This week we switch gears to Deborah Stone's perspective on policymaking. Deborah Stone is a post-modern and interpretive policy scholar. This can be a difficult perspective for some people to grasp. It assumes that policy is really about story-telling, ideas, and argument. Policy analysts, policymakers, and citizens are not as concerned with trying to create efficient policies, but are instead using metaphors to try and make issues seem like one thing rather than another thing. The choice of these metaphors is strategic and meant to reinforce the worldview of the analyst, citizen, or policymaker.
Let's step back for a minute. What is Stone's book arguing against? She is arguing against the predominant view of policy choice as rational choice. The rational model stems from the market-based model of society. We have talked a little about this previously. In the rational model, the decision-maker goes through logical steps to make her decision. First she identifies the objectives or goals she wants to achieve, then she identifies alternative courses of action and the possible consequences of all the alternatives. She evaluates these possible consequences and selects the best alternatives. This should sound like the decision analysis process that Peters presented in chapter 4 (p. 89). Stone argues that this process is "missing the point" because politics is everything. Even in the rational model, decisions are ultimately political with the steps serving as rationalizations for the preferred choice.
In chapter one, Stone emphasizes the difference between the market model of society and the political model of society, which she calls the polis. Polis is the Greek word for city-state and she will use this term throughout the book to describe the model that she believes is closest to how the policy process really works.
We have talked a little bit about market failure in this class (see the notes on health insurance). Market failure occurs when individuals cannot use the rational decision-making process or when using the rational decision-making process does not lead to optimal societal outcomes. Some forms of market failure are commons problems, imperfect information, and externalities. These situations are seen as rare problems in the market model. In the polis, these are facts of life. This is because community is the major unit of analysis in the polis, not the individual. Everything we do has effects on the community and individuals think about both their self-interest and their community (or more appropriately communities) in their decision-making process. Tying the community interest to the self-interest of community members is the major policy issue in the polis. Information is never perfect in the polis by design. It is strategically manipulated and withheld by everyone. (Think about the last time you applied for a job, asked your professor for an extension, experienced a conflict with a loved one. My guess is that you strategically withheld certain information in these cases, as did the other party. It is socially expected to do so.)
There are two other major differences between the market and the polis. In the market, all resources are scarce and competition is the means of success. In the polis, many resources like social connections and advocacy skills grow with use. Stone calls this the law of passion. Stone published the first edition of her book in 1988, and we have since seen the introduction of these types of "anti-rivalrous" goods into market models. Open source software is the common example in the market because as more people use it, it becomes better and expands. The market also assumes that all individuals have equal power in transactions. In the polis, power is derived from all of the other components. Stone explains this much better than I can on page 32, "I save power for last because it is derived by all the other elements. Power cannot be defined without reference to them. It is a phenomenon of communities. Its purpose is always to subordinate individual self-interest to other interests - sometimes to other individual or group interests, sometimes to the public interest. It operates through influences, cooperation, and loyalty. It is based also on the strategic control of information. And finally, it is a resource that obeys the laws of passion rather than the laws of matter."
In summary:
The characteristics of the market model of society are:
Individuals are rationally self-interested utility maximizers. They make exchanges when trade is mutually beneficial Trading is not a necessity but a net benefit\ Competition for scarce resources They try to minimize costs and maximize benefits Competition leads to better outcomes for society.
The characteristics of the polis model of society are (from Stone p. 32):
Community is the major unit of composition with ideas, wills, goals etc. outside of the individual. There is a public interest beyond individual interests. Most policy problems are commons problems. Influence sometimes verging on coercion, cooperation, and loyalty are the major forms of interaction. Groups and organizations are the building blocks of the community. Information is never perfect. Some resources are scarce and rivalrous, but many are anti-rivalrous and abundant.
Stone believes that the polis model more closely represents the way we make and understand public policy.
It is important to keep these two models of society in mind as we continue with Stone. She uses a lot of examples from social policy - most notably, welfare and affirmative action - because of her background and interests as a scholar, but also because we can see the differences between these two models very clearly in the social policy arena. That does not mean that we cannot apply Stone to other substantive policy areas, and we will do just that as the course progresses.
So far, what do you think? Is this all just "touchy-feely" stuff or is Stone onto something? Do you think we are living in the market, the polis, or do you see evidence of both? Can you think of areas of policymaking where we rely on the polis model rather than the market model? Have you heard any politicians or scholars (aside from Stone) reference ideas from the polis model?
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
My Thoughts on Education Policy
What do you expect from a good education system? What is the purpose and function of our public school system? At the turn of the 21st century, most of us expect an education system that serves two basic functions: we expect that it will provide American workers with the skills to compete in a global economy and that it will serve an equalizing function to ensure opportunity for success for all individuals. This has not always been the purpose of education in America. Historically, education was considered a privilege for elite white male members of society, only. Education has also served as a force of assimilation in order to transform immigrants and Native Americans into proper Americans. (If any of you have not yet visited the Heard Museum and seen the exhibit on Remembering Our Indian School Days, I highly recommend it). With so many different understandings and visions of what an education system can and should be, it is no wonder that we are constantly attempting to reform our education policies.
From early childhood to graduate education, a lot of attention has been paid to our education system over the last few years. The general consensus has been that our education system is no longer serving us as well as it once did. No one today would argue that America's elementary and secondary education system is the best in the world (Although, I think such an argument can easily be made about our post-secondary education system). Test scores show that Americans rank about average relative to other developed nations, and there is a general belief that we are faring especially poorly in terms of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM).
