What is Public Policy?

Getting scholars to agree on a single, all-inclusive definition of public policy is no easy task.
Broadly, we might say that a public policy is simply what government (any public official who influences
or determines public policy, including school officials, city council members, county supervisors, etc.) does
or does not do about a problem that comes before them for consideration and possible action.

Specifically, public policy has a number of key attributes:

 Policy is made in response to some sort of issue or problem that requires attention. Policy is what the
government chooses to do (actual) or not do (implied) about a particular issue or problem.
 Policy might take the form of law, or regulation, or the set of all the laws and regulations that govern a
particular issue or problem.
 Policy is made on behalf of the "public."
 Policy is oriented toward a goal or desired state, such as the solution of a problem.
 Policy is ultimately made by governments, even if the ideas come from outside government or through
the interaction of government and the public.
 Policymaking is part of an ongoing process that does not always have a clear beginning or end, since
decisions about who will benefit from policies and who will bear any burden resulting from the policy are
continually reassessed, revisited and revised.
No doubt, there are many problems in our communities that need to be solved. Some problems may
readily be dealt with by actions taken in the private sphere (individuals and families) or by our civil society
(social, economic, or political associations or organizations).
Public policy problems are those that must be addressed by laws and regulations adopted by government.
Your first task in ProCitizen is to firmly establish that the problem you want to work on is, in fact, one
which requires government involvement to reach a solution.

Seven Principles of Sound Public Policy

1. Free people are not equal, and equal people are not free.
2. What belongs to you, you tend to take care of; what belongs to no one or everyone tends to fall into
disrepair.
3. Sound policy requires that we consider long-run effects and all people, not simply short-run effects
and a few people.
4. If you encourage something, you get more of it; if you discourage something, you get less of it.
5.Nobody spends somebody else's money as carefully as he spends his own.
6. Government has nothing to give anybody except what it first takes from somebody, and a
government that's big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything
you've got.
7. Liberty makes all the difference in the world.
Public administration emerged as an instrument of the state for securing 'public' interest rather than
'private' interests. The study of public administration has tended to concentrate on the machinery for the
implementation of given policies. While public administration is the 'government in action', public policy
is concerned with the description and explanation of the causes and consequences of government
activity.

Like the idea of 'public', the concept of 'policy' is not a precise term. Policy denotes, among other
elements, guidance for action. It may take the form of:

 A declaration of goals;
 A declaration of course of action;
 A declaration of general purpose; and/or
 An authoritative decision.

For instance, most states have a national health policy with certain goals, say one of those is to combat
malaria. The policy analyses involve how to combat malaria (e.g distribute mosquito nets) and the
administration is concerned with the implementation to achieve that goal. The difference between public
policy and public administration has manifested itself in academic-practitioner divide. But, it is important
to note that the public servants themselves are intimately involved in the shaping of the policies.

There is also a growing debate between specialists in public policy and generalists in public
administration, particularly in developing countries like India. This is again, in my opinion, due to
perceptive differences between public policy and public administration. In reality, public policy is an
important component of public administration, and only a combination of strong academics, ethical
practitioners, good specialists as well as generalists can ensure sound public policies, which is the hallmark
of a good administration.

WHAT ARE CRITERIA

Every time a policy problem is identified, some statement of goals is adopted. The goals are what
the adopted policy alternative should accomplish. Goals are broad, formal, long-term problem-solving
achievements that are desired. An example might be to make sure that all rivers are safe, clean, and
usable.

Goals are translated into objectives. Objectives are more concrete statements about desired end
states, with time tables, target populations, and resource limits. An objective might be to make the
Colorado River safe for swimming and fishing.

Criteria are the measurable dimensions of objectives. Criteria are used to compare how close
different proposed policy alternatives will come to meeting the goals of solving the problem. Criteria set
the rules to follow in analyzing and comparing different proposed policy alternatives (solutions).

