Summary of Sociology of Public Policy
Course Readings
Contents
Week 1: Public Sociology and Social Problem Construction...................................2
Michael Burawoy (2005) – “For Public Sociology.”..............................................2
Hilgartner & Bosk (1988) – “The Rise and Fall of Social Problems: A Public
Arenas Model.”................................................................................................... 3
Claude Gilbert & Emmanuel Henry (2012) – “Defining Social Problems: Tensions
between Discreet Compromise and Publicity.”....................................................5
Week 2: Power, Persuasion, and the Control of Policy Agendas.............................7
Steven Lukes (2005) – Power: A Radical View (Second Edition)..........................7
Albert O. Hirschman (1991) – The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility,
Jeopardy............................................................................................................ 10
Andrea Saltelli et al. (2022) – “Science, the Endless Frontier of Regulatory
Capture.”.......................................................................................................... 12
Jon Jureidini & Leemon McHenry (2022) – “The Illusion of Evidence-Based
Medicine.”......................................................................................................... 14
Week 3: Citizenship, Welfare, and New Challenges to Rights..............................17
Yasemin N. Soysal (1994) – Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and Postnational
Membership in Europe...................................................................................... 17
Raymond Plant (2003) – “Free Lunches Don’t Nourish: The Politics of Welfare
and the Market.”............................................................................................... 19
Jeremy Waldron (1992) – “Social Citizenship and the Defense of Welfare
Provision”.......................................................................................................... 21
Félix Tréguer (2021) – “The Virus of Surveillance: How the COVID-19 Pandemic
is Fuelling Technologies of Control.”.................................................................23
Week 4: Transformations of Welfare States and Democracy................................26
Gøsta Esping-Andersen (1999) – “Social Risks and Welfare States.”................26
Neil Gilbert (2002) – “From State to Market: The Privatization of the Welfare
State.”.............................................................................................................. 28
Colin Crouch (2004) – Post-Democracy (Chapter 1 Excerpt).............................30
Week 5: Quantification, Metrics, and the Governance of Policy...........................33
Tero Erkkilä, B. Guy Peters & Ossi Piironen (2016) – “The Politics of Comparative
Quantification: The Case of Governance Metrics.”............................................33
Jochen Clasen & Nico A. Siegel (2007) – “Investigating Welfare State Change:
The ‘Dependent Variable Problem’ in Comparative Analysis.”..........................35
Andrea Saltelli & Monica Di Fiore (2020) – “From Sociology of Quantification to
Ethics of Quantification.”.................................................................................. 38
,Week 6: Europe in Crisis – Identity, Integration, and Conflict...............................41
Perry Anderson (2021) – “Ever Closer Union?”.................................................41
Wolfgang Streeck (2014) – “Small-State Nostalgia? The Currency Union,
Germany, and Europe: A Reply to Jürgen Habermas.”......................................42
Francesco Nicoli et al. (2024) – “Closer During Crises? European Identity During
the COVID-19 Pandemic and the Russian Invasion of Ukraine.”........................44
Week 1: Public Sociology and Social Problem
Construction
Michael Burawoy (2005) – “For Public Sociology.”
Michael Burawoy’s “For Public Sociology” calls for revitalizing sociology’s
engagement with the public sphere. Writing in the context of a neoliberal era
hostile to critical thought, Burawoy observes a widening gap between an
increasingly critical, inequality-focused sociology and a world moving in the
opposite direction (toward marketization, privatization, and repression). He refers
to this divergence as a “scissors movement,” noting that while it creates a
pressing need for public sociology, it also makes practicing it more difficult.
Burawoy argues that sociology’s moral and reflexive impulse must be reclaimed
so that the discipline can serve the public interest rather than retreat into
academic insularity. He situates this plea within a broader vision of sociology’s
“organic division of labor,” where different types of sociological practice
complement one another to keep the field relevant and ethically grounded.