From early childhood to graduate education, a lot of attention has been paid to our education system over the last few years. The general consensus has been that our education system is no longer serving us as well as it once did. No one today would argue that America's elementary and secondary education system is the best in the world (Although, I think such an argument can easily be made about our post-secondary education system). Test scores show that Americans rank about average relative to other developed nations, and there is a general belief that we are faring especially poorly in terms of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM).
The policy solutions we have developed to address these problems are market innovations and accountability through testing. The theory is that by introducing competition into the education system and creating a system of visible accountability, schools will be forced to improve services to their students or lose them. Both George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind and Barack Obama's Race to the Top emphasize standards and assessments as ways of improving education. Certainly, measuring a problem is one way to emphasize it and place it on the policy agenda, but is this the only way?
One of the reasons that I assigned education policy as the substantive chapter along with Peters' chapter on evaluation is that we can see the debate about education policy evaluation and change happening before our eyes. What are the goals of our education system? How do we measure those goals? If test scores are valid forms of measurement and many public schools are failing, how should we change our policies? Do we tweak our current policies or come up with something new? Is school choice effective? Are smaller class-sizes effective? Should we give low and middle class parents the freedom to move their children our of a "failing school" if it means that it will leave those students who cannot take advantage of a voucher, and the public school as an institution worse off? How much can we really expect from the public education system?
Most policymakers seem to accept the idea that our current policies on K-12 education need to be changed in some way. We are currently trying to figure out what changes we want to make, and innovation is really the buzzword for education. Usually, this comes in the form of new charter schools that enter the education market. Some of these innovations, like the KIPP schools and Geoffrey Canada's Harlem Children's Zone have been incredibly successful at addressing educational inequality. But there have also been downsides to the charter movement. 37 percent of charters actually perform worse than public schools on standardized tests (Of course, I am not completely convinced as to the validity of standardized tests). Some, like the for-profit colleges presented in College, Inc. have been created primarily for the benefit of their CEOs who make six-figures for managing small schools. There are a substantial number of innovations occurring within public schools, as well. Groups like Communities in Schools work to build support networks to help public school students succeed. Mentoring and support programs help attract and keep experienced teachers in the classroom. Federal loan forgiveness programs help attract and keep qualified teachers in low-income public schools.
Of course, in any discussion of education policy we have to keep in mind the factors that influence kids' lives outside of school. In the Planet Money podcast Eric Hanushek illustrates how important good teachers are to a child's education. As important as they are, what happens outside the classroom is even more important. Test scores tend to be better measures of socioeconomic factors than anything else. Low-income children generally start kindergarten and early education with a deficit in their exposure to vocabulary and reading skills. Parent participation, housing stability, neighborhood safety, and poverty all affect how well a child does in school. This is why I believe that Harlem Children's Zone is one of the best education initiatives we have. They have decided to do more than just educate their children, they have programming from birth to college that includes social services, community building, health care, and whole family interventions. They've decided to do "Whatever it Takes" to never let the children in their community fall behind. I think the big question is, would we ever have the commitment to implement something like this at a national level and would it be as successful in a different neighborhood?
There is a lot more that we can say about education in the United States, but since we are about to start reading Deborah Stone's critique of public policy, I want to leave this on a radical note. I have two resources to share with you. The first is an article about Finland, which has one of, if not the best education system in the world right now and has implemented education reforms that are the polar opposite of the U.S. education system. The second is a video from RSAnimate about rethinking the goals of education.
Most policymakers seem to accept the idea that our current policies on K-12 education need to be changed in some way. We are currently trying to figure out what changes we want to make, and innovation is really the buzzword for education. Usually, this comes in the form of new charter schools that enter the education market. Some of these innovations, like the KIPP schools and Geoffrey Canada's Harlem Children's Zone have been incredibly successful at addressing educational inequality. But there have also been downsides to the charter movement. 37 percent of charters actually perform worse than public schools on standardized tests (Of course, I am not completely convinced as to the validity of standardized tests). Some, like the for-profit colleges presented in College, Inc. have been created primarily for the benefit of their CEOs who make six-figures for managing small schools. There are a substantial number of innovations occurring within public schools, as well. Groups like Communities in Schools work to build support networks to help public school students succeed. Mentoring and support programs help attract and keep experienced teachers in the classroom. Federal loan forgiveness programs help attract and keep qualified teachers in low-income public schools.
Of course, in any discussion of education policy we have to keep in mind the factors that influence kids' lives outside of school. In the Planet Money podcast Eric Hanushek illustrates how important good teachers are to a child's education. As important as they are, what happens outside the classroom is even more important. Test scores tend to be better measures of socioeconomic factors than anything else. Low-income children generally start kindergarten and early education with a deficit in their exposure to vocabulary and reading skills. Parent participation, housing stability, neighborhood safety, and poverty all affect how well a child does in school. This is why I believe that Harlem Children's Zone is one of the best education initiatives we have. They have decided to do more than just educate their children, they have programming from birth to college that includes social services, community building, health care, and whole family interventions. They've decided to do "Whatever it Takes" to never let the children in their community fall behind. I think the big question is, would we ever have the commitment to implement something like this at a national level and would it be as successful in a different neighborhood?
There is a lot more that we can say about education in the United States, but since we are about to start reading Deborah Stone's critique of public policy, I want to leave this on a radical note. I have two resources to share with you. The first is an article about Finland, which has one of, if not the best education system in the world right now and has implemented education reforms that are the polar opposite of the U.S. education system. The second is a video from RSAnimate about rethinking the goals of education.
