Institutions and Public Policies
A.Y. 2025/2026
Learning objectives
The course in Institutions and Public Policy (IPP) contributes to the main goal of the Master Programme in Political Science and Government of providing knowledge of the rules and dynamics underneath the functioning of legal and political institutions and developing the critical tools to analyze and evaluate legislative and governmental actions.
Expected learning outcomes
IPP lectures, materials, and exercises will make students able to:
- establish the relevance of policy designs in light of proper public policy theories;
- analyze policy designs to pinpoint their policy-effective components;
- make sense of policy-effective components in light of citizenship and democratization theories;
- identify assumptions, hypotheses, and evidence in argumentation, and establish the consequentiality of their linkages.
- establish the relevance of policy designs in light of proper public policy theories;
- analyze policy designs to pinpoint their policy-effective components;
- make sense of policy-effective components in light of citizenship and democratization theories;
- identify assumptions, hypotheses, and evidence in argumentation, and establish the consequentiality of their linkages.
Lesson period: Second trimester
Assessment methods: Esame
Assessment result: voto verbalizzato in trentesimi
Single course
This course cannot be attended as a single course. Please check our list of single courses to find the ones available for enrolment.
Course syllabus and organization
Single session
Responsible
Lesson period
Second trimester
The course relies on the Ariel platform to circulate information, share materials, and manage assignments and essays. In case of emergency, lessons, too, will be held through the channel.
Course syllabus
_session 01. A Map of the Course: Objectives, Pathway, Resources
A. Citizenship and Democracy
Unit A introduces classical theories of citizenship, their evolution, and critical perspectives, connecting them to theories of democratic consolidation.
_session 02. Concepts of Citizenship /lecture
_session 03. Citizenship and Democracy /lecture
_session 04. Democracy and Public Policy /lecture
_session 05. Extensions, Critiques, and Limitations of Citizenship Theories /lecture
_session 06. Presentations
B. Credible Arguments
Unit B introduces the Toulmin model as a framework for rational argumentation, and explores its structure, applications, and limitations.
_session 07. The Structure of Arguments /lecture
_session 08. Applications and Failures /lecture
_session 09. Guided Argument Analysis /lecture
_session 10. Presentations
C. Policies and Politics
Unit C explores the relationship between public policy and politics, building on T.J. Lowi's thesis that policies shape politics—not the other way around.
_session 11. Public Policy, Interests, and Preferences /lecture
_session 12. Identity and Preferences /lecture
_session 13. Networks and Ideas /lecture
_session 14. Discussion
D. Perspectives on Policymaking
Unit D introduces a selection of theories and models that shed light on the policymaking process from different, and sometimes complementary, perspectives.
_sessions 15. The Policy Cycle Theory /lectures
_sessions 16-17. Multiple Streams Theory /lectures
_sessions 18-20. Policy Instruments Theory /lectures
_sessions 21-22. Implementation Theory /lectures
_session 23. Alternative or Complementary Theories? /brainstorming session
E. Public Policies as Institutions
Starting from the tragedy of the commons, Unit E focuses on the institutional fabric of public policy—namely, the rules that structure decision-making arenas and processes.
_session 24. Tragedies and Situations /lecture
_session 25. Situations and Contexts /lecture
_session 26. Tools for Institutional Analysis /lecture
_session 27. Example of an Institutional Analysis /classwork
F. Workshop on Rule Analysis
In Unit F, you will apply analytic skills to real-world rules selected for their policy relevance and interpret results through the lens of citizenship and democracy theories.
_session 28. Project Setup: Claim, Relevant Theories, Evidence /classwork
_session 29. Structuring the Evidence /classwork
_session 30. Discussion of Key Challenges /classwork
A. Citizenship and Democracy
Unit A introduces classical theories of citizenship, their evolution, and critical perspectives, connecting them to theories of democratic consolidation.
_session 02. Concepts of Citizenship /lecture
_session 03. Citizenship and Democracy /lecture
_session 04. Democracy and Public Policy /lecture
_session 05. Extensions, Critiques, and Limitations of Citizenship Theories /lecture
_session 06. Presentations
B. Credible Arguments
Unit B introduces the Toulmin model as a framework for rational argumentation, and explores its structure, applications, and limitations.