Burawoy introduces a typology of four sociologies that together form the
discipline’s division of labor: professional, policy, public, and critical
sociology. Professional sociology is research aimed at academic peers – theory-
driven, methodical, and focused on accumulating knowledge. Policy sociology
serves clients (often government or institutions) by applying sociological insights
to solve predefined problems (for example, think of government advisory bodies
using sociological data). Public sociology engages in dialogue with broader
publics to transform private troubles into public issues – it is a moral and civic
enterprise that brings sociological knowledge to citizens and civil society. Finally,
critical sociology scrutinizes the value assumptions of the discipline itself and of
society, acting as the conscience of sociology. Each type has its role and a
pathology if taken to the extreme (e.g. professional sociology can become too
insular; policy sociology may turn servile to power; public sociology might slip
into populism; critical sociology can become sectarian). Burawoy insists these
modes are interdependent ideal types: a healthy disciplinary ecosystem
balances them, avoiding fragmentation or dominance by any single approach.
A central focus of Burawoy’s article is on public sociology itself. He describes
two forms: traditional public sociology, which reaches broad, often passive
audiences through books, media, or op-eds (for instance, classic works like
W.E.B. Du Bois’s The Souls of Black Folk sought to raise public awareness); and
,organic public sociology, which involves sociologists working in active
partnership with visible, thick “counterpublics” such as community groups, labor
unions, or social movements. In the organic model, sociologist and public are in
dialogue, co-producing knowledge and definitions of issues (Burawoy notes how
categories like “women” or “people with AIDS” were shaped through such
engagement). In both cases, public sociology aims to build publics – it doesn’t
see publics as fixed, but as emerging through discussion and alliance, with the
sociologist helping to foster an informed, critical public realm. Burawoy even
highlights that students are an important public for sociologists: the classroom
can be a seedbed of public sociology as students carry ideas into wider society.
Beyond championing public engagement, Burawoy contrasts instrumental
knowledge (research as a means to an end, typical of professional or policy work)
with reflexive knowledge (research that questions ends and values,
characteristic of public and critical work). He argues both are needed. For
example, policy sociology may offer technical solutions within given goals,
whereas public sociology opens debate on those goals and values with the
public. Public sociology is thus not “soft” or unserious – Burawoy contends it is
theoretically demanding and politically significant, requiring rigor as well
as moral vision. He warns that if sociology loses its reflexive, public-facing ethos
and succumbs entirely to market-oriented logic (publish-or-perish, chasing
funding, treating students as customers), it risks irrelevance or complicity in
injustice. In concluding, Burawoy issues a rallying call: What is sociology for, and
whom should it serve? He urges the discipline to serve society at large –
especially the underrepresented – by speaking truth to power and keeping social
issues in the public eye, rather than only serving bureaucratic or academic
masters.
Hilgartner & Bosk (1988) – “The Rise and Fall of Social
Problems: A Public Arenas Model.”
Stephen Hilgartner and Charles Bosk, in “The Rise and Fall of Social Problems,”
present a Public Arenas Model to explain how social problems gain and lose
public attention. Rather than treating social problems as objective conditions that
automatically demand action, they argue that social problems are inherently
social constructs that must compete for attention in public arenas. The authors
build on a symbolic interactionist tradition (citing scholars like Herbert Blumer
and Spector & Kitsuse) which holds that a social condition only becomes a
“problem” when it is defined as such through collective processes. Hilgartner and
Bosk ask a pointed question: Why do some issues dominate public discourse,
while other issues of equal or greater objective harm get ignored? Their answer
emphasizes that public attention is a scarce resource, and myriad issues
(“putative problems,” as they call them) are vying for a limited amount of space
in the public consciousness.
The Public Arenas Model conceptualizes society as having multiple public
arenas – institutional sites where social problems are articulated and
dramatized. These arenas include media platforms (newspapers, TV, social
media today), political forums (parliaments, courts), and civil society venues
(NGO campaigns, public meetings). Each arena has a carrying capacity,
meaning there is only so much room (column inches, airtime, docket space) for
, social problems at any given time. Hilgartner and Bosk outline six key
components that shape the trajectory of any social problem: (1) competition
among problem claims – many issues compete, but only a few achieve
prominence; (2) multiple arenas – different institutional arenas (like mass
media versus scientific conferences) have their own rules and audiences, and an
issue might fare well in one while floundering in another; (3) carrying capacity
– each arena can only handle a limited number of issues simultaneously (a
newspaper front page might cover perhaps half a dozen major topics); (4)
principles of selection – criteria that determine which issues get attention,
such as drama, novelty, cultural resonance, and political fit; (5) arena
interactions – arenas influence each other (for example, a story gaining traction
on social media might spur coverage on television, or a court case might spark
legislative debate); and (6) networks of operatives – individuals or
organizations (“claims-makers”) who actively promote certain issues (activists,
experts, journalists, politicians all act as operatives maneuvering issues into the
spotlight).