Sample criteria for improving river water quality might be:

effectiveness--how much of an improvement in water quality will this alternative produce?

cost--how much will it cost to improve the quality of the river using this alternative?
technical--do we have the equipment and know-how to use this alternative?
political--is this alternative politically acceptable?
Measures are the actual measurements that will be taken of each proposed policy alternative. For
example, measures such as the following might be employed:

effectiveness--how many milligrams of pollutants per liter of water will this alternative clean up?
cost--how many dollars will be required to implement this alternative?
technical--is the necessary equipment for this alternative available and are people trained to use it?
political--what percentage of the voting-age population will favor this alternative in a statewide poll?

One difficulty in specifying criteria and measures is that many problem statements have vague,
fuzzy, or even conflicting goals. This is often necessary in order to get consensus on taking some action
about the problem. But this complicates the selection of criteria.

If dirty rivers are a problem, and the goal is to have clean rivers, what is the most important
considerations in choosing between different ways of cleaning up the rivers? Is it cost? Is it effectiveness?
Is it equity?

What do we mean by "clean"? It is impossible to get rivers 100% clean. Do we use Federal, State,
or local standards on admissible levels of toxicity? How will we measure the level of cleanliness that
different policy alternatives are likely to produce?

RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY

The criteria and their measures must be unambiguous. They should be relatively straightforward
and simple to measure. Their application should produce uniform results, no matter who does the
measuring of different alternatives. And repeated measurements of the same alternative should produce
the same results, again, no matter who does the measuring.
Criteria and measures should be appropriate to the unit of analysis. That is, if the goal of a
proposed policy alternative is to change the investment strategies of cities, the unit of measurement is
cities, not individuals. Be sure to specify whether the unit of measurement is households or families,
census tracts or neighborhoods, school children or school districts, etc.

ECONOMIC CRITERIA

Most policy analysis involves at least one economic criterion. These include impacts on the economy,
on expected public sector revenues, on government spending, etc.

The most common economic criteria are costs. These may include:
borrowing costs--the costs of borrowing funds
decreases in net worth--decreases in assets and/or liabilities
direct costs--directly attributable to the policy alternative
indirect costs--additional impacts not included in the goals
intangible costs--costs that cannot be counted or quantified
monetarizable costs--can be expressed in dollars
one-time fixed costs--new capital expenditures, equipment, training, etc.
operations and maintenance costs--ongoing costs of the alternative
opportunity costs--other things that could have been done with the same resources instead
tangible costs--can be counted and quantified

Costs need to be counted. One cannot assume that the money was going to be spent anyway.
Costs should be identified as completely as possible, eliminating unpleasant surprises down the road.

Another type of cost criterion that is often employed is marginal cost. That is, if some good or
service is already being produced, how much more will it cost to produce one additional unit of output?

The types of costs that are considered in marginal analysis are:

fixed costs--these do not vary in the short run, no matter how many units are produced
variable costs--these vary directly with the volume of output of goods or services
average costs--the total of units of output divided by the total costs of output
marginal costs--the costs of producing one additional unit of output
sunk costs--these are costs that can be ignored as they have already been spent in the past

Another type of economic criterion is benefits. Benefits are the opposite of costs. Benefits are
ways in which the policy actors will be better off. Benefits can be measured in many of the same ways as
costs, including:
direct benefits--directly attributable to the policy alternative
increases in net worth--increases in assets and/or liabilities
indirect benefits--additional benefits not included in the goals
interest earned--interest that will accrue or be paid
intangible benefits--benefits that cannot be counted or quantified
monetarizable benefits--can be expressed in dollars
one-time benefits--one-time reduction in the problem
ongoing benefits--continuing decreases in the problem
tangible benefits--can be counted and quantified
Benefits are often more difficult to quantify than costs. One alternative is to use "shadow prices," or
the value of the benefits in a perfectly competitive market, for example, free recreation facilities,
wilderness areas, parks, etc.

