When policies are implemented,
enlisting citizen cooperation and participation involves choosing from a number
of strategies and policy tools, based upon the objectives and target population (Schneider &
Ingram, 1990). Environmental protection as a concept is subject to personal
interpretation and as such does not hold the same imperative for every
individual. The severity of the problem and potential effects on communities
can influence the choice of policy instruments; risk assessments are used to
determine urgency, localization and possible long term ramifications of
environmental issues (Hetes, 2007).
Creating a meaningful, effective environmental policy entails not only using a
hierarchical enforcement course of action, but also putting in place a
participatory process that invites willing collaboration. If the objective is
to avoid the use of regulatory and coercive instruments, a first step would be
to analyze the cost to benefit ratio to both market interests and the public,
and develop approaches that take these into consideration. This paper will
examine two common policy tools used in environmental policy and determine
their efficacy, taking into consideration contextual constraints that might
limit their usefulness.
Policy
Tools
While environmental laws have
had a positive overall impact on water and air quality in the United States, realizing
a high degree of compliance has meant utilizing a variety of policy tools, basing the approach on a number of factors, including regional and
financial, as well as private and commercial interests("Basics of
Regulatory," 2011). In the United States, environmental legislation is
created in stages; after Congress has written the law, its implementation is
delegated to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which then establishes
regulations detailing the intent of
the law and enforcement strategies ("Basics of Regulatory," 2011).
To
avoid a regulatory approach to enforcement, policy makers must address the
issue of voluntary acquiescence, and determine the most likely tool to elicit
this response. Schneider & Ingram
(1990) have argued that motivating individuals to comply with regulations
involves understanding their implicit assumptions about the value of the
desired outcomes on their personal lives, and using that self interest to
create incentives that will help them overcome their natural reluctance to
extend themselves beyond their usual behaviors. In addition to overcoming hesitation based
upon unfamiliarity, policy tools can assist individuals (and businesses)
develop the necessary environment to facilitate compliance (Schneider & Ingram, 1990).
Incentive and capacity building tools have the advantage of being adjustable (Schneider & Ingram,
1990).
Incentive
Tools
Incentive tools are designed to elicit
decisions that entail the dual benefit of policy compliance and tangible rewards
for doing so (Schneider &
Ingram, 1990). Tax credits for individuals and businesses for insulating
and installing renewable energy sources exist to some degree in many states ("Energy
Efficiency," 2011). The primary
benefit of this approach is that individuals who intended to invest in these
additions to their properties receive a reward, which might be a catalyst for
this choice. On the other hand, the tax credit is relatively small, is subject
to changes due to economic and priority shifts, and is an “after the fact”
instrument. This limits its value as a policy instrument, if widespread change
is desired.
Capacity
Tools
Capacity tools take a proactive approach
by providing information about the problem being addressed and offering
researched solutions to these, thus enabling a more informed decision making
process(Schneider & Ingram,
1990). In addition to these introductory aspects, capacity tools assist
individuals create the desired outcome, by providing financial resources to
encourage active participation in the transformation process (Schneider & Ingram, 1990). As an example, federal and state agencies
offer a number of financial options, such as grants and subsidies, for
converting homes and businesses into energy efficient buildings (Green Building, 2010). Sandfort,
Coleman & Sowa(2008) caution that publicly funded instruments can distance
citizens from personal responsibility and shape attitudes towards unrealistic
expectations. Utilitarian analysis tools would clarify whether the potential
detrimental effects on civic responsibility would be worth the risk—in other
words, are the environmental benefits enough to offset possible citizen apathy
or hesitancy? As climate change worsens and environmental conditions worsen,
policymakers will be forced to address this question more frequently.
Conclusion
Environmental
legislation attempts to establish parameters within which individuals and
businesses can function while protecting essential resources such as water and
air. When composing environmental policy, if the desired outcome is a
non-regulatory approach that will incentivize citizen participation, the most
effective course would be to include incentives and capacity building tools.
Democratic ideals include self determination and autonomy, while collectively
working toward a state where all have equal rights and opportunities. Incentive
tools meet this ideal, as they encourage personal responsibility and reward
those who have the means to take action(Schneider & Ingram, 1990). These
instruments are, however, of limited usefulness because current tax incentives
are small, and they rely upon individual ability and willingness to take
action.
Capacity
building instruments are also pluralistic in this setting, as they offer
citizens the information needed to determine a course of action, and assist in
developing the desired environment (Schneider
& Ingram, 1990). Their reliance
upon government funding, in this context, can be problematic, as they can
create a reverse incentive by encouraging citizen dependency (Sandfort, Selden, & Sowa, 2008). One can conclude that pluralistic tools
depend upon voluntary participation, and as such might have limited usefulness
in a society that might not prioritize environmental protection, nor understand
the consequences of ignoring its imperatives.
References
Energy Efficiency Home and
Vehicle Tax Credits. (2011). Retrieved from http://ase.org/taxcredit#home_improvement_11
Green Building. (2010).
http://www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/tools/funding.htm#national
Hetes, R. G. (2007, Fall).
Science, risk, and risk assessment and their role(s) supporting environmental
risk management. Environmental Law, 37(4) Retrieved from
http://go.galegroup.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA174283038&v=2.1&u=minn4020&it=r&p=EAIM&sw=w
Sandfort, J., Selden, S. C.,
& Sowa, J. E. (2008, January 7). Do Government Tools Influence
Organizational Performance?: Examining Their Implementation in Early Childhood
Education. The American Review of Public
Administration, 38(4), 412-438.
doi: 10.1177/0275074007310488
Schneider, A., & Ingram,
H. (1990, May). Behavioral Assumptions of Policy Tools. Journal of Politics, 52,
510-529. doi: 10.2307/2131904
The Basics of the Regulatory
Process. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/basics.html
No comments:
Post a Comment