A core insight of Hilgartner and Bosk is that attention ≠ severity. Whether a
problem gains public attention depends less on how objectively dangerous or
harmful it is, and more on how effectively it is framed and marketed within these
arenas. They discuss principles of selection that advantage certain social
issue claims. For instance, issues framed with compelling human stories or vivid
imagery tend to draw attention – they note that dramatic, emotional appeals (a
“poster child” case, striking visuals) often succeed. Novelty matters too: the
public and media can experience “issue fatigue,” so a fresh angle on a problem
can reignite interest, whereas old issues may be crowded out as stale. Cultural
and political resonance is another selection principle: an issue aligning with
prevailing public anxieties or elite interests (for example, concerns about
national security or morality) has a better chance of being amplified. Simplicity
and symbolic clarity also help – problems that can be encapsulated in a clear
symbol or story (e.g. a slogan like “Life Causes Cancer,” which satirically
commented on the glut of cancer-risk warnings) are more likely to stick,
compared to diffuse or complex issues.
Hilgartner and Bosk’s model highlights the role of operatives and institutions
in constructing social problems. “Operatives” include advocacy groups,
journalists, experts, and political entrepreneurs who frame conditions as urgent
problems and try to move them up the agenda. These actors must navigate the
constraints of arenas: for example, a TV news show demands a visual, concise
narrative, while a scientific conference requires data and credibility. The authors
also emphasize feedback loops in problem attention. Success in one arena can
spill over – e.g., widespread media coverage might prompt legislative hearings,
or a court ruling might spark mass protests, thus transferring the issue across
arenas. But these loops can also amplify competition – as one issue ascends,
another must decline due to the finite carrying capacity. Consequently, social
problems often have a life cycle: a dramatic rise as they capture attention, then
a peak and eventual decline as attention shifts elsewhere (sometimes described
as an issue-attention cycle).
By offering this Public Arenas Model, Hilgartner and Bosk shift focus from asking
which conditions are truly most harmful to understanding how society
Course Readings
Contents
Week 1: Public Sociology and Social Problem Construction...................................2
Michael Burawoy (2005) – “For Public Sociology.”..............................................2
Hilgartner & Bosk (1988) – “The Rise and Fall of Social Problems: A Public
Arenas Model.”................................................................................................... 3
Claude Gilbert & Emmanuel Henry (2012) – “Defining Social Problems: Tensions
between Discreet Compromise and Publicity.”....................................................5
Week 2: Power, Persuasion, and the Control of Policy Agendas.............................7
Steven Lukes (2005) – Power: A Radical View (Second Edition)..........................7
Albert O. Hirschman (1991) – The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility,
Jeopardy............................................................................................................ 10
Andrea Saltelli et al. (2022) – “Science, the Endless Frontier of Regulatory
Capture.”.......................................................................................................... 12
Jon Jureidini & Leemon McHenry (2022) – “The Illusion of Evidence-Based
Medicine.”......................................................................................................... 14
Week 3: Citizenship, Welfare, and New Challenges to Rights..............................17
Yasemin N. Soysal (1994) – Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and Postnational
Membership in Europe...................................................................................... 17
Raymond Plant (2003) – “Free Lunches Don’t Nourish: The Politics of Welfare
and the Market.”............................................................................................... 19
Jeremy Waldron (1992) – “Social Citizenship and the Defense of Welfare
Provision”.......................................................................................................... 21
Félix Tréguer (2021) – “The Virus of Surveillance: How the COVID-19 Pandemic
is Fuelling Technologies of Control.”.................................................................23
Week 4: Transformations of Welfare States and Democracy................................26
Gøsta Esping-Andersen (1999) – “Social Risks and Welfare States.”................26
Neil Gilbert (2002) – “From State to Market: The Privatization of the Welfare
State.”.............................................................................................................. 28
Colin Crouch (2004) – Post-Democracy (Chapter 1 Excerpt).............................30
Week 5: Quantification, Metrics, and the Governance of Policy...........................33
Tero Erkkilä, B. Guy Peters & Ossi Piironen (2016) – “The Politics of Comparative
Quantification: The Case of Governance Metrics.”............................................33
Jochen Clasen & Nico A. Siegel (2007) – “Investigating Welfare State Change:
The ‘Dependent Variable Problem’ in Comparative Analysis.”..........................35
Andrea Saltelli & Monica Di Fiore (2020) – “From Sociology of Quantification to
Ethics of Quantification.”.................................................................................. 38
,Week 6: Europe in Crisis – Identity, Integration, and Conflict...............................41
Perry Anderson (2021) – “Ever Closer Union?”.................................................41
Wolfgang Streeck (2014) – “Small-State Nostalgia? The Currency Union,
Germany, and Europe: A Reply to Jürgen Habermas.”......................................42
Francesco Nicoli et al. (2024) – “Closer During Crises? European Identity During
the COVID-19 Pandemic and the Russian Invasion of Ukraine.”........................44
Week 1: Public Sociology and Social Problem
Construction
Michael Burawoy (2005) – “For Public Sociology.”
