Information as a source of power – analysis and democracy Information is not equally available to all policy protagonists:

Decision-makers often have greater access to information, can afford to acquire it, can better influence its application than the publics affected by it – an “asymmetry” of information-power.

Principal-agent theory – contends that while decision-makers (principals) have more information, the public and policy activists (agents) often have better ideas about the actual problem and how to solve it (but lack information to make their plans credible– e.g., parents and school systems, community activists and public health/nutrition).

Information used for policy decisions is often incomprehensible to lay audiences: Information must be “translated” to decision-makers as well as the public (e.g., climate

forecast data, epidemiological models, learning outcome scores in public schools).

In some policy areas, there are established means of translation – but not in all! (e.g., Cooperative Extension Services for agriculture and resource management: land-grant universities provide networks of stakeholder interactions with farmers, county officials.

Some information important to public policy is restricted: Availability can improve citizens’ ability to make choices to improve health and well-

being, reduce risks to their lives and property, and hold institutions accountable (e.g., EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory on criteria pollutants; nutritional labeling of foods and food products, better dissemination about pharmaceutical products.

Some information is shielded from the public and policy-makers due to proprietary concerns or national security/homeland security concerns.

Disclosure is a policy remedy that aims to “establish levels of acceptable risk by means of public pressure” (Brookings Institution, 2003).

Many public policies have been designed to disclose and “make more affordable” important policy information: e.g., the Pure Food and Drug Act, Securities and Exchange Commission, many environmental laws).

Problems continue to arise that enter policy debates in Congress and the courts, e.g., lack of standardized means of disclosure; how protect proprietary and national security information?

Analysis and democracy (con.)

Public policies aim to solve problems, generally, through three broad approaches:

Providing benefits to people via the state – we call these distributive or distributional policies. Re-allocating benefits to make-up for some inequity or suffering – we call these re-distributive. Controlling or regulating behavior to alleviate a societal problem – we call these regulatory policies.

Distributive policies provide benefits to large segments of society; e.g., health care, employment income, post-retirement pensions, education opportunities, public works, even access to citizenship itself or to benefits of immigrant labor (e.g., Guiraudon, 2004).

Re-distributive policies provide benefits to defined disadvantaged groups – e.g., those with disabilities or special needs (in recent years – distributive and re-distributive policies have often become indistinguishable due to how one defines equity/disadvantage).

Regulatory policies impose controls on societal activities that cause, or have potential to cause harm to the environment, human health, welfare, or on the conduct of markets.

Policy processes as distributional

Workers and students march through Paris, France (October 2010) during a “day of action against pension reform" announced by President Nicolas Sarkozy – would raise retirement age from 60 to 62.

In principle, some outcomes that are desirable to society as-a-whole require some government intervention in order to:

Equalize, or provide stability/security to individuals, groups, and geographic regions. Correct for imperfections in markets caused by fluctuations in income, station in life,

investment risks, or even climate.

Methods of distribution vary but generally characterized by:

Direct provision of some benefit by mandating a level of minimal support (e.g., social security, health care).

Providing some monetized benefit – called a “subsidy” – to certain groups and regions (e.g., regional development authorities, tax credits for energy exploration, agricultural price supports, water deliveries at “cost” or for free, timber harvesting rights, exclusive licenses to provide a service).

Why distributive policies are important

Some polities have thick layers of policy (extensive state coverage), while others are thin (rely on private sector).

SIGNIFICANCE? Thick systems = more centralized control, unified/consensual decision-making, greater responsibility for distribution. Thin = de-centralized, fragmented, less moral responsibility for benefits (Dubnick, 2003).

Factors by which “thickness” / “thin-ness” may be compared -

Role of political institutions – i.e., federalism, parliamentary vs. presidential systems. Role of decision-making processes – i.e., sub-government interactions. Role of specific policy drivers – i.e., available information, demographic change, economic or

other events that influence agendas.

Comparing distributive policies among polities

To compare policies, it is relevant to compare how similar types of countries (e.g., highly-developed democratic polities) carry out four sets of illustrative policies:

Financing of health care in democratic polities – ensuring access to medical care.

In most OECD countries – W. Europe, Australia, New Zealand, N. America) most of the adult population is covered by some kind of health care provision system.

