Introduction

The term “public policy process” is used to refer to the activities involved in the making of government policy.  It is an explanation of the engagements involved in policy-making in order to help understand how public policy comes about.

Public policy-making happens in government and in government organization and agencies.  The making of policy is not the only thing that happens in government, but it is arguably one of the most important.

As a start in exploring the policy process, it is helpful to clarify some of the terms we are using.    What is government and its organizations and agencies?  Why do we use the term public when referring to policy? And what exactly is meant by policy?

Sectors in Society

It is common to speak of three sectors in a modern society – the private sector, the public sector and the non-profit or non-governmental organizations (NGO) sector.

The private sector is made up of businesses,  owned through proprietorships, partnerships  and corporations.  Non-governmental ownership is key.  Their primary and over-riding objective is to make a profit through sales of goods and services in market places.  They generally invest capital and hire labour to do so. The hiring of labour to generate profits which are used in turn to acquire capital assets is the essence of a capitalism.  Markets are the key institutions through which businesses relate to society.  Business boards and managers make decisions about how best to seek  profits independent of government, although they must follows the rules of society in doing so including the laws and regulations made by government.

The non-profit or non-governmental organizations (NGO) sector is made up of voluntary membership  based groups.  The objectives of such groups are what the members decide.  They may be purely social or they may aim to bring about the betterment of society more generally.  Many are formed to lobby government to adopt policies that the members want.  Others may for example pursue public education or mobilization of  citizen action.  Their main goal is not the pursuit of profit through markets, although most need to raise money by various means which may include selling certain goods or services.

Government organizations and agencies make up the public sector.  While businesses pursue the objectives of owners and NGO’s pursue the objectives of members, government has a more complex relationship with the objectives of individuals in society.  The objectives pursued by government have to do with society as a whole.  However, it is very difficult to articulate the objectives of society as a whole, since society is an amalgam of individuals and organizations.  There is thus lots of room for differences among individuals about what is wanted.  Government provides a possible way of doing so.

What is the Public Sector?

The size and extent of public sector can be established on the basis of one of two criteria.  The first, preferred by management scholars, is depends upon who makes decisions and the accountability for those decisions.  In the public sector decisions are made by government and government related personnel and agencies.  The goal of of the decision makers is not the pursuit of profit for private individuals or groups who are owners of the agency, but rather to meet the objectives of the agency.  The agency’s objectives are to be found in interests external to the agency rather than internal owners.  The impact of its actions on owners are not relevant, in part because there are no owners.  Government agencies are managed and directed but they are not owned.  Decisions are made by persons who are expected to disregard their own interests; indeed we deem it a conflict of interest if they do not.  Thus we often claim that government is concerned with the public interest rather than private interests.  In a broad and general sense, public agencies are responsible for serving society and are accountable to society.  In constitutional forms of government they acquire their authority through laws made in accordance with established governance procedures.  In a democratic society they are generally expected to be accountable to society or representatives  of society selected through accepted procedures.

I am using agency here in a very general sense.  It is any grouping that has the capacity to act.  It includes but is not limited to parliaments, legislatures, municipal councils, first nations governments.  cabinets, departments,  boards and commissions, planning authorities, regional health agencies, public hospitals, universities, crown corporations, and public schools.  The important difference between the private sector and the public sector is in who makes the decisions, what the source of the authority is to make decisions and how decision makers are accountable.

Another way of defining the public sector is to look at how the sector activities are financed and who assumes the risk.  This approach is preferred by economists.  The public sector by this definition includes agents which are publicly financed from tax revenues, in whole or in part, and/or from government borrowing.  Taxpayers are responsible for paying for the services provided and for taking on the financial risk. For a very large proportion of public sector activity, citizens are not asked to purchase the services at a price.  Rather the services are provided at no or little charge and citizens can enjoy whatever benefits they get from the services provided simply by using them.  This is in contrast to the private sector, where those who may benefit from something must pay the price asked by a seller before they can enjoy a benefit.  This is what is known as a typical market transaction, where things are exchanged for money.  Thus there is a distinction between public (sector) provision and private (sector ) provision.

In general we can work with either of these and locate most public sector activities. There are some hybrids which make things a little harder, but generally we can tell what is in the public sector on the basis of who the decision makes are and where they derive their authority, and whether they are financed on an on-going basis by tax dollars or are backed by government in the financial sense.  There still remains some grey areas about how to define private businesses that are perpetually subsidized, but the number of such cases is so small as to matter little in the bigger picture.

How Big is the Public Sector?

Many are curious as to how big the public sector is in society today.  Size is something that requires some metric or measure that makes it possible to aggregate and compare.

