Rita M Sandoval
This weeks readings seek to introduce public policy as both a field of study and the result of collective action. The authors promote different visions regarding how and why public policy is created and implemented. In his speech "The Private Use of Public Interest" Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz discusses his experiences as a White House advisor on economic policy during the Clinton administration. In his speech he seeks to identify the challenges societies face in agreeing upon and implementing public policies that promote Pareto improvements. Stiglitz puts forth four hypotheses that he claims partially explain the difficulty in creating Pareto improvements: 1) the inability of government to make commitments, 2) coalition forming and bargaining, 3) destructive competition, and 4) uncertainty about the consequences of change (p 9-14).
There are two issues that are touched upon by Stiglitz in his speech that I find of great interest. The first is the conflict between what he refers to as "expertise and democratic values" (p 17). Stiglitz points out that solving complicated problems require a high level of expertise. However, in democratic societies such as the United States, the remedies proposed by experts are often open to public scrutiny and therefore judged through the lens of politics. The challenge then becomes how to balance the influence of experts and the nation's citizenry. In his speech Stiglitz highlights several of the Clinton administrations public policy victories and failures. What resonated with me is how problematic the political coloring of public policy issues can become. When all public policy debates become fights waged from the two sides of the aisles of congress, the voices of experts whom are far more knowledgable about complex issues becomes stifled. As Stiglitz highlights, "participation and consensus formation should be valued in their own right, and may lead to better outcomes, but this is not necessarily the case, especially where expertise plays a large role" (p 20).
As Eilnor Ostrom discusses in her work "Collective Action and the Evolution of Social Norms", the actions of both individuals and collectives are influence by individual rationalism as well as social norms. In similar fashion to Stiglitz, Ostrom highlights the variability in individual and collective action. As my colleague below mentioned, modern collective action is often based upon social norms constructed upon group identity. In contemporary times, collective identities are highly influenced by the media. As Stiglitz highlighted in his speech, openness and transparency can both combat the domination of special interest groups in the processes that determine public policy but may also decrease the ability of policy makers to choose the most efficient and long term beneficial policies.
As stated in the article by Kaplan and Rand, the increasing pervasiveness of social media and other sources of information have impacted the way both dictatorships and democracy engage in both collective action and bargaining pertaining to public policy. Increasing public participation in the policy making process is often associated with increasing the influence of a society's most marginalized. However, it seems more and more common that enabling citizens to engage in the policy making process in the name of democracy is creating policies and institutions that will further fragment society. In a democracy where we must accept that a majority rules, will increasing public participation in high level public policy decisions result in the marginalization of a society's minorities?
This weeks readings seek to introduce public policy as both a field of study and the result of collective action. The authors promote different visions regarding how and why public policy is created and implemented. In his speech "The Private Use of Public Interest" Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz discusses his experiences as a White House advisor on economic policy during the Clinton administration. In his speech he seeks to identify the challenges societies face in agreeing upon and implementing public policies that promote Pareto improvements. Stiglitz puts forth four hypotheses that he claims partially explain the difficulty in creating Pareto improvements: 1) the inability of government to make commitments, 2) coalition forming and bargaining, 3) destructive competition, and 4) uncertainty about the consequences of change (p 9-14).
There are two issues that are touched upon by Stiglitz in his speech that I find of great interest. The first is the conflict between what he refers to as "expertise and democratic values" (p 17). Stiglitz points out that solving complicated problems require a high level of expertise. However, in democratic societies such as the United States, the remedies proposed by experts are often open to public scrutiny and therefore judged through the lens of politics. The challenge then becomes how to balance the influence of experts and the nation's citizenry. In his speech Stiglitz highlights several of the Clinton administrations public policy victories and failures. What resonated with me is how problematic the political coloring of public policy issues can become. When all public policy debates become fights waged from the two sides of the aisles of congress, the voices of experts whom are far more knowledgable about complex issues becomes stifled. As Stiglitz highlights, "participation and consensus formation should be valued in their own right, and may lead to better outcomes, but this is not necessarily the case, especially where expertise plays a large role" (p 20).
As Eilnor Ostrom discusses in her work "Collective Action and the Evolution of Social Norms", the actions of both individuals and collectives are influence by individual rationalism as well as social norms. In similar fashion to Stiglitz, Ostrom highlights the variability in individual and collective action. As my colleague below mentioned, modern collective action is often based upon social norms constructed upon group identity. In contemporary times, collective identities are highly influenced by the media. As Stiglitz highlighted in his speech, openness and transparency can both combat the domination of special interest groups in the processes that determine public policy but may also decrease the ability of policy makers to choose the most efficient and long term beneficial policies.
As stated in the article by Kaplan and Rand, the increasing pervasiveness of social media and other sources of information have impacted the way both dictatorships and democracy engage in both collective action and bargaining pertaining to public policy. Increasing public participation in the policy making process is often associated with increasing the influence of a society's most marginalized. However, it seems more and more common that enabling citizens to engage in the policy making process in the name of democracy is creating policies and institutions that will further fragment society. In a democracy where we must accept that a majority rules, will increasing public participation in high level public policy decisions result in the marginalization of a society's minorities?