2) Lowi outlines three major types of public policies in his chapter. Find an interesting newspaper article that outlines a policy that seems to fall into one of these categories. It's ok if the policy has some components of all types, but it must represent one of the three policy types for the most part.
The following article talks about the new lending regulations and the creation of a new agency to oversee the financial services industry. The new agency would oversee mortgages and other consumer loans along with monitoring financial institutions compliance with all relevant laws. This one agency will be the sole bank regulator.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/all-lazarus.7027416sep20,0,6025816.story
This article talks about the reforms in a little more detail.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/kstu-obama-seeks-new-financial-rules,0,7693519.story?page=1&obref=obinsite
The regulation intends to tighten oversight, limit risk-taking at the largest firms and introduce higher capital requirements. Critics believe Obama is working on the right issues, but the proposed changes will not prevent another crisis. The changes required to prevent another crisis would face strong political opposition.
These reform measures are a regulatory policy. Clearly, this legislation will regulate the behavior of banks and other financial institutions handling consumer loans and mortgages. The law also introduces consumer protection measures, which may reduce or expand the alternatives of private individuals. The articles do not provide a lot of details regarding the actual proposals in the reform bill; although I did not go to the Thomas.gov website to review the bill. The reform will likely raise the cost of doing business for those in the financial services industry. The proposed legislation will likely include stricter penalties for non-compliance.
This is a broad law that applies to all businesses participating in the banking and mortgage industries and all individuals are impacted by the bill in the same way. Interest groups (e.g. the United States Chamber of Commerce Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness) are majorly involved and trying to kill this legislation. The legislation impacts the financial services sector of the economy.
Just wanted to point out that the financial services industry is hardly unregulated. Bank activities are regulated, but obviously those leading to the crash and continued distress caused the problem. Insurance companies also have stricter requirements and must meet higher standards compared to other financial services companies. Usually, an insurance company that fails goes into a type of receivership overseen by the applicable state insurance department. Other insurance companies would take over the liabilities of the failed insurance company. This ensures the promises made to afford coverage are still kept.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Part 2 Assignment 3
1) Lindbloom describes the concepts of incrementalism for policy making. Briefly describe a policy issue or area that you believe can be described largely by incrementalism. In other words, the policy issue that you describe should have progressed over time in an incremental fashion that is similar to the process Lindbloom describes.
One important issue to many American's is protecting their financial security in retirement. One way to help foster financial security is for individuals to invest in retirement plans through their employer. Many people hope to retire and live in the same manner as they did while they were working. Retirement policy has changed over time mostly in a series of small steps. The policies are built out from the current situation and changes are made by degrees. Many changes to retirement policy comes from what the existing market is like and responding to the current situation. In the existing market, 401(k) plans are the focus and in the past the focus was on defined benefit pension plans (i.e. traditional pension plan).
The PWBA, IRS, and PBGC are the federal governmental agencies primarily responsible for overseeing the employee benefits market. They are constantly monitoring the market, making corrections and enforcing the law to make sure the financial security of Americans is protected. Retirement policy has at times involved sweeping reforms, like when ERISA was introduced. But, by and large, changes to current laws and regulations are made slowly. Some believed the changes to retirement policy made by the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA) were sweeping reforms. If you look at the pieces of the legislation individually, they were really just reactions or improvements to already existing laws and policies. However, the PPA also involved a very comprehensive change, so it also has some pieces of the rational-comprehensive model.
EGTRRA increased how much you could contribute to 401(k) plans and allowed for greater portability between benefit plans. Many of these changes were made permanent by the PPA. Changes made by the PPA to encourgage participant education and the changes regarding the rules relating to the provision of investment advice to participants strengthened already existing laws. The PPA also introduced new, stricter funding requirements for defined benefit plans in response to failures by employers to meet the minimum funding rules.
The following measures were added to increase retirement savings: improvements to automatic enrollment, allowing direct rollovers from retirement plans to ROTH IRAs, other portability measures, tax refunds to IRAs, savers credit, increased contribution and benefit limits (started by EGTTRA), and age 50 catch-up and contributions (also started by EGTTRA). The industry had created cash balance plans (a special kind of defined benefit plan) and the PPA legitimized this plan arrangement. The PPA also introduced a DB(K) plan (combines benefits of 401 (K) and pension plan) for small empolyers, which is something the industry studied for a couple of years before the law was enacted. Many of these changes represent changes to the status quo and respresent small changes to improve the already existing system.
