Class meetings Mon from 12:30 to 3:30, in Wieboldt Hall 103
email sashwort@uchicago.edu.
Office
Office Hours
“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 or one course in Philosophy
| Component | Weight |
|---|---|
| Participation | 30% |
| Reading Responses | 20% |
| Plan for First Paper | 10% |
| First Paper | 20% |
| Final Paper | 20% |
Each meeting is divided into two sessions. In a typical week, the first hour and 20 minutes will be discussion of the readings listed under Session A. After a 10 minute break, we will reconvene for a second session that will be mainly lecture, to introduce new topics based on the readings listed under Session B. Do not take the description “lecture” too seriously—all of our sessions 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 Sunday. 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.
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.
Uwe E. Reinhart, “Reflections on the Meaning of Efficiency: Can Efficiency Be Separated from Equity?”
Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez, “The Case for Progressive Tax: From Basic Research to Policy Recommendations”, pp. 165–175
Debra Satz, “The Moral Limits of Markets: The Case of Human Kidneys”
Alvin Roth, “Repugnance as a Constraint on Markets”
Robert Nozick, selections from Anarchy, State, and Utopia
Hal Varian, “Distributive Justice, Welfare Economics, and the Theory of Fairness”, pp. 223–235
N. Gregory Mankiw, “Spreading the Wealth Around: Reflections Inspired by Joe the Plumber”
Jonathan Weinstein, “Fairness and Tax Policy: A Response to Mankiw’s Proposed ‘Just Deserts’”
Elizabeth Anderson, “Thomas Paine’s ‘Agrarian Justice’ and the Origins of Social Insurance”
Jonathan Wolff, “Equality: The Recent History of an Idea”
Hal Varian, “Distributive Justice, Welfare Economics, and the Theory of Fairness”, pp 235–247
John Roemer, “Socialism Revised”, pp. 261–278, 291–292, 304–315
Charles Mills, “Racial Expolitation and the Payoff of Whiteness”
Iris Marion Young, “Political Responsibility and Structural Injustice”
Glenn Loury, “Relations Before Transactions”
Richard A. Posner, “An Economic Analysis of Sex Discrimination Laws”
Claudia Goldin, “A Grand Gender Convergence: Its Last Chapter”
Francesco Guala, selections from Understanding Institutions: The Science and Philosophy of Living Together
Martin Osborne, sections 2.1–2.7.7 of An Introduction to Game Theory
Kausshik Basu, “The Republic of Beliefs”
Kate Manne, “Ameliorating Misogyny,” ch. 2 in Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny
Alvin I. Goldman, “Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust?”
Jacob Glazer and Ariel Rubinstein, “A Game Theoretic Approach to the Pragmatics of Debate: An Expository Note”
Glenn C. Loury, “Self-Censorship in Public Discourse: A Theory of ‘Political Correctness’ and Related Phenomena”
Joseph Farrell and Matthew Rabin, “Cheap Talk”
Miranda Fricker, “Testimonial Injustice,” ch. 1 in Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing
Elizabeth Barnes, “Taking Their Word for It,” ch. 4 in The Minority Body: A Theory of Disability
Melissa Harris-Perry, “The Epistemology of Race Talk”
Heather Douglas, “Facts, Values, and Objectivity”
Eric Winsberg “Values and Uncertainties in the Predictions of Global Climate Models”
Stephen John, “From Social Values to p-Values: The Social Epistemology of the Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change”
Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse Shapiro, “Competition and Truth in the Market for News”
Alvin Goldman and James Cox, “Speech, Truth, and the Free Market for Ideas”
Jacob T. Levy, “Safe Spaces, Academic Freedom, and the University as a Complex Association”