PUBLIC POLICY

V53.0306

Fall 2003

Monday/Wednesday 11AM–12:15PM

Room: 401 Silver

Prof. Lawrence M. Mead
Department of Politics
726 Broadway #765
Phone: (212) 998-8540
E-mail: LMM1@nyu.edu
Hours: Tues 3-5 PM or by Appointment

This course is about policymaking in the federal government.  I assume that you have already taken at least an introductory course in American politics, such as Power and Politics in America.

The subject is the federal policymaking process, policy analysis, and some of the substance of policy.  That is, what happens in Washington after the policymakers are chosen.  I give little attention to public opinion, elections, or public opinion.  While electoral outcomes are important to policy, they only begin to determine what the government actually does.  Much of federal policy is crafted “inside the Beltway” after the elected officials are in their chairs.  The players include, not only the President and members of Congress, but unelected appointees, bureaucrats, lobbyists, and experts.  The procedures are complex and fascinating--and little known to the general public.

One of my goals is simply to teach you the terminology and concepts used in policy debate in Washington.  Government insiders know this language; most of the public does not.  But without it no one can understand how policy is actually discussed at the top.  In addition to the policy process, we will cover budgeting and policy analysis.  The class will use these tools to examine and make presentations on a critical and very difficult current issue--Medicare reform.

My approach draws in part on first-hand knowledge.  I worked in and around the government for several years before becoming a professor, and I return to Washington often in my capacity as an expert on poverty and welfare.  I often testify in Congress and advise agencies on welfare reform.

This course is a good preparation for going on NYU’s Washington semester, for those who want to experience the policymaking process first-hand.  Those interested should speak to me.

READINGS

Students should purchase the following texts at the bookstore, although the books will also be on reserve at Bobst:

The following additional materials should be read where indicated in the course schedule below.

Some further readings are suggested for the Medicare topic that students will study for the policy analysis exercise (see below). 

Students will take a midterm and final examinations, both closed-book and in-class, participate in a policy analysis exercise, and write a paper on this exercise.  The exercise and paper are described further below.  The two exams, exercise, and paper will each count 20 percent of the grade.  The final 20 percent will be given for class participation, with weight to given for both attendance and contributions to class discussion (both of which will be recorded).  Doing well in class requires coming regularly, doing the readings in advance, and participating actively.

The midterm and final exams will be two-part.  Half of each test will be to write six identifications of terms or concepts from the course, chosen out of 12.  The other half will be to answer one broad essay question, chosen out of three.  Each part will count about half the grade.  Both halves of the midterm will cover all material up to that point in the course.  On the final, the IDs will be drawn from material after the midterm, but the essays will cover the whole course.

Final grades will be determined by ranking the class on the basis of average.  About the top quarter to a third of the class will receive A’s, the middle 40-50 percent B’s, the rest C’s or--in exceptional cases--lower grades.  Students should note that, because of this scaling procedure, final grades may not correspond precisely to what one would expect on the basis of average.  Often, I give out more B’s during the term than I want to for the record.  So in the final reckoning, some students with high B averages get A’s and some with low B averages get C’s. 

Extensions, makeups, or Incompletes will be given only for unexpected demands on your time, such as illness or family crises--not press of other obligations that can be foreseen.  Incompletes will be given only for cause and only on the basis of consultation prior to the final exam.  To arrange extensions, makeups, or Incompletes, students must confer with me in my office during office hours or at other agreed times.  A brief conversation after class is not sufficient.  So, if you are in difficulties, do not absent yourself.  Do not assume that you can always arrange an Incomplete sometime later.  Rather, consult with me early.  Students who disappear without explanation will simply fail the course. 

COURSE SCHEDULE

The following is the schedule for class meetings, with the reading assigned for each. Readings should be completed in advance of class, as otherwise it will be difficult to participate in discussion:

Sept. 3: The Policy Approach: Ways of understanding policymaking in Washington, and the approach used in this course:

Anderson, ch. 1; Mead, “Public Policy.”