Some say it can’t be measured.  Take for example the following statement:

“The concept of big government versus small government is fallacious. It has no intelligent meaning outside of rhetoric. ……………it is impossible to measure government. ……………  . Government is not a quantifiable phenomenon. If you can understand that fact, you have hope. Until you accept that fact, you will forever be wondering aimlessly in political cognitive dissonance.”  (Anthony, accessed on August 12, 2009 at 3:15 pm at http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2009/07/15/immeasurable-size-of-limited-government/)

Anthony means that it is very difficult to put meaningful values on government services.  Who can say how much a safer highway, a suicide bomber caught before the act, or a life saved by public health care is really worth?  Measures of government size are also used often to compare big government and small government.  But what might be big government to some, say a police state, might be small government to others when compared to a welfare state.  After all, intrusive police and intelligence services require much less money to run then schools and hospitals.  But for many the police state is the sine qua non of big government.

So we need to recognize there are problems in trying to value or measure the size of government.  But having said that, there are two commonly used metrics, government spending or tax revenues and government employment.

In Canada, about 22% of the value of goods and services produced are produced by government agencies.  These are virtually all paid for by taxes.  But taxes pay for more than good and services.  They also pay for money provided to citizens to help them pay for goods and services they want and need.  These are called transfers.  They include government funded pensions for seniors, help with child raising, unemployment assistance, welfare, medicare and other forms of assistance.  Transfers to individuals in Canada account for another approximately 22% of the value of things produced.  They are also paid for from taxes.  Taken together they require that taxes take about 44%  of the value of what is produced in Canada to pay for what government does.

This level of taxation is slightly lower than the average of European and Scandinavian countries and somewhat higher than the United States.  One of the reasons for the difference with the United States is that a much lower portion of health care in the United States is financed by transfers.

What is Public Policy?

What is public policy?  First, it is a product of government and government activity.  It is  one of the things that government produces.   The term production inclines one to think in terms of inputs and outputs.  However, care must be exercised.  Not all production can be readily reduced to the simple logic of  production processes.  Production processes are generally engineering oriented following a clear recipe.  The writing of poetry is the product of the poet, but it is not particular helpful do reduce the poets work to simple inputs.  The creative act is different in kind from the kind of production that is involved in input-output models.  So to with policy.  It bears more resemblance to an art than to engineering.  This doesn’t mean that it is impossible to describe policy making in terms analogous to engineered production in some respects, but it does raise a caution about excessive reductionism in this respect.   There are many conflicting views about how government produces policy, and whether or not government in fact it is appropriate to refer to  government producing policy at all.

Policy is also only one of a number of  things that government makes or creates.  It is recognized by those within government as distinguishable from other products of government, and policy making is recognized as unique and different from other kinds of government activity.

Second, policy is prescriptive.  What government provides, to whom it is provided and how it is provided are fundamentally determined by policy. It sets out what is to be done, and what is expected in terms of certain activities of government.  It guides and to a considerable extent binds the agents of government to act in certain ways and to do certain things in a specified manner.  Such prescriptions are normative, in that they are directed at change that is expected to make things better.   Being prescriptive, policy requires expression and must be communicated.  Such communication may be limited to the internal agents of government.  But it also can communicates to citizens, informing them of what they can expect from government.  It is thus generally an aspect of the relation between government and citizens.  Amongst other things, it becomes the basis through which expectations become articulated and settled.  And this necessarily and logically means it provides a basis of accountability, a standard against which citizens can assess the performance of government.

Third, policy involves planning.  It is not simply a description of an act, but rather it is a statement of  intention to act.  Public policy is purposeful.  It articulates intentions to act, and expected outcomes from the actions that flow from it. It is embedded at least in part on some kind of theory, in the form of an expected correlation of actions and events and an explanation of that correlation.  Outcomes arising from intentions logically take the form of goals and objectives.  It is common to articulate public policy in terms of goals and objectives.  Policy is in many ways like a plan, with many of the components one might expect in a plan.

Fourth,  intention requires that there be a specification of the circumstances under which the expected correlation of actions and events will apply.  As such, it has some kind of general application.  It makes little sense to speak of policy as defining a single particular action that will applying to only one individual or group at a particular point in time.  It could do this in a few very extreme cases, but extreme and unusual cases are not the basis for building effective generalizations.  In general, it is understood that the prescribed behavior or actions will apply to other situations under the same or similar circumstances and other individuals and groups with the same or similar characteristics.  In some sense it applies to the general population and/or its organizations and institutions, or some subset defined in terms of common characteristics.

Fifth public policy involves predictions about what will happen when government acts in a particular way, and thus amongst other things has embedded within it beliefs or expectations about causal relations.  In this sense, there is a theory or a series of inter-related theories, which might be called models, embedded within it.  This has led some Stone and others (Stone, 1998) to refer to policies as causal narratives about bad situations potentially subject to remedy through government action.

Government Objectives

The objectives of any proposed action matter.  A plan depends upon objectives.  It is not really possible to talk of a plan of action without addressing objectives.  Virtually any attempt to develop policy must necessarily address the objectives of the intended action.

Government actions are different than those of private firms in the private sector.  Pubic policy addresses some condition or situation in society that is considered in need of change for some reason or other.  There is a gap between what is and what is wanted.  An objective is sets out that which is wanted.  Objectives are thus normative.  Various states of society can be ranked as to whether they move society closer toward an objective or farther away.  By its very nature, getting closer to an objective or achieving it totally is a good thing compared to moving further away from it.  Of course it is always possible to disagree about whether an objective is a good thing.  The nature of what is good bedevils much of policy making.  And yet we find ways of deciding that and thus of setting objectives.

