Public Policy: A Postive Impact in America

                      

Governmental intervention in terms of rules and regulations that the general public has to abide by has been a controversial topic of discussion ever since the founding fathers were writing the Constitution. Ever since even that moment in history, the general public as well as politicians have been split on just how much the government should be allowed to be involved in the lives of the general public.  For politicians and the public there are two basic sides that someone can take on this matter. In chapter 13, of “The New Urban Sociology” they discuss the views and beliefs of governmental intervention for liberals and conservatives. They state, that liberals, “… support governmental intervention and spending as a means of combating social ills.” Also, “ the liberal agenda uses governmental intervention as a tool to overcome uneven development” (Gottdiener et al. p 346). On the other hand conservatives view governmental intervention in a whole different way. The book states, “Conservatives believe in limited government intervention and severely restricted government spending” (Gottdiener et al. p 347). As you can see liberals and conservatives have very different beliefs when it comes to how much government intervention there should be. But is government intervention really a bad thing in America? If you were to ask different people this question, you would likely get some very different answers. Those answers would possibly be due to ones political affiliation of being either a liberal or a conservative.

Let’s take a look at some positives to having a government involved in making policies for the general public to abide by. A vast majority of public policies put in place by the government as in order to protect common areas some the large populations that are using those areas. Common areas include public resources such as air, water, streets, public transportation, etc. A large population on a daily basis uses the vast majority of these common resources. Also, the vast majority of people take this resources for granted treat them with the care that is required in order for them preserve them. Because this is the case, the government needs to step in and put policies in place that are meant to safeguard these public common areas. Other positive examples of policies put in place by the government are recycling laws, without these laws the vast majority of people would not recycle or would not be committed to protecting the environment. Another example that deals with government intervention not only shows how policies can be positive, but it also shows how America is not the only country that is dealing with this issue of government intervention. In China there was the issue of overcrowding and over population, so to combat this their government created the one child policy.  For the most part this had a positive effect; they have since eliminated the policy. But, the fact of the matter was it was beneficial for the government to intervene in the matter. The above reasons and examples or policies put in place by the government show how government intervention can for the most part be a positive thing. The book puts it like this, “There is an important lesson to be learned here: although we dislike government intervention, we find it useful. Sustaining the quality of life in metropolitan regions is an especially difficult task without the aid of government policy and regulation because the free market is incapable of doing so on its own” (Gottdiener et al. p 346).

The links below provide positive and negative reasons for government intervention, the first is an article, while the second is a YouTube clip:

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5735/economics/should-the-government-intervene-in-the-economy/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eszQRRa0uM

Does Public Policy Really Help the Public?

For a long time there has been much debate over whether public policies are necessary or not. Do people know right from wrong enough to prevent government intervention? Does the government intervene too much? I think the middle of this lies with the question: If the government continues to create public policies will the people ever have the chance to prove that they can handle the responsibility on their own? I feel as if they have possibly given people this option before and that is how they decided public policy needed to happen. Think of it this way how did it become a problem if it was not for us. There has to be a reason that water is running out or that pollution is getting worse. When does the government decided enough is enough. There is much political debate over the role the government should have with the liberals and conservatives having conflicting ideas again. Liberals are in favor of public policy and believe in a larger presence from the government and their input. Conservatives on the other hand are for limited government intervention and believe that public policy is just another way for the government to try and gain complete control. Just like any other political debate I do not think  there is any one right answer and it would be better for everyone if there was a happy medium.

            I also like the example that Gottdiener, Hutchinson, and Ryan use about the recycle bins in a community. They say that some communities have rules that enforce recycling within households and if the members of those houses do not comply they could be forced to pay fines. It seems like a personal decision whether you want to recycle or not and some people would agree that you cannot force your beliefs on others, but the regulations are allowed because recycling benefits the greater good. The idea is that is for he benefit of everyone to protect our resources and the environment because once it is gone it is gone forever.

            They also talk about uneven development and urban policy implying that policies support and help the wealthy while the poor continue to be hurt or unprotected.  The example of life saving drugs only being provided to those that can pay really made me think of how unfair poverty can be. It is no surprise that poverty is an issues that people within urban areas face, but we also know how disproportionate it is to minorities. This example makes it seem as if the lives of black and Hispanic men and women do not matter. How bad does that sound? These policies are supposed to be for the greater good of all people yet even with things such as welfare and Medicaid not all people in poverty could afford a drug that could save their life. They also talk about how these government programs may address the problems that the poor are facing, but they do not suggest or provide the proper solutions.

