the answer should be based on evidence from academic resource, we should take a stance in the answer. please find bellow some additional instructions and relevant references that might be helpful.
The goal of the formative essay is to understand and apply two (or more, but not too many) theories/concepts to one question/issue. Critical engagement with a literature is a main requirement for a good essay and it is best learnt in a setting where the student engages with different theories/concepts, comparing and contrasting them and drawing links between them, in order to answer a relatively straightforward question.
refrence list that might be helpful:
Micro: Public Opinion • Public Opinion and Public Policy – Core: CH3: Burstein, P. American Public Opinion, Advocacy, and Policy in Congress: What the Public Wants and What It Gets. Cambridge University Press, 2014. • Policy responsiveness – Core: Page, Benjamin I, and Robert Y Shapiro. “Effects of Public Opinion on Policy.” The American Political Science Review 77, no. 1 (1983): 175-90. – Core: Stimson, James A, Michael B MacKuen, and Robert S Erikson. “Dynamic Representation.” American Political Science Review 89, no. 03 (1995): 543-65. – Recommended: Manza, Jeff, and Fay Lomax Cook. “A Democratic Polity?: Three Views of Policy Responsiveness to Public Opinion in the United States.” American Politics Research 30, no. 6 (2002): 630-67. – Additional: Bailey, Michael. “Quiet Inﬂuence: The Representation of Diffuse Interests on Trade Policy, 1983-94.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 26, no. 1 (2001): 45-80.
The Policy Process
– Additional: Denzau, Arthur T., and Michael C. Munger. “Legislators and Interest Groups: HowUnorganizedInterestsGetRepresented.”TheAmericanPoliticalScience Review 80, no. 1 (1986): 89-106.
• Economic Voting and Thermostatic Model
– Core: CH3, 4, 5: Powell, G.B. Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000. – Recommended Wlezien, Christopher. “The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending.” American Journal of Political Science 39, no. 4 (1995): 981-1000.