Class meetings Monday and Wednesday from 3:00 to 4:20, in Cobb Hall 104.

email sashwort@uchicago.edu.

Please include “PBPL 27818” in the subject line; your message will then go to a special folder I use to stay up to date for this class. I will answer your message within 48 hours, UNLESS this syllabus answers your question. If I don’t reply promptly, check the syllabus. If you don’t find what you need there, email back to nudge me.

Office 1155 E 60th St., Room 114

Office Hours Thursday 1:30 to 2:45

Alternatively, you can schedule an appointment by emailing Cynthia Cook-Conley at clcook@uchicago.edu.

Course Description

“Evidence-based policy making” sounds like a slogan everyone can get behind. But evidence doesn’t speak for itself. We combine evidence and values to ground policy advice. Many governments institutionalize a particular combination, through cost-benefit analysis. Critics argue against cost-benefit analysis, fearing it downplays non-quantifiable ethical concerns.

In this course, we will dig into these issues. We look first at the normative frameworks, utilitarianism and welfare economics, that straightforwardly support cost-benefit analysis. Next we will look at alternative normative frameworks, including richer theories of distributive justice, structural oppression, and individual liberty. Next we will ask how disagreement, both about the effects of policy changes and about values, affect public policy discussion. Finally, we will zoom in on one current controversy on college campuses—the regulation of hate speech.

Prerequisite PBPL 20000 or ECON 20000

Course Goals

By the end of this course, you will:

• Be able to explain the main normative frameworks political philosophers use to think about public policies.
• Be able to extract normative presuppositions from a policy argument.
• Be able to explain how the discursive context affects the crafting of policy advice.
• Be able to present arguments about normative frameworks and presuppositions, both orally and in writing.

Course Work and Evaluation

Component	Weight
Participation	30%
Reading Responses	20%
Plan for First Paper	10%
First Paper	20%
Final Paper	20%

Student Responsibilities

Although the class meetings a labeled “lecture” or “discussion”, to indicate which will predominate that day, all of our meetings will involve opportunities for you to participate. As such, attendance at all class meeting is required, as is active participation in exercises and discussions.

The weekly reading responses are designed to help all of us start thinking about the material for discussion before class starts on Monday. As such, late responses will not be accepted. Reading responses are due at 11:59 PM on Sundays. Your grade for this component will be based on your 8 best attempts, out of the nine weeks possible.

Each of the two papers is to be 1800–2100 words long, on a topic selected from a list I will distribute well in advance of each due date. For the first paper, I am also asking you to submit a 300–500 word plan for the paper, due two weeks before the paper is due. This is so you can get feedback relevant to what I expect from your papers in advance.

• The plan for the first paper is due at 5 PM on Friday, October 20.
• The first paper is due at 5 PM on Friday, November 3.
• The second paper is due at 5 PM on Friday, December 8.

For the plan and the two papers, you will lose 5% of the total course grade each 24 hours the work is late. In particular, the plan for the first paper will get no credit if it is more than 24 hours late, and a paper will get no credit if it is more than 72 hours late.

There are no exceptions to the deadlines for any assignment, except in case of a serious emergency. If such an emergency does arise, you should contact the office of the Dean of Students.

Technology in the classroom rules are TBA.

Schedule and Readings

There are nine main topics. For each, there will be a lecture on a Wednesday, and class discussion the following Monday.

Sept. 25: Introduction

Efficiency and Cost-Benefit Analysis

Sept. 27: Lecture

John Broome, “Economics”, ch. 3 of Climate Matters: Ethics in a Warming World

Uwe E. Reinhart, “Reflections on the Meaning of Efficiency: Can Efficiency Be Separated from Equity?”

technical background (optional!): Frank A. Cowell, Microeconomics: Principles and Analysis, pp. 227–228, 234–235, 254–257, 258–261

Oct. 2: Discussion

Jonathan Wolff, “Safety”, ch. 4 of Ethics and Public Policy

W. Kip Viscusi, “How to Value a Life”

Elizabeth Anderson, “Values, Risks, and Market Norms”

Utilitarianism

Oct. 4: Lecture

Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek and Peter Singer, Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction, chs. 2 ,3, and pp. 83-87. (The whole book is recommended.)

Oct. 9: Discussion

Peter Diamond and Emmnuel Saez, “The Case for Progressive Tax: From Basic Research to Policy Recommendations”

N. Gregory Mankiw and Matthew Weinziel, “The Optimal Taxation of Height: A Case Study of Utilitarian Income Redistribution”

Harry Frankfurt, “Equality as a Moral Ideal”

Distributive Justice

Oct. 11: Lecture

Marc Fleurbaey and Francois Maniquet, “Optimal Income Taxation Theory and Principles of Fairness”

Jonathan Wolff, “Equality: The Recent History of an Idea”

Oct. 16: Discussion

N. Gregory Mankiw, “Defending the One Percent”

Elizabeth Anderson, “Thomas Paine’s ‘Agrarian Justice’ and the Origins of Social Insurance”

Hal Varian, “Distributive Justice, Welfare Economics, and the Theory of Fairness”

Structure and Oppression

Oct. 18: Lecture

Iris Marion Young, “Political Responsibility and Structural Injustice”

Glenn C. Loury, “The Anatomy of Racial Inequality: The Author’s Account”

Oct. 23: Discussion

Richard A. Posner, “An Economic Analysis of Sex Discrimination Laws”

Claudia Goldin, “A Grand Gender Convergence: Its Last Chapter”

Freedom and Autonomy

Oct. 25: Lecture

Matt Zwolinski, “Liberty”

Oct. 30: Discussion

Amartya Sen, “Markets and Freedoms”

G. A. Cohen, “Freedom and Money”

Coping with Uncertainty

Nov. 1: Lecture

Steven N. Durlauf, “Model Uncertainty and Empirical Policy Analysis in Economics: A Selective Review”

Nov. 6: Discussion

Martin L. Weitzman, “Fat-Tailed Uncertainty in the Economics of Catastrophic Climate Change”

John Broome, “The Most Important Thing About Climate Change”

Values in Science

Nov. 8: Lecture

Heather Douglas, “Facts, Values, and Objectivity”

Nov. 13: Discussion

Elizabeth Anderson, “Uses of Value Judgements in Science: A General Argument with Lessons from a Case Study of Feminist Research on Divorce”

Elliott Sober, “Evidence and Value Freedom”

Steven N. Durlauf, “Assessing Racial Profiling”

Testimony

Nov. 15: Lecture

Alvin I. Goldman, “Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust?”

Miranda Fricker, “Testimonial Injustice,” ch. 1 in Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing

Nov. 20: Discussion

Glenn C. Loury, “Self-Censorship in Public Discourse: A Theory of ‘Political Correctness’ and Related Phenomena”

Stephen John, “From Social Values to p-Values: The Social Epistemology of the Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change”

Melissa Harris-Perry, “The Epistemology of Race Talk”

Free Speech

Nov. 22: Lecture

Nigel Warburton, Free Speech: A Very Short Introduction, chs. 1–3

Nov. 27: Discussion

Jeremy Waldron, “The Appearance of Hate,” ch. 4 in The Harm in Hate Speech

Kwame Anthony Appiah, “What’s Wrong with Defamation of Religion?,” ch. 9 in The Content and Context of Hate Speech: Rethinking Regulation and Responses

Geoffrey R. Stone et al., “Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression”

Jacob T. Levy, “Safe Spaces, Academic Freedom, and the University as a Complex Association”

Nov. 29: Wrap-up/AMA