Fall 2023

MPP 621 (Core Module)

Public Policy and Analysis

1. Contact details of Instructor:

Dr Serik Orazgaliyev (serik.orazgaliyev@nu.edu.kz)

Office: 4.010; Phone No: 70-91-51

Consultation hours: by appointment

Teaching Assistant: tbc

1.1. Communications with staff

You should feel free to contact your instructor about any academic matter. However, we strongly
encourage, for efficiency, all enquiries about the subject material be made at lectures or during
office hours. Discussion of course material will not be entered into via lengthy emails.

Students are required to check their NU University emails and Moodle accounts on a daily
basis to be updated with the module.

2. MODULE DETAILS

2.1 Teaching Times and Locations

On Registrar

2.2 Units of Credit

The module is worth 8 ECST units of credit.

Aims and Relationship to Other Modules

The main aims of this module are:

A. Devising strategies for addressing policy problems, bearing institutional constraints in

mind,

1
B. Understanding the process by which policies are made, implemented and evaluated, and
C. Developing independent thinking on how to improve the policy process.

2.1 Course Learning Outcomes

General Objectives

Having successfully completed the course the participant is expected to be able to:
By the end of the course the student will be expected to be able to:
1) to conduct a simple policy analysis;
2) to write a policy paper on a particular problem and offer recommendations;
3) to communicate arguments and policy options to the stakeholders.

Master in Public Policy Learning Outcomes

An education in the Graduate School of Public Policy at Nazarbayev University ensures
that upon graduation, students will gain competencies in the following areas:

1. To lead and manage in public governance

1.1. Understand and apply major theories of public policy and economics
1.2. Examine public policy challenges at local, regional and global levels
1.3. Analyze real-life public administration challenges and management practices
2. To participate in and contribute to the policy process
2.1. Explain the institutional, structural and political context of policy making
2.2. Understand political, administrative and analytical capacity in shaping policy development
2.3. Analyse systematically policy goals, possible solutions, implementation problems and impact evaluation
3. To analyse, synthesize, think critically, solve problems and make decisions
3.1. Employ analytical tools to collect, analyse and interpret data, including appropriate statistical concepts and
techniques
3.2. Employ quantitative and qualitative methods in decision making
3.3. Develop ability to think critically about policy and administrative choices
3.4. Generate new knowledge or synthesis of existing information pertaining to a critical question, issue of
problem related to public policy
3.5. Apply economic theories to the analysis of public policy

4. To articulate and apply a public service perspective

4.1. Understand and apply professional codes of conduct to situation and decisions
4.2. Understand the role of transparency and accountability in developing countries
4.3. Engage citizens in participatory processes
5. To communicate and interact productively with a diverse and changing workforce and citizenry
5.1. Recognise, consider, respect and balance competing perspectives related to administration and policy
5.2. Communicate results of analysis to diverse audiences by means of oral presentations, written documents and
digital media
Professional Competency: The program will ensure that students learn to apply their education, such as
through experiential exercises and interactions with practitioners across the broad range of public affairs,
administration, and policy professions and sectors.

2
 Student Learning Outcomes and Assessment Plan for MPP621 (see below for the details of Course Assessment)

MPP 621 Summative/

Sample Course Assessment Grade component

Formative

1. To lead and manage in public governance

1.1. Understand major theories of public policy and economics X Weekly assignments, exams Formative,
Summative

Weekly assignments, exams Formative,

1.2. Understand public policy challenges at local, regional and global levels X Summative

1.3. Analyze real-life public administration challenges and management practices

2. To participate in and contribute to the policy process

2.1. Identify and explain the institutional, structural and political context of policy making X Weekly assignments, exams, presentation, case study Formative,
paper Summative
2.2. Understand political, administrative and analytical capacity in shaping policy development X Weekly assignments, exams Formative,
Summative
2.3. Analyze systematically policy goals, possible solutions, implementation problems and impact Weekly assignments, exams Formative
X Summative
evaluation
3. To analyze, synthesize, think critically, solve problems and make decisions