It is helpful to think first in general terms about government objectives.  If we do this we find that virtually all possible government objectives can be categorized into six  general types.  These are often referred to as the higher level of objectives or classes of objectives upon which all government policy is based.  Any specific policy can be traced to one or a combination of these objectives. These general objectives can be understood as defining the legitimate role of government, and thus of setting out the rationale for government policy in a modern liberal society.

These are:

1.  Efficiency.

2.  Fairness, equity or justice.

3.  Liberty, freedom and independence.

4.  Security and protection.

5.  Sustainability.

6.  Personal and societal development.

Each of these has very specific meaning.   We need to be clear about each.  All are widely thought to be good things to seek out.  Problems do arise when we subject them to more precise analysis, but that doesn’t destroy their utiility.

It is important to recognize that as policy objectives these refer to societal objectives rather than those of a single individual.  However society is made up of the individuals within it.  Thus we often think of societal objectives as the aggregation of the objectives of the individuals within society.  But it is a bit tricky to see how this aggregation is actually to take place, a problem we will talk about often as we proceed.

We proceed on the basis that every policy will have objectives that can be classified as falling into one or more of the above categories.  Some policies may have more than one objective, in which case more than one of the above categories will be relevant.  Thus it is said that public policy may have multiple objectives.  Policy may also have unintended consequences or impacts. In such cases policy impacts may result in positive or negative consequences.  These consequences can also be classified into one or more of the above categories.  If the consequences are negative the policy reduces the degree to which one or more of the other objectives are realized.  There thus are often trade-offs that have to be considered.  Improving things in terms of  one objective may take make things worse in terms of another.  This is a fact in complex societies.  It does not deter us from policy making, but it does need to be taken into account when making decisions.

1.  Efficiency.

Efficiency is getting the most for society out of what it has available to provide for its wants and needs.  It does so by  consuming gifts of nature, applying human energy and effort and using capital goods already produced.  Any policy that results in society having more of one good thing and  no less of another improves efficiency in society. However the reality of policy is that when implemented some people usually gain something of value while others suffer a loss of something of value.  This makes things a bit more complicated.  However, if those who gain actually compensate those who lose so that the latter are compensated for their loses when the policy is implemented, this meets the demands of the efficiency objective.  Because it would result in an efficiency gain, such a change is a good thing.  The question is can we go any further?

There was a time when this was believed to be the limit.  Any policy that makes some people better off and others worse off without compensation for the losers being part of the policy seems inconsistent with the requirements for an efficiency gain.  However, in the 1930’s a socialist economist in Britain offered a way to make efficiency have a broader application.  He said that a policy change could be considered to meet the efficiency objective if it would be merely possible for the gainers to compensate the losers such that the losers are not worse off.  It is not necessary he said, to actually transfer benefits from the gainers to the losers.  His reasoning was that actually providing compensation raises a second knock-on question, and that is whether the compensation is deserved.  This can only be decided by applying our next objective of fairness, equity or justice.

This way of approaching efficiency seems consistent with how we normally understand it.  For instance, monopolists are made worse off when  we take away their monopoly.  Consumers are better off by having more goods and lower prices, and they will remain better off even if they compensate the monopolist for money loses.  But the whole idea of compensating the monopolist for reductions in wealth from losing the monopoly is not very appealing to most people.  And in fact we don’t usually compensate them when they lose their monopoly.  A similar argument applies to reduced business profits when protective tariffs are removed.  And it similarly applies to the taking of income from taxpayers to build valuable public  infrastructure or to provide valuable public services, provided they are sufficiently valuable.  Money compensation for the taxpayers would be nonsensical in these cases since then there would be no revenue to pay for the projects, although most will be at least partly compensated by the value they get from the infrastructure or the services.

Efficiency can always be improved if, for society as a whole, the value of benefits of some action is larger than the costs, where costs are the foregone benefits from the action (ie.  the value of the benefits to gainers are larger than the value of loses to losers).  And maximum efficiency is achieved when net benefits, the value of the benefits to gainers less the value of loses to losers, are maximized.  For this reason, policy measures with an efficiency objective can be viewed as an exercise in optimization.  If numerical values are available, optimization can be structured as a mathematical exercise.

Improvements in efficiency are the easiest of all policy initiated improvements to measure in terms of a particular class of objectives.  The metric used to measure the affect of policy is dollar value of benefits and costs, in the form market prices or proxies for market prices.  This works very well for tradable goods and services in the economy, although market failure cause certain complications.

