You are on page 1of 28

PAR

FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Governance Syllabus
Laurence E. Lynn, Jr.

TheFoundationsofPublicAdministrationSeriesisacollectionofarticleswrittenbyexpertsin20
contentareas,providingintroductoryessaysandrecommendingtoparticlesinthosesubjects.

Governance
Laurence E. Lynn, Jr.

About This Course


Governance refers to how actors are organized and managed in order to accomplish purposes they have in
common. These actors may be multinational organizations, governments, public agencies, private corporations,
communities, or natural persons. More succinctly, governance is the provision of guidance and direction, the
exercise of authority.
The concept of governance thus applies to a single business corporation such as General Motors, an NGO such
as Mdecins Sans Frontires, or public agency such as the Transportation Security Administration; to a
particular country such as the United Kingdom, to consociations such as the European Union, and to global
entities such as the United Nations Development Program or the World Banks International Development
Association. Governance can be defined with respect to a shared purpose, such as economic development or
HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment, or to a specific policy domain, such as homeland security or global
climate control.
Creating and sustaining effective governance is a major concern of policy makers in national governments and
in regional and international organizations. The quality of governance is an issue in foreign and national
security policy, international development policy, and virtually every domain of domestic policy. The sense of
urgency that often infuses discussions of governance has as its sources both the globalization of the forces
confronting national and international policy makers, from climate change to financial instability and terrorism,
and the spread of democracy movements and democratic reforms, which accelerated following the end of the
Cold War.
Policy debates concerning governance engender considerable controversy . Many scholars and practitioners,
for example, argue that, as a broad generalization, governance is, or should be, post-bureaucratic and that the
boundaries between states and the institutions of civil society, especially in advanced democracies, are being
redrawn to reduce governments role in societal guidance and direction. Others dispute this view and argue that
trends in the forms and instruments of governance prove the adaptability, not the obsolescence, of traditional
hierarchical/bureaucratic governance and confirm the historical path dependence of national institutional
development. This course will explore these and other, more specific issues that arise in contemporary debates
on governance in a globalizing world.
The goal of the course is twofold. The first is to familiarize students with the many different definitions,
concepts, and models of governance that will be encountered in discussions of public policies toward

(c) 2010 ASPA

PAR

FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Governance Syllabus
Laurence E. Lynn, Jr.

governance and governance reform in professional literature. The second is to equip students with the critical
analytical tools and skills to evaluate the impact of various forms of governance, and of various proposals for
governance reform, on the achievement of shared purposes and on the interactions between the state, or
governments, and civil society. Why does governance take the forms and evolve in the ways that it does both
nationally and internationally? How do systems of governance work? How can we explain the success or
failure of governance reforms? In the light of the answers to such questions, how can, or should, governance
problems be solved?
Within this broad consideration, specific questions such as the following will be considered: Why did the
United Nation Oil for Program in Iraq failor did it? Why did integration into the European Union have
such different effects in Spain and Portugal? Under what circumstances should policy makers prefer (a)
markets, (b) hierarchy, and (c) networks when designing public policies and programs? Why did Great Britain
and Germany react so differently to the neo-liberal administrative reform movement called New Public
Management?
A number of concepts useful to the analysis and comparison of governance systems will be introduced. These
include transaction costs, common property resources, veto players, path dependence, chain of delegation, and
principal-agent relationships. These concepts are useful in expanding ones grasp of why we observe what we
do in governance systems and how those systems might be changed to produce different outcomes.

Course Objectives
Upon successful completion of this course, students should demonstrate a range of knowledge and skill
competencies. These competencies, which comprise the course objectives, are listed below.
Knowledge Competencies
Upon successful completion of this course, students should be able to:
1. Explain the different meanings of the concept of governance found in professional literature and discourse
and, in addition;
2. Comprehend and explain theories that might account for the emergence of various forms of governance;
3. Argue on behalf of their own views concerning the applicability of the concept of governance to public
administration policy and practice;
4. Explain the types of evidence that are used to support various arguments and proposals for different
approaches to governance policy and practice; and
5. Demonstrate in-depth familiarity with the issues and controversies in the study and practice of governance.

(c) 2010 ASPA

PAR

FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Governance Syllabus
Laurence E. Lynn, Jr.

Skill Competencies
Upon successful completion of this course, students should be able to:
1. Understand and critically evaluate the quality of arguments in professional literature concerning governance;
2. Analyze the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches to governance in the developed and
developing worlds and in supranational organizations;
3. Locate and use information concerning governance gathered through library, electronic, and field research;
and
4. Produce arguments professionally and persuasively in class discussions, in written assignments, and in oral
presentations.

Course Readings
All assigned readings are available on electronic reserve, on-line (at the cited URL), or as class handouts.
Please note: readings marked with are required of all students other than Ph.D. students, although they are
encouraged to read whatever materials interest them. Ph.D. students are required to familiarize themselves with
all the assigned readings.

