The challenges of policy making, across national lines rest among the social strata of diverse societies and cultures. The vast landscape of cultures and societal differences between nations, countries, and governments is an important factor that helps characterize the way policy is shaped; and why it the outcomes are at times different and similar across identical objectives. The fundamental method of comparative analysis is something that I personally have mixed feelings about. On the one hand it gives you a good way to see how objectives fail and succeed from other perspectives. What I find troublesome is trying to implement any methodology gained from comparative analysis that is directly. What creates unique and progressive success is the ability to adapt and to be innovative. Comparative analysis should be used to create perspective which leads to innovation, at least in my opinion.
For instance from the readings I found the immunization article by Gary L. Freed quite interesting. He states, "the United States enforces behavior (immunization)for the public good through legislation, while the United Kingdom relies on the individual’s sense of responsibility to society to promote the same outcome," (Freed, 2005, pp. 755). This type of analysis is key because it exposes the legitimacy of policy decision making. Although you result in the same basic outcome, to provide people with accessible immunization, you do not have the same basic societal premise. That societal premise that is part of any group, country, nation, and or government is a driving factor which cannot be simply changed at any given time. This factor was developed over time, through experience, and culture. Thus for example, if either country analyzed the others and saw an opportunity for change, it could not simply integrate the change, I believe it would have to modify from its own perspective a way to innovate the change it wants within its own system, to attempt to produce the outcome it desires.
Within health policy it is interesting to see the different dynamics that influence changes or keeping constant in different nations. With the case of the U.S. and England I have a new gauge of comparative policy analysis. For example Adolino & Blake state, "The structural decentralization of decision making in the United States made it easier for opponents of reform to block new proposals that had considerable support...," (Adolino & Blake, 2010, pp. 276). Decision making within any one policy seems in many ways to always have an impact, or be impacted from some other arena, be it fiscal policy, or even politics, or cultural divides. Adolino & Blake state, "As we have seen in other policy areas, decision making and implementation are subject to a variety of influences beyond general public opinion and political trends," (pp. 276).
I suppose what I refer back to even more is that comparative analysis is just a tool to begin to design policy changes, or policy in general. I would still argue that it does not favor any type of direct implementation of ideas, yet a basis to reform ideas to reach desired outcomes.
References:
Adolino, Jessica R. & Blake, Charles H. (2010). Comparing Public Policies: Issues and Choices in Industrialized Countries. Washington D.C.: CQ Press
Freed, Gary L. (2005). Vaccine Policies Across The Pond: Looking At
The U.K. And U.S. Systems Health Affairs, 24(3), 755-757. Retrieved from http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/24/3/755
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Week 6 assigment 5
What I find most interesting within the statistics about the world nations are embedded in the society frame. It seems quite interesting to measure the literacy rates and notice that there is little disparity between any two nations; all nations seem to at least reach the high 90 percentile mark (Central Intelligence Agency The World FactBook, 2010). Yet, how does this criterion explain anything about the policy dynamics these countries develop and implement? It would make sense to think that the higher level of literacy a population exhibits the better its societal framework, fiscal, and political policy bodies would be engaged. The ability to be literate would translate into education, maybe it would good to investigate how educated people within a country are and not just the literacy rate, the ability to read can be attained early in education, although literacy can develop later in life for some. My point is that education leads to increased life successes, such as career, financially, and health, among other important life matters. Yet what really strikes a poignant difference between all these countries is the poverty rates.
Russia has a poverty line of 15.8%(Central Intelligence Agency The World Factbook, 2010) As of 2008, Mexico has a poverty line very similar and increasingly high at 18.2%(Central Intelligence Agency The World Factbook, 2010). My best estimation would be that policy in these two countries centers around fiscal problems that limit the opportunity to create growth and also to provide educational resources. Perhaps fiscal policy centers on larger crisis issues such as conflicts or poor policy analysis that address economic stability of its citizens. According to Adolino & Blake, "Poverty can be defined in a relative sense...relative poverty in industrialized countries...the relative poverty rate as the percentage of households that earn less than 50 percent of the median household income," (Adolino & Blake, 2010, pp. 318). The need to educate in many ways would seem to be a standard of all countries; it would be a limiting factor if a country did not provide educational parameters for its people in some fashion. Adolino & Blake explain access to schooling and equality of opportunity (pp. 321). These two concepts can help gauge this perspective of Russia and Mexico, perhaps. Access to schooling endures a great financial investment, educated individual who can teach, places to learn, resources to use to educate, transportation, and general structuring and implementation of a school system/routine would be some investments needed. The financial resources for these needs might not be available for these two countries, and general economic growth may be moving too slow to afford them at a later time?