Two market problems, or market failures as they are commonly called, are worth special mention.  One is the problem of public goods, and the other is the problem of externalities. Public goods are goods (or services) that are non-rival, meaning that one person’s consumption of any units of the good supplied does not interfere with any other person’s consumption and thus enjoyment of benefits.  A message or a game supplied on the internet is an example.  One user can read a message or play a game, and this has no affect on the ability of others to do so.  This is different from say an apple, where one person’s consumption of an apple rules out anyone else consuming it.  Non-rival good are also sometimes referred to as having the character of simultaneous consumption.  For such goods it is often impossible and in other cases very costly to extract a price from the consumer as a condition of consumption.  Examples are city streets, city streetlights, policing, and national defense.  Further, charging a price is in itself inefficient, since the price will deter some people from consuming it.  But since that person’s consumption has no affect on the consumption of others (that is to say, does not reduce it) there is no cost in letting them consume it.  That is inefficient, since net benefits to society will be maximized by letting all members of society consume it without a deterrent like charging a price .

The problem of externalities has similarities to that or public goods.  Externalities occur when goods are produced and sold in markets for a price, but have subsidiary benefits or harms that like public goods are non-rival and non-priced.  Take for example air pollution form a cement plant.  The plan buys its inputs for dollar amounts and sells cement for dollar amounts.  These dollar amounts can be accounted for by the managers because both inputs and products have prices that create costs.  The plant managers will maximize net returns, which will the the net benefit to society of the plant’s operations (wages are accounted for separately as the societal benefit from supplying labour to the plant).  But there is one type of cost not taken into account by the managers, and that is the harm caused to the residents affected by the pollution.  NO account is taken of the compensation that would be due them for the negative impacts and no compensation is paid.  The cement plant produces more cement than it would if the compensation need by the residents to offset the affect of the pollution was charged.  Policies would be needed to require the plant managers to take into account this amount is needed if efficiency is to be achiever.

The above example helps explain why public goods and externalities are called market failures.  Markets are the processes through which private producers sell goods and services to customers and buy inputs from suppliers.  Market success is when market based societies can rely on markets to achieve efficiency, without policy guidance or direction.  Market failure arise when they cannot.  Market failure is thus an efficiency rationale, meaning underlying justification, for government policy.

2.  Fairness, equity or justice.

Fairness, equity and justice are related terms although they are not always used to describe exactly the same thing.

Fundamental ideas of fairness, equity or justice all tend to share a common commitment to equality.  On first thought, it is common to think of equality as a state in which every individual is equal.  This is consistent with western thought that sees the individual as the constituent element of society possessing moral worth and where the equal worth of all individual is one of the highest moral precepts.  So it is natural to think of equality as an objective of society and thus of public policy.  The ideal situation is by this way of thinking where all individuals have the same amount of things that contribute to a good life.  And while material goods are not the only things that contribute to a good life, it seems reasonable to require that all individuals have equal amounts of them as a condition of having equality in experiencing of good life.  If there is not equality in the distribution of material goods, redistribution of goods from some to others will make society better off.

However, as analysts have thought about this, they have expressed some reservations.  For one thing, policy is about changing the status quo, often involving small steps that are feasible.  What are we to say about the goodness of small shits in distribution of material goods?  In addition, not everyone valued material goods to the same degree.  To address these questions, utilitarians suggested that policy makers should compare the extra amount of improvement in quality of life that the gainers experience to the loss of quality of life that the losers experience for any feasible redistribution policy.  If the incremental benefit of the gainers exceeds the incremental loss of the losers, then a redistributive measure is a good thing.  If not, it is not desirable.  In general, the utilitarians stated, redistribution from the rich to the poor will be a good thing since we are very far from equality in the distribution of material wealth. However if we ever get closer to an equal distribution, it would be necessary to find a way of measuring more accurately how well off people really are, since not everyone values material goods in the same way.

The idea of equal distribution as an ideal is challenged on other grounds as well.  Some argue that redistribution always involves taken from those who have wealth and giving it to those who do not.  Neo-conservative consider this in general to be state sanctioned larceny, unless those who are made to pay are agreeable to the redistribution.   If inequality threatens the safety and security of member of society as a result of social unrest and possible disturbances that threaten people’s safety and property, those with wealth may favour transferring some of it  to those who are poor in order to secure internal peace and stability. In this case re-distribution will be favoured by to the extent that it appeases the poor and disadvantaged.  One sometimes hears this as an argument for international aid.  Interestingly somewhat related idea is expressed by Marxists.  However, they see policy in modern industrial society as being determined by class conflict and class interests. Government acts in the interest of the capitalist class so long as the society remains a capitalist one.  In such a society, policies to redistribute rights and freedoms and material goods are only possible if mollify the working class sufficiently to forestall social unrest and a possible revolution.