Class Participation
In general, the first half of each class will be devoted to discussion of the days assigned readings. Students are
expected to come to class prepared with questions, critical comments, and insights based on the readings. Each
student should send a one-page summary of these questions and comments to other members of the class no
later than the previous evening via the course listserv. The second half of each class will be devoted to a
discussion and analysis of assigned teaching and research cases.. Evaluation of class participation will be based
on the quality (analytic insights, mastery of concepts, being on point), not the quantity of student contributions.
Students are expected to attend each class. If a student is unable to attend on any given day, he or she should
notify the instructor in advance. One excused absence will be allowed without penalty.

(c) 2010 ASPA

PAR

FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Governance Syllabus
Laurence E. Lynn, Jr.

Assignments
Students are required to complete the following assignments:

Questions/Comments on Readings - As discussed above, students are expected to circulate


questions/comments on the readings by the night before scheduled classes.

Case Analyses Students are expected to complete four case analysis memos of 3-5 double-spaced
pages each (discussed further below);

Course Paper Students are expected to complete a 12-15 double-spaced page analysis of an issue or
problem of governance chosen by the student (also discussed further below).

Course Grades
The maximum score for the entire course is 100 points, which may be earned as follows:

questions/comments on course reading and participation in case discussions: 20 points;

case analyses: 10 points each, for a total of 40 points;

course paper: 40 points.

Making Good Arguments


In analyzing course readings, in all written assignments, and in class discussions, students are expected to know
and demonstrate the qualities of a persuasive argument. To a significant extent, discussion of public programs
and policies and their implementation takes the form of argument: discourse intended to persuade policy
makers, employees, and stakeholders of a particular point of view and to build political and organizational
support for it. Reasoned persuasion is, and should be, a basic competency in public administration practice.
In a good argument,
(1) a clear point is stated or claim is made this is what I want you to believe is true;,
(2) the point or claim is backed up with reasons that support the main point;
(3) facts or data evidence - are provided that support those reasons and points/claims;

(c) 2010 ASPA

PAR

FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Governance Syllabus
Laurence E. Lynn, Jr.

(4) a general principle, or warrant, is stated or implied that links the evidence with the main point; and
(5) potential criticisms are addressed and qualifications are acknowledged.
These elements are shown schematically in the following diagram:

Figure 3.1:
Elements of an Argument
WARRANT
The principle that
lets me connect my
reason and claim is

I claim that
CLAIM

because of these reasons


REASON

which I base on this evidence


EVIDENCE

I acknowledge these questions, objections,


and alternatives, and I respond to them with these arguments
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND RESPONSE
Source: Joseph M. Williams, Gregory G. Colomb, Jonathan DErrico, and Karen Tracey,
The Craft of Argument, with Readings (New York: Longman, 2003): 35.

(c) 2010 ASPA

PAR

FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Governance Syllabus
Laurence E. Lynn, Jr.

In-Class Case Discussions


Each class will feature a case discussion. These cases are of two types: teaching cases and research cases.
Teaching cases take a reader to ground level of governance. Research cases and articles take readers to the
heights, where one can view broader patterns. Teaching cases are, in effect, telling anecdotes that may be
helpful in interpreting the practical implications of broad patterns of change.
A typical teaching case tells a story (that is, describes a sequence of events: something happened, then
something else happened, then something else happened, and so on) about a governance problem or issue. A
typical case brings you to a point at which a decision must be made or action taken or recommended by an actor
in the case. Case discussions will generally focus on the actions or problems of public officials in the case as
they are caused or influenced by contextual factors.
Another quality of a good teaching case is that there the right answers are not obvious. Rather, many answers
(decisions, solutions, actions) are possible, each of which has advantages and disadvantages and about the
merits of which reasonable people can disagree.
To prepare for the in-class case discussions (and for written analyses of cases), students will want to do a deep
(or close) reading of the case. That is, read the case at least twice (sometimes more). Become immersed in the
case and become familiar with the basic situation it represents: inhabit the situation.
Students will be asked to make a convincing argument (see above discussion of good arguments) about the
case, supporting their answers with evidence form the case. Students can expect to be asked: What would you
do and why? Good arguments require a close and insightful 1 reading of the case.
Students may be asked to play the roles of actors in the case. Brief, spontaneous, in-class role plays may
occur. These should be taken seriously (that is, students should imagine themselves in the positions of the actors
in the case), but it is fine to have some fun with it.
Students may believe that more information is needed for a good decision than is included in the case. That
could be right. But in the real world, enough information is often not available, and one is expected to work
with the information that one has, i.e., information in the case.
In addition to specific questions that apply to each case, students will find it helpful to keep these general
questions in mind:

Can you summarize the case in one succinct sentence?

Who is the main decision maker, and what specific decisions does he or she have to make?

Insight = clear or deep perception of a situation, grasping the inner nature of things.

(c) 2010 ASPA

PAR

FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Governance Syllabus
Laurence E. Lynn, Jr.

Who are the other important actors in the case, and what are their objectives?

What are the key issues, facts or assumptions that must be resolved in order to reach a decision?

in?

What is the context (or environment) that the main decision maker and other actors are operating

What alternatives should the decision maker consider, and what are the consequences of each
course of action?

What would you do in these circumstances and WHY: what is your argument?