Do Our Policies "Work"? How Can or Should We Change Them? - My Thoughts on Evaluation and Change
Finally, we have reached the last stage of the policy process: evaluation. Once a policy has been passed and implemented, we generally want to know if the policy is successful (This is probably what you were interested in learning when you took this class). We have to develop measures to determine whether or not the policy is meeting its goals, if it was the best way to address a problem, and if we need to change our policy in some way. Evaluation and policy change are intimately tied. After all, it is hard to justify continuing to pay for an ineffective policy.
Like everything else in the policy process, program evaluation is harder than it seems. Generally, evaluations of public programs show that the program has no effect on targets. This may be because the program is ineffective, but it may also be due to the difficulties of measuring program success. Hopefully those of you who have taken a research methods class in the social sciences recognized some of these problems.
Peters starts with goals. He's discussed the goals of policy as problematic throughout the policy process. If you remember, in chapter four we learned that there are incentives to make goals vague and even contradictory in order to get bills passed by the legislature. When this happens, organizations who implement programs and analysts attempting to evaluate them do not know which goals are most important. Establishing success is impossible when successfully meeting one of the goals means failing to meet the others.
We also learn about the challenges of measurement. What time span should we use to show success or failure? Are participants reacting to our study? Would these participants have done just as well without the program? Which program is really affecting recipients of multiple programs? Are there unintended consequences of this program? How valid are the measures we have established? These are all questions that a good evaluation should ask, but some are nearly impossible to answer. They all affect the determination of whether or not a program is effective. Often, if we change a measure, the time span, or the method of participant selection we see completely different results. Next time you hear that policy X is a huge success or failure, I want you to remain skeptical and think about how the evaluators of the policy made that determination.
On a related note, we must always remember that political factors and values are affecting evaluation. Most pilot programs require some work in order to participate so they tend to attract the "best" of the eligible group. Often this may not be the group we actually wish to target. Organizations, policy analysts, and policymakers have self-interested reasons for wanting their programs to do well, and while they often do not intentionally bias their results, they may be gearing their studies to show programs in a positive light (of course, the converse is also true). Political partisans may be the most likely to seek biased results for political gain and will manipulate the evaluation process.
Government has become increasingly concerned with program evaluation since the 1990s. Evaluations using quantitative data with easy to cite statistics are considered particularly valid. Presidents have made various attempts at creating cross-program measures of efficiency and effectiveness to determine which programs to change and which to expand. One has to think about what types of programs will most likely show consistent results and which present more challenges. It is much easier for NASA to collect data and quantify the results of its activities than the public health department, for example. NASA will be much more likely to show outcomes (the effects of their research), while the health department will have to rely on illustrating inputs (funds) and outputs (the services they deliver).
Policy change can be thought of as the beginning of the policy stages cycle all over again. Based on evaluations, policymakers have to decide whether to maintain, terminate, or change policies. When government takes the time to evaluate and re-consider policies, they are rarely terminated or left in their exact same state. That being said, policy maintenance has become increasingly likely as Congress has struggled to pass meaningful legislation that seriously debates and considers policy. Even when programs have sunset provisions, they often are maintained because of a lack of political will to either end or change the program. For example, I worked for an organization in DC that was founded in 2000 to influence the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act, which was supposed to take place in 2003. Although there were many proposals over the years for WIA reauthorization, the program has been maintained without any changes for eight years beyond its reauthorization date. This happens to programs all of the time.
As Peters states, programs are rarely terminated. It is difficult for government to terminate a program once advocates, agencies, clients, and businesses benefit from their existence.
Policy change is generally the ideal option for policies, and tends to be the most likely outcome. We want policies to be changed as context and evaluation dictates. Sometimes changes are for the good and make the program better, but often change has just as many downsides. Peters discusses four types of change: linear succession, consolidation, splitting, and nonlinear succession. He gives examples of each. The consolidation of programs into the Department of Homeland Security is a good example of the pros and cons of policy change. It does seem as though consolidation has helped organizations and agencies in the sharing of information and anti-terrorism actions. On the other hand, FEMA has become a much less effective agency. Now that it is no longer independent, it is fighting for agency resources to deal with relatively common natural disasters in a department that is concerned primarily with terrorist threats. There is little reason to believe that advocating for FEMA is at the top of the Secretary of Homeland Security's priority list when it is often dealing with issues removed from the rest of DHS's mission. This is one of the consequences of the reactivity of policymaking in the United States. We often change policies in reaction to a visible, large-scale event that is judged to be a policy failure. In doing so, we may be setting the stage for the next policy failure in another area. Although there are many explanations of causation for the 2005 Katrina disaster, FEMAs consolidation into DHS certainly can be considered a contributing factor.
Like everything else in the policy process, program evaluation is harder than it seems. Generally, evaluations of public programs show that the program has no effect on targets. This may be because the program is ineffective, but it may also be due to the difficulties of measuring program success. Hopefully those of you who have taken a research methods class in the social sciences recognized some of these problems.
Peters starts with goals. He's discussed the goals of policy as problematic throughout the policy process. If you remember, in chapter four we learned that there are incentives to make goals vague and even contradictory in order to get bills passed by the legislature. When this happens, organizations who implement programs and analysts attempting to evaluate them do not know which goals are most important. Establishing success is impossible when successfully meeting one of the goals means failing to meet the others.
We also learn about the challenges of measurement. What time span should we use to show success or failure? Are participants reacting to our study? Would these participants have done just as well without the program? Which program is really affecting recipients of multiple programs? Are there unintended consequences of this program? How valid are the measures we have established? These are all questions that a good evaluation should ask, but some are nearly impossible to answer. They all affect the determination of whether or not a program is effective. Often, if we change a measure, the time span, or the method of participant selection we see completely different results. Next time you hear that policy X is a huge success or failure, I want you to remain skeptical and think about how the evaluators of the policy made that determination.