There are many challenges to equality of distribution based on the argument that we must ask what it is that we believe should be equally distributed.  There is no a prior reason why it must be material goods. One of the other objectives of  government is to sometimes encourage these in order to ensure that individuals take responsibility for their own well being.  This is consistent with the idea that it is individual responsibility should be equally assumed, and thus that the goal should be equality of opportunity. This is common amongst those who contest notions of equal distribution on the grounds that it undermines individual independence and self-reliance.  For them, the fundamental objective of government should thus be re-stated as ensuring equality of opportunity for all members of society.   This is described by Andrew Green as follows:

An equal opportunity society focuses on the ability of individuals to pursue the types of lives they each have reason to value.  Each individual has the responsibility and should be provided with the opportunity to make the decisions about the type of life he or she wishes to lead.  It includes both a concern for the freedom of individuals to make choices and the ability of individuals to make those choices. Opportunity in this respect has two aspects: a process aspect relating to how decisions are made and a capability aspect relating to individuals’ ability to make decisions.  The process aspect of the term “opportunity” is concerned with how decisions are made. It encompasses freedom from restraints in taking actions such as participating in the market or in political discussions. This process aspect of opportunity focuses on the removal of constraints on individuals’ choice.  The capability aspect of “equal opportunity” focuses on the ability of individuals to actually make reasoned decisions and choices about their life. It recognizes that an adequate conception of equal opportunity must take into account individuals’ background or resources in some form.  An equal opportunity society incorporates a “capability” approach to opportunity based on Sen’s concept of “freedoms” – that is, it must foster “the actual ability of a person to achieve those things she has reason to value”, thereby expanding her actual, effective choices. For example, an individual who cannot read will not be able to take advantage of a wide range of opportunities for employment. An individual who is sick will have difficulty pursuing economic, social or political opportunities. An equal opportunity society focuses on such capabilities.  (Green, accessed August 13, 2009 at http://www.law-lib.utoronto.ca/investing/reports/rp34.pdf).

In this conception of equality, the objectives of government are two fold:  one, to remove restrictions of individuals ability to participate in the institutions of society; and two, to ensure that capabilities in terms of health, education  and perhaps instrumental socialization are equalized.  This is generally argued to be more  consistent with objectives of freedom and liberty, since it accepts the wide diversity in society about people preferences about how hard to work, how much risk to take, and what avenues to follow in terms of how to live and work, while respecting that liberty is weak if there are barriers to pursuing the life one wants to including because of inequalities in health and education.

Another line of thought about accepts that complete equality may be an objective of society and government but argues that there must be a consideration of the tradeoffs between equality and efficiency.  Thus any practical means of redistributing material goods in society distorts choices that people would otherwise make, causing  a net reduction in the value of goods produced by the society.  The classic demonstration of this is the effect on decisions to work and be productive.  Those who receive a transfer of goods and services will work less because they get some of what they want without working, while those who have to give something up will work less because they get to keep only a portion of what they earn, reducing the incentive to work.  The greater this reduced incentive, the greater will be the reduction of work and the loss of output of society.  They argue that there is a tradeoff between the creation of wealth and the redistribution of wealth, and that any policy that equalized the distribution of goods would experience a loss in production of goods of such a magnitude that it would be unacceptable to members of society.

John Rawls is one the most famous 20th century scholar to address justice and equity.  He approaches the question in a slightly different way by suggesting that the correct amount of re-distribution is really a question of a rational choice on the part of members of society.  There is no existing institution that can be relied upon to express that choice.   But if there were, Rawls said it would make its choice by asking people to decide on their preferred distribution of society’s fruits in what he calls the original condition.  This would be the situation if everyone were to decide the basis for their preferred distribution amongst groups or individuals in society from behind a veil of ignorance. This is an imagined position where no one has anyway of knowing what advantages she will have and what mishaps will occur in her life  .

“no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance.”

Rawls believes that a rational person in this situation will want a world in which no one is under privileged relative to any other in terms of  basic rights and necessities, and no class of persons is under privileged compared to any other class in terms of basic rights and necessities.  The rational person starts with a presumption of equal entitlement; that is the each member of society has an equal claim on their society’s goods. She does not want anyone to have and advantage over her, a view that is held by each and every person.  This person recognizes that there are other considerations that will affect the actual distribution,but each and every person has the same (starting) probability of being affected by such considerations for good or bad.  Each person will also prefer an equal opportunity to participate in society, and thus will prefer that political liberty (i.e., to vote and run for office), freedom of speech, the right of assembly, liberty of conscience, freedom of property and freedom from arbitrary arrest all be equally provided to each.

He concludes that every rational person starting from this position will wish a distribution of material goods that maximizes the well being of the worst off in society.  This conclusion is not based on any empirical evidence.  Rather if follows from the assumption of rationality and the maximization behavior of rational beings.  Since each has an equal chance of ending up among the least well off (although only some actually will) the rational solution is a max-min one that maximizes minimum possible well being.  Of all of the possible distributions that will actually prevail, this is the one that is preferred by all rational people starting out from the veil of ignorance that exists in the original position.  Inequalities are acceptable provided that they are arranged so that provide the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society, which he called the difference principle.

The practical result is that an unequal distribution of the actual goods and services may very well be the distribution that maximizes the well being of the least well off.  In fact, this is almost certainly what Rawls has in mind.  He clearly thinks  that it necessary to have wealthier classes who take risk and accumulate capital and middle classes who invest in education and skills in order to have a society in which the least well off are as well off as they can possibly be compared to any other possible societal distributions.

