Governance and Policy

Course manual 2025/2026

Course content

The course Governance and Policy aims to teach students to critically examine the design and implementation of public policy (interventions) that specifically address the complexity and wickedness of contemporary social problems. It is designed to provide students with the necessary knowledge, insights, skills, and attitudes to assess the potential and limitations of different models, frameworks, and methods, including the use of data and modelling, in the design, implementation, and replication of public policy (interventions).

Public policy and its implementation are influenced by much more than just data and modelling. Policymaking often happens in highly political contexts where interests, power, and other factors influence the decision-making process. The success of policy implementation depends largely on the capacity, time, and degree of resistance to, or alienation from, the policy among policy-actors and stakeholders. Social and psychological mechanisms at the system level are a make-or-break factor.

Evidence-based policymaking has become extra difficult in a time where the urgency, relevance, and validity of scientific knowledge and, thus, data are often directly questioned or even undermined. Our graduates, as future policy advisors and -makers, need to be aware of these difficulties and are well-equipped to navigate this social and political climate. They are offered different perspectives on evidence-based policymaking and learn to reflect on the roles, positions, and dilemmas of experts providing scientific advice to policymakers and politicians.

To better understand what governance entails, students are introduced to paradigms of public governance that examine policymaking and implementation models, with an emphasis on the actors involved. Specific attention is paid to the ‘Post-New Public Management’ paradigm of New Public Governance, which seeks to handle the complex, unstructured or ‘wicked’ problems that transcend the boundaries between organisations, policy areas and administrative levels.

The course builds on previous courses, taking Complexity as the starting context where Model-based interventions are suggested. It kicks off the second-year courses, focusing on developing appropriate interventions for societal transitions and on the role of data and modelling in these processes, offering a sobering perspective on the governability and malleability of unruly social reality.

Study materials

Literature

• MANDATORY LITERATURE

   

  Governance paradigms and societal problems

  -Gjaltema, J., Biesbroek, R., & Termeer, K. (2020). From government to governance… to meta-governance: a systematic literature review. Public management review, 22(12), 1760-1780. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1648697

   

  -Head, B. W. (2022). The Rise of ‘Wicked Problems’—Uncertainty, Complexity and Divergence. In: Head, B.W. (2022). Wicked Problems in Public Policy. Understanding and Responding to Complex Challenges. Chapter 2, p. 21 – 36. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/53360/978-3-030-94580-0.pdf?sequence=1

   

  -Sørensen, E. (2022). The politics of new public governance. In: Ladner, A., & Sager, F. (Eds.) (2022). Handbook on the Politics of Public Administration. Edward Elgar Publishing. Chapter 5, p. 50-58. https://research.ebsco.com/c/bkudj5/search/details/czhc3hrybf?request-context=plink&db=nlebk&modal=details-ebook-download

   

  -Turnbull, N. and Hoppe, R. (2019). Problematizing‘wickedness’: a critique of the wicked problems concept, from philosophy to practice. Policy and Society, 38(2), 315–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1488796

   

  Alternative theories of decision-making.

  -Herweg, N., Zahariadis, N. & Zohlnhöfer, R. (2018). The Multiple Streams Framework: Foundations, Refinements, and Empirical Applications. In: Weible, C.M. & Sabatier, P.A. (Eds.) (2018). Theories of the Policy Process. New York: Routledge, p. 29-64. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429494284-2/multiple-streams-framework-foundations-refinements-empirical-applications-nicole-herweg-nikolaos-zahariadis-reimut-zohlnh%C3%B6fer?context=ubx&refId=3195220b-a42f-4fb7-a185-517084c5d03b

   

  -Hajer, M.A. (2009) The Authority Problem of Governance. In: Hajer, M.A. (2009).  Authoritative Governance: Policy Making in the Age of Mediatization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 14-47. Chapter 1: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199281671.003.0002

   

  -Hall, P.A. (1993). Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case Economic Policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275-296. https://doi.org/10.2307/4222466

