (2000). The challenge of collaborative governance. Public Management, 2(3), 337–357. Huxham, C. & Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to collaborate. Chapter 3: The principles of the theory of collaborative advantage. Pahl Wostl, C., M. Craps, A. Dewulf, E. Mostert, D. Tabara, and T. Taillieu. 2007. Social learning and water resources management. Ecology and Society 12(2): 5. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art5/
Network governance
Agranoff, R. (2006). Inside Collaborative Networks Ten Lessons for Public Managers. Bueren, E.M., Klijn, E., & Koppenjan, J.F.M. (2003). Dealing with wicked problems in networks: analyzing an environmental debate from a network perspective. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13, 2, pp. 193 212. De Bruijn, H. (2005). Roles for unilateral action in networks. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18, 4, pp. 318 329.
Updated 04/02/2008
Feldman, M.S., Khademian, A.M., Ingram, H., Schneider, A.S. (2006). Ways of knowing and inclusive management practices. Public administration Review, 66, 1, pp. 89 99. Klijn, E., & Koppenjan, J.F.M. (2006). Institutional design. Changing institutional features of networks. Public Management Review, 8, 1, pp. 141 160.
Adaptive governance
Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, and J. Norberg (2005). Adaptive governance of social ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30:441 473. McLain R, Lee R. (1996). Adaptive management: promises and pitfalls. Environmental Management, 20, 437 48. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01474647) Olsson, P., C. Folke, V. Galaz, T. Hahn, and L. Schultz. 2007. Enhancing the fit through adaptive comanagement: creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve Sweden. Ecology and Society 12(1): 28. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art28/
Assumptions, paradox and configuration theory
Argyris (1983). Productive and counterproductive reasoning processes. In: Srivastva, S. (Ed.) ‘The executive mind’, San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Argyris, C. (2004). Double loop learning and Organizational Change, from p. 393 ‘desired organizational changes’ to end. In: Boonstra, J,J, (Ed). Dynamics of organizational change and learning. Chichester: Wiley. Poole, M.S., & Van de Ven, A.H. (1989). Using Paradox to Build Management and Organization Theories. The Academy of Management Review, 14, 4, pp. 562 578. Putnam, R. (1993). Unlocking organizational routines that prevent learning. The Systems Thinker, 4,6, pp. 1 4. Termeer, C. J. A. M., & Kessener, B. (2007). “Revitalizing stagnated policy processes: using the configuration approach for research and interventions.” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43, 2, pp. 256 272. Van Eeten, M.J.G. (1999). ‘Dialogues of the deaf’ on science in policy controversies. Science and Public Policy, 26, 3, pp. 185 192.
Governance on multiple levels
Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as governance. Chapter 7: Co governance. London: Sage.
Updated 04/02/2008
2.3 Contents Government, business and civil society can get caught up in societal problems that persist over years, despite the numerous efforts to remedy them. Examples of such problems are for instance carbon dioxide and health risk, depletion of fish, depletion of energy sources, poverty in the context of world trade, the burden of farmer subsidies on society, or traffic jams and the building of roads or railroads in areas with high nature value. These problems are labeled as 'wicked': they can be characterized by both technical and social complexity and it is therefore very difficult to solve them. The content is hard to pin down and many actors are involved. All of these actors tend to have different interests, different perspectives on the problem and they aspire to different solutions. Such a context calls for designing new, innovative policy arrangements. In this course we discuss different design methods and the underlying theories such as institutional design, network theory, collaborative governance, configuration theory and adaptive governance. In pairs, students will apply these theories and methods to work on interventions in a deadlocked process and will design innovative policy arrangements in a realistic case related to their own domain.
