Equity and Cake - Stone Ch. 2

As someone who studies redistributive public policy, this is probably my favorite chapter in Stone's book. The cake analogy Stone presents on pp. 39-41 is an ingenious way to present different and often competing visions of equity. Depending on one's perspective, each of these forms of equity could in turn be argued as completely inequitable. Stone discusses eight ways that we can define equity:

Membership-based Forms of Equity

1) Equal slices but unequal invitations - In the book, Stone gives equal size slices to all of her students, but what about those students who missed class that day? What about the students who tried to enroll in the class but could not get off the wait-list? What about the students who had to work full-time and couldn't fit her class into their schedule? They all missed out on cake. In the realm of public policy, social insurance programs like Medicare, which are available to all citizens and some documented immigrants but not non-residents and certain immigrants, fall under this category. It is likely that most Americans think that Medicare is fairly distributed, but the elderly legal resident who has worked in the US for nine years (just one year short of qualifying for Medicare) who finds herself hospitalized would likely find the system unfair and arbitrary.

2) Unequal slices for unequal ranks but equal slices for equal ranks - In Stone's example, she gives big slices with extra frosting to full professors, assistant professors get slivers, and undergraduates get crumbs. This is a basic rank- or merit-based system of equity. You can think of either military or union pay-scales as examples of this type of equity. The career civil-servant likely thinks that the rank-based system is fair, while the new employee who feels she has contributed great ideas to the organization would likely disagree. Some would argue that market-based pay-scales fall under this category, but others argue that arbitrary factors and discrimination are more important in market-based pay structures than merit.

3) Unequal slices but equal blocs - In the chapter, Stone uses a somewhat silly example, in which, male students claim that women have traditionally had greater access to chocolate cake so men as a group should have an equal share of the cake. While this is a somewhat silly example for chocolate cake, it is often the argument made for quota based affirmative action. Although quota systems for college admission have been ruled unconstitutional, we can think of quota systems as a form of group-based equity. Americans tend to be very uncomfortable with this form of equity.


Item-based forms of Equity

4) Unequal slices but equal meals - In Stone's example, the distribution of the cake is tied to a previous luncheon event where not everyone was given equal amounts of food. Some of the students got extra shrimp cocktail and better cuts of roast beef. In the policy realm, this form of equity goes beyond the current good being provided and looks at the full experience of individuals. An example of this form of equity in the policy arena is the GI Bill. It ties in-kind and financial rewards to past military service. Although Stone argues that this viewpoint is characteristic of redistributive policy, we rarely think of these policies as reparations for unequal circumstances, in our current political context (The first edition of this book was written in 1988). Instead, the culture of poverty thesis has seemingly won out as the dominant explanation for poverty in the United States. We'll discuss these different perspectives in-depth when we talk about income maintenance policies.

5) Unequal slices but equal value to recipients - In the cake analogy, Stone cuts her cake so that those who don't like chocolate cake or who are allergic to cake get small or no pieces and those who love chocolate cake get bigger pieces. This definition of equity is tailored to meet the individual needs of recipients. Assuming funding large enough to sufficiently cover individual needs, market-based programs like school vouchers could fall under this definition of equity. Programs serving individuals with disabilities like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Vocational Rehabilitation must be tailored to the needs of the individual and they could fall under this definition, as well. This form of equity is characteristic of a welfare economics perspective. Those who love cake will be willing to trade more potato chips for cake and those who hate cake will be very willing to trade their cake for potato chips. If they get together these two groups will trade their cake for potato chips making everyone better off.

Process-based forms of Equity

6) Unequal slices but equal starting resources - In Stone's analogy, everyone gets a fork and they have at it. This is the definition of equity that Americans tend to be most comfortable with. It is a process based form of equity that allows for unequal outcomes. The logic behind the Harlem Children's Zone is to ensure that the children of Harlem have the same resources as children from wealthier neighborhoods from birth to age 18. If inequality persists despite the provision of equal resources, we attribute that to personal preference.

7) Unequal slices but equal statistical chances - In Stone's analogy, she only had enough batter to make a cupcake so she puts everyone's name in a hat and gives the cupcake to the winner. This is the classic lottery system. In the policy arena, charter schools in low-income areas are mandated to use lotteries rather than merit based admissions to receive public funding. Every child who applies has an equal statistical chance of admittance to the school.

8) Unequal slices but equal votes - In Stone's analogy, she yet again has only a cupcake and the students vote to determine who among them will be the Cupcake Eater. This is the logic of democracy. In the policy realm, each of us who are citizens get an equal vote in referendums, ballot initiatives, and elections. We may not end up with the outcomes we prefer, but because the process is seen as fair, we accept the outcome as equitable.

It is important to note that all of these forms of equity can lead to very unequal outcomes, and that one person's equity is another's unfairness. Even the first example, which is the closest to equality leaves people who are not members without. We should also note that each form of equity has three elements: the item being distributed, the process of distribution, and the recipients of the item. Each of these different definitions focuses on one of these elements.

I think that we sometimes forget that equity is an important goal and value in American society. A certain vision of equity underlies the foundation of our society, as the Declaration of Independence states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Of course, we can look back at the world of the founding fathers and see that these differing definitions of equity came into play back then, as well. Most notably, membership in the group of recipients was restricted to white, land-owning males. As we gear up for the 2012 elections, I believe that you will hear a lot of competing understandings of equity. I think it will be useful to think about which form of equity you believe is most appropriate for a particular context, and how different items, different definitions of recipients, and different processes lead to different forms of equity. We've heard a lot about tax reform so far in this primary cycle. Can you think of examples of how differing forms of equity lead to different recommendations for a fair tax system?

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.