A research case is a published research article or a report or study of some kind, which poses issues and
questions and proposes answers based on the author(s) research.
Different discussion questions arise with research cases. What is the authors argument? Is that argument
convincing? Why or why not? Are the findings broadly applicable to many contexts or relevant only to
specific or limited contexts? How might policy makers use the authors findings? The purpose of studying and
discussing research cases is to enhance student familiarity with how the scientific and other evidence that
frequently informs policy debates is produced and used to make a point.

Case Analysis Memos


Students are expected to complete four case analysis memos. Two of the assigned cases must be analyzed by
all students:

The United Nations Oil-for-Food Program

A Partnership in Troubled Waters

Students may choose any other two teaching or research cases in the syllabus to analyze.
Memos are due on the day the case will be discussed in class.
Each case analysis memo should be addressed either to the decision-maker in a teaching case or to the
instructor in other cases (as someone who has asked, What can I learn from this article/report?) Follow the
guidance for analyzing cases in the preceding section of this syllabus.

(c) 2010 ASPA

PAR

FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Governance Syllabus
Laurence E. Lynn, Jr.

Course Paper
As described in the first paragraph of this syllabus, the concept of governance can be applied to organizations,
consociations, and policies. Students may choose a subject for their course paper to which the concept of
governance can be applied, presumably a subject that reflects their career, policy, or organizational interests.
The paper should identify problems or issues of governance that are the focus of the papers analysis. That
analysis should (1) describe the governance of the subject area, (2) show how governance contributes to or
causes the problems or issues under analysis, and (3) suggest how governance reforms might contribute to
resolving these problems or issues. The paper should use concepts and analytic frameworks from course
readings to provide logical structure to the analysis and the basis for deriving conclusions and
recommendations.
The final paper should begin with a one- or two-paragraph summary of the papers argument then cover the
three topics described in the previous paragraph of this syllabus.
A 1-2 page prospectus that describes the subject and the way the student will research it is due on the 5th week
of class. A 2-page progress report what each student has done and learned so far -- is due the 10th week of
class. The final paper is due on the last day of class, during which summaries of findings will be presented and
discussed.

(c) 2010 ASPA

PAR

FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Governance Syllabus
Laurence E. Lynn, Jr.

Foundation References
The following edited volumes comprise essays on a wide range of governance issues and are useful resources
for research on governance topics.
Bevir, Mark, ed. 2010. The Sage Handbook of Governance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Bovaird, Tony and Elke Lffler, eds. 2009. Public Management and Governance Second Edition. London:
Routledge.
Durant, Robert F., ed. 2011. Oxford Handbook of American Bureaucracy. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Farazmand, Ali and Jack Pinkowski, eds. 2006. Handbook of Globalization, Governance, and Public
Administration. London: CRC/Taylor & Francis.
Kooiman, Jan ed. 1993. Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interactions. London: Sage.
Levi-Faur, David, ed. Forthcoming. The Oxford Handbook of Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Michie, Jonathan, ed. 2003. Handbook of Globalization. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Osborne, Stephen P., ed. The New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of
Public Governance. London: Routledge.
Turner, Bryan S. 2009. The Routledge International Handbook of Globalization Studies. London: Routledge.
The following monographs have been influential in shaping the discourse on governance.
Bell, Stephen and Andrew Hindmoor. 2009. Rethinking Governance: The Centrality of the State in Modern
Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bevir, Mark. 2009. Key Concepts in Governance. Los Angeles: Sage.
Bevir, Mark. 2010. Democratic Governance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Keating, Michael. 2004). Who Rules?: How Government Retains Control of a Pprivatised Economy. Sydney:
Federation Press.

(c) 2010 ASPA

PAR

FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Governance Syllabus
Laurence E. Lynn, Jr.

Kettl, Donald F. 2000. The Global Public Management Revolution: A Report on the Transformation of
Governance. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Koppell, Jonathan GS. 2010. World Rule: Accountability, Legitimacy, and the Design of Global Governance.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kjaer, A 2004. Governance. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Koliba, Christopher, Jack W. Meek, and Asim Zia. 2010. Governance Networks in Public Administration and
Public Policy. London: CRC Press.
Kooiman, Jan. 2003. Governing as Governance. London: Sage.
Lynn, Laurence E., Jr., Carolyn J. Heinrich, and Carolyn J. Hill. 2001. Improving Governance: A New Logic
for Empirical Research. Washington, D.C., Georgetown University Press.
Peters, B. Guy. 1996. The Future of Governing: Four Emerging Models. Lawrence, KS: University Press of
Kansas.
Srensen, Eva and Jacob Torfing. 2007. Theories of Democratic Network Governance. Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar.
Stivers, Camilla. 2008. Governance in Dark Times: Practical Philosophy for Public Service. Washington,
D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

10

(c) 2010 ASPA

PAR

FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Governance Syllabus
Laurence E. Lynn, Jr.

Schedule of Course Topics and Assignments


Week 1: Governance Definitions, Issues, and Controversies
Lynn, Laurence E., Jr. 2010. Governance. Public Administration Review Foundations of Public
Administration Series. At: http://www.aspanet.org/scriptcontent/index_par_foundationsseries.cfm.