On a related note, we must always remember that political factors and values are affecting evaluation. Most pilot programs require some work in order to participate so they tend to attract the "best" of the eligible group. Often this may not be the group we actually wish to target. Organizations, policy analysts, and policymakers have self-interested reasons for wanting their programs to do well, and while they often do not intentionally bias their results, they may be gearing their studies to show programs in a positive light (of course, the converse is also true). Political partisans may be the most likely to seek biased results for political gain and will manipulate the evaluation process.
Government has become increasingly concerned with program evaluation since the 1990s. Evaluations using quantitative data with easy to cite statistics are considered particularly valid. Presidents have made various attempts at creating cross-program measures of efficiency and effectiveness to determine which programs to change and which to expand. One has to think about what types of programs will most likely show consistent results and which present more challenges. It is much easier for NASA to collect data and quantify the results of its activities than the public health department, for example. NASA will be much more likely to show outcomes (the effects of their research), while the health department will have to rely on illustrating inputs (funds) and outputs (the services they deliver).
Policy change can be thought of as the beginning of the policy stages cycle all over again. Based on evaluations, policymakers have to decide whether to maintain, terminate, or change policies. When government takes the time to evaluate and re-consider policies, they are rarely terminated or left in their exact same state. That being said, policy maintenance has become increasingly likely as Congress has struggled to pass meaningful legislation that seriously debates and considers policy. Even when programs have sunset provisions, they often are maintained because of a lack of political will to either end or change the program. For example, I worked for an organization in DC that was founded in 2000 to influence the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act, which was supposed to take place in 2003. Although there were many proposals over the years for WIA reauthorization, the program has been maintained without any changes for eight years beyond its reauthorization date. This happens to programs all of the time.
As Peters states, programs are rarely terminated. It is difficult for government to terminate a program once advocates, agencies, clients, and businesses benefit from their existence.
Policy change is generally the ideal option for policies, and tends to be the most likely outcome. We want policies to be changed as context and evaluation dictates. Sometimes changes are for the good and make the program better, but often change has just as many downsides. Peters discusses four types of change: linear succession, consolidation, splitting, and nonlinear succession. He gives examples of each. The consolidation of programs into the Department of Homeland Security is a good example of the pros and cons of policy change. It does seem as though consolidation has helped organizations and agencies in the sharing of information and anti-terrorism actions. On the other hand, FEMA has become a much less effective agency. Now that it is no longer independent, it is fighting for agency resources to deal with relatively common natural disasters in a department that is concerned primarily with terrorist threats. There is little reason to believe that advocating for FEMA is at the top of the Secretary of Homeland Security's priority list when it is often dealing with issues removed from the rest of DHS's mission. This is one of the consequences of the reactivity of policymaking in the United States. We often change policies in reaction to a visible, large-scale event that is judged to be a policy failure. In doing so, we may be setting the stage for the next policy failure in another area. Although there are many explanations of causation for the 2005 Katrina disaster, FEMAs consolidation into DHS certainly can be considered a contributing factor.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Transit in the news
Hey folks,
Didn't get it into the last post, but I thought it would be interesting for you to see what's been happening with public transit in the news lately. Below are links to some news stories that point out how implementation in theory doesn't always work quite the same way in practice.
"Phoenix Transit Union Says Bus Strike Now 'Very Probable'"
The Phoenix Public Transit Department contracts with private companies to provide transit service. In part, this means that bus operators and other transit employees have the ability to strike.
"Phoenix Homeless Transit Passes at Issue"
The Valley Metro regional agency provides transit passes for nonprofit organizations that serve the homeless, at a 50 percent discount. These passes are intended to help individuals pursue work, attend medical appointments, and meet other needs that can improve their situation. The current program is being taken back over by the City of Phoenix to provide additional oversight.
"Judge Slams Arizona For Raiding Transit Fund"
An example of how the implementation of any service that involves multiple levels of government can be complicated; here, a lawsuit has forced the State of Arizona to basically refund money swept from a transportation fund to balance the previous year's budget.
Feel free to let me know your thoughts on these stories!
Didn't get it into the last post, but I thought it would be interesting for you to see what's been happening with public transit in the news lately. Below are links to some news stories that point out how implementation in theory doesn't always work quite the same way in practice.
"Phoenix Transit Union Says Bus Strike Now 'Very Probable'"
The Phoenix Public Transit Department contracts with private companies to provide transit service. In part, this means that bus operators and other transit employees have the ability to strike.
"Phoenix Homeless Transit Passes at Issue"
The Valley Metro regional agency provides transit passes for nonprofit organizations that serve the homeless, at a 50 percent discount. These passes are intended to help individuals pursue work, attend medical appointments, and meet other needs that can improve their situation. The current program is being taken back over by the City of Phoenix to provide additional oversight.
"Judge Slams Arizona For Raiding Transit Fund"
An example of how the implementation of any service that involves multiple levels of government can be complicated; here, a lawsuit has forced the State of Arizona to basically refund money swept from a transportation fund to balance the previous year's budget.
Feel free to let me know your thoughts on these stories!
Transit in the City
Hello everyone! As we move through this week's readings, and the required documentary on transportation, it seems that news events are conspiring to provide us a great deal of real world challenges to implementing and running a transit system.
As you watch this week's documentary, Blueprint America: The Next American System - The Road to the Future, I think it's an excellent exercise to consider where our community is on the continuum of municipalities that are described. Most people would say that we're very far removed from places like New York and Portland (both in distance and landscape, but also in our views on public transportation). Both cities have extensive infrastructure for public transportation, and have made a concerted effort to invest in their transit systems.