What can help gauge the problem of decreasing poverty and increasing educational opportunities rest upon design a policy on reform and re-invest in its citizens future capabilities. Adolino & Blake explain, “Social policy broadly defined is the largest single category of government spending in an industrialized country,” (pp. 319). Thus if these two countries are financially spending significant budget capital within education and reducing poverty it would incline us to at least investigate the merit that this spending is producing? It seems that the allocation of resources is not fully realizing a positive result within the population, because the poverty level is too high, and if it’s not the cause poor education, the n it needs to be derived to what is causing these high poverty rates.
References:
Adolino, Jessica R. & Blake, Charles H. (2010). Comparing Public Policies: Issues and Choices in Industrialized Countries. Washington D.C.: CQ Press
Central Intelligence Angency: The World Factbook (2010). Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html
Russia has a poverty line of 15.8%(Central Intelligence Agency The World Factbook, 2010) As of 2008, Mexico has a poverty line very similar and increasingly high at 18.2%(Central Intelligence Agency The World Factbook, 2010). My best estimation would be that policy in these two countries centers around fiscal problems that limit the opportunity to create growth and also to provide educational resources. Perhaps fiscal policy centers on larger crisis issues such as conflicts or poor policy analysis that address economic stability of its citizens. According to Adolino & Blake, "Poverty can be defined in a relative sense...relative poverty in industrialized countries...the relative poverty rate as the percentage of households that earn less than 50 percent of the median household income," (Adolino & Blake, 2010, pp. 318). The need to educate in many ways would seem to be a standard of all countries; it would be a limiting factor if a country did not provide educational parameters for its people in some fashion. Adolino & Blake explain access to schooling and equality of opportunity (pp. 321). These two concepts can help gauge this perspective of Russia and Mexico, perhaps. Access to schooling endures a great financial investment, educated individual who can teach, places to learn, resources to use to educate, transportation, and general structuring and implementation of a school system/routine would be some investments needed. The financial resources for these needs might not be available for these two countries, and general economic growth may be moving too slow to afford them at a later time?
What can help gauge the problem of decreasing poverty and increasing educational opportunities rest upon design a policy on reform and re-invest in its citizens future capabilities. Adolino & Blake explain, “Social policy broadly defined is the largest single category of government spending in an industrialized country,” (pp. 319). Thus if these two countries are financially spending significant budget capital within education and reducing poverty it would incline us to at least investigate the merit that this spending is producing? It seems that the allocation of resources is not fully realizing a positive result within the population, because the poverty level is too high, and if it’s not the cause poor education, the n it needs to be derived to what is causing these high poverty rates.
References:
Adolino, Jessica R. & Blake, Charles H. (2010). Comparing Public Policies: Issues and Choices in Industrialized Countries. Washington D.C.: CQ Press
Central Intelligence Angency: The World Factbook (2010). Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Week 4 Assignment 3
The first thought that comes to mind for some reason when considering multi-member districts and proportional voting is the European Union. If you dig deep enough the European Union operates in this fashion to some degree. Not in the sense that there is representative voting for all interested parties, but that there is representation to a great degree for participating members and that policy formulation rests upon total cooperation on trade and economic affairs, common foreign and security policy, and justice on domestic affairs (Adolino & Blake pp. 95). This criterion is a managed form and direct authoritative way of functioning as multi-member districts, in my opinion. Within the context of creating multi-member districts in the United States I can see the decrease in power the States to self-govern because they would be forced to participate upon a national agenda of issues, between a larger section of representatives and policy designs.
To answer this topic more directly I would have to argue along the lines of polarization. According to Adolino & Blake, “ Countries with multi-party systems have a greater tendency toward government instability because of the difficulties associate with either forming or maintaining a governing coalition,” (pp. 54). Too many opinions and decentralized power can corrupt the system, so even though inclusion is created it has its fault in causing chaotic order, and or fractionalizing order. This also adds fuel to incremental change because now more options and policy decisions must be considered. Single member districts, according to Adolino & Blake, “ …are often valued for the strong legislative majorities they produce, resulting in a politically stable legislature, and for the clear and direct ties they create between elected representatives and their constituents,” (pp. 59). Although multi-member districts create a type of equity and representation among the officials selected, to me it will eventually not matter because someone will shift the power through strong decision making and policy implementation. Or as Adolino & Blake suggest no one will be the clear advocate or leader, causing confusion among the constituency (pp. 61).