Weekly assignments, exams, Summative

3.1. Employ analytical tools to collect, analyze and interpret data, including appropriate statistical concepts presentation, case study paper
X Formative
and techniques
Summative
3.2. Employ quantitative and qualitative methods in decision making
3.3. Apply economic theories to the analysis of public policy
3.4. Generate new knowledge or synthesis of existing information pertaining to a critical question, issue of X Weekly assignments, exams, presentation, case study
problem related to public policy paper
4. To articulate and apply a public service perspective

3
4.1. Understand and apply professional codes of conduct to situation and decisions
4.2. Engage citizens in participatory processes
4.3. Understand the role of transparency and accountability in developing countries X Class discussions, case study discussions Formative
5. To communicate and interact productively with a diverse and changing workforce and citizenry

Weekly assignments, exams Summative

5.1. Recognise, consider, respect and balance competing perspectives related to administration and policy X Formative

X Oral Presentation Case study writing Formative

5.2. Communicate results of analysis to diverse audiences by means of oral presentations, written assignment Summative
documents and digital media
5.3. Develop ability to think critically about policy and administrative choices X Class discussions, case study discussions, presentation, Formative
exams Summative
Professional Competency: The program will ensure that students learn to apply their education, such as through experiential exercises and interactions with practitioners across the broad range of public
affairs, administration, and policy professions and sectors.

4
Attendance policy

Students are expected to attend all classes. Students who do not attend classes from the first day
may be penalized or administratively withdrawn from the class.

Unexcused absences will be penalized by deducting 5% of the final grade for each unexcused
week of absence.

Unexcused absence
An unexcused absence is when students miss classes for reasons not accepted by the
School. Arriving late or leaving class early without appropriate documentation/
justification will be counted as an unexcused absence. Some reasons for an unexcused
absence include:
1) missing bus;
2) working at a job;
3) sleeping too late;
4) going on a business trip.

Excused absence
If unforeseen circumstances prevent attendance, student must notify the module/course
instructor and Teaching Assistant, if any, in advance.
Some examples for an excused absence are: death of a family member; student’s illness or
injury.
If a student provides a medical certificate verified by University Health Center (UHC) then
absence is counted as excused.
The time limit for submission of documentation for absences (including, but not limited to
medical certificates) is 3 (three) working days after the condition preventing student from
attending is over.
Medical certificates (or photocopy) issued by a clinic other than University Health Center has
to be verified by UHC.

In cases other than student’s illness, it is the course instructor who makes the decision on
granting excused absence after considering documentation provided by a student.

2.3 Course Description

Government officials are frequently confronted with decisions about whether or not to
initiate, continue, modify, or terminate policies or programs, and the knowledge about public
policy and skills in policy analysis are essential for them to make intelligent choices. The
course will cover important considerations in conducting policy analysis and evaluation, such
as identifying policy problems, establishing criteria, assessing policy alternatives, choosing
among policies, and evaluating policy impacts.

Course Objectives

This course is designed to help MPP students to develop analytical skills in conducting policy
analysis and program evaluation. Upon completion of the course, students are expected to:

5
  Understand the importance of political, administrative and analytical capacity in
shaping policy development;
 Think strategically about their roles in managing policy process for more effective
policy-making;
 Understand key challenges in various tasks in policy development;
 Sharpen their analytical skills in leading and managing key tasks in policy
development and;
 Improve their skills in crafting policy messages and communicating more effectively
with different stakeholders in policy development and policy process.

Key textbooks

Birkland, Introduction to Public Policy

Howlett, Michael, M. Ramesh, and Anthony Perl. 2009. Studying Public Policy: Policy
Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Wu, X, M. Ramesh, M. Howlett, and S. Fritzen (2010), The Public Policy Primer: Managing
the Policy Process, Routledge.

Additional textbooks:

Bardach, E. 2015. A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More
Effective Problem Solving: SAGE Publications. (4th edition)

Weimer, David L., and Aidan R. Vining. 2010. Policy analysis: Longman.