But how do we compare to a city like Denver, that isn't such a distant neighbor? Consider issues addressed of land use, urban sprawl, and the sort of "car-focused" policy development that cities adopted in the 1950s. Phoenix, in particular, went from having an actual trolley system between 1887 and 1948 to jumping completely on the automobile band wagon, promoting buses and individual car use through an expansion of street infrastructure. To get an idea of what Phoenix was like in those early days, check out the Phoenix Trolley Museum, which carries you through the early days of Phoenix transit to the latest success with light rail.
What is similar in each case, both for those cities covered in the documentary and the cities in the Valley, including Phoenix, are the vital role that municipalities play in providing public transportation. In fact, the majority of what we understand as the Valley Metro transit system did not exist l several municipalities went through the process of presenting their voters with sales tax proposals to fund public transit. In Phoenix, that proposal was Transit 2000, a 4/10ths of a cent sales tax intended to provide expanded local bus service; improved Dial-a-Ride service for people with disabilities; and a new kind of commuter service called RAPID, which used a streamlined system of highway-centered routes and park-and-rides to provide service. Of course now Phoenix, like many other cities, is facing the challenge of implementing transit service in a austere financial environment. Service cuts and efficiencies have been necessary as sales tax revenues continue to decline, and just what the Phoenix transit system will look like in the future is hard to say.
What you can be sure about is that transit service will continue to play an important role in the city's development, and the support of its residents.
As you watch this week's documentary, Blueprint America: The Next American System - The Road to the Future, I think it's an excellent exercise to consider where our community is on the continuum of municipalities that are described. Most people would say that we're very far removed from places like New York and Portland (both in distance and landscape, but also in our views on public transportation). Both cities have extensive infrastructure for public transportation, and have made a concerted effort to invest in their transit systems.
But how do we compare to a city like Denver, that isn't such a distant neighbor? Consider issues addressed of land use, urban sprawl, and the sort of "car-focused" policy development that cities adopted in the 1950s. Phoenix, in particular, went from having an actual trolley system between 1887 and 1948 to jumping completely on the automobile band wagon, promoting buses and individual car use through an expansion of street infrastructure. To get an idea of what Phoenix was like in those early days, check out the Phoenix Trolley Museum, which carries you through the early days of Phoenix transit to the latest success with light rail.
What is similar in each case, both for those cities covered in the documentary and the cities in the Valley, including Phoenix, are the vital role that municipalities play in providing public transportation. In fact, the majority of what we understand as the Valley Metro transit system did not exist l several municipalities went through the process of presenting their voters with sales tax proposals to fund public transit. In Phoenix, that proposal was Transit 2000, a 4/10ths of a cent sales tax intended to provide expanded local bus service; improved Dial-a-Ride service for people with disabilities; and a new kind of commuter service called RAPID, which used a streamlined system of highway-centered routes and park-and-rides to provide service. Of course now Phoenix, like many other cities, is facing the challenge of implementing transit service in a austere financial environment. Service cuts and efficiencies have been necessary as sales tax revenues continue to decline, and just what the Phoenix transit system will look like in the future is hard to say.
What you can be sure about is that transit service will continue to play an important role in the city's development, and the support of its residents.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Transportation, a service and an ideal - Guest Post from Matt Heil
Hello everyone! This week I'll be providing “guest lectures” on our topics for this week, implementation and transportation. Why me, you may ask? In my other life outside of graduate school, I work full time for the City of Phoenix Public Transit Department, in the public information office. So I see every day how implementation plays a role in successful government service provision, and how the unexpected can challenge our understanding of the best way to approach a problem. The article we read from the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, and the research brief from Congressional Quarterly both drive home the point that implementation is a process, and that its success lies as much in the interpersonal savvy of administrators as it does any kind of technical expertise. These subjects are an excellent pairing, in my opinion, because most transportation systems in the United States, (I won't say absolutely all, but I suspect nearly so) combine many aspects of implementation that are essential for public administrators to familiarize themselves with, if they are going to be successful working in the community.
First and foremost, transportation of any kind—from roads and highways to buses, light rail and alternative transportation for people with disabilities—is a significant investment. Expenses come in many shapes and sizes. From my own experience, compare light rail and local bus. The first light rail line in the Valley cost approximately $1.4 billion to build, exclusive of operating costs. A local bus can cost anywhere from $300,000 to $500,000 to fabricate and “build out” with all the components to be fully functional on the street. And typically, to run a bus one city block, over and over again for a year, could cost as much as $100,000. How do you compare these numbers and make a decision on what's best to provide passengers and the surrounding community? If we were simply making choices based on cost, then, bus would be the far and away best choice. But other considerations, including future investment by business and government, and intangibles like civic pride and a city's reputation, all play into these choices.
As the article by Peter and Linda deLeon shows, implementation usually requires more than sound financial reasoning. To get transportation in almost any community, there must be buy in from the community and elected officials. That comes, primarily, from good public involvement processes, and a clear sense of the goals of transit projects. Again, from my own experience, the Phoenix Public Transit Department operates on a $275 million annual budget. The majority of this funding comes from a local , 4/10ths of a cent transportation tax enacted by Phoenix voters in 2000 called rather intuitively Transit 2000. Just to get that tax passed, a lengthy process of community involvement was conducted. Voters were polled on their concerns and hopes for public transit in the region. A multi-modal transit plan was developed, and projects were programmed throughout the 20-year life of the tax. It was this plan, in effect, that allowed the tax to get passed, after several previous attempts by the regional agency and cities in the Valley had failed. Light rail was an important component of this plan, as were services for people with disabilities, and bus rapid transit for commuters. In the end, it was a mixture of factors, including costs, services that were to be provided, public involvement, political investment in a new and larger transit system, and likely the luck of timing that brought our current regional transit system into being.
