Comments on: More Questions

By: Jones

Jones — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 22:55:35 +0000

After a month of thinking about these ideas, I would finally like to weigh in on this conversation. From my understanding, society was formed as a kind of contract (discussed by Hobbes, Rousseau, Rawls and others) between individuals who mutually benefited from this contract. This conception of the roots of society appears unfounded when one looks at the history of political structures around the world. From feudalism to authoritarianism, the idea that society’s main purpose is to ensure and protect the liberty and safety of the individual seems to be forgotten. History demonstrated time and again that people were worse off, not better off, because of the society in which they lived. This is not to say that the ideal of the social contract is not an attainable goal. Indeed, the early beginnings of democracy may have found sustenance in the idea of a social structure constructed by, and for the individual. And since we supposedly are fortunate enough to live in a democracy (I would be the first to argue against this claim), it seems apparent to me that politicians should be elected according to the wants and goals of the populace. A politician may have some pet project to pursue, but only if the people approve of it first (I know I know, I sound so idealistic and blind). Therefore, the politician should be the voice of the majority, and the mechanism for implementing change.
In the same line of reasoning, one should easily identify what ‘policy’ means. Policy, in a democratically elected society, is the conception, production, and maintenance of a societal goal. And politicians are the means by which policy is enacted.
Perhaps because we don’t live in a true democracy we must debate the meaning of policy and politician, in our struggle to define the true nature of the system of which we’re all a part.

By: merle

merle — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:32:32 +0000

Back to the definition of “policy”. I agree with the reserves expressed by Parasite Kid on the question of whether politician are in politics to set goals for their society of not, but I still think that it is important not to evacuate the goal setting process from politics. It is quite possible that this is what happens most of the time in politics today: politicians are becoming more and more simple bureaucrats managing society and the conflicts among powerful lobbying groups instead of leading it. But deciding only to manage is also taking a stand on where our society should/will go… In a position of decision, neutrality is an illusion.
To echo then the discussion around endangered species, goals or objectives should maybe be divided between very broad objectives and more specific ones taking place within these broad ones. Politicians could, perhaps, be in charge of deciding (with the population and scientific community) which broad objective the society will be following while then delegating to scientists and managers how to best achieve these goals by pursuing narrower ones. For example, politicians could decide that our society/nation will strive or not toward sustainability, will put or not a lot of effort to reduce species extinctions, and then let the scientists figure which species are at risk and the best way to prevent their extinction. Of course, the distinction will not be sharp in practice as it is in theory, but it could still provide a basic framework where politicians and the society they represent set their own basic goals and then specialists work on specific solutions to realize them. Saying that the distinction would not be that sharp in practice means, of course, that scientists will have their words to say in setting the general goals, since it is necessary to be well informed to decide well, and politician and stakeholders will have their words to say in setting the specific goals since some stakeholders will be most affected then others by a specific decision and a political response will be necessary to compensate those affected by any decision.

By: merle

merle — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:22:43 +0000

I agree with the reserves expressed by Parasite Kid on the question of whether politician are in politics to set goals for their society of not, but I still think that it is important not to evacuate the goal setting process from politics. It is quite possible that this is what happens most of the time in politics today: politicians are becoming more and more simple bureaucrats managing society and the conflicts among powerful lobbying groups instead of leading it. But deciding only to manage is also taking a stand on where our society should/will go… In a position of decision, neutrality is an illusion.
To echo then the discussion around endangered species, goals or objectives should maybe be divided between very broad objectives and more specific ones taking place within these broad ones. Politicians could, perhaps, be in charge of deciding (with the population and scientific community) which broad objective the society will be following while then delegating to scientists and managers how to best achieve these goals by pursuing narrower ones. For example, politicians could decide that our society/nation will strive or not toward sustainability, will put or not a lot of effort to reduce species extinctions, and then let the scientists figure which species are at risk and the best way to prevent their extinction. Of course, the distinction will not be sharp in practice as it is in theory, but it could still provide a basic framework where politicians and the society they represent set their own basic goals and then specialists work on specific solutions to realize them. Saying that the distinction would not be that sharp in practice means, of course, that scientists will have their words to say in setting the general goals, since it is necessary to be well informed to decide well, and politician and stakeholders will have their words to say in setting the specific goals since some stakeholders will be most affected then others by a specific decision and a political response will be necessary to compensate those affected by any decision.