_session 07. The Structure of Arguments /lecture
_session 08. Applications and Failures /lecture
_session 09. Guided Argument Analysis /lecture
_session 10. Presentations
C. Policies and Politics
Unit C explores the relationship between public policy and politics, building on T.J. Lowi's thesis that policies shape politics—not the other way around.
_session 11. Public Policy, Interests, and Preferences /lecture
_session 12. Identity and Preferences /lecture
_session 13. Networks and Ideas /lecture
_session 14. Discussion
D. Perspectives on Policymaking
Unit D introduces a selection of theories and models that shed light on the policymaking process from different, and sometimes complementary, perspectives.
_sessions 15. The Policy Cycle Theory /lectures
_sessions 16-17. Multiple Streams Theory /lectures
_sessions 18-20. Policy Instruments Theory /lectures
_sessions 21-22. Implementation Theory /lectures
_session 23. Alternative or Complementary Theories? /brainstorming session
E. Public Policies as Institutions
Starting from the tragedy of the commons, Unit E focuses on the institutional fabric of public policy—namely, the rules that structure decision-making arenas and processes.
_session 24. Tragedies and Situations /lecture
_session 25. Situations and Contexts /lecture
_session 26. Tools for Institutional Analysis /lecture
_session 27. Example of an Institutional Analysis /classwork
F. Workshop on Rule Analysis
In Unit F, you will apply analytic skills to real-world rules selected for their policy relevance and interpret results through the lens of citizenship and democracy theories.
_session 28. Project Setup: Claim, Relevant Theories, Evidence /classwork
_session 29. Structuring the Evidence /classwork
_session 30. Discussion of Key Challenges /classwork
Prerequisites for admission
The course does not assume any previous knowledge.
Teaching methods
Knowledge and competencies will be introduced by lectures, then developed and consolidated through assignments, essays, presentations, and discussions.
Teaching Resources
_Unità A
*Marshall, TH. 1950. Citizenship and social class. In TH Marshall and T Bottomore, 1992. Citizenship and Social Class. Pluto Press, Part I.
*Turner, BS. 1990. Outline of a theory of citizenship. Sociology 24:2, 189-217.
*Lipset, SM. 1959. Some social requisites of democracy: economic development and political legitimacy. The American Political Science Review 53:1, 69-105.
*Lipset, SM. 1994. The Social requisites of democracy revisited. American Sociological Review 59:1, 1-22.
_Unità B
*Toulmin, SE. 2003. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge UP. Ch.3
*Toulmin, SE. 2006. Reasoning in theory and practice. In D Hitchcock, B Verheij (eds). Arguing on the Toulmin Model. Springer, Ch.2
_Unità C
*Lowi TJ, 1972. Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public Administration Review 32:4, 298-310.
*Pizzorno A, 1970. An introduction to the theory of political participation. Social Science Information 9.5: 29-61.
*Carstensen, M. B., & Schmidt, V. A. (2015). Power through, over, and in ideas: conceptualizing ideational power in discursive institutionalism. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(3), 318-337.
_Unità D
*Torgerson D, 2007. Promoting policy orientation: Lasswell in context. In F Fisher, GJ Miller, M Sidney, eds. Handbook of Public Policy Analysis. Ch 2.
*Jann W and K Wegrich, 2007. Theories of the policy cycle. In F Fisher, GJ Miller, M Sidney, eds. Handbook of Public Policy Analysis. Ch 4
*Cohen MD, March JG, and JP Olsen. 1972. A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly 1:1-25.
*Zohlnhöfer R and Rüb FW 2016. Decision-Making under Ambiguity and Time Constraints. Ecpr press.
*Bemelmans-Videc, M. L., Rist, R. C., & Vedung, E. (2011). Carrots, Sticks, and Sermons: Policy Instruments and Their Evaluation. Transaction Publishers.
*Olejniczak, K., Śliwowski, P., & Leeuw, F. (2020). Comparing Behavioral Assumptions of Policy Tools: Framework for Policy Designers. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 22(6), 498-520.