As you read this week, and ponder implementation and transportation, consider what steps it would take for an elected official, a public administrator, and an average resident to support such a transit plan. Not only would they have to be invested in the ideas offered up, they would also have to see a successful road to implementation. And not only implementation of the first bus route, for the first year, but year after year, as the economic climate changes, as natural resource costs fluctuate, and as population—especially in Phoenix—continues to grow. Implementation is an ongoing challenge and one that you'll all be faced with should you work in the public sector.
If you'd like additional information on transit in the Valley, here are a few places you can look:
Valley Metro RPTA, (the regional public transportation authority)
The City of Phoenix Public Transit Department
The City of Tempe Public Transit Department
The Maricopa Association of Governments (which provides regional transit planning and research)
The State of Arizona Department of Transportation
Thursday, September 8, 2011
A Tale of Justice, Need, and Anxiety - My Thoughts on Crossing Arizona
This week, we have our first non-Frontline documentary. You will notice as we go through the semester that many of the documentaries from sources aside from PBS will have a stronger point of view. Of course, you are always welcome to discuss any biases in your reflection papers and discussion comments. That being said, this may be one of my favorite documentaries that I have assigned this semester. I don't often work on immigration policy, but in Arizona we have all had some first-hand experience with this policy issue. In my opinion, Crossing Arizona highlights the diverse voices of individuals affected by immigration policy, many of whom often go unheard in our immigration policy debates.
You'll notice that the reading on immigration policy focused as much, if not more, on policies affecting legal immigrants, while the documentary focuses primarily on illegal or undocumented immigration across the U.S. Mexico border. Of course, both are intimately related. As we learned, not all immigrants are created equal when it comes to our immigration policies. One of the great points that this documentary makes is that human rights groups, anti-immigration groups, public servants, politicians, and residents of border communities all see the current immigration policies as problematic. Despite this, we have been unable to change our policies. As the law stands, we essentially pose a high risk of death to anyone who risks crossing the border, while simultaneously benefiting from the cheap labor of those who make it across. Certainly, this creates a lot of ethical questions and quandaries for people who live on the border and for our policymakers.
The documentary presents a question that is relevant for our readings this week. What are the possible unintended consequences of policies when we do not fully understand, or are afraid to acknowledge, the causes of problems? In this case, by not acknowledging our demand for cheap labor and our trade policies as push and pull factors affecting immigration, we have instead created "a solution" that does not solve the problem. If a 40 hour walk through the desert in 110 degree heat is not enough to keep people from crossing the border into Arizona, perhaps we need to re-think our understanding of immigration policy.
This documentary also highlights some of the topics we will be discussing next week when we talk about implementation. If you were paying attention at the beginning of the documentary, you may have noticed that the Border Patrol agent talked about policy changes that occurred in 1993 and 1994. If you remember, the readings discussed bills that were passed in 1990 and 1996. The policy change discussed in the documentary is a change in implementation or the carrying out of policies of the border patrol to stop immigration. This change locked down the easiest places through which immigrants could pass, filtering them through the most difficult terrain. I believe that Matt, who will be taking the reins and leading the class next week, will also discuss co-production, or citizen engagement in public service delivery. In this documentary we saw many examples of co-production from the samaritans providing water to the Minutemen camping out on the border. Normally, we think of co-production as a positive thing, but depending on your point of view, you may have seen some examples that made you uncomfortable.
So, what do you think? Did the documentary bring to light a point of view that you did not previously know about or understand? How do you think the various activists and public servants came across? Could you put yourself in "the shoes" of any of the individuals featured?
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Immigration Policy
The chapter on immigration policy provides a good overview of the history of our policies toward immigration and the current status of our federal immigration laws. Immigration is an issue that has been on the systemic agenda of the United States since the mid-19th century. During times of recession, depression, war, or turmoil immigration policy is moved to the institutional agenda, often as a scapegoat for economic and security fears. Immigration policy has historically only been on either agenda at the federal level, but for the past 15 years, immigration policy has been placed on an even more active agenda in many state legislatures. For this reason, I decided to match immigration policy with the theoretical chapter on agenda-setting.
Despite the fact that immigration policy has been on the institutional agendas at both the state and federal-levels since at least September 11th, 2001, it may have surprised you that the core of our immigration policy was created by the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act. The law has been modified by the 1990 Immigration Act and the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, but many of the provisions set forth in 1965 are still active. Did this surprise you at all?
Another thing that may have surprised you from the reading is that we place preferences and restrictions on immigration that make it easier for some immigrants to come through legal channels than others. We have tended to give preference to European immigrants over other nationalities, skilled workers over unskilled workers, and the extremely wealthy over all others. Refugees and members of current immigrants' immediate families also receive preferences. Did any of these preferences surprise you or seem unfair?
Since the mid-1990s, we have increasingly been concerned with the problem of illegal or undocumented immigration. I think that this chapter gives a nice balanced overview of the concerns of those on both sides of the debate. It makes clear that increased immigration, particularly illegal or undocumented immigration, may cause problems such as straining the education and public health systems. It may also create benefits through contributions to social security by young temporary immigrants and creating a supply for both extremely high and low-skilled jobs that Americans are either unwilling or unable to fill. Less obvious in the readings are the human rights concerns associated with a highly demanded underclass supply of labor. Certainly, immigration is a complex issue and one thing that both sides agree on is the need for reform.
