So here we are in the final week and back to Peters for his final chapter. In this edition, Peters combines cost-benefit and ethical analysis into a single chapter. While I generally prefer to discuss these two issues separately, I think the combined chapter works for the purposes of this class. This chapter helps serve as a teaser for two 400-level courses we offer (or will be offering) as part of the Public Service and Public Policy major. PAF 471: Public Policy Analysis will be a required course for the public policy concentration and will likely focus on economic models of policy analysis, specifically cost-benefit analysis and quantitative analysis. PAF 460: Public Service Ethics is our required ethics course and will help you navigate current ethical issues in public policy, public administration, and the non-profit sectors. I hope that this chapter sparked your excitement for these courses.
There are other reasons why it may make sense to combine these two chapters. In some ways, cost-benefit analysis can be thought of as a specific type of consequentialist ethics. Consequentialism is just a fancy way of saying "the ends justify the means". Of course, this form of ethics can lead to many actions that we would consider unethical, but it is often used in public policy creation. Basically, cost-benefit analysis is attempting to reach a Pareto Optimal outcome, where no one is made worse off but at least one person is made better off, or a Kaldor-Hicks outcome where society experiences a net-gain. In this case, the ends and the means are quantified so that the ends justify the means if the outcome is a net monetary benefit. Of course, opportunity costs, consumer surpluses, unintended consequences, and net values need to be considered in the calculation you use to determine the costs and benefits. I think Peters does a good job of walking you through these concepts using a basic example of cost-benefit analysis. It is important to note that although we rarely use Pareto Optimality as a goal in policy analysis (because it is usually an impossible standard to meet) it likely works much better as a criterion for ethical analysis. Certainly, ensuring that no one is made worse off by government action is a stronger ethical stance than assuming that the individuals who benefit from government action will somehow compensate those who are burdened by government action.
As Peters points out there are many problems associated with the use of cost-benefit analysis. It requires a lot of assumptions about risk and future circumstances. Small changes in those assumptions can drastically change the predicted net benefit of a program. In a policy world where solutions are often looking for problems, interest groups have substantial power, policymakers are politically motivated, and competition for funds is the primary rule of the game the temptation to make favorable assumptions about the future of one's preferred project is overwhelming. I believe the perception that cost-benefit analysis is preferable to other forms of analysis because it is straightforward is really an incorrect perception. Cost-benefit analysis can be just as subjective as ethical analysis.
Further, while cost-benefit analysis can help us choose projects out of a list, it offers very little normative advice. It cannot answer the question "what should government do?" We have to draw on our cultural and social values for that. Peters' discussion of "ethical analysis" is really about these value questions. After Stone, his recommendations likely seem a little quaint but they are as follows: the preservation of life, the preservation of individual autonomy, truthfulness, fairness, and deservedness. In many ways these parallel with Stone's values of security, liberty, and equity with truthfulness added for good measure. Of course as we saw with Stone, actually defining what these values mean and whose definition we should use is the difficult part.
I agree with Peters assessment that we as policy analysts are over-reliant on cost-benefit analysis because of its apparent objectivity in comparison to ethical analysis. Policymakers are a different story. Some policymakers have become little more than rubber stamps for programs with positive cost-benefit analysis, but currently values seem to be the prominent metric determining whether or not policies proceed through the policy process we discussed during the first few weeks of class. Many of the policies Congress is considering are policies that invoke those tough ethical questions such as Don't Ask, Don't Tell; defunding Planned Parenthood, immigration policies, and even the debate over the deficit. Cost-benefit analyses have played very little role in these debates. This leads me to two questions: Would we be better off if policymakers used the cost-benefit analyses provided by policy analysts rather than relying on their own definitions of values, and what is the state of the policy analyst profession if their primary means of analysis is often ignored by policymakers?
Showing posts with label Security. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Security. Show all posts
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Needs and Security - Stone Ch. 4
Normally when you hear the word security, what do you think of? I know my first thought is homeland security or a security guard. Generally it connotes bodily safety, but in this chapter Stone uses a broader definition of security. This is the same type of security that we use when we discuss Social Security or the goal of financial security. Basically, it's the idea that different dimensions of need are met.