Responsibility for decisions most often centralized – true in single- payer systems (e.g., UK, Canada) and multi-payer ones (e.g., Germany ; state limits out-of-pocket costs ).

Private sector has a role in almost all systems, however, only in US does private sector determine access rights to health care.

US programs covered < half of population; cost controls on benefit provision negligible.

What can we learn from comparing distributive policies?

Question: "In the city or area where you live, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the availability of quality health care?"

* Notes: 2007 data for the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece and Poland. 2006 data for the Slovak Republic and Switzerland.

Source: Gallup World Poll. OECD statistics contact: stat.contact@oecd.org.

1. Health expenditures as a % of total GDP is higher in “thinner” systems (e.g., U.S., France, Germany).

2. Health expenditure as share of GDP NOT closely tied to level of development. Why?

Public share of health expenditure, OECD countries, 2005. By percentage of total health expenditures.http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/52/33/38976604.pdf - Source for chart below.

In “thick” systems, expenditures for distributive health benefits are largely a public (governmental) obligation, and a large % of health spending in government budgets.

Problem? How to provide stable, secure income to an aging population when: Numbers of retirees are growing; pressures to retire earlier are rising. Strategic interests with influence in sub-governments (e.g., unions and political parties)

demand rising or at least stable benefits). Demographic changes are constraining choices (i.e., aging working population/people

living longer; fewer young people entering workforce – questions of “inter-generational equity are arising).

U.S. has been relatively more fortunate in this regard than say, Europe.

Most polities have raised payroll taxes among those most able to afford it.

Gradual moving away from universal state- obligation to support retirement; greater emphasis on private retirement accounts; more “means-tested” needs based benefits; and raising retirement age.

Public pensions – ensuring post-retirement income

Britain discloses plan to overhaul welfare system

Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne's plan to cut half a million jobs and slice welfare benefits was met with demonstrations across London. By Anthony FiolaWashington Post Foreign Service Thursday, November 11, 2010

LONDON - The new Conservative-led government Thursday unveiled the biggest overhaul to Britain’s welfare system since World War II, moving to reduce and consolidate assistance programs and weed out benefit cheats as part of its broader effort to dramatically slash government spending.

The move marks another step in the coalition's ambitious campaign to slash the whopping budget deficit, cutting $128 billion in spending over the next four years while chipping away at what it sees as bloated government payrolls and an overly paternal state system. It comes at a time when the British government is leading an effort across Europe to rein in runaway deficits, with nations from Spain to Greece to France rolling back time-honored government benefits in the name of fiscal austerity.

In fact, the overhaul here, analysts said, is set to be so transformative that it will bring unemployment and welfare benefits in Britain closer in line to those in the United States, moving it further away from the traditionally more generous state benefit programs of continental Europe.

Problem? How to ensure that people derive income from labor that contributes to societal productivity as opposed to income transfers that provide benefits without generating societal gains. Issues: One goal is keeping people in the workforce rather than retiring early (synergy with

pension reform). Second goal is increasing part-time, temporary employment and keeping people in

labor force. Explicit distinction between “thick” and “thin” policies:

Thick = creating new markets for employment, ensuring reasonable remuneration, using tax policies to compel change, attaching explicit educational & training programs, an d having a national wage policy).

Thin = adjusting retirement benefits, deterring early retirement, remove barriers to temporary and part-time work – but not making major interventions in economic policy.

Thick policies adopted in Scandinavia, U.K., low countries; thin = U.S. , France

Major factors in adopting thick policies = combination of demographic pressures; strong left-leaning unions; strong center-left political parties .

Labor force expansion – moving from welfare to work

Problem? How to allow reasonable entry and exit to support diverse labor markets while deciding how to confer benefits of citizenship. Issues:

Different countries have historically defined the benefits and costs of immigration differently – and this calculation changes as economies change.

At different times and places – immigration debates become re-distributive and regulatory: Second language programs? Job and skill-building? Placing “quotas” on race, faith, nationality.

Key issues – cultural assimilation vs. cultural negotiation; regionalization of immigration policy in Europe; growing fragmentation in U.S.

Immigration – entry rights & conferring citizenship benefits