This week we're studying criteria by which policy alternatives may be judged. Equity is one such criteria. Please address one of the following two questions. Postings due by Thursday at midnight.
What does equity mean? What definition or definitions of equity do you think are most important and why?
or
In the issue of energy efficiency, can the policy problems be solved by limiting the evaluation criteria to efficiency and effectiveness (and thus ignoring the other criteria covered in class and in Kraft and Furlong?).
10 comments:
Equity in terms of making policy is knowing whether or not a policy treats everyone equally and fairly. An equitable policy will treat everyone impartially and have absolutely no bias. Equity is very important in terms of law because a policy without equity will never stand up in a court of law. If policy makers create a law that is not equitable, not only will people feel trampled on by the law, but the policy will simply not work. For example, anytime a police officer is thought to be profiling, it is put all over the news and the police officer is usually suspended until the department gets down to the bottom of things. Because the police officer may not have applied the law fairly, they are being subjected to serious scrutiny about their job performance. The same goes for public policy. Any time policy makers consider implementing a law that the public sees as unfair, people get upset and make their voices heard until the policy is eventually shot down. The definition that is most important is "something that is fair and just" (dictionary.com). That definition is equity, pure and simple. In order for a law to stand up, it has to be fair.
For our purposes equity pretty much always deals with distributing of goods and services in a fair way to everyone involved.
Three definitions for equity are given in the glossary of Kraft and Furlong’s book. The first says it is an analytical criterion that refers to the consideration of what constitutes a fair or equitable table policy choice. The second definition is how a program’s costs and benefits are distributed among citizens. The last definition is a way to think about who is allowed to participate in policy-making process.
In my opinion the most important definition Kraft and Furlong provide is how a program’s cost and benefits are distributed among citizens. The argument could be make other definition however I just think that there isn’t always going to be a fair or equitable table policy choice. While if a program does happen to be in place it’s really important that we distribute it to whoever happens to need it. Not distributing your services fairly wastes money and the public goes un-served and the policy makers have wasted their time because their policy is pretty much useless and ineffective.
equity is defined as fairness or justice in the distribution of a policy's costs, benefits, and risks. It can also be divided into two categories of process equity and outcomes equity. In choosing which definition of equity is most important I would say that outcomes equity is most important because regardless of the intent of doing something, it is the result that is ultimately the lasting impression of the policy. The way you got to that result is important but not as much as the result intself because there are a variety of means to get to the same end. It is also important to know that someone will always be harmed more by a policy than they orginially were and some will benefit from it. Equity is an idea that is almost unrealistic because it seems it can never be fully achieved to the degree that people wish it could.
Equity defined is the idea or state of being just, impartial, and fair. Some would even say that it is without bias. Equity defined according to policy, is the fairness associated with the policy’s costs benefits, and risks. There are two types of equity, process and outcome. Process equity is simply what it states, the process in which a policy goes through to be fair. Outcome equity is the outcome of the policy. The one that I think is more important is process equity. Yes the outcome is important but how you got to the outcome is even more important because of the way in which it took to get to the outcome. The process could not only lead to the outcome but have another outcome because you took that process which could be bias or could hinder individuals involved. This can go both ways, however. The process, as I stated, can lead to different outcomes but there can also be different processes to get to the same outcome. I think it is important that there not be a separate outcome that could affect the equity because that could be problematic. This is why process equity is more important.
In class we defined equity as fairness but we also said that this definition was problematic in during policy deliberation. We said that equity can come in the form of an equitable process or equitable outcomes. An equitable process would mean everyone gets an opportunity to “sit at the table” and take part in the decision making process. Equitable outcome concerns the outcome of policy making being considered fair. We discussed John Rawl’s “veil of ignorance” and how a the decision made during policy making could possibly change if everyone were to put aside their own personal wants and look for is the most “fair” for the least of society. We also discussed the difference between horizontal and vertical equity. We said that horizontal equity meant that people with the same characteristics were treated similarly and that vertical equity meant that people with different characteristics were treated differently. Kraft and Furlong describe equity as considering what constitutes a fair and equitable policy choice, that is looking at how a program’s costs and benefits are distributed among citizens: fairly or unfairly. Kraft and Furlong also said that equity could concern the actual process and who is allowed to participate. For example, Kraft and Furlong pointed out this could be something like who gets to vote or participate in a public hearing.
I think that the most important part of equity is ensuring that everyone has a fair chance to participate in the process. When everyone gets a chance to “sit at the table” this improves the legitimacy of a policy. If people feel that they were integral part or at least played a part in the decision making process they are more likely to have positive feelings toward the policy outcomes even if those outcomes do not equally distribute the benefits and costs. When achieving equity in a democratic society it is important that everyone believe that they had an opportunity for their voice to be heard. For example, the City of Richmond’s decision to turn Camp Catalpa bird sanctuary into a RV part did not involve an equitable process because a significant portion of the city’s citizens believed that they did not have an equitable part in the decision making process. As a result legitimacy for the decision was decreased so much so that the city ended up recanting their agreement with the RV park. Following this decision, citizens in favor of bringing in the RV park also protested at City Hall. This reinforces the necessity of making sure that all citizens, both those for and against a policy issue such as this have their views represented in the policy making process. If not the process breaks down when legitimacy is not achieved and the policy ends up not being enforced due to the upheaval against a policy decision.