*Hansen, P. G., & Jespersen, A. M. (2013). Nudge and the Manipulation of Choice: A Framework for the Responsible Use of the Nudge Approach to Behaviour Change in Public Policy. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 4(1), 3-28.
*Howlett, M. (2000). Managing the "Hollow State": Procedural Policy Instruments and Modern Governance. Canadian Public Administration, 43(4), 412-431.
*Pulzl H and O Treib, 2007. Implementing public policy. In F Fisher, GJ Miller, M Sidney, eds. Handbook of Public Policy Analysis. Ch 6.
_Unità E
*Ostrom, E., 2011. Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), pp.7-27.
*Crawford, S.E. and Ostrom, E., 1995. A grammar of institutions. American Political Science Review, 89.3: 582-600.
*Frantz, C.K. and Siddiki, S., 2021. Institutional Grammar 2.0: A specification for encoding and analyzing institutional design. Public Administration 99.2, pp.222-247.
*Siddiki, S., Heikkila, T., Weible, C.M., Pacheco‐Vega, R., Carter, D., Curley, C., Deslatte, A. and Bennett, A., 2019. Institutional analysis with the institutional grammar. Policy Studies Journal.
PN: These materials, along with additional resources to help with lectures and assignments, will all be made available through the course's Ariel website
*Marshall, TH. 1950. Citizenship and social class. In TH Marshall and T Bottomore, 1992. Citizenship and Social Class. Pluto Press, Part I.
*Turner, BS. 1990. Outline of a theory of citizenship. Sociology 24:2, 189-217.
*Lipset, SM. 1959. Some social requisites of democracy: economic development and political legitimacy. The American Political Science Review 53:1, 69-105.
*Lipset, SM. 1994. The Social requisites of democracy revisited. American Sociological Review 59:1, 1-22.
_Unità B
*Toulmin, SE. 2003. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge UP. Ch.3
*Toulmin, SE. 2006. Reasoning in theory and practice. In D Hitchcock, B Verheij (eds). Arguing on the Toulmin Model. Springer, Ch.2
_Unità C
*Lowi TJ, 1972. Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public Administration Review 32:4, 298-310.
*Pizzorno A, 1970. An introduction to the theory of political participation. Social Science Information 9.5: 29-61.
*Carstensen, M. B., & Schmidt, V. A. (2015). Power through, over, and in ideas: conceptualizing ideational power in discursive institutionalism. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(3), 318-337.
_Unità D
*Torgerson D, 2007. Promoting policy orientation: Lasswell in context. In F Fisher, GJ Miller, M Sidney, eds. Handbook of Public Policy Analysis. Ch 2.
*Jann W and K Wegrich, 2007. Theories of the policy cycle. In F Fisher, GJ Miller, M Sidney, eds. Handbook of Public Policy Analysis. Ch 4
*Cohen MD, March JG, and JP Olsen. 1972. A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly 1:1-25.
*Zohlnhöfer R and Rüb FW 2016. Decision-Making under Ambiguity and Time Constraints. Ecpr press.
*Bemelmans-Videc, M. L., Rist, R. C., & Vedung, E. (2011). Carrots, Sticks, and Sermons: Policy Instruments and Their Evaluation. Transaction Publishers.
*Olejniczak, K., Śliwowski, P., & Leeuw, F. (2020). Comparing Behavioral Assumptions of Policy Tools: Framework for Policy Designers. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 22(6), 498-520.
*Hansen, P. G., & Jespersen, A. M. (2013). Nudge and the Manipulation of Choice: A Framework for the Responsible Use of the Nudge Approach to Behaviour Change in Public Policy. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 4(1), 3-28.
*Howlett, M. (2000). Managing the "Hollow State": Procedural Policy Instruments and Modern Governance. Canadian Public Administration, 43(4), 412-431.
*Pulzl H and O Treib, 2007. Implementing public policy. In F Fisher, GJ Miller, M Sidney, eds. Handbook of Public Policy Analysis. Ch 6.
_Unità E
*Ostrom, E., 2011. Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), pp.7-27.
