Please see the files
POLICY PROCESS AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT Case Study Stakeholder Analysis Assignment Description Primary Assignment Due: November 5th, 6pm Medium & Length: · Written analysis of 4-5 pages, typed with a 12-point font, double-spaced, with 1 inch margins on all sides. Percent of Final Grade: 10% Corresponding Required In-Class Activities on November 2nd · Within-case small group preparatory discussions · Across-case small group comparative discussions · Whole class synthesis roundtable Overview A key step in the political analysis of a public policy issue is the identification and assessment of key actors (stakeholders) in the process. In this assignment, you will apply the course’s literature to assess the interests, actions, and policy influences of stakeholders in a case study of a real policy issue. (It is an opportunity to practice the skills of stakeholder analysis that you will demonstrate in your policy briefing paper later in the semester.) You will also learn about three additional cases, and draw lessons about policy advocacy and stakeholder engagement from all four cases. Instructions For the primary, written assignment: You may organization your analysis as you wish (e.g., by stakeholder, by level of influence, by policy stage), but it should include at least the information that follows. You may also use tables or diagrams to complement your written analysis, so long as you to integrate those into the narrative discussion. 1. Policy problem: A brief description of the policy problem, and (if applicable) the competing policy solutions presented. 2. Descriptions of the stakeholders · Identification: Who were the key actors in the issue? · o Preferences: What did each of them want out of any policy solution? Why? · Leverages: What leverages could each wield in the policy process? Did they wield such powers? How, or why not? Did any stakeholder dominate a particular stage of thepolicy process? 3. Analysis of the stakeholders · Conflicts: What were the main conflicts among the key actors? Were there conflicting goals, or conflicting powers? Were there checks on powers? · Existing and potential common ground: Were there coalitions formed among the actors? Why or why not? Was there the potential for other coalitions? · Diagnosis: Given the above analysis, what were the outcomes of the policy struggle, and how did they get there? Who were the most influential actors in this policy issue? What made them more influential? Were coalitions of multiple actors needed to get enough power to influence the outcomes, or did one player have enough power by himself or herself? As you answer the above questions, draw upon our course literature on policy actors to analyze the stakeholders’ actions and their influences. You should cite at least 5 relevant sources from our readings (including books reviewed by classmates). This may require that you read ahead so you can include literature on the types of policy actors central to the case study you are assigned. For the November 2nd In-Class Activities: Small group within-case preparatory discussions (~45 mins) Come to class having read your assigned case and prepared to discuss it with others who have also read it carefully. More specifically, be prepared to discuss it in light of the stakeholder reading also assigned for today and the prompts outlined above. The purpose here is to get you and your classmates thinking about various ways to approach the written stakeholder analysis assignment and to share your (perhaps unique) perspectives on your same case. Small group across-case comparative discussions (~45 mins) This will require that you share highlights from your case study and within-case preparatory discussion with students who have not read your case. You will be in a group with 3 other students who have all read different cases. The purpose here is for you and your classmates to learn about the other cases where different stakeholder groups provide central roles and engage the policy process in various ways. Again, you should have these discussions it in light of the stakeholder reading also assigned for today. As you engage in these discussions, think about any commonalities or points of contrast you see across the policy cases that could help us understand how to engage the policy process effectively. Whole class synthesis roundtable (~45 mins) During the class synthesis roundtable, be prepared to share how you engaged the stakeholder reading assigned for today during your discussions, as well as how you plan to engage that and other course readings when preparing your written stakeholder analysis. If possible, identify any points of commonality or contrast that came up during your discussions and describe how you identified them. Class note: Identify stakeholder analysis framework/ approach · Brief definition explanation · Justify why this one · Ok to draw from more than one just explain & justify · Don’t get lost in this port (1-2 pages) · Pick a framework and analyses the stakeholder into that framework the groups · And she look for the clarity "Megaprojects & the Role of the Public Germany’s Embattled ‘Stuttgart 21’ Rail Project KS1130 Case Number 2037.0 This case was written by Pamela Varley, Senior Case Writer, for