2.5 Assessment

Class participation (class activities) Every class 15%

Seminar activities (and weekly assignments) Every class 15%

Written assignment (3k words) Week 10 15%

Student presentations (group) Week 13 10%

Midterm examination Week 7 20%

6
 Final examination Week 14 25%

Class Participation

You will be assessed in terms of your contribution to the discussion on the cases and required
readings, and how well you have prepared, as well as your written answers to the in-class
quizzes and online discussions via Moodle. You should read the cases and readings before
coming to class, formulate questions and position yourself towards the issues that are raised.
The instructor will involve you in discussions and in-class exercises. If you are not in the
class, by definition, you cannot participate. If you are late to the class, you will be considered
as not being present at this class (see Attendance Policy, point 2.3). Class presence and
participation will be recorded and evaluated. Please notify the instructor by e-mail when you
are not able to attend class in advance and provide a reason for your absence. Students are
also expected to participate in the guest lectures organised by the NU GSPP which are
recommended by the instructor; in-class quizzes will be conducted on the topics of selected
guest lectures.

Mid-Term Examination

In-class, 1.5 hours, closed book.

The questions will be intended to assess your comprehension of the topics covered in the
course.

Group Assignment: Writing a Case Study on Local Public Policy

2,500 words excluding bibliography. Times New Roman, 12 size. The assignment should be
submitted via Moodle. Late submission will be penalized by 5% of the grade per each day of
delay.

Write a case study on any Kazakhstani policy problem (the topic needs prior approval by the
instructor). Students will be provided with a guideline on case writing skills. While you can
search for materials on the internet, please use the information cautiously and note the source.
Remember, there is zero tolerance for plagiarism.

The case study assignment will be graded on the basis of the extent to which it highlights the
difficulties in implementation of a particular public policy, analysis of success or failure
factors and proposes ways to overcome them.

Final Exam

1.5 hours, closed book.

7
The final exam will take place on Week 14 (date and time to be confirmed). The questions
will be intended to assess your comprehension of the topics covered in the course.

LECTURE SCHEDULE AND READINGS (MPP621: PUBLIC POLICY AND

ANALYSIS)

Class 1: Introduction to Public Policy (Introduction to the Course, What is public policy)

1. *Howlett, Ramesh, and Perl Studying Public Policy 2009 Pg. 2-16 Ch. 1
2. Wu, Ramesh, Howlett, Fritzen (2010) Public Policy Primer, Chapter 1: Public
Managers and the Policy Process.
3. Jan, W and K. Wegrich (2007) “Theories of the Policy Cycle” in Frank Fischer,
Gerald J. Miller and Mara S. Sidney eds. Handbook of Public Policy Analysis. Boca
Raton: CRC Press, pp. 43-55.

PART 1: PUBLIC POLICY CYCLE

Class 2: Agenda setting (Defining and Structuring a Policy Problem)

1. *Wu, Ramesh, Howlett, Fritzen (2010) Public Policy Primer, Chapter 2.

2. Donnelly, Kevin P. and David A. Rochefort (2013) “Agenda-setting and political
discourse: major analytical frameworks and their application" in Araral, Fritzen,
Howlett, Ramesh and Wu (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Public Policy, Chapter 15.
3. Patton, C & D. Sawicki (1986), Basic Methods of Policy Analysis and
Planning, Chapter 4: “Verifying, Defining, and Detailing the Problem”, pages 147-
158.
4. Bardach, E. (2009), A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to
More Effective Problem Solving, pp. 1-10.

Class 3: Policy Formulation

1. *Wu, Ramesh, Howlett, Fritzen (2010) Public Policy Primer, Chapter 3.

2. *Turnpenny, John, Camilla Adelle and Andrew Jordan (2012) “Policy Appraisal”. In
Araral, Fritzen, Howlett, Ramesh and Wu (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Public
Policy. Routledge: London & New York. [Chapter 19]
3. Howlett, Ramesh, and Perl (2009), Studying Public Policy, Chapter 5.
4. Jones, Bryan D. & Thomas, Herschel F. III. (2013). Bounded rationality and public
policy decision-making, in Araral, Fritzen, Howlett, Ramesh and Wu (eds.) Routledge
Handbook of Public Policy. Routledge: London & New York. [Chapter 21]

8
Class 4: Decision-Making

1. *Wu, Ramesh, Howlett, Fritzen (2010) Public Policy Primer, Chapter 4.