*Crawford, S.E. and Ostrom, E., 1995. A grammar of institutions. American Political Science Review, 89.3: 582-600.
*Frantz, C.K. and Siddiki, S., 2021. Institutional Grammar 2.0: A specification for encoding and analyzing institutional design. Public Administration 99.2, pp.222-247.
*Siddiki, S., Heikkila, T., Weible, C.M., Pacheco‐Vega, R., Carter, D., Curley, C., Deslatte, A. and Bennett, A., 2019. Institutional analysis with the institutional grammar. Policy Studies Journal.
PN: These materials, along with additional resources to help with lectures and assignments, will all be made available through the course's Ariel website
Assessment methods and Criteria
IPP contributes to the Political Science and Government degree program's objective of equipping you with critical tools for analyzing institutional frameworks that support policymaking.
Specifically, IPP lectures, materials, and exercises will enable you to:
- Recognize assumptions, hypotheses, and evidence in arguments, and evaluate the consistency of their interconnections
- Explore the relationship between political dynamics and citizenship rights in structuring political systems, and understand the relevance of public policies for their implementation
- Develop a critical approach to the formation of individual political and policy preferences
- Deepen knowledge of major interpretive and analytical frameworks of the policymaking process to understand policy successes and failures
- Acquire familiarity with analytical frameworks applicable to normative and regulatory texts for reconstructing institutional designs for public policy formulation and delivery
- Apply analytical skills and theoretical knowledge to formulate and communicate credible public policy claims
The assessment is designed to support these objectives and follows the completion of a series of exercises geared to developing skills and consolidating knowledge.
_ ASSESSMENTS
* Unit A Assignment: Chapter Analysis Presentation (3 points)
Select a chapter from the provided book list and create a presentation that includes:
- Chapter title
- Your name, student ID, and institutional email
- Responses to these analytical questions:
- What is the chapter's central thesis?
- What's the 'evidence' that supports this thesis?
- How does the 'evidence' logically support the thesis?
- Are counter-arguments or opposing views addressed? If so, how?
- Did the argument convince you? Explain your reasoning.
* Unit B Assignment: Toulmin Model Analysis (5 points)
Apply the Toulmin model to analyze an essay on citizenship and present your analysis on a single slide. Your analysis should:
- Reconstruct the argument's structure using the Toulmin model
- Examine the warrants thoroughly and evaluate their credibility
- Identify the argument's decision-making implications where possible
* Unit C Assignment: Policy Argument (5 points)
Develop arguments for or against the claim that "policies determine politics" using the Toulmin model. Summarize your arguments on a single slide.
* Unit D Assignment: Policy Theory Essay (5 points)
Write an essay (maximum 1000 words, excluding references) that identifies both complementarities and tensions among different theories of the policy process. Your essay should:
- Provide a comparative analysis of two theoretical models focused on a single point of your choice
- Regarding that special point, clearly explain the differences OR overlaps among policy-making models
- Include a personal conclusion
* Unit F Assignment: Real-World Rules Analysis (15 points)
Analyze real-world rules relevant to policy using the following 7-Slide Presentation Structure:
1. Cover slide (title, author, student ID, institutional email)
2. Complete Toulmin model (summary of Claim, Ground, Warrant, Backing, Objections, Rebuttals, Qualifier)
3. Detailed explanation of Claim, Ground, Warrant, and Backing
4. Detailed explanation of Objections, Rebuttals, and the Qualifier
5. Assessment of the argument's credibility
6. Implications for policy/citizenship theories
7. References
Additional Requirements:
- Upload an Excel file with disaggregated data supporting your Ground
- Include speaker notes or comments (embedded in the slideshow, or as a separate file) to clarify your reasoning
- Base your Claim on theories of citizenship, democracy, or policy-making
_FINAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS
Whether you are attending classes or not, you are required to complete all the assignments before the exam date. Both attending and non-attending students are warmly recommended to work through each unit's content in the suggested order before completing each assignment.
Before the exam date, you will receive personal feedback on your submitted work and a proposed grade.
During the exam session, a brief oral discussion will address any weaknesses in your submissions and finalize your overall course grade.
