Degree | Type | Year | Semester |
---|---|---|---|
4313335 Political Science | OB | 0 | 1 |
You can check it through this link. To consult the language you will need to enter the CODE of the subject. Please note that this information is provisional until 30 November 2023.
As a minimum level, students should hold a Bachellor's Degree or equivalent, in any knwoledge area within social sciences.
To understand the main theoretical debates in públic management and public policy analysis.
To provide with an overview of the main issues currently alive in debates on social policy, public administration and public management
To learn how to apply methodological models in order to carry out research in this field.
To understand how to apply that knowledge to the analysis of and intervention in complex social and political problems.
To comprehend how similar issues and public policy dilemmas are expressed differently in different national contexts
To acquire the knowledge and the necessary skills to apply it within organizational environments in the field of politics and public management.
To be able to have an informed opinion of the current tensions between fiscal and social policies that in the current context of austerity many countries are faced with.
PUBLIC MANAGEMENT TOPICS
Today’s context for Public and Third Sector Management
What leaders do: power and negotiation
Comparative Performance
Work and Public Sector Motivation
Accountability and transparency in public administration
Regulation, representation and trust
Algorithms in Public Administration
PUBLIC POLICY TOPICS
Introduction to Public Policy Process: Actors, Problems and Agendas
Minimum income policies
Inequality and poverty
New Social Risks and current challenges to social policies
Policies for the young
Other policies
Learning is based on the reading and discussion of theoretical and empirical knowledge.
The aim is to acquire the capacity to formulate questions and answers. To this end, students will have to be active and autonomous in searching and selecting relevant information, in reading and thinking in order to create a rich and informed dialogue with the lecturer.
This autonomous effort will be required previously to each session, via reading, essay writing and some cases and exercices. This work will then be complemented with seminar discussions and oral presentations, which will help to better understand both theory and practice-based knowledge as well as to question it.
Class teaching will combine lectures and seminar/case, exercise discussions on theoretical and empirical knowledge –always trying to find the applicability of theory to the real world.
Tutorial teaching will focus on the preparation of essays, exercises and presentations.
Annotation: Within the schedule set by the centre or degree programme, 15 minutes of one class will be reserved for students to evaluate their lecturers and their courses or modules through questionnaires.
Title | Hours | ECTS | Learning Outcomes |
---|---|---|---|
Type: Directed | |||
Lectures, attendance and participation | 125 | 5 | 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 10, 12 |
Type: Supervised | |||
Seminars and tutorials | 50 | 2 | 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 10, 12 |
Type: Autonomous | |||
Reading, essay writing and solving exercises | 70 | 2.8 | 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 10, 12 |
Evaluation will be botn continuous and final. It will be based on the outputs of the different activities in which students will engage to show they have achieved the expected competencies.
Such activities and outputs include:
Title | Weighting | Hours | ECTS | Learning Outcomes |
---|---|---|---|---|
3 in class exercises (Public Management) and 3 short essays (Public Policy) | 50% | 3 | 0.12 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 6, 7, 8, 11, 10, 12 |
Final test Public Management Part | 25% | 1 | 0.04 | 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 10, 12 |
Longer Public Policy Essay | 25 % | 1 | 0.04 | 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 |
More recent papers and adjusted to the each topic in the Syllabus to be distributed in class
PUBLIC MANAGEMENT
Boyne, G.A. (2003) “Sources of Public Service Improvement: A Critical Review and Research Agenda”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13 (3): 367- 394
De Vries, M.; Nemec, J. 2013 “Public Sector Reform: An Overview of Recent Literature and Research on NPM and Alternative Paths”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 26(1):4-16.
Ferlie, E., Lynn, L.E. Jr and Pollitt, Ch. 2005 The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, New York: Oxford University Press.
