Design Public Policy - Coursework Example

Framing Effects on Public Policy Introduction Framing a public policy requires the pooling of facts, identification of potential bottlenecks and the development of possible alternatives. Identifying these alternative solutions also requires an analysis of associated pros and cons. Framing a public policy also provides a firm basis that can be used for further deliberations and assessment. MacKuen (2003) states that framing helps develop actionable policies and not simple solutions for a given issue or situation. Thus, framing helps in shaping policies through the public lens and does not rely on the opinions of politicians, academics or journalists. The manner in which governments understand and make decisions affecting the socioeconomic and political situation of the people has undergone a fundamental change since the past few decades. Rather than perceiving people as maximizers of public utilities, experts like McDermott (2001) and Zahariadis (2003) have turned their attention towards understanding the effects and distortions that result from policy and decision making. These distortions and biases that affect public policy making are collectively known as ‘framing effects’. Effects of Framing A bias or effect from framing normally results when two statements are logically equivalent (but not similar) but lead two policy makers towards making different decisions (Callaghan, 2005). For instance, the people of a nation tend to support a reduction in tax cuts but oppose a reduction of healthcare benefits to fill in the deficit. Similarly, People support economic policies that promise to increase the employment rate to 95%, but do not support one that results in 5% unemployment. Framing however does not influence people to develop preferences and make decisions based on the expected utility theory. The expected utility theory is an important theory under social sciences and has normative origins. The description invariance property of the expected utility theory does not hold under framing which means the preferences tend to shift as a result of unpredictable changes in the contents of identical alternatives. In fact, these effects from framing have prompted many researchers like Somit (2003) to call for an abandonment of the rational choice model. These trends have further initiated the rise of new alternatives to rational choice analysis by accommodating several effects and biases that can affect policy making. From a normative perspective, effects of framing have raised several important questions on the role of citizens in the formulation of public policy. For example, Dallas (2005) says that if the opinions and voices of people project only arbitrary deviations in frames, then policy makers should not expend efforts towards sentiments that are identified through elections and referenda. For instance, if people support a government policy when it is projected as a benefit (like an increase in government spending or subsidies) but oppose it when the policy is projected as requiring a reduction of benefits (like increasing the bank lending rates or increasing taxes to support spending), such public opinion is of no help in developing public policies. In fact, Bryant (2007) says that the effects of framing public policies can even lead to significant doubts over the concept of democracy and freedom itself. He argues that political leaders and policy makers find it difficult to frame policies that support the interests of the public when the empirical feedback seems vulnerable to the effects from framing. A good example in this context is the introduction of new environmental taxes in Scandinavian countries where additional parking fees are levied on vehicles within city limits. According to Callaghan (2005), polls conducted to evaluate the willingness of people to pay these taxes have yielded mixed results. Critics like him therefore believe that distortions and biases resulting from framing have rendered the opinions of citizens unreliable and inconsistent. Framing can also be classified in terms of resulting effects. One such variant that can be attributed to public policy is the ‘Goal Framing’ type in which the pattern of some behaviour determines the type of outcome (either positive or negative). An example of this type is a government policy to assist banks during financial crises (such as the assistance extended by the United States Government to several American Banks through stimulus packages) on a temporary basis. The ‘Attribute’ type of framing effect results when a given policy is framed in a particular manner (projected as either positive or negative). Thus, the attribute type differs from the goal type of framing as the former focuses on policy formulation whereas the latter concentrates on the final outcome of the policy. One can cite the previous example of a government policy aimed at improving the employment rate. Such a policy can either be framed as ‘aimed at increasing employment to 95%’ or ‘leading to a maximum unemployment rate of 5%’. While any action based on either formulation represents the same objective, people react differently to these two versions of the same policy as they contain different semantic cues. Thus, one of them can prove more effective than the other in invoking the support of the public during the implementation of the policy. An Example A real world example of the effects of framing can be cited using the issue of climate change. Ney (2009) has studied the history of research in climate change and the contemporary issues surrounding the framing of policies related to this domain. He stresses that scientists often find policy windows when political, policy and scientific reasons provide them an opportunity to influence the policy making process, thereby aiding them in institutionalizing any funding resources (Nordhaus, 2008). The present framing of the issue of climate change is one such case. According to Rahm (2010), physical scientists, who were predominantly responsible for shaping the foundation behind climate change, focused very little on social science although studies showed that the actions of human beings could change the atmosphere in a significant manner (for example, the 1896 theory on human action