In my opinion I would argue that would lead to even a much slower process of policy development. As inclusion is manifest more time will be assigned to create representative results. I prefer strong leadership by the elected majority because it creates results and within a less time consuming time frame. There must be another alternative to crate inclusion and increase voting representation, in order to support more causes and policies, under which strong leaders can move outcomes along a resolute framework.
Adolino, Jessica R. & Blake, Charles H. (2010). Comparing Public Policies: Issues and Choices in Industrialized Countries. Washington D.C.: CQ Press
To answer this topic more directly I would have to argue along the lines of polarization. According to Adolino & Blake, “ Countries with multi-party systems have a greater tendency toward government instability because of the difficulties associate with either forming or maintaining a governing coalition,” (pp. 54). Too many opinions and decentralized power can corrupt the system, so even though inclusion is created it has its fault in causing chaotic order, and or fractionalizing order. This also adds fuel to incremental change because now more options and policy decisions must be considered. Single member districts, according to Adolino & Blake, “ …are often valued for the strong legislative majorities they produce, resulting in a politically stable legislature, and for the clear and direct ties they create between elected representatives and their constituents,” (pp. 59). Although multi-member districts create a type of equity and representation among the officials selected, to me it will eventually not matter because someone will shift the power through strong decision making and policy implementation. Or as Adolino & Blake suggest no one will be the clear advocate or leader, causing confusion among the constituency (pp. 61).
In my opinion I would argue that would lead to even a much slower process of policy development. As inclusion is manifest more time will be assigned to create representative results. I prefer strong leadership by the elected majority because it creates results and within a less time consuming time frame. There must be another alternative to crate inclusion and increase voting representation, in order to support more causes and policies, under which strong leaders can move outcomes along a resolute framework.
Adolino, Jessica R. & Blake, Charles H. (2010). Comparing Public Policies: Issues and Choices in Industrialized Countries. Washington D.C.: CQ Press
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Week 5 assignment 4-Fiscal policy
Within the walls of each country’s political domain there is a mechanism that drives the policy framework, money. The fiscal policy of individual governments helps ensure the policy decisions that are being made. Adolino & Blake state, “Fiscal policy is perhaps the most fundamental macroeconomic policy pursued by governments,” (Adolino & Blake, 2010, pp. 159). Let us focus upon the United States, historically, and within the context of the past decade between 2000-2010. According to Adolino & Blake, “…the United States has a decidedly pluralist fiscal policy process,” (pp. 169). Adolino & Blake continue their analysis by developing the idea that United States fiscal policy not only rests upon Constitutional doctrines, but upon executive-legislative relations (pp. 169). The governmental structure in the United States becomes the machine within which policy formulation and fiscal decisions are developed and produced (pp. 169). Our neighbor to the south, Mexico, is entering its bicentennial anniversary this month and is capitalizing on growth within its fiscal sectors, but amid a revolving crisis of crime at war type levels. According to Angel Gurria, in Supporting Fiscal Policy in Mexico for a Strong and Sustainable Recovery, online at Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development , Mexico is following trends that will strengthen its fiscal structures, “Our analysis starts by acknowledging the undeniable progress Mexico has made in terms of expenditure formulation, approval and execution, in line with international practices. Important legislation has been passed since 2006, particularly in the federal budget and fiscal responsibility law (LFPRH) (leading to the balanced budget rule and the 2007 Tax Reform, which focused on ways of strengthening fiscal responsibility and transparency, and, lastly, the 2008 General Fiscal Accounting Law),” (Gurria, 2010). Furthermore, Gurria explains that the fiscal policies of the past have not been successful and amid further crisis new reforms need to be enacted (Gurria, 2010). Finally Gurria states, “This time, in the context of a fragile economic recovery, we hope that all political players are now convinced of the need to provide the Mexican State with sufficient resources to grow and overcome its social deficits,” (Gurria, 2010).