One of the strongest parts of the chapter comes in the conclusion of the article. On page 420, Cochran et al. (2011) state:
The arguments over immigration often appear to be driven by anxieties that have nothing to do with immigrants. Immigration is easy to exploit as the cause of many of the nation's problems because immigrants are an easily identifiable and usually relatively powerless element of society. The nativist arguments resonate with people who fear what they do not know or understand. Those who suffer economic dislocation or fear poverty and crime find an easy target in immigrants. Immigrant rights groups often oversimplify the issues and see immigrants as victims in every effort to gain some control over the problems related to immigration. Most observers of immigration policy recognize that some regulation of the flow of immigration is desirable. How to achieve that regulation and how to ensure fairness and humane considerations are at the root of the controversies over immigration policies.
This paragraph perfectly illustrates the difficulty of passing compromise legislation on this issue. One side of the debate is driven by anxiety and the other by a sense of justice. The rational economic man we discussed last week is rarely seen on either side, and policies that appeal to rationality tend to be lobbied against by advocates and activists on both sides of the issue. It is no accident that the only immigration policies we have seen pass recently are highly partisan policies in states with legislatures dominated by a single political party; for example the anti-immigrant SB1070 and Act 2011-535 in Arizona and Alabama, and the pro-immigrant DREAM Act in CA. Of course, the Supreme Court will likely be asked to weigh in on the constitutionality of many of these propositions in the new future. What do you think about the authors' statement? Do you agree? Do you think any of the policies enacted by states will successfully address the problems associated with immigration? Will they ultimately be upheld by the Supreme Court? What policies do you think might help address the issues?
Despite the fact that immigration policy has been on the institutional agendas at both the state and federal-levels since at least September 11th, 2001, it may have surprised you that the core of our immigration policy was created by the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act. The law has been modified by the 1990 Immigration Act and the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, but many of the provisions set forth in 1965 are still active. Did this surprise you at all?
Another thing that may have surprised you from the reading is that we place preferences and restrictions on immigration that make it easier for some immigrants to come through legal channels than others. We have tended to give preference to European immigrants over other nationalities, skilled workers over unskilled workers, and the extremely wealthy over all others. Refugees and members of current immigrants' immediate families also receive preferences. Did any of these preferences surprise you or seem unfair?
Since the mid-1990s, we have increasingly been concerned with the problem of illegal or undocumented immigration. I think that this chapter gives a nice balanced overview of the concerns of those on both sides of the debate. It makes clear that increased immigration, particularly illegal or undocumented immigration, may cause problems such as straining the education and public health systems. It may also create benefits through contributions to social security by young temporary immigrants and creating a supply for both extremely high and low-skilled jobs that Americans are either unwilling or unable to fill. Less obvious in the readings are the human rights concerns associated with a highly demanded underclass supply of labor. Certainly, immigration is a complex issue and one thing that both sides agree on is the need for reform.
One of the strongest parts of the chapter comes in the conclusion of the article. On page 420, Cochran et al. (2011) state:
The arguments over immigration often appear to be driven by anxieties that have nothing to do with immigrants. Immigration is easy to exploit as the cause of many of the nation's problems because immigrants are an easily identifiable and usually relatively powerless element of society. The nativist arguments resonate with people who fear what they do not know or understand. Those who suffer economic dislocation or fear poverty and crime find an easy target in immigrants. Immigrant rights groups often oversimplify the issues and see immigrants as victims in every effort to gain some control over the problems related to immigration. Most observers of immigration policy recognize that some regulation of the flow of immigration is desirable. How to achieve that regulation and how to ensure fairness and humane considerations are at the root of the controversies over immigration policies.
This paragraph perfectly illustrates the difficulty of passing compromise legislation on this issue. One side of the debate is driven by anxiety and the other by a sense of justice. The rational economic man we discussed last week is rarely seen on either side, and policies that appeal to rationality tend to be lobbied against by advocates and activists on both sides of the issue. It is no accident that the only immigration policies we have seen pass recently are highly partisan policies in states with legislatures dominated by a single political party; for example the anti-immigrant SB1070 and Act 2011-535 in Arizona and Alabama, and the pro-immigrant DREAM Act in CA. Of course, the Supreme Court will likely be asked to weigh in on the constitutionality of many of these propositions in the new future. What do you think about the authors' statement? Do you agree? Do you think any of the policies enacted by states will successfully address the problems associated with immigration? Will they ultimately be upheld by the Supreme Court? What policies do you think might help address the issues?
Policy Stages - Agenda Setting
This is the first of our chapters on the policy stages. In this chapter Peters covers the "first" two stages of the policy process (remember, stages theory is a tool to help us think about policies, and in reality the stages aren't so neat and orderly). Agenda setting is commonly thought of as the first stage of the policy process. The ability to place items on the agenda for consideration and keep other items off is one of the most important powers in the policy process. This is why party control of the House and Senate can be so important. Think about how different some of the issues considered by the Republican House are from some of the issues being considered by the Democratic Senate (this difference becomes even greater when we look at the bills coming out of committees in one house versus the other).
Peters talks about two types of agendas: systemic and institutional. Systemic agendas are broader and more stable over time. They include any issue that has been deemed appropriate for consideration by the public sector. Institutional agendas are much more variable and only include those issues that are under active consideration at the time. While some advocacy groups are trying to move their issues onto the systemic agenda, most are attempting to move their issues from the systemic agenda to the institutional agenda. As you can imagine, at any given time most issues are on the systemic agenda with relatively few issues on the institutional agenda.
A lot of debate in political science and public policy studies concern who sets the agenda. The study of public policy really originated with Robert Dahl's Who Governs, a work that takes a pluralist perspective on policymaking. Pluralism emphasizes a marketplace of ideas. Pluralist theory argues that society is made up of different interest group with many divergent ideas, with government acting as the primary mediator between these groups. Individuals join the groups that advocate for things they care about and act as bystanders on other issues. Policies are ultimately decided by competition, and in the marketplace of ideas the best idea wins.