   

  -Lindblom, C.E. (1979). Still Muddling, Not Yet Through. Public Administration Review, 39(6), 517-526. https://doi.org/10.2307/976178

   

  Policy implementation

  -Bridgman, P., & Davis, G. (2003). What use is a policy cycle? Plenty, if the aim is clear. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 62(3), 98-102. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-8500.2003.00342.x

   

  -Jann, W. & Wegrich, K. (2007). Theories of the Policy Cycle. In: Fischer, F., Miller, G.J. & Sidney, M.S. (2007). Handbook of Public Policy Analysis. Theory, Politics and Methods, p. 43-62, Chapter 4. https://villario.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/frank_fischer_gerald_j._miller_mara_s._sidney_bookfi.pdf#page=70

   

  -Sager, F. & Hinterleitner (2022). The politics of policy implementation: a reassessment in more conflictual times. In: Ladner, A., & Sager, F. (Eds.). Handbook on the politics of public administration. Edward Elgar Publishing, p. 102-113, Chapter 10. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839109447.00016

   

  -Tummers, L. (2011). Explaining the willingness of public professionals to implement new policies: A policy alienation framework. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(3), 555-581. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852311407364

   

  Effective Policy: Sobering Up

  -Bernhard, B. J., & Preston, F. W. (2004). On the shoulders of Merton: Potentially sobering consequences of problem gambling policy. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(11), 1395-1405. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764204265340

   

  -McConnel, A. (2015). What is policy failure? A primer to help navigate the maze. Public Policy and Administration, 30(3–4), 221–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076714565416

   

  -Peters, B.G. & Nagel, M.L. (2025). From benign to malign: unintended consequences and the growth of Zombies Policies. Policy and Society, 44(2), 136-149. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae039

   

  -Sorensen, A. D., & Auster, M. L. (1989). Fatal remedies: the sources of ineffectiveness in planning. Town Planning Review, 60(1), 29. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27798157

   

  The extrapolation problem: good policies travel badly

  -Bardach, E. (2004). The extrapolation problem: How can we learn from the experience of others? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23(2), 205-220. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3326147

   

  -Lobczowska, K., Banik, A., Forberger, S., Kaczmarek, K., Kubiak, T., Neumann-Podczaska, A., ... & Policy Evaluation Network (PEN) Consortium (2022). Social, economic, political, and geographical context that counts: meta-review of implementation determinants for policies promoting healthy diet and physical activity. BMC Public Health, 22(1), 1055. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13340-4

   

  -Section 3 p. 284-288 Practice-embodied knowledge: Learning from experience and replicating. In: Ongaro, E. (2020). Forms of Knowledge for the Practice of Public Administration. In: Bouckaert, G. & Jann, W. (Eds) (2020). European Perspectives for Public Administration. The way forward. Leuven University Press, p. 273-291. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvv417th.18

   

  -Ongaro, E., Gong, T., & Jing, Y. (2021). Public administration, context and innovation: A framework of analysis. Public Administration and Development, 41(1), 4-11. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1902

   

  The role of scientific advice in policy

  -Weingart, P. (1999). Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics. Science and public policy, 26(3), 151-161. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154399781782437

   

  -Head, B.W. (2008). Three Lenses of Evidence-Based Policy.” Australian journal of public administration 67(1), 1–11. https://lib.uva.nl/permalink/31UKB_UAM1_INST/1hfh82p/cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_59903400

   

  -Newman, J. (2011). Boundary troubles: working the academic–policy interface. Policy & Politics, 39(4), 473-484 https://doi.org/10.1332/030557310X550150

   

  -Straßheim, H. (2015). 17 Politics and policy expertise: towards a political epistemology. Handbook of critical policy studies, 319 https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=CLgkCwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA319&dq=strassheim+2015&ots=UnaLNlIqwp&sig=leZtYIfWpt-AyqLf0h0_LQlyiU0#v=onepage&q=strassheim%202015&f=false

