My name is Jacob Meshke and I am new to Arizona. I actually just moved here a week before classes started with one of my best friends from home, which is close to Green Bay, Wisconsin. I went to a smaller state school before I decided to transfer (the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh). I am a junior majoring in urban and metropolitan studies, thus the reason I am in this class. I would eventually like to further my education with a master’s degree in public administration or potentially a degree in law.
The first area that I would like to discuss is some different categories of public policy. A substantive policy is what government is doing, such as building roads, paying welfare benefits, etc. Whereas a procedural policy simply deals with how a particular action is going to be carried out; it gives direction (Anderson 8). I thought that these were interesting distinctions because recently in Wisconsin, Governor Scott Walker passed legislation that drastically cut the benefits given to public workers and eliminated their right of collective bargaining. The Anderson article mentions that sometimes a bill can be stalled due to procedural reasons and that is exactly what happened in my home state. A judge found the bill to violate a public hearings’ law and temporarily delayed the bill from going into effect.
Another area from the readings that I found particularly interesting was the distinction made between material and symbolic policies. Material policies demonstrate “tangible resources or substantive power to their beneficiaries” (Anderson 13), whereas symbolic policies “allocate no tangible advantages or disadvantages (Anderson 14).” The reason that I found this area to be of particular interest is because sometimes this line can become blurred. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 provides such an example. This act was initially supposed to be a symbolic act that looked good on paper without any foreseeable costs. In practice, this had some serious unintended consequences. New construction projects, such as roads or housing, which was to destroy the habitat of endangered species were shut down due to their environmental devastation (Anderson 14). I have an easy time seeing and understanding both sides of this issue. I think further development is good to keep workers employed and provide more services/conveniences to citizens. Although, I did take an environmental issues course back in Wisconsin that opened my eyes to the fact that our environment and animals are a treasure that needs protection. The generations to come have the right to enjoy the same natural beauty and animal species that we currently enjoy. It’s not our place to cause this type of destruction simply for economic purposes.
Shifting gears, I would like to look at the differences between taking an individualistic versus communitarian outlook. The individualistic look includes elements such as looking out for self-interest and the belief that government should be limited to maintaining basic order. Also, the individual is only asked to respect the liberty of others and perform minimal tasks, such as voting, paying taxes, etc (Euchner and McGovern 11). The flip side of this approach would be a communitarian outlook. This would involve seeing individuals as interconnected, forming a “web of life” (Euchner and McGovern 11, 12). Other elements of a communitarian approach might include higher taxation to provide national health coverage for all or free higher education. An argument can be made that while these services are available to all, they may not necessarily be of the highest quality. Overall, I think that a communitarian approach is more beneficial to all and would provide people with a better outlook on life. Thinking individualistically all of the time can lead to feelings of loneliness and isolation (Lecture 1/05). Also, a communitarian approach would provide more funds for open spaces and other recreation areas that are proven to increase morale. The downside to public spaces is the potential for a tragedy of the commons or for free ridership (Lecture 1/05). If the government chose to increase income taxes for these services, those without jobs would become the free riders. The other question is who would be responsible for clean-up and maintenance to prevent a tragedy of the commons.
I agree with your idea of the communitarian approach being much more beneficial to everyone. I feel that today much of the issues we face in our country have fallen to free ridership and or tragedy of the commons.
ReplyDeleteOh and welcome to AZ, I hope you enjoy it here.
Have only read one of the assigned readings so far I found your first blog to be very helpful to me! I am a graphic design major so I have no background in this. You are able to put the readings into a sensible and understandable way for me. As for my comments on what you wrote- I agree with the last statement. I dont think that there is really an idea way to solve the issue of the open spaces. Raising income tax seems like an easy solution but in hard economic time I think we all agree a tax cut would be difficult and people on unemployment (or just unemployed) then get to enjoy the same spaces without having to contribute. Oh life. Why are you so hard... good job on your first blog!
ReplyDeleteHi,
ReplyDeleteI too found the material and symbolic policies interesting. I found your thoughts about The Endangered Species Act's good intentions and then eventual consequences, such as costs and land destruction helpful. It was helpful to see both the positives and negatives of this particular symbolic act.
I enjoyed reading your well written account of readings and class discussions, Jacob. I am not familiar with Wisconsin, but its particularly interesting to me also of how a procedural policy can stall a perfectly good substantive or even material policy in its tracks. This is ironic - given that we need policies in place that are effective in bringing about tangible outcomes whether it is through government action or otherwise, and yet the very procedures put in place to implement these policies, sabotage those efforts. After witnessing this discussion in class, I understand the level of frustration that policymakers may in actuality have for their cause.
ReplyDelete"Overall, I think that a communitarian approach is more beneficial to all and would provide people with a better outlook on life. Thinking individualistically all of the time can lead to feelings of loneliness and isolation."
ReplyDeleteI agree with this outlook. Although it is important to take care of yourself and not rely too heavily on the community for basic needs like food, clothing, etc... It is important to realize that a healthy community overall is better for everyone. The communitarian approach offers a better quality of life for all and can limit feelings of isolation in a big world. To say that government should only perform basic tasks like taxation is not reasonable. Some people in society are unable to care for themselves or support themselves and advance.
First of all, great entry. You brought a lot to light in this post. I wanted to comment on your passage regarding the concept of individualism. When we in this country consider every man as equal, that lends logic to support the notion of everyone doing their part in the society (in general terms), maintaing equality. When not everyone does their part, it is unfortunate but we see 'free ridership', where some incidentally pay more (in this case taxes to support the free riders). Unfortunately, this very concept has, in a roundabout fashion, brought America into an economic downturn that WILL get worse, unless this mindset is adjusted and we as a country act fiscally responsible. We shouldn't allow POLICIES to undermine our national livelihood.
ReplyDelete