In order to review the fiscal policy of these two countries we must analyze a current similarity and the attention to fiscal policy this issue has received and how much impact it has upon the socioeconomic agenda within the countries. “The inauguration of George W. Bush in January 2001 placed tax cuts firmly on the institutional agenda while fiscal conservatism took a back seat…,” (pp. 171). The bush administration planned to cut taxes and invest in defense, the economic outlooks of the early 2000’s helped to increase spending cutting into the surplus that was in place; now a deficit was evident (pp. 171). More importantly as the war in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to date, there is an impact that has been evident created by the executive-legislative decision making-process in the United States. Adolino & Blake state, “Preliminary estimates for 2008 said that the deficit would exceed 5 percent of the GDP as the country entered a recession,” (pp. 173). With the new administration of Barack Obama and the continual economic problems facing the United States we see how executive-legislative decisions impact the fiscal climate, “Barack Obama’s transition team discussed proposals for an additional spending package designed to reactivate the economy and avoid further financial panic,” (pp. 173). Adolino & Blake further demonstrate how fiscal policy is affected through the relationship between executive order and the legislative process (pp. 173). So where does Mexico compare to the United States? Well, the similarities always exist because, although Mexico and the United States are sovereign states and create solidarity within their governmental structures, the unique framework of the open-market system always joins them and links the countries by a bond to create commonalities, and feasible structures of interdependent relationships; within fiscal policy they mirror each other in execution and investment. Currently, the Mexican crisis lies within the crime and drug wars being played out all across the country, not war per say, but a heavy battle within its own infrastructure, that requires very careful fiscal and social policy attention. As found in the New York Times article, by Enrique Krauze, In Mexico, A War Every Century,
"Today, a handful of powerful criminal groups has unleashed a blood-soaked and utterly illegitimate wave of violence against the Mexican government and Mexican society. This “war,” which rages in too many cities and states of my country, has created a truly Hobbesian situation of human brutality," (Krauze, 2010).
As outlined in article there is a new frontier that faces Mexican diplomacy and fiscal management, that which the country must create economic reforms that instill growth, openness, and design efficient outcomes. Krauze states, “This war, though, will have to be won — and economic growth will have to be revivified — within the rules of democracy,” (Krauze, 2010).
Both countries have futures that will need to captivate new policy designs that address the wars they battle, while actively and efficiently creating a fiscal model that drives governmental relationships and commitments to its constituencies.
Adolino, Jessica R. & Blake, Charles H. (2010). Comparing Public Policies: Issues and Choices in Industrialized Countries. Washington D.C.: CQ Press
Gurria, Angel (January 7, 2010). Supporting Fiscal Policy in Mexico for a Strong and Sustainable Recovery. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/document/1/0,3343,en_2649_37405_44362433_1_1_1_1,00.html
Krauze, Enrique (September 14, 2010). In Mexico, a War Every Century. New York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/opinion/15krauze.html?_r=1&hp
In order to review the fiscal policy of these two countries we must analyze a current similarity and the attention to fiscal policy this issue has received and how much impact it has upon the socioeconomic agenda within the countries. “The inauguration of George W. Bush in January 2001 placed tax cuts firmly on the institutional agenda while fiscal conservatism took a back seat…,” (pp. 171). The bush administration planned to cut taxes and invest in defense, the economic outlooks of the early 2000’s helped to increase spending cutting into the surplus that was in place; now a deficit was evident (pp. 171). More importantly as the war in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to date, there is an impact that has been evident created by the executive-legislative decision making-process in the United States. Adolino & Blake state, “Preliminary estimates for 2008 said that the deficit would exceed 5 percent of the GDP as the country entered a recession,” (pp. 173). With the new administration of Barack Obama and the continual economic problems facing the United States we see how executive-legislative decisions impact the fiscal climate, “Barack Obama’s transition team discussed proposals for an additional spending package designed to reactivate the economy and avoid further financial panic,” (pp. 173). Adolino & Blake further demonstrate how fiscal policy is affected through the relationship between executive order and the legislative process (pp. 173). So where does Mexico compare to the United States? Well, the similarities always exist because, although Mexico and the United States are sovereign states and create solidarity within their governmental structures, the unique framework of the open-market system always joins them and links the countries by a bond to create commonalities, and feasible structures of interdependent relationships; within fiscal policy they mirror each other in execution and investment. Currently, the Mexican crisis lies within the crime and drug wars being played out all across the country, not war per say, but a heavy battle within its own infrastructure, that requires very careful fiscal and social policy attention. As found in the New York Times article, by Enrique Krauze, In Mexico, A War Every Century,
"Today, a handful of powerful criminal groups has unleashed a blood-soaked and utterly illegitimate wave of violence against the Mexican government and Mexican society. This “war,” which rages in too many cities and states of my country, has created a truly Hobbesian situation of human brutality," (Krauze, 2010).
As outlined in article there is a new frontier that faces Mexican diplomacy and fiscal management, that which the country must create economic reforms that instill growth, openness, and design efficient outcomes. Krauze states, “This war, though, will have to be won — and economic growth will have to be revivified — within the rules of democracy,” (Krauze, 2010).