on environment by Arrhenius). However, studies on sociological factors surrounding greenhouse gas emissions have established them as critical factors in policy framing on climate issues. Had these factors been included as part of the research agenda, policies affecting the phenomenon of climate change could have focused more on the social components influencing emissions and their effect on populations. Both these factors are now recognized as extremely important in order to overcome the effects of climate change. The Kyoto Protocol is often regarded as a major framing of the policy issues concerning climate change, and is based on findings from the IPCC’s (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 2nd assessment report (Peeters, 2006). Amongst its constituent sections, the synthesis and summaries meant for policy makers were particularly important in the framing of the issue. In the report, scientists characterize climate change as a global problem which is mostly associated with their disciplinary focus towards global issues (Peeters, 2006). Such framing weakens the contributions that individuals and local stakeholders can make in fighting climate change. Moser (2007) states that framing also influences the choice of tools or techniques that can be used as part of a policy framework in tackling climate change. One such example is the formulation of regulations that integrate energy efficiency and emission reduction into all aspects of business processes like investments, transportation etc. He further elaborates that framing a relevant policy requires the communication of suitable estimators (like the Global Warming Potential, GWP) to companies so that they can measure their environmental performance on a common scale. Such measures also allow them to set targets for emission cuts in the future. Kellow (2007) believes that climate change may reduce the production capacities of power plants in the coming years. He believes that a policy framed to address this issue and motivate consumers to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels may be well received. However, the imposition of a carbon tax or VAT (Value Added Tax) on any item produced through fossil fuels is likely to be met with opposition from the public. Thus, he recommends that government policy should not be framed with the intention to burden consumers, but must instead be directed at rewarding and encouraging (through tax cuts, subsidies, incentives etc.) individuals and firms that make an effort to address the issue. According to Stern (2007), the government seeks to define policies that allow an adaptation of infrastructure planning to the risks posed by climate change. By doing so, the government targets the funding towards the areas where development can help mitigate climate risks and support related activities in the long term. These policies also seek to enhance the availability of information and tools on risk in an effort to improve decision making at the private level. For example, the use of probabilistic modelling to determine cost effective solutions in construction has helped private construction firms in developing a strong response to climate uncertainties. Conclusion The study on the effects of framing has a long history and dates back to initial research by eminent scholars such as Tversky and Laswell (MacKuen, 2003). Their studies have helped document a number of framing effects across various contexts including public policy making. The analysis of framing effects in this scenario suggests that policies and the processes driving their formulation are based on arbitrary information and are vulnerable to extensive manipulation and distortion if the framing is done effectively (Bryant, 2007). Experts are beginning to ascertain the nature and importance of framing effects on policy making and are devising ways to understand and use framing and its effects in a useful manner. The discussion on the issue of climate change has also shed light on the various policy tools and mechanisms that governments are using to tackle this issue. References 1. Adams (2001), Social discourse and environmental policy: an application of Q methodology. New York: Edward Elgar. 2. Bryant (2007), Media effects: advances in theory and research. London: Routledge. 3. Callaghan (2005), Framing American politics. University Of Pittsburgh Press. 4. Dallas (2005), Law and public policy: a socioeconomic approach. Carolina Academic Press. 5. Fox (2008), Judgments, decisions, and public policy. Cambridge University Press. 6. Kellow (2007), Science and public policy: the virtuous corruption of virtual environmental science. New York: Edward Elgar. 7. MacKuen (2003), Electoral democracy. University Of Michigan Press. 8. McDermott (2001), Risk-Taking in International Politics: Prospect Theory in American Foreign Policy. University Of Michigan Press. 9. Mintz (2010), Understanding Foreign Policy Decision Making. Cambridge University Press. 10. Moser (2007), Creating a climate for change: communicating climate change and facilitating social change. Cambridge University Press. 11. Ney (2009), Resolving messy policy problems: handling conflict in environmental, transport, health and ageing policy. Earthscan. 12. Nordhaus (2008), Economics and policy issues in climate change. London: Routledge. 13. Peeters (2006), EU climate change policy: the challenge of new regulatory initiatives. New York: Edward Elgar. 14. Peters (2006), Handbook of public policy. New York: Sage Publications. 15. Pettenfer (2007), The social construction of climate change: power, knowledge, norms, discourses. London: Ashgate Pubishing. 16. Piana (2008), Innovative Economic Policies for Climate Change Mitigation. Chicago: EWI. 17. Rahm (2010), Climate change policy in the United States: the science, the politics, and the prospects for change. London: McFarland. 18. Schneider (2006), Climate change policy: a survey. Island Press. 19. Somit (2003), Human nature and public policy: an evolutionary approach. New York: McMillan. 20. Stern (2007), The economics of climate change: the Stern review. Cambridge University Press. 21. Zahariadis (2003), Ambiguity and choice in public policy: political decision making in modern democracies. Georgetown University Press. Read More