Sept. 8: The Institutional Setting: How the Constitution and federal institutions shape policymaking in Washington.  The key government players.

Anderson, ch. 2; Kingdon, ch. 2.

Sept. 10: The Political Setting: Recent trends that have tended to detach electoral politics from policymaking in Washington.  Key nongovernmental players.

Kingdon, ch. 3; Wilson, “New Politics, New Elites, Old Publics.”

Sept. 15: The Agenda: Politics: How issues and alternatives come to be defined in policymaking.

Anderson, ch. 3; Kingdon, chs. 1, 4-5, 7.

Sept. 17: The Agenda: Experts: The important role of outside experts in developing alternatives and solutions for government.

Kingdon, chs. 6, 8, 10; Heclo, “Issue Networks.”

Sept. 22: Types of Policy: Types of issues and the political patterns associated with them.  The theories of Theodore Lowi and James Q. Wilson.

Anderson, pp. 7-11; Wilson and DiIulio, American Government, ch. 15.

Sept. 24: Policymaking: Overview: The forces that interact to produce policy decisions in Washington.  Roles of parties, campaigns, presidential programs, and Congress.

Anderson, ch. 4; Sinclair, chs. 1, 12.

Sept. 29: Congress: Recent Changes: Changes in Congress that have made its policymaking more complicated and less predictable.

Sinclair, chs. 2-4, 6.

Oct. 1: The Bureaucracy: Organization and functions of the federal bureaucracy.  The politics of Executive organization.  Recent efforts to downsize the bureaucracy.

Anderson, pp. 202-18; Seidman, Politics, Position, and Power, ch. 1; Aaron and Reischauer, ch. 12.

Oct. 6: The Reinvention of Government:

Aaron and Reischauer, ch. 13.

Oct. 8: Federalism: The Intergovernmental System: Evolution and politics of the federal system and intergovernmental grants. 

Seidman and Gilmour, Politics, Position, and Power, ch. 9.

Oct. 13: Federalism: Reform: “New federalism” and repeated attempts to reform intergovernmental relations.

Conlan, From New Federalism to Devolution, chs. 1, 14.

Oct. 15: Implementation: The complex, troubled implementation of domestic programs.  Influence of local administration, the grant system, and the courts.

Anderson, ch. 6.

Oct. 20: Midterm Examination.

Oct. 22: Budgeting: Basics: The fundamental concepts and institutions of federal budgeting.

Anderson, ch. 5.

Oct. 27: Budgeting: Crisis and Reform: The deficit controversy, budget reform, and the dominance of money issues and procedures in Congress.

Sinclair, chs. 5, 10-11.

Oct. 29: Policy Analysis: Making Policy Arguments:

Anderson, ch. 4 (pp. 120-34); Bardach, part 1.

Nov. 3: Policy Analysis: Economic Theory: How economists conceive of the things government should and should not do, an influential theory of the agenda in Washington.

MacRae and Wilde, Policy Analysis for Public Decisions, ch. 5.

Nov. 5: Evaluation: How government programs are reassessed in the light of experience.  Different approaches to evaluation, and the politics thereof.

Anderson, ch. 7.

Nov. 10: Domestic Policy: Overview of what the federal government does domestically, and current challenges in economic and social policy.

Aaron and Reischauer, chs. 1, 4, 8.

Nov. 12: Entitlements: The budget and other problems posed by large guaranteed benefit programs such as Social Security, health programs, and welfare.

Aaron and Reischauer, ch. 6; Toner and Stolberg. “Decade After Health Care Crisis.”

Nov. 17: Medicare: The structure and problems of the nation’s costly health program for the elderly and disabled.

Marilyn Moon, Medicare Now and in the Future, appendix.

Robert D. Reischauer, “Medicare Vouchers.”

Nov. 19: Medicare Reform: Substance and politics of reforming the Medicare program.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, “The Medicare Challenge.”

Joseph R. Antos and Linda Bilheimer, “The Bumpy Road to Reform.”

“Public Opinion and Medicare Restructuring: Three Views.”

Nov. 24: Student presentation on Medicare reform.