2. Clinton J. Andrews, 2007. "Rationality in Policy Decision Making." In Frank Fischer,
Gerald J. Miller and Mara S. Sidney (eds) Handbook of Public Policy Analysis:
Theory, Politics and Methods, Boca Raton: CRC Press, 43-62.
3. Howlett, Ramesh, and Perl (2009), Studying Public Policy, Chapter 6.
4. MacRae, Duncan & Dale Whittington (1997), Expert Advice for Policy Choice,
Chapter 5: “Aiding Choices with Criteria/Alternatives Matrix”, pp. 193-236.
5. Bardach, E. (2009), A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to
More Effective Problem Solving, pp. 49-64. pp. 111-125.

Class 5: Policy Implementation

1. *Wu, Ramesh, Howlett, Fritzen (2010), Chapter 5.
2. Lipsky, M. (1980) Street-Level Bureaucrats as Policy Makers, in Shafritz, J, K.
Layne, and C. Porick (eds), Classics of Public Policy, pp. 51-61.
3. Evans, T. (2011). “Professionals, Managers, and Discretion: Critiquing Street-Level
Bureaucracy.” British Journal of Social Work 41: 368-386.
http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/content/41/2/368.short
4. Helga Puzl and Oliver Treib, 2007. "Implementing Public Policies." In Handbook of
Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics and Methods, ed. Frank Fischer, Gerald J.
Miller and Mara S. Sidney. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 89-108.
5. Howlett and Ramesh (2009), chapter 7.
6. O'Toole, Laurence J. “Research on Policy Implementation: Assessment and
Prospects.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 10, no. 2 (2000):
263-288.
7. Sabatier, Paul A. “Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Implementation
Research: A Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis.” Journal of Public Policy.
6(1986): 21-48.

Class 6: Policy Evaluation

1. *Wu, Ramesh, Howlett, Fritzen (2010), Public Policy Primer, Chapter 6.

2. Layne, Judy “An artful approach to program evaluation” Optimum, The Journal of
Public Sector Management, Vol. 29, Nos. 2/3, pp. 1-9.
3. McConnell, Allan (2013) “Learning from success and failure”, in Araral, Fritzen,
Howlett, Ramesh and Wu (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Public Policy, Chapter 36.
4. Hellmut Wollmann, 2007. "Policy Evaluation and Evaluation Research." In
Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics and Methods, ed. Frank
Fischer, Gerald J. Miller and Mara S. Sidney. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 393-404.

9
 5. Howlett, Ramesh, and Perl (2009) Studying Public Policy, Chapter 8.
6. McConnell, A. 2010. "Policy Success, Policy Failure and Grey Areas In-Between."
Journal of Public Policy 30 (3):345-362.

Class 7: Mid-Term Exam

PART II: PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS PROCESS

Class 8: Identifying and Designing Policy Alternatives and developing criteria for
evaluation

1. *Wu, Ramesh, Howlett, Fritzen (2010) Public Policy Primer, Chapter 3.

2. Patton, C & D. Sawicki (1986), Basic Methods of Policy Analysis and Planning,
Chapter 6: “Identifying Alternatives,” pages 227-256.
3. Bardach, E. (2009), A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to
More Effective Problem Solving, pp. 20-25. pp. 95-110.

Class 9: Assessing Policy Alternatives and Identifying policy solutions

1. Bardach and Patashnik 2015 Pg. 18-27 & 155-164 (Appendix B))
2. Weimer and Vining 2010 Ch. 15 Pg. 359-381)
3. Bardach, E. (2009), A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to
More Effective Problem Solving, pp.26-37. pp. 38-52. pp. 65-93.

Class 10: Influencing the policy process (Policy Communication and Negotiations)

1. *Wu, Ramesh, Howlett, Fritzen (2010), Public Policy Primer, Chapter 7.

2. Fisher, Ury, Paton (201), Getting to Yes, p.1-42

Class 11: Addressing Public Policy problems: corruption

1. Rothstein, Bo. 2011. Anti-Corruption: The Indirect “Big Bang” Approach. Review of
International Political Economy 18(2): 228-250.