Jackson, Peter M. 2009. The Size and Scope of the Public Sector. In T. Bovaird and E. Loffler, eds.,
Public Management and Governance, Second Edition. London: Routledge, pp. 27-40.

Bovaird, Tony and Elke Lffler. 2009. The Changing Context of Public Policy. In T. Bovaird and E.
Lffler, eds., Public Management and Governance Second Edition. London: Routledge, pp. 15-26.
Van Kersbergen, Kees and Frans Van Waarden. 2004. Governance as a Bridge Between Disciplines:
cross-Disciplinary Inspiration Regarding Shifts in Governance and Problems of Governability,
Accountability, and Legitimacy. European Journal of Political Research 43:2: 143-171.
Brinkerhoff, Derick W. and Jennifer M. Coston. 1999. International Development Management in a
Globalized World. Public Administration Review 59:4: 346-361.
Doherty, Joe, Pascal De Decker, Volker Busch-Geertsema, Eoin OSullivan, Ingrid Sahlin, Antonio Tosi
and Johu Patari. 2004. The Changing Role of the State: The Sate and the Housing Markets of
Europe. Brussels, Belgium: European Federation of National Organisations Working with the
Homeless, 24 pp.
Kaul, Ingrid. Bye-bye Westphalian State, Hello Intermediary StateWhy Fair Multilateralism Matters.
Unpublished manuscript. At: http://www.ingekaul.net/pdf/upload110908/IS-paper.pdf.

TEACHING CASE: The Turbot War: Canada, Spain and Conflict Over The North Atlantic Fishery,
Electronic Hallway, The University of Washington, 15pp.
See assignment appended to this syllabus.

Week 2: Governance as Ordered Rule

11

(c) 2010 ASPA

PAR

FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Governance Syllabus
Laurence E. Lynn, Jr.

Michalski, Wolfgang, Riel Miller, and Barrie Stevens. 2001. Governance in the 21st century: Power in
the global knowledge economy and society. In Governance in the 21st century, 726. Paris:
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Enriques L, Volpin P. 2007. "Corporate governance reforms in Continental Europe." Journal of


Economic Perspectives 21:1: 117140.

Silk, Thomas. 2004. Ten Emerging Principles of Governance of Nonprofit Corporations and Guides to
a Safe Harbor. International Journal for Nonprofit Law 7:1. At:
http://www.icnl.org/knowledge/ijnl/vol7iss1/art_3.htm.
Andrs-Alonso, Pablo de, Natalia Martin Cruz and M. Elena Romero-Merino. 2006. The Governance of
Nonprofit Organizations: Empirical Evidence From Nongovernmental Development Organizations
in Spain. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 35:4: 588-604.

RESEARCH CASE: Spain and Portugal in the European Union:


See Assignment appended to this syllabus.

12

(c) 2010 ASPA

PAR

FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Governance Syllabus
Laurence E. Lynn, Jr.

Week 3: Governance as Government


Bell, S., and Hindmoor, A. 2009. Rethinking governance: The centrality of the state in modern society.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapter 1: A state-centric relational approach, pp. 1-19.
Paquet, Gilles. 2001. The New Governance, Subsidiarity, and the Strategic State. Governance in the 21st
Century. Paris: OECD, pp.184-214.
Thompson, E. Maunde. 1886. Untitled Review. The English Historical Review, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 568574.
Morrison, Donald. 1945. Public Administration and the Art of Governance. Public Administration
Review 5:1: 83-87.

RESEARCH CASE: Guo, Chao. 2007. When Government Becomes the Principal Philanthropist: The
Effects of Public Funding on Patterns of Nonprofit Governance. Public Administration Review
67:3: 458-473.
See assignment appended to this syllabus.

13

(c) 2010 ASPA

PAR

FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Governance Syllabus
Laurence E. Lynn, Jr.

Week 4: Governance as Good Government


The World Bank. 1997. World Development Report 1997: The State in a Changing World: Chapter 1
Overview, pp. 1-15, The Evolving Role of the State, pp. 19-28.
netLibrary.

Andrews, Matt.

Access on UT Library

2010. Good Government Means Different Things in Different Countries.

Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 23:1:735.


Boyle, Richard. 2009. Performance Reporting Insights from International Practice. Washington, DC:
IBM Center for the Business of Government, 34pp.

Ohiorhenuan, John F. E. and Zoe Keeler. 2008. International Political Economy and African
Economic Development: A Survey of Issues and Research Agenda. Journal Of African Economies:
17:AERC Supplement 1: i140i239.

RESEARCH CASE: Harlow, Carol and Richard Rawlings. 2006. Promoting Accountability in
Multilevel Governance: A Network Approach. European Governance Papers No. C-06-02, pp. 141.

14

(c) 2010 ASPA

PAR

FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Governance Syllabus
Laurence E. Lynn, Jr.

Week 5: Governance as Rule of Law


Prado, Mariana Mota and Michael J. Trebilcock. 2009. Path Dependence, Development, and the Dynamics
of Institutional Reform. University of Toronto Law Journal 59:3: 341-380.