Nov. 26: Student presentation on Medicare reform.

Dec. 1: Student presentation on Medicare reform.

Dec. 3: Student presentation on Medicare reform.

Dec. 8: Review Session.

Dec. 15: Final examination—10-11:50 AM, in 401 Silver.

POLICY ANALYSIS EXERCISE

Overview

Students will participate in teams grappling with the problem of how to reform Medicare.  The question to be addressed is: How should the nation reform Medicare so as to deal with the program’s financing crisis and other long-term problems? 

Note that this question is broader than the current question of how to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare.  On the other hand, it is narrower than how to reform the whole health care system.

The main options to be considered are:

·  An incremental reform that would keep the current structure of the program but impose detailed changes such as higher cost sharing or limits on services to prevent bankruptcy. 

·  A competitive structure where fee-for-service Medicare would be replaced by competing health plans offering beneficiaries varying coverage at varying prices.  The government would support premiums up to some limit, after which participants would pay anything further.

·  Prefunding.  The elderly would fund their health care in advance by contributing to medicare savings accounts during their working lives, then use these assets to purchase coverage during their retirement and old age.

After an initial briefing from me, teams will work independently to develop evidence and arguments supporting their position and criticizing the others.  Each will give a preliminary presentation to me.  Following three preparatory lectures (Nov. 12, 17-19), each team will give its presentation to the class (Nov. 24-Dec. 3).  Thus, each team will in the position of witnesses making presentations to policymaking bodies, as occurs, for example, in Congressional hearings.

Policy analysis done in the government often has to be technical and detailed.  Your task here is more qualitative—to justify a general approach to solving the policy problem in question.  You may offer projections about costs or other effects based on existing reform plans; I do not expect you to make these estimates yourselves.  Focus on showing why your option is preferable to the alternatives. Address these questions, in approximately this order:

·  Problem: What exactly is the problem posed by the issue you have chosen.  State it as precisely as you can.  Your team will have to narrow the problem posed to keep it manageable.

·  Causes: What are the forces behind the problem?  What caused it, and, thus, what has to change to overcome it?

·  Options: What are the alternatives for solving the problem?  Be creative.  You may consider options other than those I have defined.

·  Consequences: What would be the results of choosing each alternative?  Explain the strong and weak points of each.  One can cover just the strong points of each if the drawbacks are clear from the advantages of the other options.

·  Politics: Include in your analysis political or bureaucratic problems that might impede approving or implementing your recommendation.  How do you deal with these problems?

·  Recommendation: In light of the above, why is your approach preferred?

Many reform proposals already exist.  While teams may allude to these, they should concentrate on understanding the problem and showing why in general their approach is best for overcoming it.

For insight on how to do public policy research, see the class handout on this topic.  I also recommend reading the parts of Bardach, Practical Guide to Policy Analysis, not assigned in class.

Details

Teams: Students will be assigned to teams based largely on what option they think they prefer at the outset. Once assembled, each team is free to develop whatever position on its issue it prefers.  You could, for example, reject your initial position and propose something else.

Schedule: The teams will be chosen in class right after the midterm examination.  Each will have a team leader who is in charge of arranging meetings and allocating tasks after discussion with other team members.  Then will follow:

·  Initial meeting: Each team will meet with me to discuss its issue and plan its work.  This meeting could occur at the Politics Department during office hours, Tuesday 3-5 PM, or at a different time if more convenient.  I will help each team apportion the work among its members.

·  Initial reading: Each team should do the reading assigned for Nov. 12, 17, and 19 as soon as possible after teams are named.

·  Further reading: Team members may read the additional items suggested below and further items that they may uncover themselves.  Members may divide the readings between them, each reading some items and producing notes on them for the others.

·  Working meetings: I leave it to each team leader to arrange further meetings to assemble its work and write its presentation. 

·  Initial presentation: Each team will make its presentation to me at a time separate from the regular class hour, receiving feedback.

·  Class presentation: Teams will make revised presentations to the class on one of the four dates, Nov. 24-Dec. 3.