Stone tries to challenge us on our decisions about the degree to which government should meet the basic needs of its citizens. There are some policy analysts and policymakers who think that government is responsible for providing only defense and some who think government should be assisting individuals in their goals of self-esteem and self-actualization. Most people fall somewhere in the middle. This chapter should remind you of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Unlike Maslow, however, Stone does not discuss the dimensions of need as a hierarchy where needs are met in succession, but as a group of needs that everyone must fulfill. Surely, Stone would not argue that one cannot survive without basic food, shelter, and water, but I think she would also argue that companionship, respect, and self-esteem are crucial to long-term human survival.
Taking needs one step beyond the extreme libertarian ideal that government should only provide for the basic defense, most Americans believe that we do not want people starving and dying on the streets. They would agree that either through direct services or support of non-profit efforts government should make sure that people have basic food and shelter. This seems simple, but defining what we mean in this case is difficult. Is it acceptable to provide citizens with the cheapest basic nutrition they need to function or do we want to make sure that they can be productive? Should we only provide them with one type of food, day in and day out or should we make sure that they can have a balanced diet? Should we allow enough so they can participate in cultural traditions like turkey dinner on Thanksgiving and BBQs at fourth of July? What about those people with dietary or religious restrictions on what they can and cannot eat? We have the same problems when we think about basic shelter. Is a shack okay because many poor individuals around the world live in shacks or do we need to provide our citizens with running water and safe, stable, indoor housing?
Much of our political disagreement about these basic needs has to do with a divide over whether absolute needs are the most important dimension of need or whether relative needs matter too. Some policy analysts who believe that only absolute need matters argue that poverty does not exist in America because the poorest in America are better off than most residents of developing countries. They also point out that America's poorest citizens are far better off than many of the wealthy were 100 years ago. In contrast, scholars who focus on relative needs find it unacceptable that in a country of such wealth, children still grow up hungry living in rat infested housing. Of course, for the first time since the turn of the 20th century in America the youngest generation of adults is not predicted to do better than their parents. It will be interesting to see how the debate between relative and absolute need is framed in the future.
Most of our social policies address the issue of relative need. The same can be said for defense policy. It does not matter how powerful our weapons are in comparison to the past or in absolute terms. What matters is how powerful our weapons are relative to other nation-states. It's interesting to think about education needs in these terms. The number of comparisons we make between our education system and that of Japan or the European Union illustrates that once again we define relative needs as most important.
Increasingly, we have decided that government needs to go beyond providing for current needs and actually attempt to prevent our future needs. Many of the safety regulations government has in place are there to prevent our future needs. For example, food regulations are meant to prevent our future need for medical care due to ingesting rotten food. When we talk about communities or individuals "at-risk", we are engaging in a discussion about the degree to which they need to be protected so that they will not need services X,Y, or Z in the future.
Of course, returning to Maslow's pyramid, humans also have relational needs. We are social beings. Dignity, respect, self-esteem, and belonging are important to us. Many government programs have been criticized because while they may meet all the other needs, they reduce the relational security of participants. The idea that we should have policies that empower citizens and build community has been around since the 1960s, but we have struggled to create programs that do this in any meaningful way.
One of the paradoxes of public policy (and of human behavior in general) is that needs can never be completely fulfilled. Once one need is met, new needs are created. Interestingly, this is one point on which Marxists, Liberals, and Conservatives all agree, though of course they differ in their explanation of the causes. Because we cannot define an objective level of need that must be met, we engage primarily in argument, debate, and as Stone puts it, "Claims-making" (p. 98). On pages 98-104 Stone walks us through how this "claims-making" plays out in different stages of the policy process.
Stone ends her chapter with a question about trade-offs, this time between security and efficiency. If you believe there is a trade-off you would argue three points: 1) humans are motivated by basic needs and making them secure removes their motivation to be productive, 2) providing security relies on the service sector which is the least efficient sector of the economy, and 3) technological changes necessarily make some people worse off. Instead, Stone would argue that 1) basic needs are not what motivates us and providing security makes us more productive, 2) the service sector is deemed inefficient only because of the way we have defined efficiency, and 3) macroeconomic policies can and should mitigate any suffering due to advancements in technology that create economic change (p. 107). Here's a nice little video from RSAnimate about human motivation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc.
I leave it to you to decide if you are convinced by Stone's argument. Are humans driven by basic needs, or do we need to know those basic needs are satisfied before we can be productive? Does relative poverty matter or should we only be concerned about absolute poverty? Do we need to concern ourselves with the symbolic, goal actualization, and community needs of the poor? What should government's role be in all of this?
