Introduction to Public Policy, Charles Wheelan Ch 5 PDF

Preview

Summary

Lecture notes for Introduction to Public Policy, Charles Wheelan Ch 5...

Description

Chapter 5: (“Evaluating Social Welfare”)  Introduction: What is poverty? Who is poor? (poverty is an elusive term subject to continuous disagreement; government uses a method to define poverty but it is imprecise and does not fully describe what poverty is and who is poor; e. g. poverty definitions are based on family income and family size but does not include government benefits like food stamps or health coverage – in addition, there is no distinction about geographic differences within the country where costs for basic necessities differ)  Difficulties in measuring ‘social welfare’ o Imprecision and difficulties in measuring social welfare in specific terms; there is no objective measure for ‘social welfare’ (unrelated to ‘utility’ which is a measure of satisfaction) o Public policy does not provide us with any measurable indicators of overall human well-being o This creates a challenge for policy makers as there is no way to measure ‘happiness’ or ‘well-being’ in objective terms o Use of indicators (tools to quantify and evaluate outcomes or performance) are used as measurement tools; e. g. test scores) o Use of indexes as measurement tools (comparisons based on indicators, e. g. human development index comparing multiple indicators)  Philosophy of Well-Being o Issue of redistributing resources across society as a means of enhancing/increasing well-being; social welfare can be improved significantly through government distribution of wealth o Counterargument provided by libertarians who argue that government has no right to expropriate personal wealth

o Reality is that both perspectives exist and are in constant conflict in the development of public policy o What is fair’ depends upon one’s self-interest and not necessarily government’s policies  Tools for making Inferences about social welfare o Efficiency (degree to which resources are used to generate the most productive outcome)  Pareto-efficient concept (when it is not possible to make an individual better off without making another individual worse off, e. g. someone pays taxes for someone else’s child’s education) o Deadweight loss (a measure of inefficiency; occurs when the loss of welfare imposed on one party exceeds the gain in welfare afforded to another party; a more efficient allocation of resources could make at least one person better off without making anyone worse off, e. g. minimum wage and its effects on employers) o Equity (a measure of a policy’s fairness; an elusive concept even though it is an important social objective); three forms:  Horizontal equity (similar things be treated equally, e. g. two families each earning $50,000 per year should pay the same in taxes)  Vertical equity (the degree to which the rich pay more than the poor or conversely the degree to which the poor receive greater social benefits from the wealthy)  Intergenerational equity (refers to fairness in the way that policies treat different generations, e. g. social security benefits paid by young persons for older persons)  Efficiency-Equity Trade-off o Public policies often involve a trade-off between equity (a fair division of resources) and efficiency (a productive allocation of resources)

o Efficiency is about using the resources in a way to make the largest possible cake regardless how the slices are cut; equity is about dividing the pieces in a way that society deems fair  Absolute vs. Relative Well-Being o Well-being is judged on the basis of two perspectives: absolute and relative  Absolute – reflects the degree to which one’s person’s basic needs are met  Relative – reflects the degree to which that person’s basic needs are met in relation or comparison to another person (related to one’s sense of well-being in relation to someone else)  Example: you earn $110,000 and everyone else earns $200,000 or you earn $110,000 and everyone else earns $85,000 [absolute value = $110,000; relative value = $200,000 or $85,000]  Conclusion o Goal of public policy is to improve overall social welfare o An impossible task because there is no objective way to measure social welfare

 Discussion: “Animals, Infanticide, and Ethics: Peter Seeger’s Modern Utilitarianism”

“Animals, Infanticide, and Ethics: Peter Singer’s Modern Utilitarianism”  Peter Singer is a professor at Princeton ascribing to a view of utilitarianism, seeking to achieve the ‘greatest good’ by maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering  He believes in taking into account the happiness of all species who can feel pain and pleasure, not merely humans – implications for public policy that affects both humans and animals  Singer’s point – animals are entitles to some rights;  Singer’s position: incremental pleasure of eating animals is greater than the pain caused to the animals raised and killed for food  Should we experiment on animals? Yes, according to Singer if new medical treatments that will minimize future suffering exceed the harm done to the experimental subjects  In that regard, he argues that infants or mentally incapacitated adults might be more easily justifiable as experimental subjects because they are less sentient than monkeys (“inflicting pain on animals with superior mental capacity over humans with less mental capacity is ‘speciesist’”)  Singer believes that the right to life is grounded in the capacity to plan and anticipate one’s future; as society attempts to achieve “the greatest good”, creatures without that sentient capacity should be treated differently than those that have it  This position can be used to justify abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide  According to Singer, ending the lives of severely disabled infants (whose lives cause suffering for themselves and their parents) is justifiable  Although Singer’s beliefs are outside of mainstream thinking, they are perfect evidence that the challenge of maximizing social welfare begins with the debate over defining social welfare itself

Discussion 1) Assuming that you disagree with any or all of Peter Singer’s “modern utilitarianism”, what is your philosophy of defining and achieving “the greatest good”? 4) Do you believe that the enormous disparities in wealth – within the United States and around the globe- are morally justifiable? Why, or why not? Is your lifestyle consistent with this belief? 5) Singer sees no ethical distinction between withdrawing life support for a severely disabled infant and ending such an infant’s life with a lethal injection. Do you? Why, or why not?...