Note that, both in the trial run and class sessions, presentations should:

·  Last no more than 30 minutes, to allow time for discussion.

·  Include a verbal argument backed by overhead slides to summarize the main points.

·  Involve several team members as presenters.  Several should also respond to questions.

See handout on presentations for further pointers and details. 

Grades: I will grade each team based on its two presentations.  All members of a team will receive the same grade, provided all have contributed in a meaningful way.  Members who fail to contribute or cause problems for their groups may receive a lower grade.

Readings

The readings for the introductory lectures on entitlements, Medicare, and Medicare reform are assigned in the class schedule above.  How much more reading teams do is up to them.  I recommend the following discussions of the main reform options:

Incremental reform:  Marilyn Moon, Medicare Now and in the Future, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, 1996), chs. 7, 9.

Competitive plans:

National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, Building a Better Medicare for Today and Tomorrow (the Breaux/Thomas plan) (Washington, DC: National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, March 16, 1999).  See http://thomas.loc.gov/medicare/bbmtt31599.html.

Walton Francis, “The FEHBP as a Model for Reform,” in Medicare in the Twenty-first Century: Seeking Fair and Efficient Reform, ed. Robert B. Helms (Washington, DC: AEI Press, 1999), ch. 8.

Prefunding: Andrew J. Rettenmaier and Thomas R. Saving, “Paying for Medicare in the Twenty-first Century,” in Medicare Reform: Issues and Answers, ed. Andrew J. Rettenmaier and Thomas R. Saving (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), ch. 9.

These selections will be placed on reserve.  Other than the Breaux/Thomas plan, which is available on the web, they will also be included in the second course pack available for purchase.  The following books on Medicare will also be on reserve:

Robert B. Helms, ed., Medicare in the Twenty-first Century: Seeking Fair and Efficient Reform (Washington, DC: AEI Press, 1999).

Marilyn Moon, Medicare Now and in the Future, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, 1996).

Robert D. Reischauer, Stuart Butler, and Judith Lave, eds., Medicare: Preparing for the Challenges of the 21st Century (Washington, DC: National Academy of Social insurance, 1998).

Andrew J. Rettenmaier and Thomas R. Saving, eds., Medicare Reform: Issues and Answers (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999).

C. Eugene Steuerle, Van Doorn Ooms, George E. Peterson, and Robert D. Reischauer, eds., Vouchers and the Provision of Public Services, ed. (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2000).

Other materials:  Teams are free to research and cite materials from government sources, such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS, formerly the Health Care Financing Administration, or HCFA), the federal agency that oversees Medicare.  They may also cite and use materials that were regularly published as books or academic articles.  They may not cite material (e.g., from web pages) that is not governmental and not regularly published.  This includes material from private think tanks or advocacy groups. 

One good source that is regularly published and available on the web is the journal Health Affairs.  It may well have recent articles touching on the Medicare reform issue.

PAPER

Alongside working on the policy analysis exercise, you are to write a paper on the same issue, using the same research.  Again, the question is:  How should the nation reform Medicare so as to deal with the program’s financing crisis and other long-term problems? 

You may make the same argument your team makes at its presentation, or you may make a different argument.  However you argue, I expect you to be more detailed and to document your points more closely than you can do in the presentation.  Include thinking that is your own and not simply what your team reported.  You should also respond to criticisms that may emerge in class discussion.

Due: Dec. 8, the last meeting of class.  Papers handed in after this will be accepted but penalized

--5 points if handed in by the final examination, which is on Dec. 15.

--10 points if handed in later than this but prior to the time grades are submitted.

Be aware that delays due to commuting, the subway, or computer or printer problems are to be expected and are the student's responsibility.

Extensions without penalty will be given for serious, unexpected, and documented demands on your time, such as illness or family emergency.  Students in difficulties should confer with me out of class before the paper is due.  For illness, bring a note from a parent or doctor.