While pluralism assumes that all groups have equal power in the marketplace of ideas, elitist theory assumes that policy is primarily made by the wealthy and powerful. C. Wright Mills' The Power Elite is often considered the classic of elite theory, and argues that business owners, politicians, and military leaders all engage in the same circles and work together in their various sectors to distribute power and wealth among themselves. Keeping and increasing the power of those who are already powerful is an important aspect of public policy, from the perspective of elite theory (of course elite theorists generally see this as a problem in democratic societies).Other scholars like E.E. Schattschneider point to the difficulties that the poor have in organizing into interest groups and understanding the public sector.
The State-Centric approach tends to center agenda setting with government actors rather than interest groups or other outside actors. Congressional committees and bureaucratic agencies become the key actors in deciding what government should consider at any given time.
Once we have established who can set the agenda, we move to the question of how issues make it onto the agenda. Of course, this will have a lot to do with the political ideologies, personal values, and rational self-interest of those with the power to set the agenda. Emergencies, life or death issues, issues concentrated in districts of powerful policymakers, and visible issues will all likely be included on the agenda. Mancur Olsen's The Logic of Collective Action discusses how the dispersion of costs and benefits across the population influences which issues are included in the agenda and ultimately passed. Where benefits are concentrated and excludable and costs are dispersed, policies will generally be placed on the agenda and passed. Where benefits are dispersed and costs are concentrated policies will generally be kept off the agenda. Further, where issues can be tied to older issues, national symbols, and existing solutions, they will often be added to the agenda.
From an economic perspective, government should intervene where we find market failure. The private sector will not provide the optimal level of public goods because there is no way to exclude those who do not pay for the good. Public goods are those goods that are non-rival (my consumption will not limit your consumption) and non-excludable (there is no way to exclude those who do not pay for the good). We can think of our Fourth of July fireworks as public goods (within a certain range). The private sector would be unlikely to provide the optimal amount of fireworks because there is no way to exclude those who do not pay to see the fireworks from viewing them. Market failure also exists in the case of externalities. Externalities exist when either the full cost or full benefit of a good cannot be privatized. For example, an economist would likely argue that the lightrail should be subsidized by government (ideally from a road toll or tax on driving fuel inefficient vehicles) because the benefits of reduced traffic and emissions cannot be fully privatized. In this day and age, it is hard to think about goods that are entirely private goods and without any external costs or benefits.
Once an item is placed on the agenda, the second stage of the policy process begins. Government needs to determine how the issue will be solved through policy formulation. As Peters points out, sometimes this is based more on habit and analogy than theory or scientific evaluation. The bureaucracy, think tanks, interest groups, and legislators all participate in policy formulation (often legislators participate much less than you would assume). Two tools are often used in the United States to formulate policy, Cost Benefit Analysis and Decision Analysis. Both of these tools should be covered in an advanced policy analysis class. Briefly, Cost Benefit Analysis is based on the premise that all actions and goods can be converted into a monetary value, and government should choose the policy with the highest ratio of benefits to costs. Decision analysis takes cost benefit analysis and adds uncertainty. Using decision analysis, the action that is the most profitable or the least costly, given the likelihood that a specific event will occur, should be taken.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Obama's Deal and Ok, He Signed it Now What?
Last week our documentary was Cheney's Law and this week we saw Obama's Deal. I mentioned two of the other possible Frontline Documentaries I could have assigned for this week Sick Around America and Sick Around the World, policy-wise they may have been more interesting, but I think that Obama's Deal complements what we saw last week and the theoretical readings very well. I am not going to say much about the documentary because I think this is one of the weeks where it was clear why I chose to assign it. Did anything about the "story of healthcare reform" surprise you? Did you see any of the theories of policy choice Peters discusses in the readings come to fruition in the process of healthcare reform? What do you think of the final bill? Were there any policy alternatives passed over in the process of writing the bill that you would have liked to see included in the final law? Finally, what do you think of the relationship between policy and politics in the passage of healthcare reform?
The podcast "Ok, He Signed it Now What?" reiterates much of what both the documentary and the chapter from CQ researcher said about healthcare reform. I think the podcast makes clear that the bill we ended up with is very different from what the Obama Administration initially set out to do. Of course, that does not mean that there is nothing "good" in the bill. I think the biggest concern among health care policy experts is that the bill does very little to stem the rise in health care costs. There is some funding for pilot studies (policy experiments carried out on a small scale) that attempt to evaluate some possible cost-cutting measures. hopefully some of them will show promising results.
Of course, there is more to health care policy than the Affordable Care Act. Peters' chapter on health care policy provides a good overview of all of the different ways that public policies affect health care. If you have an interest in Medicaid, Medicare, or drug regulation, Peters' chapter 11 is a good place to start.
The podcast "Ok, He Signed it Now What?" reiterates much of what both the documentary and the chapter from CQ researcher said about healthcare reform. I think the podcast makes clear that the bill we ended up with is very different from what the Obama Administration initially set out to do. Of course, that does not mean that there is nothing "good" in the bill. I think the biggest concern among health care policy experts is that the bill does very little to stem the rise in health care costs. There is some funding for pilot studies (policy experiments carried out on a small scale) that attempt to evaluate some possible cost-cutting measures. hopefully some of them will show promising results.
Of course, there is more to health care policy than the Affordable Care Act. Peters' chapter on health care policy provides a good overview of all of the different ways that public policies affect health care. If you have an interest in Medicaid, Medicare, or drug regulation, Peters' chapter 11 is a good place to start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)