_ADDITIONAL NOTES
- The course treats attending and non-attending students equally
- Non-attending students will submit work through the established Ariel channels
- Non-attending students are strongly encouraged to contact the instructor for guidance and access to the course website on the Ariel platform.
Specifically, IPP lectures, materials, and exercises will enable you to:
- Recognize assumptions, hypotheses, and evidence in arguments, and evaluate the consistency of their interconnections
- Explore the relationship between political dynamics and citizenship rights in structuring political systems, and understand the relevance of public policies for their implementation
- Develop a critical approach to the formation of individual political and policy preferences
- Deepen knowledge of major interpretive and analytical frameworks of the policymaking process to understand policy successes and failures
- Acquire familiarity with analytical frameworks applicable to normative and regulatory texts for reconstructing institutional designs for public policy formulation and delivery
- Apply analytical skills and theoretical knowledge to formulate and communicate credible public policy claims
The assessment is designed to support these objectives and follows the completion of a series of exercises geared to developing skills and consolidating knowledge.
_ ASSESSMENTS
* Unit A Assignment: Chapter Analysis Presentation (3 points)
Select a chapter from the provided book list and create a presentation that includes:
- Chapter title
- Your name, student ID, and institutional email
- Responses to these analytical questions:
- What is the chapter's central thesis?
- What's the 'evidence' that supports this thesis?
- How does the 'evidence' logically support the thesis?
- Are counter-arguments or opposing views addressed? If so, how?
- Did the argument convince you? Explain your reasoning.
* Unit B Assignment: Toulmin Model Analysis (5 points)
Apply the Toulmin model to analyze an essay on citizenship and present your analysis on a single slide. Your analysis should:
- Reconstruct the argument's structure using the Toulmin model
- Examine the warrants thoroughly and evaluate their credibility
- Identify the argument's decision-making implications where possible
* Unit C Assignment: Policy Argument (5 points)
Develop arguments for or against the claim that "policies determine politics" using the Toulmin model. Summarize your arguments on a single slide.
* Unit D Assignment: Policy Theory Essay (5 points)
Write an essay (maximum 1000 words, excluding references) that identifies both complementarities and tensions among different theories of the policy process. Your essay should:
- Provide a comparative analysis of two theoretical models focused on a single point of your choice
- Regarding that special point, clearly explain the differences OR overlaps among policy-making models
- Include a personal conclusion
* Unit F Assignment: Real-World Rules Analysis (15 points)
Analyze real-world rules relevant to policy using the following 7-Slide Presentation Structure:
1. Cover slide (title, author, student ID, institutional email)
2. Complete Toulmin model (summary of Claim, Ground, Warrant, Backing, Objections, Rebuttals, Qualifier)
3. Detailed explanation of Claim, Ground, Warrant, and Backing
4. Detailed explanation of Objections, Rebuttals, and the Qualifier
5. Assessment of the argument's credibility
6. Implications for policy/citizenship theories
7. References
Additional Requirements:
- Upload an Excel file with disaggregated data supporting your Ground
- Include speaker notes or comments (embedded in the slideshow, or as a separate file) to clarify your reasoning
- Base your Claim on theories of citizenship, democracy, or policy-making
_FINAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS
Whether you are attending classes or not, you are required to complete all the assignments before the exam date. Both attending and non-attending students are warmly recommended to work through each unit's content in the suggested order before completing each assignment.
Before the exam date, you will receive personal feedback on your submitted work and a proposed grade.
During the exam session, a brief oral discussion will address any weaknesses in your submissions and finalize your overall course grade.
_ADDITIONAL NOTES
- The course treats attending and non-attending students equally
- Non-attending students will submit work through the established Ariel channels
- Non-attending students are strongly encouraged to contact the instructor for guidance and access to the course website on the Ariel platform.
SPS/04 - POLITICAL SCIENCE - University credits: 9
Lessons: 60 hours
Professor:
Damonte Alessia
Shifts:
Turno
Professor:
Damonte AlessiaProfessor(s)
Reception:
Friday 13:30-14:30 (students) - 14.30-16.30 (thesis students and PhD candidates)
internal building, 2nd floor, room 12 | VirtualOffice channel in Teams