One important issue to many American's is protecting their financial security in retirement. One way to help foster financial security is for individuals to invest in retirement plans through their employer. Many people hope to retire and live in the same manner as they did while they were working. Retirement policy has changed over time mostly in a series of small steps. The policies are built out from the current situation and changes are made by degrees. Many changes to retirement policy comes from what the existing market is like and responding to the current situation. In the existing market, 401(k) plans are the focus and in the past the focus was on defined benefit pension plans (i.e. traditional pension plan).
The PWBA, IRS, and PBGC are the federal governmental agencies primarily responsible for overseeing the employee benefits market. They are constantly monitoring the market, making corrections and enforcing the law to make sure the financial security of Americans is protected. Retirement policy has at times involved sweeping reforms, like when ERISA was introduced. But, by and large, changes to current laws and regulations are made slowly. Some believed the changes to retirement policy made by the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA) were sweeping reforms. If you look at the pieces of the legislation individually, they were really just reactions or improvements to already existing laws and policies. However, the PPA also involved a very comprehensive change, so it also has some pieces of the rational-comprehensive model.
EGTRRA increased how much you could contribute to 401(k) plans and allowed for greater portability between benefit plans. Many of these changes were made permanent by the PPA. Changes made by the PPA to encourgage participant education and the changes regarding the rules relating to the provision of investment advice to participants strengthened already existing laws. The PPA also introduced new, stricter funding requirements for defined benefit plans in response to failures by employers to meet the minimum funding rules.
The following measures were added to increase retirement savings: improvements to automatic enrollment, allowing direct rollovers from retirement plans to ROTH IRAs, other portability measures, tax refunds to IRAs, savers credit, increased contribution and benefit limits (started by EGTTRA), and age 50 catch-up and contributions (also started by EGTTRA). The industry had created cash balance plans (a special kind of defined benefit plan) and the PPA legitimized this plan arrangement. The PPA also introduced a DB(K) plan (combines benefits of 401 (K) and pension plan) for small empolyers, which is something the industry studied for a couple of years before the law was enacted. Many of these changes represent changes to the status quo and respresent small changes to improve the already existing system.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Part 2 Week 3 Articles
Shulock Article
A) Briefly describe the two views of policy-making that Shulock outlines in her article.
The two views are the traditional and interpretive (AKA alternative) view. Under the traditional approach, the policy analysis is used to give advice to a specific client regarding the eventual decision or action the policymaker (i.e. client) should take to solve policy problems. Experts trained in proper analytical techniques examine a particular situation and advise clients on the best outcome after the detailed analysis is complete. Decision makers are goal oriented and seek the best option through a systematic process. The information is objective and a useful problem-solving tool that relates policies to outcomes. Analysts learn and measure the impact policy decisions will have on citizens. The traditional approach uses a state based approach and may support incremental changes in policy.
Under the interpretive approach, policy analysis is used: 1) as part of the democratic process; 2) by policy makers, interest groups and citizens to interpret issues; 3) to discover public interest; and 4) to justify actions taken. The information provided by the analysis is part of the decision making process and frames people's understandings of problems. The debate and discourse regarding issues can lead to learning which may change the outcome. Decisions are not about projecting results or consequences, but about the process and organizational legitimacy. Policy analysis is used to rationalize legislative action. Citizens are attentive and marshal popular support for the way issues are framed. Policy makers pay attention to citizen viewpoints.
B) In your opinion, which of these views of policy-making is most accurate? Why?
I'm a little conflicted regarding which viewpoint is most accurate. There is a place for client based analysis that is specifically determining which policy or program should ultimately be selected. Some people still need expert advice when choosing between particular options defined to solve a specific problem. So, a demand for this type of analysis exists. Since analysts are measuring and determining the impact policy has on citizens, it doesn't really give citizens their own voice. This is a little troubling since citizens are usually the beneficiaries of most types of policy decisions.
