According to Elizabeth Popp Berman, sociologist at the University of Michigan, leaders in both political parties tend to view proposed policies through an economics framework, such as measuring a policy's return on investment as though it's a profit driven company's program.
Popp Berman explained that the entire apparatus surrounding the crafting and passing of policy into law measures prospective policy against basic concepts.
Efficiency is a core principle in most Econ 101 classes but not all government programs should be efficient.
Nixon appealed to Congress to create the Environmental Protection Agency. Nixon spoke plainly about environmental conservativism as a moral issue and a profound commitment to the rescue of our natural environment.
It was clear at the time that environmental regulation was needed to protect the public good. Environmental legislation is discussed by leaders from the right and left in regards to the economy. A package of laws that a leader of Nixon's era would likely have discussed primarily as a matter of saving the world from disaster has become an economic dispute.
Economics became the main metric to measure proposed legislation because public policy schools were created to do this. She said that they didn't exist until the 1960's. Cost effectiveness is a concrete measurement as a result of the birth of these graduate programs. She said that public policy schools tend to compare the cost-effectiveness of different public policy programs with the most efficient, affordable programs winning out.
"It's a way of thinking that feels very natural to us now," Popp Berman said.
Legislation can't do what the economic lens says it can. "If you argue that efficiency should be your central goal of policy making, you're not going to argue for policies that are universal," said Popp Berman.
Popp Berman wrote her book because she saw public policy become less effective over the course of her life, and she believes that there are morally compelling reasons to try to achieve things with government. Huge, ambitious programs and policies enacted in the early-to-mid 20th century are still around today.
Democrats passed Medicare in 1965, and the policy still enjoys broad bipartisan support because it's a universal program for everyone over the age of 65. The economic lens favors policies that involve cost sharing or means testing to discourage the use of medical care.
Some Democrats are arguing for means-testing debt forgiveness so it's not universal, while others are calling for more cost-effective educational student savings accounts. By the time a solution emerges from the morass of economic debate, it is so watered-down that it doesn't appeal to anyone.
America's huge military budget reminds us that we don't put every policy option through rigorous efficiency testing. Popp Berman said that leaders don't have to immediately step back when someone says, "Okay, but is it cost-effective?"
Popp Berman says it's okay to spend a lot of money if your policy improves the lives of a lot of Americans. Improving the lives of millions of Americans creates positive economic benefits that can't be measured by strict, immediate economic analysis provided by seemingly "impartial" organizations like the Congressional Budget Office.
In the long run, bold policies that benefit the majority of Americans create a stronger economy and are always more efficient than a small policy.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
