41 4.2 – ESTABLISHING CAUSALITY
- ESTABLISHING CAUSALITY
While identifying the root cause of a public problem is complex, the key to finding a policy solution is to establish a link between the problem and its cause. We would not fix a broken arm with a band-aid, yet many of our policy solutions fail to address the underlying cause of public problems and, like band-aids, rely on superficial solutions. Causal stories are a tool that policymakers, interest groups, and even citizens can use to identify more effective solutions. Establishing causality allows for the easy creation of models that directly link the effort expended to a particular outcome. The causal stories that result from these models can be employed during policy debates to persuade policymakers to adopt a specific solution.
As an example, policymakers have made several attempts to decrease the rise in obesity and the cost of medical care associated with an unhealthy lifestyle. In 2013, New York City proposed a policy that would limit the size of sugary drinks sold in the city to no more than sixteen ounces (Rinfret, Scheberle, and Pautz, 2019). The goal of the policy was to decrease sugar intake—and, thereby, decrease obesity rates—by limiting the amount of sugar that any one person could purchase and consume. At some point in the problem identification process, policymakers determined that obesity rates were tied to sugar intake. More specifically, they determined that Americans are obese because they consume too much sugar in their beverages.
Figure 4.1: New York’s ban on sugary drinks prompted backlash from the beverage industry.
Source: Wikimedia Commons Attribution: The Eyes Of New York License: CC BY-SA 2.0
In the previous example, policymakers created a direct causal link between sugar and obesity, but policy problems are complex and often have many causes. There are numerous ways to explain the rise in obesity rates. Even if you agree with the sugary drink explanation, you could also make the case that lack of exercise, poor overall diet, genetics, and other environmental factors are all responsible for a rise in obesity rates and therefore comprise complexities that would be difficult to address in their entirety. In truth, the government simply does not have enough time or resources to address all public concerns, so policymakers often make tradeoffs between addressing a problem with a partial solution or making the decision not to act at all (Bovaird & Loffler, 2003).
Furthermore, the complexity of establishing causality is regularly overshadowed by politics. Stone (1997) writes that “Causes are objective and can, in principle, be proved by scientific research.” Were this truly the case in all circum- stances, policy problems might be easier to solve. In reality, “cause and effect are open to interpretation and widely different perceptions” (Stewart, Hedge, Lester, 2008). Often, the individual or group who persuasively demonstrates their own view of causality guides the policy solution or, in some cases, persuades government officials not to act.
Consider the ongoing debate surrounding energy consumption, and, specifically, offshore drilling. In this case, the problems are oil shortages and consequent rising oil costs. Environmental groups and pro-business groups constantly compete to persuade policymakers to adopt solutions that do not endanger their own group’s interests. Businesses and oil companies believe that rising fuel costs are caused by unreliable foreign oil sources, international conflict, taxes, and market manipulation. These groups argue that the key to energy independence is producing domestic oil through a variety of means rather than relying on foreign governments. Using economic data, pro-business and oil groups lobby to assure policymakers and the public that offshore oil drilling is safe and will provide a much-needed solution to the problem caused by external forces (Kilian, 2014).