2.4 Activities: The course exists of a mixture of plenary lectures and working group sessions. In the plenary lectures on Wednesday we will discuss the literature. In the working group sessions following on Tuesday thereafter, students work on their own project and apply the learned theory and methods on their own case. Theory will be discussed related to both its theoretical and practical relevance and each week, one pair of students will prepare some critical statements about the literature. 2.5 Credits, presence and examination: The course is 6 ECTS. The meetings are compelled. Absence will lead to extra assignments. Examination: Group presentation, 16 04: 20% Project group paper: 60% Oral exam, 23 04: 20%
Updated 04/02/2008
Schematic outline of the course
Date
Week 26 Tu 04/03
Theme
Wicked problems
Preparation
Read literature
Session
Course outline & introduction - Outline of lectures, assignments, working group sessions, deadlines, grades - Introduction to wicked and illstructured problems Making project groups Lecture 1 Collaborative governance Working group session 1 Presentation, feedback and discussion on - policy problem situation in own case - analysis of own case in terms of collaborative governance concepts Lecture 2 Network theory Working group session 2 Presentation, feedback and discussion on case using network theory Lecture 3 Adaptive governance Working group session 3 Presentation, feedback and discussion on own case in terms of adaptive governance concepts Lecture 4 Assumptions, paradox and configuration theory Working group session 4 Presentation, feedback and discussion on patterns, paradoxes, and interventions in own case using configuration theory Lecture 5 Governance on multiple levels Working group session 5 Presentation, feedback and discussion on integrated interventions on different levels in own case Final student paper presentations Oral exam room C72
Literature
Hisschemoller & Hoppe (1995) Klijn (2005) until § 11.3 Rittel & Webber (1973)
Week 26 We 05/03 Week 27 Tu 11/03
Collaborative Governance
Read literature Work on case analysis / presentation
Huxham (2000) Huxham & Vangen (2005) Gray (1989) Pahl-Wostl et al. (2007)
Week 27 We 12/03 Week 28 Tu 18/03
Network Governance
Read literature
Work on case analysis / presentation
Agranoff (2006) Van Bueren, Klijn & Koppenjan (2003) de Bruijn (2005) Feldman, Khademian, Ingram & Schneider, (2006) Klijn & Koppenjan (2006)\ Folke et al. (2005) McLain & Lee (1996) Olsson et a. (2007)
Week 28 We 19/03 Week 29 Tu 25/03
Adaptive governance
Read literature Work on case analysis / presentation
Week 29 We 26/03 Week 30 Tu 01/04
Configuration theory
Read literature
Work on case analysis / presentation
Argyris (1983) Argyris (2004) from p. 393 Poole & Van de Ven (1989) Putnam (1993) Termeer & Kessener (2007) van Eeten (1999)
Week 30 We 02/04 Week 31 Tu 15/04
Overview & synthesis
Read literature Work on case analysis / presentation
Kooiman (2003)
Week 31 We 16/04 Week 32 We 23/04
Examination
Prepare final presentation Hand in final paper
Updated 04/02/2008
Requirements for the paper
1. The paper is an academic paper and will be written in pairs. The goal of the paper is to analyze your own case, applying the theories and methods discussed in the lectures. 2. The topic of the paper must be approved by the course lecturers 3. The paper should be minimum 10, maximum 25 pages (including references), line spacing 1.5, and font size 12. English should be reasonable (when written in Dutch, it should have a high level of grammar and spelling) 4. The structure of the paper includes the following parts: o table of content o abstract/summary o introduction and research question (what do you want to analyze; why and how?), o introduction of case and case description o analysis of case using network theory, institutional design, collaborative governance, configuration theory and adaptive governance. Discuss and use theories from the lectures and, preferably, literature you selected yourself. You can use literature throughout the paper. o conclusions o presentation of your suggestions for interventions, including discussion of pro’s and con’s. Describe how you will use interventions, in what sequence, on what levels, etcetera. Build up: what will your next move be when the first strategy does not work? Use theory to make reasoned choices. o references o Important: Make use of different scientific sources (journals, books); references to literature should be included in a reference list. 5. Procedure o On Tuesday March 11th definitive selection of the case. o On Wednesday April; 16th: Paper presentations. o On Wednesday April 23th: Individual oral exam and handing in of final paper
Updated 04/02/2008
Assessment of the paper
The things we will be looking at when judging your paper: Problem formulation 1 2 3 4 5 (formulation of main problem(s) and the thoroughness with which it is explained) Analysis 1 2 3 4 5 (thoroughness of analysis and interpretation of results, clarity of description of problem context and actors, clarity of meaning of context for main question(s)) Theory 1 2 3 4 5 (quality of use of literature in case description and analysis, argumentation, explanation of terms and relations with case, critical discussion of theory) Conclusions: 1 2 3 4 5 (argumentation of conclusions, use of literature to explain, link to possible interventions) Interventions: 1 2 3 4 5 (Quality of interventions and sequence of interventions, argumentation of interventions, use of intervention literature) Use of language: 1 2 3 4 5 (correct Dutch / English (this will be taken more into account when paper is written in Dutch!), structure, readability, adequate mentioning of sources, both in literature as well as in research sources, literature list, layout) Creativity: 1 2 3 4 5 (creativity of elaboration of case, ability to catch the readers’ interests with an interesting paper)
Updated 04/02/2008