Rawls also draws a more practical conclusion from his findings.  The current level of well being of the least well off is one of the many possible levels of well being they might experience.  However any lesser level of well being as a result of redistribution cannot be an option for because it is inconsistent with the notion that those in the original condition will prefer the highest level of well being possible under the many distribution arrangements possible.  The existing one is clearly part of the feasible set of available distributions.  We can thus conclude as a minimum that no re-distribution policy is acceptable if it makes the least well off class of people in society worse off.  Further any redistribution policy that makes the least well off better off, including a policy that makes the rich richer, is good.  If a society can re-distribute to the poor without having the affect of reducing the overall pie so much as to ultimately make the poor worse off is a desirable policy (provided that it makes the poor better off).  Rawls suggests that in a modern liberal capitalist society an entitlement this condition will be met  where the poor are guaranteed a basic basket of basic rights and basic social goods, including health care, education, shelter, and security.

Rawls’ theory is generally consistent with the those associated with equality of opportunity and those who argue that there is some optimum trade-off between equity and efficiency, where the coast of additional redistribution exceeds the benefit.

None of the above provides a fully satisfactory way to determine whether a particular policy will bring an improvement in fairness or equity.  This is not entirely surprising.  All objectives are normative and all normative concepts are ideas.  There is no completely objective means of assessing the merits of ideas and the various ways they can be constructed. In the final analysis, it depends on decision makes and how they see these matters and how they understand members of society see them.  It is nevertheless true that ideas of fairness, justice and equity are power ones in virtually all societies.  Demands that government take action on the basis of justice and fairness are powerful reflections of a deep attachment to justice and fairness as a fundamental value.  This fact cannot be ignored by policy makers.   Rawls an others have provided a framework of understanding this within the overall conceptions of liberal democracies in the modern world.  The days are past when critics could reject demands for redistribution with crude claims that they simply reflect envy and larcenous proclivities on the part of have-nots.

3.  Liberty and freedom.

Liberty and freedom are fundamental to a democratic society.  Generally it is accepted that these are made up of fundamental states or activities which people are able to pursue without interference from the state and with the protection of the state.  These generally include the right to:

• conscience and religion
• thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communications
• peaceful assembly and association
• vote
• guarantee of periodic elections
• life, liberty, and security of the person
• security against unreasonable search and seizure
• no arbitrary detention or imprisonment
• be informed promptly for the reasons for any arrest or detention
• retain and instruct counsel on arrest
• trial within a reasonable time by an impartial tribunal
• the presumption of innocence
• no self-incrimination
• no cruel and unusual punishment
• a court-appointed interpreter
• equal treatment before and under the law
• equal benefit and protection of the law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability
• language, culture and self determination for ethnic and indigenous minorities.

Most people place a value on freedom and liberty.  however, some have difficulty with the suggestion that liberty and freedom are the results of government policy.  These are natural rights, it is argued.  They are not granted by governments but are inherent to human existence.  Further they are usually protected by the people in constitutions in all modern societies and thus do not depend upon government policy.  And while all of these things are reasonable assertions, it is nevertheless the case they don’t find expression, protection and enforcement in a vacum.   Governments are instrumental in determining how much freedom and liberty is afforded to its citizens.

The basic point is that even in societies where liberties and freedoms are guaranteed, freedoms and liberties and liberties are not absolute.  And in some cases they may not even be constitutionally protected.  So liberties and freedoms may be varied, expanded or made more secure by government policy.

One way of thinking about this is to think about the pursuit of any one of objective of government as a problem of maximizing the degree of its fulfillment subject to the constraint of all of the other objectives. The Degree of realization of the other objectives in society is not absolute and fixed.  Indeed greater fulfillment of one objective may reduce the fulfillment of the other.  There are trade-offs between the achievement of the objectives.

In the case is objective of liberties and freedoms there may for instance be a trade-off with protection and security.  As long as there is not, more liberty and freedom is an improvement.  But if there is a trade-off, some assessment is necessary that values the worth of say more freedom compared to less security.  as being one objective alongside the others.  Freedoms and liberties protected by law or in consititutions are generally made the perview of courts that determine whether a policy of government conflicts with the legally protected freedom or liberty.

Examples of trade-offs between liberty and security are the  post 9-11 measures to increase national secuity protection in countries.  These have been at the expense to some degree of certain liberties and freedoms.  Defenders of these measures argue that the  infringement of freedoms is justified given the increased threats to security.

An  example of liberties being expanded over the last half century is abortion law.  For many years abortions were prohibited under criminal law.  Relaxations of these prohibitions have occurred in many countries on the basis that personal privacy protections must include the freedom of a woman to choose with regards to matters involving her own body.  It is argued by many, on the other hand, that this has been at the expense of protection of the fetus.