   

  -Karhunmaa, K. (2020). Performing a linear model: The professor group on energy policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 114, 587-594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.09.005

   

Other

• OPTIONAL LITERATURE

  
  Governance Paradigms and Societal Problems

  -Ansell & Gash 2007 Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice . Journal of public administration research and theory, 18(4), 543-571. https://doi:10.1093/jopart/mum032

   

  -Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2022). Taking stock: New Public Management (NPM) and post-NPM reforms-trends and challenges. In: Ladner, A., & Sager, F. (Eds.) (2022). Handbook on the politics of public administration, Chapter 4, 38-49. https://research.ebsco.com/c/bkudj5/search/details/czhc3hrybf?request-context=plink&db=nlebk&modal=details-ebook-download

   

  -Hooge, E. H., Waslander, S., & Theisens, H. C. (2022). The many shapes and sizes of meta-governance. An empirical study of strategies applied by a well-advanced meta-governor: the case of Dutch central government in education. Public Management Review, 24(10), 1591-1609. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1916063

   

  -European Commission, ‘Better Regulation Guidelines’, Brussels, Guidelines, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/d0bbd77f-bee5-4ee5-b5c4-6110c7605476_en?filename=swd2021_305_en.pdf

   

  -European Commission, ‘Better Regulation Toolbox’, Brussels, Toolbox, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/9c8d2189-8abd-4f29-84e9-abc843cc68e0_en?filename=BR%20toolbox%20-%20December%202025.pdf

   

  -P. Smits and G. Listorti, Using models for policymaking - The questions you should ask when presented with the use of simulation models in policymaking. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC133950

   

  Alternatieve theories of decision-making

  -Etzioni, A. (1967). Mixed-scanning: A “third” approach to decision making. Public Administrative Review, 27(5), 385-392. https://doi.org/10.2307/973394

   

  -Stark, A. (2018). New institutionalism, critical junctures and post-crisis policy reform. Australian Journal of Political Science, 53(1), 24-39. ) https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2017.1409335

   

  -Stone, D. A. (2022). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. WW Norton & Company.

   

  Policy Implementation

  -Pülzl, H. & Treib, O. (2007). Implementing Public Policy. In: Fischer, F., Miller, G.J. & Sidney, M.S. (Eds.) (2007). Handbook of Public Policy Analysis. Theory, Politics and Methods, p. 89-107, Chapter 7. https://research.ebsco.com/c/bkudj5/search/details/p65qvfi4iz?request-context=plink&db=nlebk

   

  -Grin, J. & Loeber, A. (2007). Theories of Policy Leaning: Agency, Structure , and Change. In: Fischer, F., Miller, G.J. & Sidney, M.S. (2007). Handbook of Public Policy Analysis. Theory, Politics and Methods, p. 201-220, Chapter 15. https://research.ebsco.com/c/bkudj5/search/details/p65qvfi4iz?request-context=plink&db=nlebk

   

  -Tummers, L., Bekkers, V., Van Thiel, S., & Steijn, B. (2015). The effects of work alienation and policy alienation on behavior of public employees. Administration & Society, 47(5), 596-617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399714555748

   

  Effective Policy: Sobering up

  -Sieber, S.D. (1981). Fatal Remedies: The Ironies of Social Intervention. New York: Plenum Press.

   

  -Merton, R. K. (1936). The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American sociological review, 1(6), 894-904. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2084615

   

  The extrapolation problem: good policies travel badly

  -Pollitt, C. (Ed.). (2013). Context in public policy and management: The missing link?. Edward Elgar Publishing.

   

  The role of scientific advice in policy

  -Hoppe, R. (2010). From “knowledge use” towards “boundary work”: sketch of an emerging new agenda for inquiry into science-policy interaction. In: Veld, R.J. in ‘t (Ed.) (2010). Knowledge democracy: Consequences for science, politics, and media. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 169-186.