EQUITY CRITERIA

Efficiency and effectiveness are technical and economic questions, but equity is a public question.
Equity asks about the social allocation of burdens and benefits. Equity asks the questions of "who pays?"
and "who benefits?"
A proposed policy alternative may impact equity if it will change the distribution of burdens and
benefits in society. There is no universally approved optimal or right answer for how benefits and burdens
should be distributed in society. That is a continuing area of contention, and essentially a political decision.

However, there are guidelines for equity, such non-discrimination, and the same treatment for
those equally situated and different treatment for those unequally situated.

Horizontal equity asks whether burdens and benefits are being shifted among groups in society
which are relatively equal.

Vertical equity asks whether burdens and benefits are being shifted among groups in society
which are relatively unequal.
 Inter-generational equity asks whether burdens or benefits are being shifted from one-time
period to another, whether younger generations will have to pay more and receive less than older ones,
or vice versa.

Groups are often identified on the basis of:

residence
income
citizenship
race or ethnicity
sex
age
family status
home ownership
educational status
veteran status
criminal record
substance abuse
health

Problems in assessing equity include:

how should the population be sub-divided?
how should groups be defined?
should historical criteria, the status quo, or desired states be used?
what is a burden?
what is a benefit?
what is a degree of need?
what is an ability to pay?

TECHNICAL CRITERIA

Effectiveness is often used as a criterion by which to judge policy proposals. Effectiveness is the
extent to which the proposed policy will attain the goals set forth in the problem statement. For example,
if the goal is to decrease the current teenage driver accident rate, how much will each policy alternative
decrease the rate below current levels?
Another technical criterion is technical feasibility. This asks whether the technology exists or is
readily available to implement a proposed alternative. For example, one proposed policy alternative may
be to install in all cars a breath analyzing device that would not let a car start if the driver has been drinking.
However, this technology is not widely or cheaply available.

Other technical criteria may question whether the measurement of criteria can be conducted at
the desired level of reliability and validity. For example, are there tests that can adequately measure
whether students in bilingual education programs have the same level of literacy as students in non-
bilingual education programs?
POLITICAL CRITERIA

Many times the client for the policy analysis will hold a political office. In that case, the policy
analyst must often include political criteria in the assessment of proposed policy alternatives.
Political viability asks whether or to what extent a proposed policy alternative will be acceptable to
relevant powerful groups, decision makers, legislators, administrators, citizens, neighborhoods, unions,
or others.

Other ways of assessing political viability include:

acceptability--is the proposed alternative acceptable to policy makers, policy targets, the general public,
voters, etc.?
appropriateness--is the proposed alternative appropriate to the values of the community, society, the
legislature, etc.?
legal--is the proposed alternative legal under current law, or will statutes have to be amended or enacted?
responsive--will the proposed alternative meet the real or perceived needs of the target group, the public,
etc.?

ADMINISTRATIVE CRITERIA

Many public policies are implemented by public agencies. Therefore, administrative operability
or administrative ease are often used as criteria for judging proposed public policies.
Questions that may be addressed include:
authority--does the agency have the authority to implement the proposed policy?
commitment--does the proposed policy have the commitment of top managers, field staff, and support
staff?
capacity--does the agency have the resources to implement the proposed policy, in terms of staff, skills,
money, training, expertise, etc.?
support--are the facilities, equipment, and other support available for the proposed policy?
Seven Principles of Sound Public Policy
by Lawrence W. Reed The Insider (2002)

WE HAVE LEARNED A FEW THINGS over the centuries. It’s not uninformed bias that prompts us without
debate to accept the notion that the sun comes up in the East. It isn’t blind ideology that tells us that a
representative republic is superior to dictatorship or monarchy.
In my public policy experience, I have come to appreciate seven critical fundamentals that I view as the
pillars of a free economy. They are not original with me. I’ve simply collected them in one place. But, I
believe they are settled truths – seven bedrock concepts by which we would be a much stronger, much
freer, more prosperous and far better governed people.