Shulock's interpretive approach really seems to address how policy analysis could best be used and is used as part of the actual decision making process. It also gives citizens their own voice in the process and the ability to impact the final decisions as active participants in the discussion and debate. When developing policies or legislation, the interpretive process really allows the policy analysis to frame people's understanding of an issue hopefully resulting in a better policy or outcome. Assuming the analysis is accurate, unbiased, and reliable, policies that are more responsive to the public interests is a desirable outcome. In reality, a synthesis of the two approaches would result in the best policies and decisions. However, the interpretive approach is better for promoting a strong democratic process upon which our government is based. Of the two, I like the interpretive approach the best.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/17/obama-open-insurance-cooperatives-alternative-government-run-program/
This article does a good job explaining the insurance cooperative idea that is being discussed as a possible alternative to a government run health care program. Policy analysis is used to teach people what an insurance cooperative is along with providing some historical insight into health cooperatives that existed in the past. This guidance can increase people's understanding of this particular piece of health care reform policy. It also helps frame the debate by bringing up additional questions that need to be addressed regarding this option. Policy players insights
regarding this particular aspect of the reform efforts are also included.
Although this assignment required only finding one article, this editorial did a pretty good job explaining the decision making environment surrounding health care reform. Plus, I spent a lot of time today trying to find an article that worked for this question. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/opinion/12herbert.html?em
Hird Article
A) What does Hird conclude about the use of policy analysis in decision-making?
Hird compares the influence of non-partisan policy research organizations (NPROs) on state legislators in 19 states. The literature on NPROs questions whether they can remain neutral and contribute in a meaningful way to policy making. Earlier studies on knowledge utilization found a modest and/or indirect impact of policy research on making policy. This study finds NPROs have a significant impact on legislators evaluations of their access to information and of the quality and capabilities of their NPROs.
NPROs are generally perceived as a very important source of high quality information. However, legislators do not perceive NPROs have substantial influence on policy making in comparison with other interests. NPROs are good at providing information, but the provision of information does not translate into policy making influence. However, larger, more analytical NPROs have significantly more influence than smaller, more descriptive NPROs. Legislators from states with large NPRO's that provide more analytical analysis value their work more than legislators from states with smaller NPRO's that focus on more descriptive and short-term analysis. Trust, proximity, and the type of organization is important in determining policy making influence.
B) Are you convinced by his research and his argument? Why or Why not?
I agree that legislators are listening to policy research coming from NPROs and rely heavily on their staffs to provide data and information. It makes a lot of sense that analysis with a short term and descriptive focus is not as beneficial as research with a more analytical emphasis and a longer term focus. Because of the type of information provided, it makes sense for it be used in the process rather than the actual policy decision. If the analysis is perceived to provide background information to help legislators understand issues and possible remedies, it seems likely the research would be less influential in the actual decision making process.
While I like his findings and conclusions, the research itself could have been better. A 25% return rate is not very high. I also wonder why only 19 states were surveyed. Is this because all states do not have NPROs? The definition of what organizations constitutes a NPRO is a little vague to me. I hate to admit the actual NPRO terminology was new to me. Some organizations who claim to be non-partisan seem to have an agenda or aren't really what they claim to be. If we are going to make an argument that NPROs are less influential in the policy process, shouldn't we be comparing these groups to other groups that also provide information and analysis to the decision making process?
A) Briefly describe the two views of policy-making that Shulock outlines in her article.
The two views are the traditional and interpretive (AKA alternative) view. Under the traditional approach, the policy analysis is used to give advice to a specific client regarding the eventual decision or action the policymaker (i.e. client) should take to solve policy problems. Experts trained in proper analytical techniques examine a particular situation and advise clients on the best outcome after the detailed analysis is complete. Decision makers are goal oriented and seek the best option through a systematic process. The information is objective and a useful problem-solving tool that relates policies to outcomes. Analysts learn and measure the impact policy decisions will have on citizens. The traditional approach uses a state based approach and may support incremental changes in policy.