Lynn, Laurence E., Jr. 2006. New Public Management: Delegation and Accountability. Public
Management: Old and New, Chapter 7: New Public Management: Delegation and Accountability,
pp. 136-156.
Mashaw, Jerry L. 2009. Due Processes of Governance: Terror, the Rule of Law, and the Limits of
Institutional Design. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and
Institutions 22:3: 353368.

Kay, Adrian and Robert Ackrill. 2009. Institutional Change in the International Governance of
Agriculture: A Revised Account. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration,
and Institutions 22:3:483506.

TEACHING CASE: Aiding or Abetting? World Bank and the 1997 Judicial Reform Project.
Kennedy School of Government Case Program C-15-04-1779.0.

15

(c) 2010 ASPA

PAR

FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Governance Syllabus
Laurence E. Lynn, Jr.

Week 6: New Governance Governance Beyond Government,


Governance, Not Government
Rhodes, Rod A. W. 1996. "The New Governance: Governing Without Government." Political Studies
44 (4): 65267.

Hajer, Maarten, and Hendrik Wagenaar. 2003. Introduction. In Deliberative Policy Analysis:
Understanding Governance in the Network Society, ed. Maarten A. Hajer and Hendrik Wagenaar.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Pierre, Jon and B. Guy Peters. 2000. Governance, Politics and the State. New York: Macmillan.
Introduction, pp. 1-10, and Different Ways to Think About Governance, pp. 14-27.
Srenson, Eva. 2006. Metagovernance: The Changing Role of Politicians in Processes of Democratic
Governance. American Review of Public Administration 36:98-114.

Stoker, G. 1998. Governance as Theory: Five Propositions. International Social Science Journal, Vol.
50, No. 1: 17-28.
Zhao, Yongfei and B. Guy Peters. The State of the State: Comparing Governance in China and the United
States. Public Administration Review 69: s122-s128.

TEACHING CASE: A Partnership in Troubled Waters, Electronic Hallway, The University of


Washington, 31 pp.

16

(c) 2010 ASPA

PAR

FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Governance Syllabus
Laurence E. Lynn, Jr.

Week 7: New Governance - New Governance in Europe and in America


Europe

Klijn, Erik-Hans. 2008. Governance and Governance Networks in Europe: An Assessment of Ten
Years of Research on the Theme. Public Management Review, 10: 505-525.
Osborne, Stephen P. 2010. The (New) Public Governance: a suitable case for treatment? In S. P.
Osborne, ed., The New Public Governance: Emerging Perspectives on the Theory And Practice of
Public Governance. London: Routledge, pp. 1-15.
Jann, Warner. 2003. State, Administration and Governance in Germany: Competing Traditions and
Dominant Narratives. Public Administration, 81:1: 95-118.

Skelcher, Chris. 2010. Fishing in Muddy Waters: Principals, Agents, and Democratic Governance in
Europe. Journal of Public Administration Research and theory 20:i161i175.
United States
Salamon, Lester M. 2000. The New Governance and Tools of Government Action: An Introduction.
Fordham Urban Law Journal 28:1611-1674.

Peters, B. Guy, and Jon Pierre. 1998. "Governance without Government?: Rethinking Public
Administration." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8 (2): 223-43.
Durant, Robert F. 2004. Toward a New Governance Paradigm for Environmental and Natural Resources
Management in the 21st Century? Administration & Society, Vol. 35, No. 6, 643-682.
Durant, Robert F. 2004. Toward a New Governance Paradigm for Environmental and Natural Resources
Management in the 21st Century? Administration & Society 35:6:643-682. In Menzel, Donald C.
and Harvey L. White, eds. 2010. The State of Public Administration : Issues, Challenges, and
.Opportunities. Armonk, New York: M. E. Sharpe, pp. 257-271.
Macgillis, Alec. 2010. Are bigger health-care networks better or just creating a monopoly? Washington
Post, 16 August 2010.

RESEARCH/TEACHING CASE: Choi, Jin-Wook. 2007. Governance Structure and Administrative


Corruption in Japan: An Organizational Network Approach. Public Administration Review 67:5:
930-942.

17

(c) 2010 ASPA

PAR

FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Governance Syllabus
Laurence E. Lynn, Jr.

Week 8: New Governance in Theory


Peters, B. Guy. 1996. The Future of Governance: Four Emerging Models, pp. 1-20.
Lynn, Laurence E., Jr., Robbie Waters Robichau, and Melissa Forbes. 2010. Governance and
Organizational Effectiveness: Toward a Theory of Government Performance.
manuscript, 42 pp.

Unpublished

Tsebelis, George. 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work, 15pp.
Lynn, Laurence E., Jr. 2008. New Frontiers of Public Administration: The Practice of Theory and the
Theory of Practice, PS: Political Science and Politics XLI: 3-9.
Dixon, John and Rhys Dogan. 2002. Hierarchies, Networks and Markets: Responses to Societal
Governance Failure. Administrative Theory & Praxis 24:1:175-196.
Werlin, Herbert H. 2003. Poor Nations, Rich Nations. A theory of Governance. Public Administration
Review 63:3: 329-342.
Catlaw, Thomas J. 2007. From Representations to Compositions: Governance Beyond the Three-Sector
Society. Administrative Theory & Praxis 29:2: 225-259.
McQuaid, R. W. 2010. Theory of Organizational Partnerships: Partnership Advantages, Disadvantages and
Success Factors. In S.P. Osborne, ed., The New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the
Theory and Practice of Public Governance. London: Routledge, pp. 127-148.