Both countries have futures that will need to captivate new policy designs that address the wars they battle, while actively and efficiently creating a fiscal model that drives governmental relationships and commitments to its constituencies.
Adolino, Jessica R. & Blake, Charles H. (2010). Comparing Public Policies: Issues and Choices in Industrialized Countries. Washington D.C.: CQ Press
Gurria, Angel (January 7, 2010). Supporting Fiscal Policy in Mexico for a Strong and Sustainable Recovery. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/document/1/0,3343,en_2649_37405_44362433_1_1_1_1,00.html
Krauze, Enrique (September 14, 2010). In Mexico, a War Every Century. New York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/opinion/15krauze.html?_r=1&hp
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
assignment 2 week 3
Assignment two asks us to compare two countries through a policy lens of preference. Of particular interest from the reading was the range in spending and government involvement with environmental impact. The two countries for comparison are Germany and the United States.
According to Adolino and Blake Germany and the United States both have a marginally high percentage, 94%, favoring government responsibility for environmental impact (Adolino & Blake, 2010, pp. 33). This percentage of attitude towards government responsibility is similar to other countries in the world, with the average topping 90%, which calculates to an average of 94% (pp. 33). What is striking is that both countries seem to have a general public that favors government involvement on protecting the environment and the percentage rests on par with other countries, yet both rank the lowest when it comes to spending on the environment. Germany is relatively low in attitude towards increasing spending at 38%, the lowest of the countries sampled (pp. 34). The United States came in a moderate 54% in the same category, but still ranked second lowest for the sampled countries (pp. 34). This may cause some eye brow raising because it clearly contrasts the previous study in which government responsibility was a favorable agenda to seek for environmental protection policy and action. What really stands out is when the figures for increased spending and some spending are combined. Germany has a relatively higher score at 52%, which takes their attitude toward spending on environmental protection up to 90%; which is comparable to the other countries sampled (pp.34). The U.S. ranks lowest and below the countries sampled, in particular when compared to Germany it only has a combined percentage of 87% (pp. 34). The United States also has the highest percentage for decreasing spending for environmental protection at 13 percent (pp. 34).
So what can we interpret from this data? According to Adolino and Blake, “A recession breeds a decline in government revenues that forces governments to borrow money if they want to maintain or increase spending,” (pp. 35). What would seem of interest is to specifically define what areas of environmental protection are being considered for government responsibility and, or spending. This would also be of particular interest with current financial conditions, both in Germany and the United States and determine whether recessions are causing any effects to the attitudes toward responsibility and, or spending. According to the Environmental News Service, in the article, Obama's 2011 Budget Trims Environment, Fattens Energy Spending, “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency budget request for Fiscal Year 2011 is $10 billion, an overall budget reduction for the agency of $278 million,” (Ens-newswire.com, 2010). Although it shows a decrease in spending for an agency that services environmental protection, the news service also reports, “Three of the federal agencies that handle environmental issues had their budgets cut - the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - while the Department of Energy budget was increased by $1.8 billion,” (Ens-newswire.com, 2010). So here we can see the trend represented by the data in the tables from Adolino and Blake. The United States favors government involvement in environmental protection, spends some money, and has increased spending in some areas, but also decreased spending in some. This approach would seem to favor a strong economical approach and emphasize the individual’s role. The approaches by both countries fall in-line with their cultural approaches and family of policy trends. Germany, according to Adolino and Blake, “…a deeply rooted federalist approach to political organization that serves as check on government expansion,” (Adolino & Blake, 2010, pp. 32). As per the data Germany supports this ideology because it supports involvement by the government in environmental impact, but not necessarily increase spending, just spend some. The United States also fits it family of cultural policy because it they seem to emphasize government contraction, thus the attitude to decrease spending for government spending on the environment (pp. 32).
Bottom line in this comparative policy analysis would be that both countries emphasize their policy approach to environmental protection by means of economic factors. This is mostly characterized in Adolino and Blake’s statement, “the economic resources available to a country shape the expectations of citizens and policymakers, alike,” (pp. 34) Evidently according to the tables in chapter 2 there are varying issues that take importance to the country and each issue varies in support, within responsibility and spending, thus it must be analyzed economically because the financial resources a country produces and utilizes have exhausting points, and thus create levels or priority, as evidence by the responses to each issue by each country. In relevance to environmental protection Germany and the U.S, are not greatly different, just have economical factors that create unique scenarios and policy actions to uptake to resolve particular environmental issues. It seems it usually leads back to finances, no matter how remote from it, it may seem.