The idea of limiting the evaluation criteria for energy efficiency policy, to efficiency and effectiveness seems like a terrible idea. Without looking at one other criterion, I feel that the policy wouldn't be completely analyzed.
I would argue that efficiency, and effectiveness are both very important, but social acceptability is also necessary, because when these three criteria are used with each other they can somewhat encompass the rest.
If a policy alternative has the potential to not only provide a big bang for the buck, but to be effective, and have the support of the people, then it is a no brainer for policy makers. In class we discussed the mission to the moon, and even though it wasn't financially efficient, with the social will behind it the political feasibility came, we found the technical capability and ultimately it was effective. we landed on the moon.
These three criteria work especially well together regarding energy efficiency.When we finally decide what we're going to do about this problem, the first thing we need to ask is, will it work? Then we need to ask whether or not it will require an amount of time and effort thats worth the reward. Finally whether or not it will cause an uproar.
With the three criteria that I mentioned earlier met, the rest will fall in line. We can assume that nobody is being asked give more than they can, that the burden is spread in a manner that suits everyone, nobody's civil liberties are being violated, and as shown with the moon, we will find a way to make it technically feasible.
Kraft and Furlong describe equity as the consideration of what constitutes a fair or equitable policy choice. An example would be the distribution of benefits among citizens. Almost every policy and program which is targeted at the population has the problem of equity. This can be fairly distributed or not. Important in the process are the people who are involved in the policymaking process, for example who can vote or be involved in politics, public hearings, etc. The problem is that a representative form of democracy tends to not always represent the opinions or needs of the citizens correctly. It is also sometimes impossible to satisfy every person. There will be always winners and losers, but for the most part it is important to see what benefits the majority. Examples include the raising and lowering of taxes, the fairness of having taxpayers pick up the full bill for college tuition at public schools or the decision to reinstate a military draft. For each of these examples we can think about people who are affected, positively or negatively. In my opinion the most important factor in defining equity is the participation in politics and the outcomes based on who is involved in the policymaking process. This decides over the openness and fairness for all the people who are concerned. Finally it is the subjective point of view over what is fair and equal which decides.
As we have seen in the text and societies recent debates regarding energy efficiency issues, it is clear many of the area criteria involved in policy makes it almost impossible to find a clear solution. By limiting it to efficiency and effectiveness it is clear more policy would be passed and it could possibly deal with some of the present issues regarding gridlock between the differing sides. Because some people see energy efficiency as an immediate problem that will affect future generations they would most likely feel appeased, because of the policy that would be passed.
With this said, I don't believe just focusing on effectiveness and efficiency would be the best solution to our present problems. We see policies that are put into effect that have much more criteria and still end up being failures. Ultimately, we could have policies put in place that do little, cost the govt. more money in the long run, and delay the process of finding the best solution.
Wasteful spending has created a deficit that could very well create disparities in our country for generations to come. If we limit policy regard energy to efficiency and effectiveness we could continually put in place policy that only supports one side, while leaving and eliminating markets that boost the economy. As we have seen, by making quick decisions, we can cause ripples in our economy. By focusing on things like subsidiaries and renewable energy resources we are starting to address the problem. Specifically, if we don't define the problem in a way that will help the most people then we could produce policy that only helps a small portion of the population.
Policy is so complicated that most citizens try to avoid the process. As mentioned, by focusing on efficiency and effectiveness we may make strides quickly to combat these issues, but by disregarding other aspects of policy making we may create issues that could be avoided otherwise.
The Kraft and Furlong text cites three definitions for equity: “An analytical criterion that refers to the consideration of what constitutes a fair or equitable policy choice; how a program’s costs and benefits are distributed among citizens; or a way to think about who is allowed to participate in policy-making processes.” Equity is used as a criteria for evaluation public policy. It is most likely used with the following issues: Civil Rights, disability rights, tax equity, access to heath services and higher education. The definition of equity that I consider the most important is, “Something that is just, impartial, and fair.” This definition is simple but accurate, especially in relation to law and public policy. A successful policy/law is most likely to be one that is fair to all parties involved.
Equity means fairness. There are two ways to define equity according to Public Policy: Horizontal Equity- when people are treated the same and Vertical Equity- when people with different characteristics are treated differently. I think both definitions are equally important. People should be treated the same or equally in every situation. This would then be followed by thier specific situations and how it could benefit them the best. In some cases people need special treatment because of their characterisitcs while others are satisfied with a different treatment... I believe this is fair.
Post a Comment