PSCI 5303 Public Policy Making and Institutions (cross-listed in

Course
POEC and PA)
Professor Tom Brunell
Term Fall 2010
Meetings Wed 5:30 p.m.- 8:15 p.m. FO 2.208

Professor’s Contact Information

Office Phone 972-883-4963
Office Location GR 3.104
Email Address tbrunell@utdallas.edu
Office Hours Tue/Thurs 11-12 or by appointment

General Course Information

Course This is a core graduate course in the Political Science Program. The class
Description surveys current and classic research on American Political Institutions and the
policy making process.
Learning Objectives of the course are to understand the role that the institutions of
Objectives government play in the policy process, the linkages between these institutions
(Congress, Executive, Judiciary, Bureaucracy) and citizens (through
discussions of role of public opinion, elections and interest groups), as well as a
better understanding of the constitutional origins of the U.S. political system.
Course assignments aim to develop students’ analytical ability and oral
presentation skills.
There are 6 books to purchase for the class –

1) Laurence Baum, “Judges and Their Audiences”

2) Jenna Bednar, “The Robust Federation”

3) David Mayhew, "Congress the Electoral Connection", Yale Univ Press

Required Texts &
4) Marcus Prior, “Post-Broadcast Democracy”
Materials
5) Thomas Brunell, “Redistricting and Representation”.

6) William Poundstone "Gaming the Vote. Why Elections Aren't Fair" 2008,
NY: Hill and Wang.

The rest of the required readings are from journals and can be found on
JSTOR.org or at the library.

1
Course Policies (see also http://go.utdallas.edu/syllabus-policies )
Grading o Class Participation/Weekly questions: 25%
(credit) o Discussion Leader/critical summary 25%
Criteria o Research Paper: 50%
Class attendance is required. You are responsible for all announcements and
Attendance information given in class. Please DO NOT use laptops or any other electronic
device during class.
Weekly questions: Each week (when you are not leading discussion) you should
submit two discussion questions about the week’s readings. These questions will
Weekly
be the basis for class discussion and will be used to guide how we address the
Questions
material each week. These questions are due by noon on the day of class. You will
post them to WebCT so that everyone can read them and think about them.
As a rule, no extensions are granted for written work. Unexcused late papers will
be penalized one full grade per day. However, in case of an emergency, contact the
Late Work
professor as soon as possible to see if an exception can be made at the discretion of
the professor. Documentation will be required of any emergency.
Students should be attentive during class and be prepared to actively participate in
Classroom each seminar. You are to treat your fellow classmates with respect and are
Citizenship expected to listen carefully when others are speaking. Disruptive students will be
asked to leave and may be subject to disciplinary action.
We will be using WebCT for the class, so you need to log on to WebCT regularly
Webct
and post your discussion questions there.

Substantive Expectations (Critical summary and discussion leader):

In the week that you lead the seminar discussion you will write a critical summary of
the week’s readings. This paper should be 5-7 pages double space typed. The object
of this critical review should be to identify the central issues that assigned readings for
the week address. Students writing papers will present their analysis in class (~15
minutes). To accommodate seminar discussion, the critical analyses will be due no later
than 24 hours in advance of seminar meeting time. Students shall post the paper on
webct for the other students at least 24 hours in advance of the class and the paper
author shall also place one copy in the instructor’s mailbox. In addition, you should be
able to evaluate different theories and approaches, identifying the relevant assumptions,
definitions, strengths, and weaknesses of each. Finally, you should be able to create a
critical, engaged argument, using the texts as evidence. The paper should take into
account the following questions:
1. What is the purpose of the readings, what is the theoretical concern, and what
concepts are developed?
2. What is being studied, i.e. what is the unit of analysis and the scope of the
study?
3. How is it being studied, in terms of what variables?
4. Are the conclusions suggestive or proven? Do the data support the inference?
5. What is the book’s significance? How does it fit into the literature?
6. How does the book challenge or add to our understanding of development?
7. What are the strengths and shortcomings of the book?

2
The research paper proposal due at the end of the semester ought to be an original piece
of research covering some aspect of American political institutions. The paper should
be 12-15 pages long and have an extensive bibliography. We will talk about the paper
proposal throughout the semester and I have a handout about it.

8/25 Introduction and Syllabus

9/1 Congress and Elections

Mayhew, David. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University
Press.

Herrick, Rebekah, Michael Moore, and John R. Hibbing. 1994. “Unfastening the Electoral
Connection: The Behavior of U.S. Representatives when Reelection is No Longer a Factor.”
Journal of Politics 56: 214-227.

Rothenberg, Lawrence, and Mitchell Sanders. 2000. “Severing the Electoral Connection:
Shirking in the Contemporary Congress.” American Journal of Political Science 44: 310-319.

9/8 Candidate Positioning and Representation

Stimson, James A., Michael B. Mackuen, and Robert S. Erikson. 1995. "Dynamic
Representation." American Political Science Review 89(3):543-65.
W. Miller and D. Stokes. 1963. "Constituency Influence in Congress, "American Political
Science Review 57: 45-56.
R. Erikson. 1978. "Constituency Opinion and Congressional Behavior: A Reexamination of
the Miller-Stokes Data," American Journal of Political Science 22: 511-35.
R. Erikson, N. Luttbeg, and W. Holloway. 1975. "Knowing One's District: How Legislator's
Predict Referendum Voting," American Journal of Political Science 19: 231-246.
Ansolabehere, Stephen, James M. Snyder, and C. Stewart. 2001. "Candidate Positioning in
US House Elections." American Journal of Political Science 45(1):136-59.

