64 5.11 – POLICY TOOLS
POLICY TOOLS
What is the most effective way to persuade you to do something? Are you more likely to change your behavior if there is a punishment for not acting, or would you prefer a reward for action? Policymakers have similar options at their disposal that they can use to create a desired outcome. Policy tools are “elements in policy design that cause the target audience to do something they would not do otherwise or with the intention of modifying behavior to solve public problems or attain policy goals” (Schneider & Ingram, 1997). Policymakers can choose between several elements when deciding between policy tools. This is not to say that policies cannot utilize multiple policy tools—they can and do. Instead, it emphasizes the importance of choosing the most effective and feasible political tool when designing policy. This process might mean that more than one tool is necessary to create effective legislation.
The two most common types of policy tools utilize either coercive or non- coercive measures. Inducements are options for changing people’s behavior through rewards or punishments, sanctions, and incentives (Stone, 2002). What motivates humans to act or not to act? Knowledge of a penalty or the promise of a reward are proven methods for encouraging behavior changes. You may have heard the phrase “carrot or the stick.” This phrase aptly describes the process of applying a reward or punishment to encourage a desired behavior.
More coercive policies are successful, but “considerable resources must be devoted to providing the coercion needed to create compliance” (Birkland, 2019). For example, the ACA required all Americans to purchase health insurance (individual mandate). Taxpayers could choose not to purchase insurance, but the penalty for noncompliance was a fine. When the individual mandate penalty was in effect, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) would check the information provided by taxpayers with information reported by health insurers. Those who did not pay health insurance paid the fee. Other examples are fines for violating regulations or policies that withhold a service for the sake of compliance. Parking tickets, “sin taxes” on alcohol or nicotine products, or jail time for drug use are all punishments meant to discourage specific behaviors.
Non-coercive policies are easier to administer and require less oversight and enforcement, but their success varies based on assumptions about how people will react. Tax credits for families who outfit their homes with solar panels are a popular inducement. In fact, most tax credits are an incentive to produce a desired outcome. Taxpayers are eligible for tax credits for paying student loan interest or investing in business expenses or childcare. Other incentives include farm subsidies that ensure farmers will continue to farm even when they have unprofitable years. The government also awards small business loans and student loans to encourage people to open small businesses and attend college.
Facts are non-coercive policy tools that rely on persuasion to encourage behavioral changes. Facts do not necessarily provide a direct reward or punishment. Instead, the aim is to change people’s perceptions of the world and, thus, their behavior. As Stone writes, “Persuasion… rests on giving people information and letting them make up their own minds” (Stone, 2002).
Perhaps no better example of using facts as a policy tool exists than the rise of the anti-smoking movement. Studies, beginning in the 1940s and 50s, linked cancer with smoking, and several nonprofit organizations began public relations campaigns to educate the public about the risks. The government did not seriously intervene until years later (primarily due to pressure from the tobacco industry), but when they did, education proved key to changing the public’s perception (Yale University Library). Who could forget the Drug Enforcement Agency’s attempts to educate the public on the consequences of drug use in their “Just Say No” campaign and the U.S. Forest Service’s campaign to prevent forest fires with their declaration that “Only you can prevent wildfires”?
As mentioned, policies can utilize more than one tool to ensure success. Often multiple policy tools are applied, as in the case of drug prevention policies. Policymakers have both strengthened the penalties for drug possession and attempted to educate the public about the dangers of drug use. Policy tools also say a lot about politics and the assumptions made about the population that the policy targets. For instance, policymakers have enacted drug tests for welfare recipients (sanctions for low-income populations) and prescription incentive programs for Medicare recipients (incentives for the elderly).
Figure 5.5: Education is key to changing the public’s perception of a problem. Smokey the Bear reminds citizens that “only you can prevent forest fires.”
Source: Wikimedia Commons Attribution: National Agricultural Library License: Public Domain
Inevitably, the decision to choose one policy tool over another is a matter of feasibility. What sanctions or incentives does government have the resources to implement, and what tools better suit the target population? Consider educators who often cite the lack of parental involvement as a contributing factor for failing school systems. What resources does the school district have, and what tools can be used to encourage parents to increase involvement in their child’s school activities? Schools could propose a penalty when parents fail to participate in school events, or they could offer incentives, such as services and events that bring parents into the school. The penalty might be useful if parental involvement is extremely low and the school has the ability to enforce the penalty. On the other hand, if the school district has the ability to provide incentives, using those techniques could set a more conciliatory tone and encourage voluntary involvement.