10
 2. Matthew C. Stephenson, Corruption as a Self-Reinforcing “Trap”: Implications for
Reform Strategy (QoG Institute Working Papers 2019:10, June 2019).

Class 12: Public Policy and state building

• Fukuyama, F. (2004): “The Imperative of State-Building”, Journal of Democracy,

Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 17-31.

Suggested:

• Pritchett, L. & Woolcock, M. (2004): “Solutions When the Solution is the Problem:
Arraying the Disarray in Development”, World Development, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 191–212.

• Krasner, S. D. (1984). Approaches to the state: Alternative conceptions and historical

dynamics.

Class 13: Student presentations

Class 14: Final exam

Assessment Criteria Guide

Written papers, midterm and final Oral Presentation Class Participation

Grade Points
exam
Information is very organized, engaging,
and with well-constructed writing.
Demonstrates and articulates a profound
97%+ understanding of the background to the
A+ problem from multiple perspectives.
Essential question is clearly stated,
93%- focused, and answerable through
A 96% research with multiple academic
oriented sources covered and relevant
A- 90%- evidence. Recommendations are based
92% on a clear and detailed inductive
argument and drawn from the premises
developed.
The content is accurate and
comprehensive. Listeners are
likely to gain new insights about
the topic. Presentations
organized in a logical sequence
with use of visual aids readable
and attractive from all parts of
the room. Remained within the
10-minute speaking time
allocated to all teams.
Consistently maintains eye
contact.
1. During class discussions
the student not only
expresses his opinion but
also makes references to
readings being discussed
and connects it to other
text or reference points
from previous readings
and discussions.
2. Active listening:
Volunteering to comment,
Behavior clearly

11
 Information is organized with acceptable The content is generally accurate
writing. Demonstrates an understanding and reasonably complete. demonstrates respect and
of the background to the problem. Listeners may develop a few attentiveness to others
87%-
Essential question is focused and clear. insights about the topic. Has a (grades are deducted
89% Covers academic oriented sources and focus and provides some
B+ when students use mobile
generally relevant and reliable. reasonable evidence to support phones or constantly
83%- Recommendations are generally well- conclusions with visual aids staring in their laptops).
B
86% researched and supported by readable from all parts of the
appropriate reference materials. room. Went 0-4 minutes over the 3. Quality of comments:
B- 10-minute speaking time Timely and appropriate
80%-
allocated to all teams,. Generally comments, thoughtful
82% consistent, maintains eye and reflective, respond
contact, and minimizes reliance respectfully to other
on notes. students' remarks.
Information is organized, but writing is The content is sometimes
not well constructed. Basic inaccurate or incomplete.
understanding of the background to the Listeners may learn some isolated
77%-
problem is vague. Basic, essential facts, but they are unlikely to gain
79% question is vague. Limited academic new insights about the topic.
C+
oriented sources that is relevant or There is some organization, but
73%- reliable. Some evidence is provided to the speakers occasionally go off
C
76% support many of the recommendations, topic. Visual aids may not be
but not all. most appropriate to support
C- presentation and are hard to see.
70%-
Went 4-8 minutes over the 10-
72% minute speaking time allocated
to all teams. Mostly reads from
notes.
The information appears to be The content is overly general and
67%- disorganized with poorly constructed confusing. Listeners are unlikely
69% writing. Has no clear research question. to learn anything or may be
D+ Lacks an understanding of the misled. Presentation is organized
background to the problem. Poor scope in a thoughtless order. Use of
63%- of academic oriented sources is superfluous visual aids or
D
66% unrelated or unreliable. graphics that detracts from the
Recommendations are weak, message. Went 8-12 minutes
D- unsupported, or biased. over the 10-minute speaking time
60%-
62% allocated to all teams. Mostly
reads from notes.
Non submission or quality of work so low The content is inaccurate with no
it could be considered a non-serious apparent organization. Use of
attempt at a final draft. messy or inappropriate visuals.
0%- Went 12 minutes plus over the
F
59% 10-minute speaking time
allocated to all teams. Reads
notes and seldom establishes eye
contact.

12