Principle 1: Free people are not equal, and equal people are not free.

By this I do not mean equality before the law. I am referring to “equalness” in relation to income and
material wealth – that which is earned and acquired in the marketplace of commerce, work and exchange.
This economic equality can be looked at in two halves.

Free people are not equal. When people are free to be themselves, to be masters of their own destinies,
and to improve their well-being, the resulting outcomes will not be equal. People will earn vastly different
levels of income and accumulate vastly different levels of wealth. We differ in terms of industriousness,
too. Some work harder, longer, and smarter, making for great variations in how others value what we do
and how much they may pay for it.
Likewise, we differ in terms of our savings. I would argue, that if all of us were made equal in terms of
income and wealth at this very minute, we would be unequal again by this time tomorrow because some
of us would save and some of us would spend our newfound riches.

Equal people are not free. The only way in which you could have even the remotest chance of equalizing
income and wealth across society is to put a gun to everyone’s head. Backed up by the guillotine, the
hangman’s noose, or the bullet, you would have to give orders: Don’t excel. Don’t work harder or smarter
than the next guy. Don’t save more wisely. Don’t be there first with a new product. Don’t provide a service
that people might prefer to your competitor’s.
What’s the message of this first principle? Don’t get hung up on differences in income when they result
from people being themselves. If they result from artificial political barriers, then get rid of those barriers.
But don’t try to take unequal people and compress them into some homogenous heap. You’ll never get
there, and you’ll wreak havoc trying.

Principle 2: What belongs to you, you tend to take care of; what belongs to no one or everyone tends
to fall into disrepair.

This principle illuminates the magic of private property and explains so much about the failure of socialized
economies the world over.
In the old Soviet Empire, the superiority of central planning and state ownership was proclaimed. The
government sought to abolish or at least minimize the selfish and counterproductive idea of private
ownership. Resources, it was argued, would be utilized for everyone’s benefit if government were in
charge. What was once the farmer’s food “the people’s food,” and the people went hungry. What was
once the entrepreneur’s factory became “the people’s factory.” and the people made do with goods so
shoddy there was no market for them beyond the borders.
Similarly, if you think you’re so good at taking care of property, go live in someone else’s house or drive
their car for a month. I guarantee you neither their house nor their car will look the same as yours after
the same period of time.
To trash the scarce resources of society, all you need to do is take them away from the people who created
or earned them, hand them over to some central authority to manage, and, in one fell swoop, everything
will be in ruins.

Principle 3: Sound policy requires that we consider long-run effects and all people, not short-run effects
and a few people.

In cranking up the Great Society, it was thought that some people would benefit today from a welfare
check. In the long-term, federal welfare entitlements encouraged idleness, broke up families, produced
intergenerational dependency and hopelessness, cost a fortune, and yielded harmful cultural pathologies
that will take generations to undo. Likewise, policies of deficit spending and government growth, while
enriching a few at the start, have eaten at the vitals of the nation’s economy and moral fiber for decades.

This principle calls for us to be thorough in our thinking. We shouldn’t be superficial in our judgments. Say
a thief, goes from bank to bank, stealing all the cash he can carry, and, then, he spends it all at the local
shopping mall. You would not be thorough in your thinking if all you did was survey the storeowners to
conclude that this guy stimulated the economy.
We should remember that today is the tomorrow that yesterday’s poor policy makers told us we could
ignore.

Principle 4: If you encourage something, you get more of it; if you discourage something, you get less
of it.

As human beings we are creatures of incentives and disincentives. We respond to them. Our behavior is
affected by them, sometimes very powerfully. Policy makers who forget this will do dumb things.