James Fowler. 2005. “Dynamic Responsiveness in the U.S. Senate.” American Journal of
Political Science, Vol. 49, No. 2. (Apr., 2005), pp. 299-312.

9/15 Redistricting

Brunell, Thomas L. Redistricting and Representation, Why Competitive Elections

Are Bad for America

9/22 Federalism
Jenna Bednar – The Robust Federation

3
9/29 The Presidency

Jeffrey E. Cohen. 1995. "Presidential Rhetoric and the Public Agenda," American Journal of
Political Science 39 (February): 87-107.

Jon A. Krosnick, Donald R. Kinder. 1990. Altering the Foundations of Support for the
President Through Priming. American Political Science Review , Vol. 84, No. 2. pp. 497-512

Brandice Canes-Wrone. 2001. “The President’s Legislative Influence from Pubic Appeals,”
American Journal of Political Science 45 (April): 313-329.

Bond, Jon R., Richard Fleisher, and B. Dan Wood. 2003. “The Marginal and Time-Varying
Effect of Public Approval on Presidential Success in Congress.” Journal of Politics 65
(February): 92-110.

Edwards, George C., III, Andrew Barrett, and Jeffrey Peake. 1997. "The Legislative
Impact of Divided Government," American Journal of Political Science 41 (May):
545-563.

10/6 Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem and Electoral Systems

William Poundstone. Gaming the Vote, Why Elections Aren’t Fair. NY: Hill and
Wang.

10/13 Lobbying and Interest Groups

Hall, Richard and Frank Wayman. 1990. "Buying Time: Moneyed Interests and the
Mobilization of Bias in Congressional Committees." American Political Science Review.

Scott Ainsworth and Itai Sened. 1993. “The Role of Lobbyists: Entrepreneurs with Two
Audiences.” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 37, No. 3. (August): 834-866.

David Austen-Smith and John R. Wright. 1994. “Counteractive Lobbying.” American Journal
of Political Science, Vol. 38, No. 1. (February): 25-44.

Marie Hojnacki and David C. Kimball. 1998. “Organized Interests and the Decision of
Whom to Lobby in Congress.” American Political Science Review, Vol. 92, No. 4. (December):
775-790.

Richard L. Hall and Alan V. Deardorff. 2006. “Lobbying as Legislative Subsidy.” American
Political Science Review, Vol. 100, No. 1 (February): 69-84.

Brunell, Thomas. 2005. “The Relationship Between Political Parties and Interest Groups.”
Political Research Quarterly 58(4) 681-689.

4
10/20 Political Parties

H. McClosky, P. Hoffman and R. O'Hara (1960) "Issue Conflict and Consensus among Party
Leaders and Followers." American Political Science Review. 54: 406-427.

V.O. Key. 1955. “A Theory of Critical Elections.” Journal of Politics 17:3-18.

P. Beck. 1979. “The Electoral cycle and Patterns of American Politics.” British Journal of
Political Science 9: 126-56.

I. Budge and R. Hofferbert (1990) "Mandates and Policy Outputs: U.S. Party Platforms and
Federal Expenditures." American Political Science Review. 84: 111-131.

R Erikson, G Wright and J McIver. 1989. “Political Parties, Public Opinion, and State Policy
in the United States.” American Political Science Review 83: 729-50.

J. Aberbach and B. Rockman. 1995. “The Political Views of U.S. Senior Federal
Executives, 1970-1992. Journal of Politics 57: 838-52.

10/27 Women Running for Office

Solowiej, Lisa and Thomas Brunell. 2003. The Entrance of Women to the U.S. Congress:
The Widow Effect.” Political Research Quarterly 56; 283-292.

Koch, Jeffrey. 2000. “Do Citizens Apply Gender Stereotypes to Infer Candidates’ Ideological
Orientations?” Journal of Politics 62(2): 414-429.

Huddy, Leonie, and Nayda Terkildsen. 1993. “Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of
Male and Female Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 37(1): 119-147.

Herrnson, Paul. 2003. “Women Running ‘as Women’: Candidate Gender, Campaign Issues,
and Voter-Targeting Strategies.” The Journal of Politics 65: 244-255.

Dolan, Kathleen. 2005. “Do Women Candidates Play to Gender Stereotypes? Do Men
Candidates Play to Women? Candidate Sex and Issues Priorities on Campaign Websites.”
Political Research Quartery 58(March): 31-44.

Lawless, Jennifer and Kathryn Pearson. 2008. “The Primary Reason for Women’s
Underrepresentation? Reevaluating the Conventional Wisdom.” The Journal of Politics
70(January): 67-82.

11/3 The Supreme Court

Judges and Their Audiences by Lawrence Baum

5
11/10 Public Opinion
Post-Broadcast Democracy, by Prior.

11/17 – Start Student Presentations

11/24 – No class – conference presentation

12/1 Finish Student Presentations

12/10 RESEARCH PAPER PROPOSALS ARE DUE