By: parasite kid

parasite kid — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 02:27:07 +0000

While I want to believe that politicians go into politics in order to pursue an ideal, I also recognize that they are driven by a survival mechanism that will get them re-elected (or perhaps it is the adrenaline thrill of competition). Given this, I guess that puts the onus on the majority as shaping a society’s self-definition…

But back to “objective”, I believe today’s MSE seminar on Canada’s legal proces for listing and protecting endangered species highlighted why it is so difficult to get a clear objective. When faced with the statistics on which species had been successfully listed for protection it became very obvious that those with commercial value (ie marine fishes) had a very high failure rate. So while the objective was clear for the COSEWIC status assessment committee, it became fuzzier when seen through the lens of the politicians, who considered the additional social security cost of keeping fishermen ashore. I imagine trying to define clear goals at the outset would only further delay an already convoluted process.

By: merle

merle — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 23:57:18 +0000

I also don't have a definition ready for "policy", but I must admit that it does seem strange to me to leave the determination of the â€œobjectivesâ€ or â€œgoalsâ€ out of the domain of policy making. As vague a concept as "objective" is, if it is completely left out, then policy is reduced to a bureaucratic process subordinated to external processes defining societyâ€s goals. It seems to leave out a central aspect of what policy is all about. Donâ€t politicians go into politics in order to shape their society in light of an ideal? Isnâ€t it at least what we expect or hope for? If they are merely bureaucrats, then who are making the decisions through which, in part, a society defines what its stands for, what its basic projects are and how it defines itself? Is it (or should it be) scientists and academicians?

By: parasite kid

parasite kid — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 14:02:05 +0000

In adding to this discussion on policy I would like specifically to address the idea of the objective. It has come up in the past that the process of creating the policy in itself often is long and complicated resulting in policies that are perhaps inappropriate when they are enacted. So the challenge becomes making policies that are dynamic without being too ambiguous. If we focus on making a process (eg. monitoring programs) our objective will this create policies more ammenable to change? or does this just further complicate the process of policy making?

By: Culture Kid

Culture Kid — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:19:57 +0000

I like this groceries analogy, and think that this linear idea is an essential one. It seems to me that policy becomes overly-complicated by bureaucracies’ ideas of public desires, rather than by the objectives of the policy itself. It is true that meeting the objectives of environmental policies are usually not as straightforward as getting groceries, but there are clear goals (i.e. preserve this area of land, reduce emissions by X amount), and this is where we seem to lose ourselves, or get off-track. This is not to say that accomplishing the goals is easy, but perhaps a kind of tunnel vision would be helpful here, in the sense of keeping eyes on the prize in the midst of public opinion, economic panic, and bureaucratic inefficiency. Thus the goals, in my view, should come prior to the policy process, so that they can keep the policy process moving in a somewhat linear direction.

By: crocus

crocus — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:45:13 +0000

Coming from a non-policy background, my uneducated assumption sees the setting of objectives as being prior to the policy process. One needs to identify the objective/goal before they decide on how to proceed (the policy process). Once the objective is known, it is easier to pull together the relevant actors/stakeholders, and through a linear or non-linear process figure out how best to meet those objectives.

I understand that policy is not always straightforward, however the way we are talking about it, it does seem to be at its root, linear. There is an objective to be met and we seek to meet it through a series of steps. I think that off of this linear base builds more complicated, non-linear processes due to the nature of dealing with many wants and needs of the different actors.

By: ellis

ellis — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:47:56 +0000

You note, quite correctly, that science is an ambiguous term. You seem to be heading in the same conclusion about policy. Vague and ambiguous as it is, we need to devise some common understanding of policy – not a definitive definition necessarily, but some boundaries around the term that help us understand what we mean and don’t mean when we use it.

I would like to propose the following as a starting point: it seems obvious that policies aim at some objective. Once we have identified our objective, we need to figure out how to get there. If I decide I need groceries, I don’t really need a policy on getting groceries – something like a plan will do, involving a list, a budget and a few local shops where I am likely to find what I need. ‘Policy’ seems, then to further suggest that meeting the objective is not straightforward in the way that getting groceries is.

We often talk about ‘public’ policy, and in fact we almost always seem to mean ‘public’ when we say ‘policy,’ so that suggests that policy involves the attainment of objectives that are held by a range of actors, perhaps across an entire society, and that it therefore involves the coordination of many actors.

We could also ask questions about the kinds of resources that have to be marshalled in order to work towards a public policy objective, and ask to what extent the marshalling of resources is part of what we mean by policy or something prior to or outside of policy.

Also, what about the setting of objectives? Do we see these as being part of the policy process, or prior to it?

Just some preliminary thoughts to get the ball rolling.