The Limits of Public Policy

| Intro Home | Dismal Science | Cycle |

Public confidence has eroded since the administration of President John F. Kennedy, who was assasinated in November, 1963. The ultimately unpopular and intensely divisive Viet Nam War was prosecuted by Presidents Lyndon Johnson, a liberal Democrat, and by Richard Nixon, a conservative Republican. The Watergate scandal soon followed, droving President Richard Nixon from office in disgrace. All this rapidly diminished popular confidence in government exhibited by the attentuated Kennedy presidency.

Since the late 1970's, starting during the Carter administration and intensifying later with the Reagan and Bush administrations, expectations about the role of government in society have declined considerably and sensitivity to increasing taxes has heightened. The scandals and impeachment trial of the Clinton administration increased exasperation, even though President Clinton continued to display a high approval rating. An example of a casualty of this plunge in public confidence, intensifying factious controversy, and mass distraction has been the failed health coverage initiative of the Clinton presidency. A national energy policy never got off the ground. Then 9/11 and Katrina shook confidence even more profoundly.

Public policy has rightly been presented as paralyzed and unable to cope with the demands, complexities, and challenges of a globalized era. Mass confusion and controversy over how to cope with epic recession and financial implosion of 2008-2009 deepen.

Although public policy can certainly be improved and public trust can be enhanced, we should not expect too much or become too exuberant over the prospects of public policy --- attitudes commonly attributed to pro-big-government liberals. Consider these inherent limits to the effectiveness of public policy and to its productive analysis:

1. Limits to the capabilities of government: All manner of reform may not achieve a consensus around solving such intractable problems as poverty and lack of educational achievement, as how to guard against all conceivable terrorist tactics, or as how to prevent a meteor from smashing into earth. Physical, social, and economic forces may simply exceed the capacity of our government to adequately address some kind of problems. Such intractable difficulties have been called wicked problems -- as opposed to ill-defined problems. A popular aphorism on wisdom advises that we carefully judge that which we can change from that which we cannot.

2. Financial limits to the support of public policy: Since the late 1970's, widespread attention and alarm at growing government spending and accompanying deficits have dampened enthusiasm for new, broad, expensive policy initiatives -- the Starve the Beast conservative stragegy. The clumsy and ineffective (Hillary) Clinton forays into national health policy suffered from a backlash against government growth and the intrusion of a new, expensive federal bureaucracy. It is a mistake to consider this response as simply the rise of a conservative political awareness, for the response is across the board, persistent, and widely shared.

3. Funding scarcity for policy research: Much of policy is determined and implemented on the fly with little research of analysis brought to bear. Typically, public hearings are conducted, by which experts are invited to testify on aspects of the problem being addressed. Interest groups, which often control the information and the experience, may provide a biased presentation. While government staff in legislatures and administrative agencies has grown, they are not immune to bias nor have all the answers. In addition to the expense of policy research, such activities may take a long time while there is pressure to act in a hurry. Another difficulty in policy research is the Hawthorn effect: merely studying human behavior often changes that behavior. Our ability to conduct policy research is often limited to opportunities to conduct inferential research. Rare is a laboratory for, say, economic policy. The clash of opinion (not science) over policy responses to global warming provides an example.

4. Clashing values: American society, in particular, is highly diverse and contentious. We are proud of our tradition of tolerance of religion, speech, and culture. Yet, these are the bases of many of our disagreements over values, and values are inherent in public policy making. What are the goals of primary education? Improved test scores? Better citizenship --- whatever that might mean? Policy research cannot by itself clarify or resolve value conflicts.

5. Limits to our knowledge: Social science research has much to do before policy makers can be confident in the stock of knowledge which is available to guide sound policy decisions, or even assess the alternatives available. The rate of social change seems to be accelerating, overwhelming general rules of thumb and unexamined off-hand beliefs about our complex world. And even with an information explosion, the sheer ability to analyze and predict the likely and unintended effects of policy prescriptions remains inadequate. And prudence suggests sitting pat and not doing anything.

These are just some of the limits to policy initiatives. Can you think of others?