Explain Two Of The Six Criteria For Policy Prescription ✓ Solved

explain Two Of The Six Criteria For Policy Prescription A

Explain two of the six criteria for policy prescription, (a) effectiveness, (b) efficiency, (c) adequacy, (d) equity, (e) responsiveness, and (f) appropriateness. Then, describe a real or hypothetical public policy issue and select which of the two criteria you believe would be the most beneficial to use in deciding a policy. Provide at least two reasons for your selection. Debate It: Take a position for or against the following statement: Rational choice is not possible. Discuss how different types of rationality are related to different criteria for prescription. Provide at least two reasons and two examples to support your response.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Policy prescription involves selecting criteria that guide the development and evaluation of public policies. Among six important criteria—effectiveness, efficiency, adequacy, equity, responsiveness, and appropriateness—this paper focuses on two: effectiveness and equity. To illustrate their application, a hypothetical public policy on urban transportation is analyzed, along with a debate on the feasibility of rational choice in policy-making.

Understanding the Criteria

Effectiveness

Effectiveness measures the extent to which a policy achieves its intended objectives. It emphasizes tangible outcomes, such as reduced pollution or improved service delivery. For instance, a public transit improvement policy is effective if it significantly increases ridership and decreases traffic congestion.

Equity

Equity concerns the fairness in policy impacts across different groups. A policy promoting equity aims to reduce disparities, ensuring all segments of society benefit equally. For example, subsidized transportation services for low-income communities exemplify an equitable approach.

Application to Public Policy Issue

Policy Issue: Urban Transportation

Consider a policy proposing the expansion of bicycle lanes in a city. The most beneficial criterion for deciding this policy would be effectiveness, as it directly addresses the goal of reducing traffic congestion and pollution. Additionally, increasing bicycle infrastructure can promote public health and environmental sustainability.

Reasons for Choosing Effectiveness

1. Effectiveness ensures that the policy's primary goal—decreasing traffic and pollution—is achieved.
2. It provides measurable outcomes, facilitating evaluation and future adjustments.

Debate on Rational Choice

Position

I argue that rational choice is not entirely possible due to limitations in human cognition and information availability. Recognizing different types of rationality—bounded rationality and ecological rationality—reveals the complexities inherent in policy decision-making.

Supporting Reasons

1. Bounded rationality suggests that cognitive limitations prevent decision-makers from processing all information, leading to satisficing rather than optimizing choices.
2. Ecological rationality emphasizes that decision-making depends on environmental structures, making pure rationality an idealized concept.

Examples

1. In traffic management, policymakers often rely on heuristics rather than exhaustive analysis, illustrating bounded rationality.
2. Community-based transportation projects evolve based on local norms and environmental cues, demonstrating ecological rationality.

Conclusion

Choosing effective criteria like effectiveness and equity is crucial for sound policy-making. While rational choice remains an aspirational ideal, acknowledging the limitations and different rationality types enriches our understanding of decision processes.

References

• Bertini, M., et al. (2017). Public policy analysis and evaluation. Routledge.
• Deaton, A., & Muellbauer, J. (1980). Economics and consumer behavior. Cambridge University Press.
• Elster, J. (2007). Rationality and choice. Cambridge University Press.
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica.
• Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review.
• Rosen, H. (2005). Public finance. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Stern, P. C., et al. (1999). Human values and the environment. American Psychologist.
• Simon, H. A. (1957). Administrative behavior. Macmillan.
• Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge. Yale University Press.
• Varian, H. R. (2014). Intermediate microeconomics: A modern approach. W.W. Norton & Company.