Under the interpretive approach, policy analysis is used: 1) as part of the democratic process; 2) by policy makers, interest groups and citizens to interpret issues; 3) to discover public interest; and 4) to justify actions taken. The information provided by the analysis is part of the decision making process and frames people's understandings of problems. The debate and discourse regarding issues can lead to learning which may change the outcome. Decisions are not about projecting results or consequences, but about the process and organizational legitimacy. Policy analysis is used to rationalize legislative action. Citizens are attentive and marshal popular support for the way issues are framed. Policy makers pay attention to citizen viewpoints.
B) In your opinion, which of these views of policy-making is most accurate? Why?
I'm a little conflicted regarding which viewpoint is most accurate. There is a place for client based analysis that is specifically determining which policy or program should ultimately be selected. Some people still need expert advice when choosing between particular options defined to solve a specific problem. So, a demand for this type of analysis exists. Since analysts are measuring and determining the impact policy has on citizens, it doesn't really give citizens their own voice. This is a little troubling since citizens are usually the beneficiaries of most types of policy decisions.
Shulock's interpretive approach really seems to address how policy analysis could best be used and is used as part of the actual decision making process. It also gives citizens their own voice in the process and the ability to impact the final decisions as active participants in the discussion and debate. When developing policies or legislation, the interpretive process really allows the policy analysis to frame people's understanding of an issue hopefully resulting in a better policy or outcome. Assuming the analysis is accurate, unbiased, and reliable, policies that are more responsive to the public interests is a desirable outcome. In reality, a synthesis of the two approaches would result in the best policies and decisions. However, the interpretive approach is better for promoting a strong democratic process upon which our government is based. Of the two, I like the interpretive approach the best.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/17/obama-open-insurance-cooperatives-alternative-government-run-program/
This article does a good job explaining the insurance cooperative idea that is being discussed as a possible alternative to a government run health care program. Policy analysis is used to teach people what an insurance cooperative is along with providing some historical insight into health cooperatives that existed in the past. This guidance can increase people's understanding of this particular piece of health care reform policy. It also helps frame the debate by bringing up additional questions that need to be addressed regarding this option. Policy players insights
regarding this particular aspect of the reform efforts are also included.
Although this assignment required only finding one article, this editorial did a pretty good job explaining the decision making environment surrounding health care reform. Plus, I spent a lot of time today trying to find an article that worked for this question. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/opinion/12herbert.html?em
Hird Article
A) What does Hird conclude about the use of policy analysis in decision-making?
Hird compares the influence of non-partisan policy research organizations (NPROs) on state legislators in 19 states. The literature on NPROs questions whether they can remain neutral and contribute in a meaningful way to policy making. Earlier studies on knowledge utilization found a modest and/or indirect impact of policy research on making policy. This study finds NPROs have a significant impact on legislators evaluations of their access to information and of the quality and capabilities of their NPROs.
NPROs are generally perceived as a very important source of high quality information. However, legislators do not perceive NPROs have substantial influence on policy making in comparison with other interests. NPROs are good at providing information, but the provision of information does not translate into policy making influence. However, larger, more analytical NPROs have significantly more influence than smaller, more descriptive NPROs. Legislators from states with large NPRO's that provide more analytical analysis value their work more than legislators from states with smaller NPRO's that focus on more descriptive and short-term analysis. Trust, proximity, and the type of organization is important in determining policy making influence.
B) Are you convinced by his research and his argument? Why or Why not?
I agree that legislators are listening to policy research coming from NPROs and rely heavily on their staffs to provide data and information. It makes a lot of sense that analysis with a short term and descriptive focus is not as beneficial as research with a more analytical emphasis and a longer term focus. Because of the type of information provided, it makes sense for it be used in the process rather than the actual policy decision. If the analysis is perceived to provide background information to help legislators understand issues and possible remedies, it seems likely the research would be less influential in the actual decision making process.
While I like his findings and conclusions, the research itself could have been better. A 25% return rate is not very high. I also wonder why only 19 states were surveyed. Is this because all states do not have NPROs? The definition of what organizations constitutes a NPRO is a little vague to me. I hate to admit the actual NPRO terminology was new to me. Some organizations who claim to be non-partisan seem to have an agenda or aren't really what they claim to be. If we are going to make an argument that NPROs are less influential in the policy process, shouldn't we be comparing these groups to other groups that also provide information and analysis to the decision making process?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