TEACHING/RESEARCH CASE: The United Nations Oil-for-Food Program. 2008. In Laurence E.


Lynn, Jr. and Carolyn J. Hill, Public Management: A Three Dimensional Approach, pp. 61-64.

18

(c) 2010 ASPA

PAR

FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Governance Syllabus
Laurence E. Lynn, Jr.

Week9:Change:Howmuch?Whatkind?Where?ITheMatterofEvidence,

ResearchBasedonAggregateIndicators

See Aggregate Indicators Assignment appended to this syllabus.

Week10:Change:Howmuch?Whatkind?Where?IIAssessmentsofInstitutional
ChangeandReform

OECD. 2009. Overcoming Barriers to Administrative Simplification Strategies: guidance for policy
makers. Paris: OECD, 55 pp.

Thompson, James R. 2002. Reinvention as Reform: Assessing the National Performance Review.
Public Administration Review 60:6:508-521.

Kuhlmann, Sabine, Jrg Bogumil, and Stephan Grohs. 2008. Evaluating Administrative Modernization
in German Local Governance: Success or Failure of the New Steering Model? Public
Administration Review 68:5:851-863.
Walker, Richard M. and George A. Boyne. 2006. Public Management Reform and Organizational
Performance: An Empirical Assessment of the U.K. Labour Governments Public Service
Improvement Strategy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 25:2: 371-393.

Carrothers, Thomas. 2002. The End of the Transition Paradigm. Journal of Democracy 13:1: 5-21.
TEACHING CASE: Dealing with Corruption in the Police Force of La Paz, Kennedy School of
Government Case Program C-16-92-1104.0.

19

(c) 2010 ASPA

PAR

FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Governance Syllabus
Laurence E. Lynn, Jr.

Week11:Change:Howmuch?Whatkind?Where?IIIEvidencefromTheory
BasedEmpiricalResearch

Hill, Carolyn J. and Laurence E. Lynn, Jr. 2005. Is hierarchical Governance in Decline? Evidence from
Empirical Research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15:2: 173-195.
Lips, A. Miriam B., John A. Taylor, and Joe Organ.2009. Managing Citizen Identity Information in
EGovernment Service Relationships in the UK. Public Management Review 11: 6:833-856.
McBeath, Bowen and William Meezan. 2010. Governance in Motion: Service Provision and Child
Welfare Outcomes in a Performance-Based, Managed Care Contracting Environment. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory 20:i101-i123.

Jordan, Andrew, Rudiger K. W. Wurzel, and Anthony Zito. 2005. The Rise of New Policy
Instruments in Comparative Perspective: Has Governance Eclipsed Government? Political Studies
53: 477496.

RESEARCHCASE: Dollar, David and Jakob Svensson. 2000. "What Explains the Success or Failure of
Structural Adjustment Programmes?" Economic Journal, 110 (October), pp. 894-917.

20

(c) 2010 ASPA

PAR

FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Governance Syllabus
Laurence E. Lynn, Jr.

Week 12: What, Then, Is Governance?


Krahmann, Elke. 2003. National, Regional, and Global Governance: One Phenomenon or Many?
Global Governance 9:323-346.
Bevir, Mark, Rod A. W. Rhodes, and Patrick Weller, P. 2003b. Comparative Governance: Prospects and
Lessons. Public Administration 81:1:191-210.

Drazen, Allan. 2008. Is There a Different Political Economy for Developing Countries? Issues,
Perspectives, and Methodology. Journal Of African Economies: 17:AERC Supplement 1:i18i71.
Fredrickson, G. H. (2005). Whatever happened to public administration? Governance, governance
everywhere. In E. Ferlie, L.E. Lynn, Jr., and C. Pollitt (Eds.), The oxford handbook of public
management (pp. 282-304). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mamudu, Hadii M. and Donley T. Studlar. 2009. Multilevel Governance and Shared Sovereignty:
European Union, Member States, and the FCTC. Governance: An International Journal of Policy,
Administration, and Institutions 22: 1: 7397.

RESEARCH CASE: Callahan, Richard. 2007. Governance: The Collision of Politics and
Cooperation. Public Administration Review 67:2: 290-301.

21

(c) 2010 ASPA

PAR

FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Governance Syllabus
Laurence E. Lynn, Jr.

Week 13: Governance: A Research Agenda


Osborne, Stephen P. 2010. Public governance and public services delivery: a research agenda for the
future. In S. P. Osborne, ed., The New Public Governance: Emerging Perspectives on the Theory
And Practice of Public Governance. London: Routledge, pp. 411-426.

Heinrich, Carolyn J., Carolyn J. Hill, and Laurence E. Lynn, Jr. 2004. Governance as an Organizing
Theme for Empirical Research. In Patricia W. Ingraham and Laurence E. Lynn, Jr. eds., The Art of
Governance: Analyzing Management and Administration. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown
University Press, pp. 3-19.