Michael Burawoy’s “For Public Sociology” calls for revitalizing sociology’s
engagement with the public sphere. Writing in the context of a neoliberal era
hostile to critical thought, Burawoy observes a widening gap between an
increasingly critical, inequality-focused sociology and a world moving in the
opposite direction (toward marketization, privatization, and repression). He refers
to this divergence as a “scissors movement,” noting that while it creates a
pressing need for public sociology, it also makes practicing it more difficult.
Burawoy argues that sociology’s moral and reflexive impulse must be reclaimed
so that the discipline can serve the public interest rather than retreat into
academic insularity. He situates this plea within a broader vision of sociology’s
“organic division of labor,” where different types of sociological practice
complement one another to keep the field relevant and ethically grounded.
Burawoy introduces a typology of four sociologies that together form the
discipline’s division of labor: professional, policy, public, and critical
sociology. Professional sociology is research aimed at academic peers – theory-
driven, methodical, and focused on accumulating knowledge. Policy sociology
serves clients (often government or institutions) by applying sociological insights
to solve predefined problems (for example, think of government advisory bodies
using sociological data). Public sociology engages in dialogue with broader
publics to transform private troubles into public issues – it is a moral and civic
enterprise that brings sociological knowledge to citizens and civil society. Finally,
critical sociology scrutinizes the value assumptions of the discipline itself and of
society, acting as the conscience of sociology. Each type has its role and a
pathology if taken to the extreme (e.g. professional sociology can become too
insular; policy sociology may turn servile to power; public sociology might slip
into populism; critical sociology can become sectarian). Burawoy insists these
modes are interdependent ideal types: a healthy disciplinary ecosystem
balances them, avoiding fragmentation or dominance by any single approach.
A central focus of Burawoy’s article is on public sociology itself. He describes
two forms: traditional public sociology, which reaches broad, often passive
audiences through books, media, or op-eds (for instance, classic works like
W.E.B. Du Bois’s The Souls of Black Folk sought to raise public awareness); and
,organic public sociology, which involves sociologists working in active
partnership with visible, thick “counterpublics” such as community groups, labor
unions, or social movements. In the organic model, sociologist and public are in
dialogue, co-producing knowledge and definitions of issues (Burawoy notes how
categories like “women” or “people with AIDS” were shaped through such
engagement). In both cases, public sociology aims to build publics – it doesn’t
see publics as fixed, but as emerging through discussion and alliance, with the
sociologist helping to foster an informed, critical public realm. Burawoy even
highlights that students are an important public for sociologists: the classroom
can be a seedbed of public sociology as students carry ideas into wider society.
Beyond championing public engagement, Burawoy contrasts instrumental
knowledge (research as a means to an end, typical of professional or policy work)
with reflexive knowledge (research that questions ends and values,
characteristic of public and critical work). He argues both are needed. For
example, policy sociology may offer technical solutions within given goals,
whereas public sociology opens debate on those goals and values with the
public. Public sociology is thus not “soft” or unserious – Burawoy contends it is
theoretically demanding and politically significant, requiring rigor as well
as moral vision. He warns that if sociology loses its reflexive, public-facing ethos
and succumbs entirely to market-oriented logic (publish-or-perish, chasing
funding, treating students as customers), it risks irrelevance or complicity in
injustice. In concluding, Burawoy issues a rallying call: What is sociology for, and
whom should it serve? He urges the discipline to serve society at large –
especially the underrepresented – by speaking truth to power and keeping social
issues in the public eye, rather than only serving bureaucratic or academic
masters.