Extensions beyond when grades go in require an Incomplete.  This also requires that there be serious, unexpected, and documented demands on your time.  You must confer with me out of class before the end of the course.  Students who fail to turn in a paper, or turn in a paper after grades are submitted, without arranging an Incomplete in advance will simply fail the course. 

Submission: Papers may be handed to me in class on or before the deadline.  They may also be left in my box at the Politics Department prior to when I leave for the class when the paper is due. 

Papers may be mailed, but must arrive by the time due, not simply be postmarked on that date.  Papers may not be faxed to the Department or submitted by e-mail.

Keep a copy of your paper, in hard copy or on disk, in case it should become lost.

Format: Papers should observe the following guidelines.  Papers infringing the rules will be accepted but incur a penalty of 4 points off per infraction, but not more than 8 points total:

--Cover page: must include name, local address, e-mail address, and all possible phone numbers.  Please place this information in the upper left-hand corner, to make it easier to locate your paper in a stack.

--Cover page: must also include the question being answered.  Write it out on your cover page.  This is to make sure that you focus on it.  Students often forget to do this!

--Length: 15-20 pages, exclusive of cover page and bibliography.  In figuring length, half the length of any tables or figures that you create will be added to the text. 

--Papers must be typed or written on a computer. 

--Spacing: double-spaced, with 24-7 lines to the page.

--Margins: 1-1.5"  on the left and top of pages, .75-1" on the right and bottom.

--Type size: close to the size used for this assignment.

--Pages must be numbered, starting with the first page of text.  Numbers may be handwritten.

--Binders--avoid.  Instead, papers should be stapled at upper left-hand corner.

Sources: The paper may be written entirely from the readings required for the course and the policy analysis exercise.  You may consult further materials, but this is not required.

Materials other than materials mentioned in this syllabus may be cited provided that they come from government sources or academic articles or books that were regularly published.  Materials from private think tanks and web pages may not be cited. 

Originality: Students may discuss the assignments with other students but must write their papers individually, without collaboration with others.  Students may seek help with their writing in general, but the writing they hand in should be entirely their own, not edited by others.

Plagiarism: Do not use ideas or language drawn from readings without giving the source.  Also, do not use an author's actual language as if it were your own; always enclose borrowed language within quotation marks to make clear that someone else is talking.  It is plagiarism not to cite a source and also to use an author’s words as if they were your own--even if you do cite the source.  Do not copy material out of books into your paper.  Quote from the books only when the author really says it better than you can, and then make clear that someone else is speaking.  Plagiarism is a serious offense that will draw heavy penalties.

At the same time, do not be self-consciously "academic."  The paper is intended to test your own thought and expression.  Don't feel you have to have a citation on every sentence.  There is no need to document facts that are commonly known to your audience.

Citations: Keep citations to your sources simple.  While you may use footnotes or endnotes, I recommend the author-date method: At the end of the sentence or paragraph in which borrowed ideas occur, simply put the author, the date of the publication, and page in parentheses inside the period ending the sentence, like this: . . . (author, date, p. 23).  Then list that author and publication in the bibliography at the end of the paper.  If more than one publication by an author is cited, all the items should be listed in the bibliography under that author but in order of date.

You might write, for instance, "In Washington, policy areas are dominated by issue networks (Heclo, 1978, pp. 98-115)."  Then, in the bibliography would appear the full reference: Heclo, Hugh, "Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment," in The New American Political System, ed. Anthony King, Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1978.

Often, you will cite material from edited volumes where the different chapters have different authors.  Here, you should cite in the text the author of the chapter you are citing, not the editor of the volume.  Thus, the above reference is to Heclo, not King; King’s name and the volume title do appear, but only in the reference to Heclo in the bibliography.  If you cite from several chapters of the same work, all with different authors, refer to the separate authors in the text, then have a separate reference to each chapter in the bibliography.

If you quote as well as cite an author in the text, the sequence at the end of the sentence is: period and quotation marks ending the quotation, then the parentheses with the source, then a second period.  For example, you might write: Hugh Heclo says that ". . . we tend to miss the fairly open networks of people that increasingly impinge upon government." (Heclo, 1978, p. 88).