Heinrich, Carolyn J., Laurence E. Lynn, Jr., and H. Brinton Milward. 2010. A state of agents?
Sharpening the Debate and Evidence over the Extent and Impact of the Transformation of
Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20 (Supplement 1): i3-i19.
Cigler, Beverly A. 2010. Neglected Dimensions of Intergovernmental Relations and Federalism. In
Menzel, Donald C. II. White, Harvey L. 2010. The State of Public Administration : Issues,
Challenges, and Opportunities. Armonk, New York: M. E. Sharpe, pp. 316-334.
Moore, Mark. and Hartley, Jean. 2010. Innovations in governance. In Stephen P. Osborne, Ed., The New
Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance.
London: Routledge, pp. 52-71.

Week 14: Student Presentations of Course Papers; Review


Summing Up

22

and

(c) 2010 ASPA

PAR

FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Governance Syllabus
Laurence E. Lynn, Jr.
L. E. Lynn2010

Assignment
Teaching Case: The Turbot War
1.

Create a time line for this case.

2.

What is the story line in this case?

3.

Who are the influential actors or stakeholders?

4.

How would you describe the governance of the North Atlantic turbot fishery? What governmental
entities and organizations were involved? What managerial and policy decisions were made?

5.

Why is there a need for this type of governance? Why couldnt the commercial fishing industry solve
its problems without government intervention?

6,

Is governance in this case effective? If so, why? What issues or questions are raised by this case?

23

(c) 2010 ASPA

PAR

FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Governance Syllabus
Laurence E. Lynn, Jr.

L. E. Lynn, Jr. 2010

Aggregate Indicators Assignment


The purpose of this class is to enable you to become familiar with sources of factual information, statistics, and
data on governance for countries worldwide. The reading listed below is the latest report from the World Bank
with findings based on analysis of its Worldwide Governance Indicators database. The Web sites provide
access to a wealth of quantitative information on governance.
Familiarize yourself with the Worldwide Governance Indicators project and with the findings in the recent
Governance Matters report (cited below). Then visit several Web sites and navigate them until you get a feel
for what kinds of information are available. Look at information for your own country, at comparative
information, and at specific types of indicators and other information that interest you. Notre the sources of the
many indicators and measures that you review.
You should come to class prepared to talk about things you have found that interest or surprise you or that you
think are significant. Print out tables or graphs and explain what they mean. Do you think of these kinds of
evidence are useful or revealing? Is governance in your country, or aspects of governance in your country,
fairly and accurately portrayed?
Readings:

Apaza, Carmen R. 2009. Measuring Governance and Corruption through the Worldwide Governance
Indicators: Critiques, Responses, and Ongoing Scholarly Discussion. PS: Political Science & Politics
42:1: 139-143.
Bandura, Romina. 2008. A Survey of Composite Indices Measuring Country Performance: 2008 Update.
UNDP/ODS Working Paper. New York: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Office of
Development Studies.
Berkman, H. Scartascini, C., Stein, E. and Tommasi, M. 2008. Political Institutions, State Capabilities, and
Public Policy: An International Dataset. Washington, DC, United States: IDB Research Department,
29pp.

Kaufmann, Daniel, Kraay, Aart and Mastruzzi, Massimo. 2007. Worldwide Governance Indicators
Project: Answering the Critics. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4149. Available at
SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=965077.
Kaufmann, Daniel, Aart Kraay, and Massimo Mastruzzi. 2009. Governance Matters VIII: Aggregate and
Individual Governance Indicators 19962008. Policy Research Working Paper 4978. Washington, DC:
The World Bank. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1424591#.

24

(c) 2010 ASPA

PAR

FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Governance Syllabus
Laurence E. Lynn, Jr.

Kurtz, Marcus J. and Andrew Schrank, A. 2007. Growth and governance: Models, Measures, and
Mechanisms. Journal of Politics, 69:2: 538-554.
Langbein, Laura and Knack, Stephen. 2008. The Worldwide Governance Indicators and Tautology: Causally
Related Separable Concepts, Indicators of a Common Cause, or Both? World Bank Policy Research
Working Paper Series 4669. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1233045.

Lwenheim, Oded. 2008. Examining the State: a Foucauldian Perspective on International Governance
Indicators. Third World Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp 255 274.
Sutcliffe, Bob and Andrew Glyn. 2003. Measures of Globalization and their Misinterpretation. In Jonathan
Michie, ed., Handbook of Globalization. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp. 61-78
Web sites:
The CIA World Fact Book (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/); click: Guide to
Country Comparisons;
Bertelsmann Transformation Index: http://www.bertelsmann-transformation-index.de/11.0.html?&L=1.
Simon Fraser Institute, Economic Freedom of the World: 2009 Annual Report (http://www.cato.org/pubs/efw/)
Click on Chapter 1, which provides a description of the index and the country tables.
The World Banks Worldwide Governance Indicators (www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance: click data, click
Interactive Web Access to Worldwide Governance Research Indicators Dataset, click Governance
Indicators webpage, which takes you to: http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/sc_country.asp);
The World Banks International Development Association (IDA) Resource Allocation Index (IRAI)
(http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/IDA/0,,contentMDK:21359477~me
nuPK:2626968~pagePK:51236175~piPK:437394~theSitePK:73154,00.html);
The World Bank Database on Political Institutions (http://go.worldbank.org/2EAGGLRZ40). This is a STATA
file (dta).
KOF Index of globalization (http://globalization.kof.ethz.ch/); click: Query the KOF Index of Globalization;
Overseas Development Institute (ODI) Governance Assessment (http://www.odi.org.uk/; in upper right hand
search window, type governance assessment; from the search results, find and click [PDF] Overview
of governance assessment frameworks;
;