Grant, A. 2012 “Leading with Meaning: Beneficiary Contact, Prosocial Impact and the Performance Effects of Transformational Leadership”, Academy of Management Journal, 55 (2):458-476
Heifetz R. A. Linsky, M. 2002 Leadership on the Line. Boston, Mas: Harvard Business School Press. Pages 9-30
Kelly, J. 2007 “Reforming Public Services in the UK: Bringing in The Third Sector” Public Administration, 85 (4):1003-1022
Koffijberg, J. De Bruin, H. Priemus, H. 2012 “Combining Hierarchical and Network Strategies: Successful Changes in Dutch Social Housing” Public Administration, 90 (1):262-275
Kotter, J.P. 2001 “What Leaders Really Do”. Harvard Business Review, December
Kuhlmann, S. and Wollmann, H. 2014 Introduction to Comparative Public Administrations. Administrative Systems and Reform in Europe. Cheltenham and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar
Latham, G.P., Borgogni, L., Petitta, L. 2008 “Goal Setting and Performance Management in the Public Sector” International Public Management Journal, 11(4) 385-403
McGuire, M Agranoff, R. 2011 “The Limitations of Public Management Networks” Public Administration, 89 (2):265-284
Milward, H.B. Provan. K.G. (2000) “Governing theHollow State” Journal of PublicAdministration Research and Theory 10 (2) 359-379
Moynihan, D.P. 2005 “What Do We Talk About When We Talk About Performance. Dialogue Theory and Performance Budgeting” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16: 151-168
Moynihan, D. P. Pandey, S. K. 2010 “The Big Question for Performance Management: Why Do Managers Use Performance Information” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20:849-866
OECD, 2008. Public-Private Partnerships. In Pursuit of Risk Sharing and Value for Money. Paris. OECD Publications. Chapter 1.
Olsen, J. P. 2005 “Maybe It is Time to Rediscover Bureaucracy”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16:1-24
Page, E. Hood, C. Lodge, M. 2005. “Conclusion; Is Competency Management a Passing Fad” Public Administration, 83 (4): 853-860
Perry, J., Christensen, R.K. 2015 Handbook of Public Administration, London: Routledge.
Perry, J. Hondeghem, A. Wise L.R. 2008. “Revisiting the Motivational Bases of PublicService: Twenty Years of Research and an Agenda for the Future” Public Administration Review 70 (5):681-690
Pollit, C. 2009 “Bureaucracies Remember; Post-Bureaucratic Organizations Forget”, Public Administration, 82 (2): 198-218
Pollit, C. and Bouckaert, G. 2004 Public Management Reform. A Comparative Analysis, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Truss, C. 2008 “Continuity and Change: The Role of the HR Function in the Modern Public Sector” Public Administration, 86 (4):1071-1088
Vandenabeele, W. 2008 “Government calling: Public Service Motivation asan Element in Selecting Government as an Employer of Choice”, Public Administration 86 (4):1089-1105
Van Ryzin, G. G. Charbonneau 2010 “Public Service Use and Perceived Performance;An Empirical Note on the Nature of the Relationship” Public Administration, 88 (2): 551-563
Van Ryzin, G. G. Immerwahr, Altman, S. 2008 “Measuring Street Cleanliness: A Comparison of New York City’s Scorecard and Results from a Citizen Survey” Public Administration Review March –April: 295-303
Weibel A., Rost, K., Osterloh, M. “Pay for Performance in the Public Sector-Benefits and Hidden Costs” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20: 387-412
Wright, B.E. Moynihan, D.P. Pandey, S. K.2011 “Pulling the Levers: Transformational Leadership, Public Service Motivation and Mission Valence”, Public Administration Review 77 (2): 206-215
PUBLIC POLICY
Albi, E.; González-Páramo, J.; López Casasnovas, G. 1997. Gestión pública. Barcelona. Ariel.
Aguilar, L. 1992. La hechura de las políticas públicas. México. M.A. Porrua. 4 vols.
Ballart, X. 1992 ¿Cómo evaluar programas y servicios públicos? Madrid. Ministerio para las Administraciones Públicas.
Barzelay, M.; Gallego, R. 2006. ‘From “new institutionalism” to “institutional processualism”: Advancing knowledge about public management policy change’. Governance, 19, 4:531-557.
Colebatch, H. 2002. Policy. London: Open University Press. 2nd edition.
Hill, M. ed. 1997. The policy process. A reader. Hertfordshire. Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf. 2nd edition.
Kingdon, J. 1995. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York. HarperCollins. 2nd edition.
Knoepfel, P.; Larrue, C.; Varone, F. 2001. Analyse et pilotage des politiques publiques. Basel. Helbing and Lichtenhahn.
Lane, J. 1993. The public sector. Concepts, models and approaches. London. Sage.
Loseke, D. 2003. Thinking about social problems. New Jersey. Aldine Transaction. 2nd edition.
Moore, M. 1995. Gestión estratégica y creación de valor en el sector público. Paidós. Barcelona. (traducció 1998).
Pressman, J.; Vildavsky. A. 1984. Implementation. Berkeley. University of California Press. 3rd edition.
Sabatier, P. ed. 1999. Theories of the policy process. Oxford. Westview Press.
Stone, D. 2002. Policy paradox. The art of political decision making. London. Norton. 2nd edition.
(More detail in the syllabus to be distributed)