Assignment 3

· Lindblom

I would like to take the example of health policy since that is my primary interest and try to explain incrementalism. Incrementalism however can explain almost all policy related decisions. Issues like healthcare could be classified as “wicked problems” alongside with similar issues like poverty, drug problems etc. I feel that there is a difference between a policy being explained by incrementalism and it being good for the policy itself. Health policy has seen small incremental steps from time to time; it could be the Medicare or Medicaid provision added in 1965 or the SCHIP (State children’s health insurance program) added in 1997. In between there have been several cases and examples where incremental steps have been responsible for provisions or loopholes in this policy.

As much as I agree with incrementalism being a better way for building policy I cannot say I feel the same way when it concerns healthcare. Incremental policy can be blamed indirectly for the inherent costs of healthcare that have inflated from year to year. This does not mean that incremental steps adopted by some states like Massachusetts where health insurance is mandatory would be an example. On the contrary these steps end up saving the State more than they might spend on the program. The problem lies in the fact that the policy in play has cost a lot and continues to be a massive burden on the treasury, $1 in every $6 spend is on healthcare. There are obviously ways and means to make similar incremental steps in trying to scale back the costs, as Lindblom has explained, most of us approach policy problems within a framework given by our view of a chain of successive policy choices made up to the present. Policy is influenced by one’s knowledge of the incremental steps taken up to the present. An administrator has intimate knowledge of the past sequences and this thinking and that of the outsider will be different. To sum up it’s really up to the decision makers to weigh in the mistakes of the past and try not to repeat them in the present. With the healthcare bill being passed recently the outcomes will not be immediate. Just like the bill took into account the nitty-gritty that encompasses this field the effects will also be incremental and take a few years to kick in.



· Lowi

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/11/AR2010091105326.html

This article from the Washington Post is about FTA (Federal Transit Administration) establishing their presence in transit safety. According to this article the FTA has plans to regulate public transit agencies. This move has been considered in light of several incidences of rail mishaps in Washington D.C, Boston, and San Francisco. The article is a clear example of the government’s regulatory power. The impact of this could be considered as being specific and individual in nature as only public transit agencies would be considered. So far public transit safety has not been regulated and the current administration has tried to make it a part of their proposal to reinforce safety. At the moment the FTA does not have enough authority to enforce safety standards for transit systems which the administration hopes to change.
The new authority i.e. the TRACS (Transit Rail Advisory Committee for Safety) created by the Department of Transportation would be responsible in regulating rail fixed guide way transportation systems. In the past most transport related accidents have been investigated by the NTSB, currently most public transit agencies are not fully regulated. As the article mentions, the principle reason for getting this group appointed would be to get the transit safety regulations up and running. At the moment transit safety in not being branched, since what works for airlines cannot work for rails or metros, there has to be some sort of delineation.
If we look at this article from Lowi’s standpoint one could see clearly marked regulations in this scenario. Is the issue mentioned in the article bound to raise costs? Indeed they are. Also this policy cannot be disaggregated to the level of the individual or a single entity. Lastly, as to who would be indulged and who would be deprived is slightly tricky. As the FTA gets set for role in transit safety this would mean put the agency in the spotlight but deciding on who would be deprived is the tricky part.