For example, in the summer of 1990, Congress dramatically boosted taxes on boats, aircraft and jewelry.
Since rich people buy such things, we should let them have it with higher taxes it was reasoned. On those
three things, $31 million in new revenue was expected in the first year from the new taxes. We now know
that the actual tax collections were just $16 million. More importantly, $24 million in additional
unemployment benefits was spent as a result of the people thrown out of work in those industries
because of higher taxes. As they say, only in Washington, where too often lawmakers forget the
importance of incentives, can you aim for 31, get only 16, spend 24 to get it, and think that somehow
you’ve done some good.
Want to break up families? Offer a bigger welfare check if the father splits. Want to reduce savings and
investment? Double-tax such earnings, and pile a nice, high capital gains tax on top of it. Want to get less
work? Impose such high tax penalties on it that people decide it’s not worth the effort.

Principle 5: Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own.

Economist Milton Friedman elaborated on this when he pointed out that there are only four ways to
spend money. First, when you spend your own money on yourself, you make occasional mistakes, but
they’re few and far between. The connection between the earner, the spender, and the one reaping the
final benefit is pretty strong. Second, when you use your money to buy someone else a gift, you have
some incentive to get your money’s worth whether or not you end up with something the intended
recipient really needs or values. Third, when you use somebody else’s money to buy something for
yourself, such as lunch on an expense account, you have some incentive to get the right thing but little
reason to economize. And, finally, when you spend other people’s money to buy something for someone
else, the connection between the earner, the spender and the recipient is the most remote – and the
potential for mischief and waste is the greatest.

Think about it – somebody spending somebody else’s money on yet somebody else – that’s what
government – and not just the government alone – does all the time. Nobody – repeat, nobody – spends
someone else’s money as carefully as he spends his own.

Principle 6: Government has nothing to give anybody except what it first takes from somebody, and a
government that’s big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything
you’ve got.

George Washington once said, “Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is force. Like fire, it can
be a dangerous servant or a fearful master.”
Reflect on that for a moment. Washington was saying that even if government is no bigger than he wanted
it to be, and even if it does its work so well that it indeed is a servant to the people, it’s still a dangerous
one! As Groucho once said of Harpo, “He’s honest, but you’ve got to watch him.” Jefferson warned us
rightly that the natural tendency is for government to grow and liberty to retreat. And, it was Alexander
Hamilton who wisely told us that “Control of a man’s subsistence is control of his will.”

A free and independent people do not look to government for their sustenance. They see government not
as a fountain of “free” goodies, but rather as a protector of their liberties, confined to certain minimal
functions that revolve around keeping the peace, maximizing everyone’s opportunities, and otherwise
leaving us alone. There is a deadly trade-off to reliance upon government, as civilizations at least as far
back as ancient Rome have painfully learned.

Principle 7: Liberty makes all the difference in the world.

In case my first six principles didn’t make the point clearly enough, liberty isn’t just a luxury or a nice idea.
It’s much more than a happy circumstance or a defensible concept. It makes just about everything else
happen. Without it, life is a bore at best. At worst, there is no life at all.
Public policy that dismisses liberty or doesn’t preserve or strengthen it should be immediately suspect in
the minds of a vigilant people. They should be asking, “What are we getting in return if we’re being asked
to give up some of our freedom?” Hopefully, it’s not just some short-term handout or other “mess of
pottage.” Ben Franklin went so far as to advise us that “He who gives up essential liberty for a little
temporary security deserves neither liberty nor security.”
Today, government at all levels consumes more than 42 percent of all that we produce – compared to
about 6 or 7 percent in 1900. Yet, few people seem interested in asking the advocates of still more
government such cogent questions as “Why isn’t 42 percent enough?,” “How much more do you want?,”
or “To what degree do you think a person is entitled to the fruits of his labor?”

Our past devotion to these seven principles, in one form or another, explains how and why Americans
fed, clothed, and housed more people at higher levels than any other people in the history of the planet.
And putting them into common practice is key to preserving that crucial element of life we call liberty.