Hilgartner & Bosk (1988) – “The Rise and Fall of Social
Problems: A Public Arenas Model.”
Stephen Hilgartner and Charles Bosk, in “The Rise and Fall of Social Problems,”
present a Public Arenas Model to explain how social problems gain and lose
public attention. Rather than treating social problems as objective conditions that
automatically demand action, they argue that social problems are inherently
social constructs that must compete for attention in public arenas. The authors
build on a symbolic interactionist tradition (citing scholars like Herbert Blumer
and Spector & Kitsuse) which holds that a social condition only becomes a
“problem” when it is defined as such through collective processes. Hilgartner and
Bosk ask a pointed question: Why do some issues dominate public discourse,
while other issues of equal or greater objective harm get ignored? Their answer
emphasizes that public attention is a scarce resource, and myriad issues
(“putative problems,” as they call them) are vying for a limited amount of space
in the public consciousness.
The Public Arenas Model conceptualizes society as having multiple public
arenas – institutional sites where social problems are articulated and
dramatized. These arenas include media platforms (newspapers, TV, social
media today), political forums (parliaments, courts), and civil society venues
(NGO campaigns, public meetings). Each arena has a carrying capacity,
meaning there is only so much room (column inches, airtime, docket space) for
, social problems at any given time. Hilgartner and Bosk outline six key
components that shape the trajectory of any social problem: (1) competition
among problem claims – many issues compete, but only a few achieve
prominence; (2) multiple arenas – different institutional arenas (like mass
media versus scientific conferences) have their own rules and audiences, and an
issue might fare well in one while floundering in another; (3) carrying capacity
– each arena can only handle a limited number of issues simultaneously (a
newspaper front page might cover perhaps half a dozen major topics); (4)
principles of selection – criteria that determine which issues get attention,
such as drama, novelty, cultural resonance, and political fit; (5) arena
interactions – arenas influence each other (for example, a story gaining traction
on social media might spur coverage on television, or a court case might spark
legislative debate); and (6) networks of operatives – individuals or
organizations (“claims-makers”) who actively promote certain issues (activists,
experts, journalists, politicians all act as operatives maneuvering issues into the
spotlight).
A core insight of Hilgartner and Bosk is that attention ≠ severity. Whether a
problem gains public attention depends less on how objectively dangerous or
harmful it is, and more on how effectively it is framed and marketed within these
arenas. They discuss principles of selection that advantage certain social
issue claims. For instance, issues framed with compelling human stories or vivid
imagery tend to draw attention – they note that dramatic, emotional appeals (a
“poster child” case, striking visuals) often succeed. Novelty matters too: the
public and media can experience “issue fatigue,” so a fresh angle on a problem
can reignite interest, whereas old issues may be crowded out as stale. Cultural
and political resonance is another selection principle: an issue aligning with
prevailing public anxieties or elite interests (for example, concerns about
national security or morality) has a better chance of being amplified. Simplicity
and symbolic clarity also help – problems that can be encapsulated in a clear
symbol or story (e.g. a slogan like “Life Causes Cancer,” which satirically
commented on the glut of cancer-risk warnings) are more likely to stick,
compared to diffuse or complex issues.
Hilgartner and Bosk’s model highlights the role of operatives and institutions
in constructing social problems. “Operatives” include advocacy groups,
journalists, experts, and political entrepreneurs who frame conditions as urgent
problems and try to move them up the agenda. These actors must navigate the
constraints of arenas: for example, a TV news show demands a visual, concise
narrative, while a scientific conference requires data and credibility. The authors
also emphasize feedback loops in problem attention. Success in one arena can
spill over – e.g., widespread media coverage might prompt legislative hearings,
or a court ruling might spark mass protests, thus transferring the issue across
arenas. But these loops can also amplify competition – as one issue ascends,
another must decline due to the finite carrying capacity. Consequently, social
problems often have a life cycle: a dramatic rise as they capture attention, then
a peak and eventual decline as attention shifts elsewhere (sometimes described
as an issue-attention cycle).
By offering this Public Arenas Model, Hilgartner and Bosk shift focus from asking
which conditions are truly most harmful to understanding how society