   

  -Grundmann, R. (2018). The Rightful Place of Expertise. Social Epistemology, 32(6), 372–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2018.1546347

   

  -Stevens A. (2011). Telling Policy Stories: An Ethnographic Study of the Use of Evidence in Policy-making in the UK. Journal of Social Policy. 40(2):237-255. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279410000723

   

  -Tangney, P. (2022). Examining climate policy-making through a critical model of evidence use. Frontiers in Climate, 4, 929313. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2022.929313

   

  -Kunseler, E. M. (2016). Revealing a paradox in scientific advice to governments: The struggle between modernist and reflexive logics within the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Palgrave Communications, 2(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.29

   

Objectives

• Students understand theories and approaches to public governance and the complexity, unstructuredness or wickedness of soci(et)al problems.
• Students are able to analyse theories and approaches of public policy decision-making, implementation, extrapolation, and contextualisation from linear to complex.
• Students are able to analyse the potential and limitations of using data and modelling in designing policy (interventions), including the psychological and sociological mechanisms by which the intentions of the policy (intervention) can distracted, distorted, and subverted.
• Students are able to develop designs and methods to replicate ‘good practice policy (interventions)’ using the extrapolation protocol.
• Students are able to shape the possible roles and positions of experts who provide scientific advice to policymakers and politicians, taking into account (the dilemmas of) the role of data and modelling in expert advice.

Teaching methods

• Lecture
• Seminar
• Self-study

*In this course, per week either a lecture is being followed by a seminar or lecturing and seminar-components are alternated during double or triple blocks of 2 hours.

Lecture: Teaching to master theory and concepts through straight lecturing, Q&A's, discussion of the literature and substantive contributions from students.

Seminar (Practical): Seminars include problem-based learning, applying theory, practicing with theoretical concepts and perspectives, and applying heuristic/analytical frameworks to analyse and understand issues and real-world-problems.

Self-study: Reading, analysing, and summarising literature, formulating questions and critical comments, preparing work for seminars

Learning activities

Attendance

Additional requirements for this course:

Students may be absent a maximum of two times (either lecture or seminar) and absence needs to be communicated to the course coordinator. If students are absent during the presentations, they have to hand in a compensating evaluation element defined in consultation with the course coordinator.

Assessment

The cut-off score for the final exam is 55%.

The study material for the final exam are the lectures and mandatory readings

There are no permitted tools during the final exam.

The re-exam will be in the same format as the regular final exam.

Students that were enrolled in the course in previous years

N/A

Assignments

The first group assignment will take place during the 3rd seminar on Thursday, April 16. It will focus on policy implementation. Students use the acquired knowledge and insights in the course to analyse the implementation process of a policy program/intervention (different policy programs/interventions to analyse are introduced in class) and give short group presentations. Feedback (from peers and from the teacher) is given during class. The grading rubric will be published on Canvas in advance, and grades will be published no later than Friday, April 24. 

The second group assignment will take place during the 4th and last seminar on Tuesday, May 12. It will focus on ‘good practice policy’ extrapolation. Students apply the Extrapolation Protocol to design how to replicate a good policy practice elsewhere (different good policy practices are introduced in class) and give a short group presentation. Feedback (from peers and from the teacher) is given during class. The grading rubric will be published on Canvas in advance, and grades will be published no later than Wednesday, May 20. 

Missing group assignments because of missing classes can be compensated for by handing in an individually written one-pager on the assignment, but in consultation with the course coordinator.

Fraud and plagiarism

The 'Regulations governing fraud and plagiarism for UvA students' applies to this course. This will be monitored carefully. Upon suspicion of fraud or plagiarism the Examinations Board of the programme will be informed. For the 'Regulations governing fraud and plagiarism for UvA students' see: www.student.uva.nl

Course structure

Last year's student feedback

In order to provide students some insight how we use the feedback of student feedback to enhance the quality of education, we decided to include the table below in all course guides.

Contact information

Coordinator

• prof. dr. E.H. Hooge