Adolino, Jessica R. & Blake, Charles H. (2010). Comparing Public Policies: Issues and Choices in Industrialized Countries. Washington D.C.: CQ Press
Ens-newswire.com (2010, February 1) Obama's 2011 Budget Trims Environment, Fattens Energy Spending. Retrieved from: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2010/2010-02-01-02.html
According to Adolino and Blake Germany and the United States both have a marginally high percentage, 94%, favoring government responsibility for environmental impact (Adolino & Blake, 2010, pp. 33). This percentage of attitude towards government responsibility is similar to other countries in the world, with the average topping 90%, which calculates to an average of 94% (pp. 33). What is striking is that both countries seem to have a general public that favors government involvement on protecting the environment and the percentage rests on par with other countries, yet both rank the lowest when it comes to spending on the environment. Germany is relatively low in attitude towards increasing spending at 38%, the lowest of the countries sampled (pp. 34). The United States came in a moderate 54% in the same category, but still ranked second lowest for the sampled countries (pp. 34). This may cause some eye brow raising because it clearly contrasts the previous study in which government responsibility was a favorable agenda to seek for environmental protection policy and action. What really stands out is when the figures for increased spending and some spending are combined. Germany has a relatively higher score at 52%, which takes their attitude toward spending on environmental protection up to 90%; which is comparable to the other countries sampled (pp.34). The U.S. ranks lowest and below the countries sampled, in particular when compared to Germany it only has a combined percentage of 87% (pp. 34). The United States also has the highest percentage for decreasing spending for environmental protection at 13 percent (pp. 34).
So what can we interpret from this data? According to Adolino and Blake, “A recession breeds a decline in government revenues that forces governments to borrow money if they want to maintain or increase spending,” (pp. 35). What would seem of interest is to specifically define what areas of environmental protection are being considered for government responsibility and, or spending. This would also be of particular interest with current financial conditions, both in Germany and the United States and determine whether recessions are causing any effects to the attitudes toward responsibility and, or spending. According to the Environmental News Service, in the article, Obama's 2011 Budget Trims Environment, Fattens Energy Spending, “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency budget request for Fiscal Year 2011 is $10 billion, an overall budget reduction for the agency of $278 million,” (Ens-newswire.com, 2010). Although it shows a decrease in spending for an agency that services environmental protection, the news service also reports, “Three of the federal agencies that handle environmental issues had their budgets cut - the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - while the Department of Energy budget was increased by $1.8 billion,” (Ens-newswire.com, 2010). So here we can see the trend represented by the data in the tables from Adolino and Blake. The United States favors government involvement in environmental protection, spends some money, and has increased spending in some areas, but also decreased spending in some. This approach would seem to favor a strong economical approach and emphasize the individual’s role. The approaches by both countries fall in-line with their cultural approaches and family of policy trends. Germany, according to Adolino and Blake, “…a deeply rooted federalist approach to political organization that serves as check on government expansion,” (Adolino & Blake, 2010, pp. 32). As per the data Germany supports this ideology because it supports involvement by the government in environmental impact, but not necessarily increase spending, just spend some. The United States also fits it family of cultural policy because it they seem to emphasize government contraction, thus the attitude to decrease spending for government spending on the environment (pp. 32).
Bottom line in this comparative policy analysis would be that both countries emphasize their policy approach to environmental protection by means of economic factors. This is mostly characterized in Adolino and Blake’s statement, “the economic resources available to a country shape the expectations of citizens and policymakers, alike,” (pp. 34) Evidently according to the tables in chapter 2 there are varying issues that take importance to the country and each issue varies in support, within responsibility and spending, thus it must be analyzed economically because the financial resources a country produces and utilizes have exhausting points, and thus create levels or priority, as evidence by the responses to each issue by each country. In relevance to environmental protection Germany and the U.S, are not greatly different, just have economical factors that create unique scenarios and policy actions to uptake to resolve particular environmental issues. It seems it usually leads back to finances, no matter how remote from it, it may seem.
Adolino, Jessica R. & Blake, Charles H. (2010). Comparing Public Policies: Issues and Choices in Industrialized Countries. Washington D.C.: CQ Press
Ens-newswire.com (2010, February 1) Obama's 2011 Budget Trims Environment, Fattens Energy Spending. Retrieved from: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2010/2010-02-01-02.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)