Quinton Mayne, Assistant Professor of Public Policy, for use at the John F. Kennedy School of Government (HKS), Harvard University. HKS cases are developed solely as the basis for class dis- cussion. Cases are not intended to serve as endorsements, sources of primary data, or illustrations of effective or ineffective management. (August 2013) Copyright © 2015 President and Fellows of Harvard College. No part of this publication may be reproduced, revised, translated, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means without the express written consent of the Case Program. For orders and copyright permission information, please visit our website at http://www.hks.case.harvard.edu/ or send a written request to Case Program, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 79 John F. Kennedy Street, Cambridge, MA 02138. Megaprojects & the Role of the Public Germany’s Embattled ‘Stuttgart 21’ Rail Project On a chill Tuesday in February 2010, Günther Oettinger, premier of the southwest German state of Baden- Württemberg, and Wolfgang Schuster, mayor of Stuttgart, the state’s capital and economic center, surely sighed in relief. For more than 20 years, state and city leaders had negotiated with Germany’s national railway over the routing and station design of the Stuttgart segment of the European Magistrale, a 930-mile cross-Europe high- speed rail line that would one day extend from Paris through Munich and Vienna to Budapest and Bratislava. In the course of the long, on-and-off negotiation, Baden-Württemberg’s preferred option had periodically won the favor of the railway giant, only to lose it again as political priorities fluctuated and leadership at the national rail- way changed. To move the project forward, the governments of Baden-Württemberg and Stuttgart had eventually agreed to pay a share of the project’s costs—a first in German history. But it wasn’t until the formal groundbreak- ing on February 2, 2010, attended by dignitaries from all levels of government, that the venture finally felt secure. Dubbed “Stuttgart 21,” the project was a massive undertaking that would route the new high-speed rail line underground through Stuttgart city center. This would entail moving the existing downtown railway station below ground and creating a network of tunnels to accommodate the new high-speed through-lines, a line to the Stuttgart international airport, and many existing surface lines. The City of Stuttgart had bought most of the land that would be freed-up above ground—about 210 acres of prime downtown real estate—for eventual redevelop- ment. Even as government leaders were celebrating the launch of Stuttgart 21, however, trouble was brewing— trouble that, within the year, would spark the largest citizen demonstrations Germany had seen since the reunifi- cation of the country. The Stuttgart 21 opponents were diverse, and so were their concerns, but nearly all were united by one overriding contention: that political elites had conceived the plan without public input and had later refused to take citizen objections seriously. 1 April 1994: The Birth of Stuttgart 21 Stuttgart, the capital and economic heart of Germany’s prosperous state of Baden-Württemberg, is located in a narrow river valley with mountains to either side, which had long made it a trouble-spot for railway engineers. As a consequence, Stuttgart had become a regional terminus rather than a through-station. There were 17 different track lines in Stuttgart’s railway station, located in the center of the city, but all entering trains had to reverse to leave the station. To the delight of leaders in Baden-Württemberg and Stuttgart, the Transport Ministry released a 1 See Exhibit 1 for a glossary of names and political parties mentioned in this case. See Exhibit 2 for a chronology of events. Do N ot C op y or P os t This document is authorized for educator review use only by Jennifer Shea, San Francisco State University until October 2018. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
[email protected] or 617.783.7860 HKS Case Program 2 of 30 Case Number 2037.0 new plan in 1985 that made it a top priority to route the east-west European Magistrale through Stuttgart, which meant creating a through-station in the city. Engineers from West Germany’s railway authority—then the Bundesbahn—set to work on a plan and in 1988 submitted their proposal to Baden-Württemberg. The idea: to bypass Stuttgart’s problematic existing station and instead build a new station well north of downtown. Under the plan, the Bundesbahn would upgrade an existing regional rail line northeast of the city to allow high-speed travel, rather than build an all-new high-speed line. [See Exhibit 3 for background on high-speed rail development in Germany.] To the political leaders of Baden-Württemberg and Stuttgart, this idea was extremely disappointing, for sever- al reasons. Although one of the most prosperous and attractive areas in Germany, the population of Stuttgart was slowly shrinking (while surrounding suburban areas grew) and the average age, slowly rising. Thus, political leaders in the city and state were actively seeking to rejuvenate Stuttgart and cultivate new industries alongside traditional corporate anchors, such as Daimler, Porsche, and Robert Bosch. They wanted to