Stone tries to challenge us on our decisions about the degree to which government should meet the basic needs of its citizens. There are some policy analysts and policymakers who think that government is responsible for providing only defense and some who think government should be assisting individuals in their goals of self-esteem and self-actualization. Most people fall somewhere in the middle. This chapter should remind you of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Unlike Maslow, however, Stone does not discuss the dimensions of need as a hierarchy where needs are met in succession, but as a group of needs that everyone must fulfill. Surely, Stone would not argue that one cannot survive without basic food, shelter, and water, but I think she would also argue that companionship, respect, and self-esteem are crucial to long-term human survival.
Taking needs one step beyond the extreme libertarian ideal that government should only provide for the basic defense, most Americans believe that we do not want people starving and dying on the streets. They would agree that either through direct services or support of non-profit efforts government should make sure that people have basic food and shelter. This seems simple, but defining what we mean in this case is difficult. Is it acceptable to provide citizens with the cheapest basic nutrition they need to function or do we want to make sure that they can be productive? Should we only provide them with one type of food, day in and day out or should we make sure that they can have a balanced diet? Should we allow enough so they can participate in cultural traditions like turkey dinner on Thanksgiving and BBQs at fourth of July? What about those people with dietary or religious restrictions on what they can and cannot eat? We have the same problems when we think about basic shelter. Is a shack okay because many poor individuals around the world live in shacks or do we need to provide our citizens with running water and safe, stable, indoor housing?
Much of our political disagreement about these basic needs has to do with a divide over whether absolute needs are the most important dimension of need or whether relative needs matter too. Some policy analysts who believe that only absolute need matters argue that poverty does not exist in America because the poorest in America are better off than most residents of developing countries. They also point out that America's poorest citizens are far better off than many of the wealthy were 100 years ago. In contrast, scholars who focus on relative needs find it unacceptable that in a country of such wealth, children still grow up hungry living in rat infested housing. Of course, for the first time since the turn of the 20th century in America the youngest generation of adults is not predicted to do better than their parents. It will be interesting to see how the debate between relative and absolute need is framed in the future.
Most of our social policies address the issue of relative need. The same can be said for defense policy. It does not matter how powerful our weapons are in comparison to the past or in absolute terms. What matters is how powerful our weapons are relative to other nation-states. It's interesting to think about education needs in these terms. The number of comparisons we make between our education system and that of Japan or the European Union illustrates that once again we define relative needs as most important.
Increasingly, we have decided that government needs to go beyond providing for current needs and actually attempt to prevent our future needs. Many of the safety regulations government has in place are there to prevent our future needs. For example, food regulations are meant to prevent our future need for medical care due to ingesting rotten food. When we talk about communities or individuals "at-risk", we are engaging in a discussion about the degree to which they need to be protected so that they will not need services X,Y, or Z in the future.
Of course, returning to Maslow's pyramid, humans also have relational needs. We are social beings. Dignity, respect, self-esteem, and belonging are important to us. Many government programs have been criticized because while they may meet all the other needs, they reduce the relational security of participants. The idea that we should have policies that empower citizens and build community has been around since the 1960s, but we have struggled to create programs that do this in any meaningful way.
One of the paradoxes of public policy (and of human behavior in general) is that needs can never be completely fulfilled. Once one need is met, new needs are created. Interestingly, this is one point on which Marxists, Liberals, and Conservatives all agree, though of course they differ in their explanation of the causes. Because we cannot define an objective level of need that must be met, we engage primarily in argument, debate, and as Stone puts it, "Claims-making" (p. 98). On pages 98-104 Stone walks us through how this "claims-making" plays out in different stages of the policy process.
Stone ends her chapter with a question about trade-offs, this time between security and efficiency. If you believe there is a trade-off you would argue three points: 1) humans are motivated by basic needs and making them secure removes their motivation to be productive, 2) providing security relies on the service sector which is the least efficient sector of the economy, and 3) technological changes necessarily make some people worse off. Instead, Stone would argue that 1) basic needs are not what motivates us and providing security makes us more productive, 2) the service sector is deemed inefficient only because of the way we have defined efficiency, and 3) macroeconomic policies can and should mitigate any suffering due to advancements in technology that create economic change (p. 107). Here's a nice little video from RSAnimate about human motivation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc.
I leave it to you to decide if you are convinced by Stone's argument. Are humans driven by basic needs, or do we need to know those basic needs are satisfied before we can be productive? Does relative poverty matter or should we only be concerned about absolute poverty? Do we need to concern ourselves with the symbolic, goal actualization, and community needs of the poor? What should government's role be in all of this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)