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