In general the problem of trade-offs between freedom and liberties and other objectives arises due to political demands to impose limits or restrictions on liberties and freedoms.  The courts have assisted in establishing procedures through which the legitimacy of infringements are to be justified.  In general policy makers are required to determine whether a policy  being considered infringes a liberty or freedom,  and if it does to confirm that there is a legitimate or valid reason for doing so in a free and democratic society.  If there is, policy makes are required see if there is some other way of meeting the objective and if not, to make the infringement as limited as possible consistent with the objective.  Policy makers are also requred to find ways of mitigating the affects on those who will be made worse off by the infringement.

Cases of infringements extend from the obvious to the highly complex and contested.  An obvious case is the prohibition on shouting fire in a crowded theatre where this is no fire.  Freedom of expression is infringed in order to protect the safety of perons in the theatre.  Much more difficult is whether the government is justified in holding terrorists without charges being laid and a trial undertaken.  Governments say this is necessary in order to prevent the possibility of a terrorist attack based on valid suspicions, even though there is not enough evidence to convict.  Many people are uncomfortable with that, but courts have been prone to give way to government when government demonstrates some national security threat.

4.  Security and protection of people and property.

We have already touched on security objectives of government because of the obvious relationship to freedom and human rights.  A large amount of government policy is directed at security.  National security is broadly defined as measures to prevent harmful attacks on property or persons of a nation by foreign or subverve interests.  Treason, sabotage, espionage, action to over throw a legitimate government, terrorism and a whole host of other such things are illegal and subject to sever punishment.  National defense is the primary justification for a military, and today there is a complex military-industrial complex sustained by government.  Intelligence services act in the name of national security.  All of these matters derive from security objectives.

Police forces are maintained to protect people and property, and a complex array of criminal and other laws have been developed to provide the basis for such protection.  Fire services, public health services and regulations and their enforcement, safety standards and many similar activities are directed at protecting human health and safety.  Resource and environmental laws and enforcement are also often aimed at safety and protection.

Security and protection has long been considered one of the most fundamental rationales for the existence of government.  Indeed for a long time in the 18th and 19th century, many modern liberal political philosophers thought national defense and the protection of persons and property was virtually the only legitimate purpose of government.  Debates about the extent to which government action should extend beyond this has however been the subject of much debate almost since the idea of government has been talked about.  Protection generally although not always involves placing restrictions on possible human actions.  The most basic and common justification for such restrictions is wherever a potential action may cause harm to someone other than the person or agent taking the action.  Liberal philosiphers have long argued that an action that harms no one other than the person who takes the action is none of the business of government.  Only when an action may impact others besides the person acting should it matter to government.  Thus actions which only harm oneself are private matters beyond the legitimate realm of government.  Of course, we  all know the governments sometimes create policies to stop people from harming themselves.  Many but not all of these are directed at those who do not have the full capacity to formulate a their own best interest, like children, those who are comatose, or those who have intellectual disabilities.  This way of looking at the legitimate role of government also raises questions on prohibitions on behavior considered immoral, where no harm is caused to others.  Policy and morality are intertwined, and many find it hard to draw a clear line on legitimacy based on.  Much vigorous political debate has and will take place about where to draw the line on these matters.  Obejctive standards to resolve differences have been hard to find.

Some types of protective measures may be taken to advance one or more of the other objectives of government.  Regulations limiting behavior may be implemented to enhance efficiency, for example.  Protective policies may also be used to make situations fairer.  In these cases it is more appropriate to treat these policies as having efficiency or equity rather than protection as their objective.

As has already been stated, protective measures that reduce liberty and freedom generally require valuations of the trade-offs, or some justification for infringements of liberties and freedoms .  In the latter case, there is a presumption that liberty and freedom objectives should prevail unless some amount of interference can be justified.  The degree of interference must however be minimized.  This is one of the few cases where a strong case is made for a hierarchy of the objectives, with freedom and liberty taking precedence over security.  Other than that, it is hard if not impossible for claiming that one objective should take precedent over another, in which case a consideration of trade-offs is needed if an action causes a conflict.  In the absence of a commonly accepted and workable metric, this however is difficult.  Often the only substitute is debate and argument to attempt to reolve disagreement.

5.  Sustainability

Sustainability is somewhat of a latecomer to the list of commonly accepted categories of government objectives.  Traditionally, sustainability has been thought to be captured by the obejctive of efficiency.  Corrections for pollution for example have been develped using effiiciency as teh standard. Economists and others have been working to place values on natural capital (gifts of nature) like forests, minerals, land, water, and clean air, in order to establish values for damage or depletion that can be compared to  consumptive values as a way of determing whether and/or how much development and/or depletion is justified.

There is a school of thought that argues that this is not sufficient.  It argues that efficiency measures don’t take into account the inherent value of sustaining a forest, or a glacier, or an ocean or the atmosphere’s temperature and quality.  According to this view, the balancing of values to create a desired equilibrium between destruction and use, which is fundmamental to efficiency analysis, misses the point.  The world’s eco-systems themselves are based on a natural balance dictated by nature, and the survival of the world itself depends upon honouring that balance into perpetuity.  Each infraction of that balance takes the world a step closer to a downward spiral of destruction.  For many this is the highest normative standard of all.  Efficiency analysis justifies disturbances to that balance on the basis of a calculus that sees humans as the determiners of values rather than the balance of nature itself.  One although not the only example is the use of discounting and present values when justifying upsetting the balance.  Another is the justification of some levels of pollutions and natural systems destruction.  Efficiency measures may be used to slow the pace of destruction, but it is fundamentally, according to this view, based on false and selfish human valuations.