25

(c) 2010 ASPA

PAR

FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Governance Syllabus
Laurence E. Lynn, Jr.

OECD Country Web Sites


(http://www.oecd.org/countrieslist/0,3025,en_33873108_33844430_1_1_1_1_1,00.html);
OECD International Budget Practices and Procedures Database (best with Internet Explorer)
(www.oecd.org/gov/budget/database);
UNDP Democratic Governance Web Site (http://www.undp.org/governance/);
Interamerican Development Bank, Political Institutions (IDB), State Capabilities, and Public Policy: An
International Dataset (http://www.iadb.org/aboutus/; click Research and Data at top of page; click
Statistics and Databases on left-side menu; click DataGov in text, which takes you to:
http://www.iadb.org/datagob/index.html;
United Nations Millennium Development Indicators (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mdg/);
Civicus Civil Society Index (at: http://www.civicus.org/csi/2/10-csi-home); on left-side menu, click Civil
Society Index (CSI); on page, click phrase online form in last line; register; search by individual
country;
Transparency International; Corruption Perceptions Index; Global Corruption Barometer
(http://www.transparency.org/);
World Economic Forum
(http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Global%20Competitiveness%20Report/index.htm);
The Ibrahim Index (Africa) (http://www.moibrahimfoundation.org/en/section/the-ibrahim-index);
Columbia University, Lehman Social Sciences Library: General Statistical Indicators International
(http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/indiv/lehman/guides/stats/int.html);

26

(c) 2010 ASPA

PAR

FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Governance Syllabus
Laurence E. Lynn, Jr.
L. E. Lynn, Jr. 2010

RESEARCH CASE: Spain and Portugal in the European Union


How would you explain differences in the economic performance of Portugal and Spain after they had
become members of the European Union?
Lessons of Spain and Portugal In "International Herald Tribune" Tuesday, July 19, 2005. At:
http://cronicalif.blogspot.com/2005/07/lessons-of-spain-and-portugal.html;

Economic and Social Research Institute. 1996. The Cases of Greece, Ireland, Portugal and
Spain. The European Commission, pp. 1-6;

Royo, Sebastin. 2007. Lessons from the Integration of Spain and Portugal to the EU. PS:
Political Science and Politics 689-693;

McLean, Renwick, Financial History Lessons for Europes New Members, The New York
Times, July 26, 2005.

27

(c) 2010 ASPA

PAR

FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Governance Syllabus
Laurence E. Lynn, Jr.

About the Author


LaurenceE.Lynn,Jr.isSidRichardsonResearchProfessorattheLyndonB.JohnsonSchoolofPublic
AffairsattheUniversityofTexasatAustin,ProfessorofPublicManagementattheManchesterBusiness
School,andtheSydneySteinJr.ProfessorofPublicManagementEmeritusattheUniversityofChicago.
HispreviousfacultyaffiliationshaveincludedtheJohnF.KennedySchoolofgovernmentatHarvard
University,theIrvingB.HarrisSchoolGraduateSchoolofPublicPolicyStudiesattheUniversityof
Chicago,andtheGeorgeBushSchoolofGovernmentandPublicAffairsatTexasA&MUniversity,andthe
GraduateSchoolofBusinessatStanfordUniversity.Hespentnearlyadecadeinseniorpolicymaking
positionsintheU.S.FederalGovernment.Hisresearchisconcernedwithconceptualandempirical
approachestothestudyofgovernanceandwithpublicmanagementtheoryandresearchmethods.His
mostrecentbooksarePublicManagement:OldandNew,MadisonsManagers:PublicAdministrationandthe
Constitution(withAnthonyM.Bertelli),andatextbook,PublicManagement:AThreeDimensionalApproach
(withCarolynJ.Hill.Forhispublicservice,LynnreceivedtheSecretaryofDefenseMeritoriousCivilian
ServiceMedalandaPresidentialCertificateofDistinguishedAchievement.Forlifetimecontributionsto
publicadministrationresearchandpractice,hewasselectedasaJohnGauslecturerbytheAmerican
PoliticalScienceAssociation,arecipientoftheDwightWaldoandPaulVanRiperawardsbytheAmerican
SocietyforPublicAdministration,andtherecipientoftheinauguralH.GeorgeFredericksonawardbythe
PublicManagementResearchAssociation.
llynnjr@gmail.com

28

(c) 2010 ASPA