As a result there is an increasing tendency to accept sustainability as one of the fundamental normative responsibilities of government.  Trade offs may and probably will often have to be considered, but it is important to be clear about what exactly is being traded off.  In one sense this is a demand that nature have a separate voice in decisions based on the imperatives of sustainability.

6.  Personal and social development.

It has long been assumed that individuals and society are capable of change.  Change can often, although not always, be for the good.  In terms on individual development, liberal thought has always held to the belief that  in  a good society, every individual will be encouraged to reach his or  her full potential in social, educational, intellectual and productivity terms.  John Stuart Mill, a famous 19th centry philosopher, considered individual development to be a necessary condition for the exercise of liberty and the practice of democracy and effective government.  The idea that human development is possible has become closely tied to ideas of human and social progress and the capacity for improvement.

Social development looks upon society in somewhat similar terms.  Societies can advance their ability to be good societies through social and poltical development.  This includes the creation of free and broad based civil society, effective political institutions, honest value based governance, capable political leadership, and effective and knowledgeable  government.  The process of achieving these things is sometimes referred to as capacity building.  The advancement of values, leadership, institution building, knowledge and experience are all part of the process of capacity building.  Many consider education and training to be fundamental tools of capacity building.  Institution building is also the focus of development.

As with all objectives, there is an obvious cultural element to development.  Not all societies view good development in the same way.  This has recieved considerable attention over the last few years as colonialism is displaced by self government and as conflict is more and more attributed to cultural differences.  Differing norms and values  have an obvious impact on whether development of a particular kind is seen as a good thing.  Liberalism is most often challenged as being of dubious value in non-western societies.  Nevertheless, liberal cultural values tend to be deeply embedded in most beliefs about development.

Hierarchy of Objectives

The above categories of objectives are broad and general.  Within each of these broad groupings, more specific objectives can be articulated related to actual and real problems.  The more specific objectives are consistent with one of the general objectives, and indeed can be expressed in terms of the general objective and  a class of more specific objectives related to the general objective.  Consider poverty reduction, for example.  It is a more specific objective of the class of objectives constituting fairness and justice.  In a sense it is derived from the justice objective as a result of viewing inequality reduction as a sub-category of the justice objective.  Reducing inequality can in turn be addressed by setting out a range of other more specific objectives including but note limited to the reduction of  poverty.  Further the objective of poverty reduction may be achieved by pursuing a range of further more specific objectives like improving work skills, improving social conditions, or increasing cash resources.  Each of these in turn can be selected out and expressed in more detailed and specific terms.  At the point that a policy is articulated, the objective  will be very specific and concrete , such as increasing the cash resources of families below some cash income level by a specified dollar amount per dependent child.  This specific objective can be traced, through a device like a tree diagram, to ever more general objectives which all finally connect to one of the general objectives set out in the above.  An important part of policy making involves the process of moving from general to specific objectives in order to arrive at a specific plan of action.

Thus objectives that inform policy can be viewed as connected through kind of terrace or layering to one of the general objectives, where specifics are nested within the ever  more general.  Analysis and deliberation are important tools for working from the more general to the more specific.

What is Good Public Policy?*

There are a number of factors that may be considered during policy
development. In the end, these factors will be used to judge whether the
result is good public policy. They are:

Public interest: What is in the best interest of society as a whole?
Effectiveness: How well does a policy achieve its stated goals?
Efficiency: How well are resources used to achieve goals and put a policy in
place?
Consistency: What is the degree of alignment with the broader goals and
strategies of the government and with constitutional, legislative and
regulatory regimes?
Fairness and Inclusion: How does the policy increase inclusion of all
members and sectors of society? This may link directly to consideration of
the public interest. Does it create disadvantages for some and not others?
Reflection: What other values of society and/or the community, such as
freedom, security, communality, choice, and privacy, are reflected in the
policy?
Sustainability: Is there a balanced and mutually supported relationship
between environment, health, society, and the economy?
If a public policy has met these criteria above, it should be:

Socially acceptable. Citizens will feel that the policy reflects their
values, such as fairness and equity, consistency, justice, and compassion.
Politically viable. The policy will have sufficient scope, support, and
financial viability so that elected officials are comfortable with the
decision.
Technically correct. The policy will meet scientific and technical criteria
that have been established to guide or support the decision.
While all of these factors are important to community groups wanting to
influence public policy, two factors are of greatest importance:

the extent to which the final policy addresses the specific needs and
concerns of the community; and
the extent to which the community had meaningful opportunity to influence
and participate in the policy development process. 5

*  From http://www.atl.ec.gc.ca/community/cap_taking_action_through_public_policy/goodpolicy.html

accessed 10:36 am September 17, 2009