They offer a simple solution that will maybe reduce the problem but not fix it, because fixing the problems with the poor would likely having to take money from the rich. The government would never allow taking money from the rich to help the poor because they are part of that rich culture or the rich people are the ones running their campaigns. Most educated explinations would say simply taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor is not the answer or solution. I do not think it works quite like the animated Robin Hood movie we might have seen as children. Money seems to be the solution to all, but it is important to understand that people need to want a change and to prevent problems in the first place.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/07/business/a-public-policy-failure.html?_r=0

I like the way this link explains the work of public policy and how they do what they can do without completely failing or completely solving the problems. It also talks about why taking from the rich will not have the effect on helping the poor that people think.

https://youtu.be/wXYSsA5yVSY

This video is kind of awesome. She talks about trying to make public policy more fun since it I such a heavy topic of the United States problems. The biggest problem is she uses words like wicked, and says we have more than “99 problems” like the song lyrics “99 problems but a b*tch ain’t one”. Once you get past all of the terrible attempts to be fun the video explains the problems with the way public policy is enforced.

Tragedy of the Urban Commons

The tragedy of the commons is an economic theory that states that within a shared-resource system, individuals act independently according to their own self-interests and behave against the common good of all users by depleting that resource. Many people fail to understand that this concept is present in both the large scale of nations and the smaller scales of both cities and communities. Residents of city life (especially those in disadvantaged neighborhoods) are constantly in competition with one another for the either the best resources, the most resources, resources just to make it to tomorrow, or some combination in the middle. While not all situations are this drastic, there most certainly are individuals who go against the grain to get all that they can out of various resources, regardless of their intent.

Consider this first article http://www.econlife.com/urban-transport-systems-create-a-tragedy-of-the-commons/. In Manhattan, streets occupy almost twenty-five percent of the total land, as of 2008. One of the biggest competitions in any city, large or small, is finding the real estate to both drive your car as well as find a spot to park it, wherever that may be, and that real estate is EXPENSIVE. Something that officials are looking into, in regards for making the resource of the road more accessible for all, is public transportation. This would alleviate all of the congestion, pollution, and headache that plagues city drives and the drivers. As the article states, public transportation should reflect the city itself, so that the implementation would have some sort of merit. While subways and motorcycles make sense in a highly populated city, the same modes of transportation do not make sense in smaller cities.

However, this is not to say that there should be mass quantities of public transit (like busses, for example) because then the busses would simply create an even greater tragedy. Their massive size would take up even more real estate than the smaller vehicles would, making everything much worse off than they would have been at the beginning. Finding the balance, then, is also difficult. Too many busses create the problem just described, while too few busses create yet another potential tragedy, because then everyone is competing for the last (or first) seat on the bus. Therefore, it would seem that from this article, there is no easy remedy for the tragedy of the commons.

Another great example of the tragedy of the commons is number ten on this list: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/ten-reallife-examples-of-the-tragedy-of-the-common.html. Population growth is something many people observe, but do not suspect to be an issue for the commons. Much as the cite states, everyone on the planet is in constant competition for resources, big or small, noticed or unnoticed. With over 7 billion people on Earth, it is hard to look past how hard people fight for what they need or want for their individual survival. Simple land, water, air, and food use creates contention among members of both large and small-scale populations. While not implicitly related to city living, it is important to think that city populations are not slowing down in terms of growth, and this reflects some of the basic struggles in these areas, with people fighting for what they feel they either need, want, or deserve for themselves.

Regional Governance and Metropolitan Social Policy

Regional governance is a very sticky situation. There are both regional and local needs that need to be considered for the entire region. There are top-down and bottom-up approaches needed to help make the metropolitan area flow efficiently and effectively. The federal, state, region, and municipal levels of government all play a role in the decision making. As global competition increases, the strengthening of our metropolitan areas in our country will be the tipping point. It will lead to perpetual growth and prosperity or a route of catastrophic disaster.

The top-down approach includes the federal and state government. These upper governmental structures need to give permission and responsibility to the regional and local planning commissions. Currently, the federal government is not a consistent supporter of metropolitan social policy or advocate of localism (Foster, 2001). The main point is that the federal and state authorities need to give the regions, counties, and cities the permission to address conflicts that are beneficial at the local level. Most local populations have enough innovative ideas and resources to get the city and region organized in a way they want to be represented. No local entity or region wants to be controlled by the state or national government because then lobbyists have an opportunity to influence the decision-making for that region. Most importantly, we need more of a regional and metropolitan perspective rather than an upper authority to attack uneven development patterns and social equity that is specific for that particular region. The federal and state governments need to provide proper funding to these local regions, but also need to understand the plan of attack these locations have in mind.

The flip side of top-down is bottom-up leadership. There is a need for traditional local leadership and city-regional collaboration to make metropolitan social policy work efficiently. If the higher up governments give the smaller local and regional government’s leeway the local and regional governments need to embrace integrity and responsibility in their decision making (Bhattacharjee et al 2014). If higher authorities work diligently to draft up advanced plans for the region with the local municipalities they would be in the clear. Currently, local governments have limited ability to plan for social change. The higher authorities don’t have all the details needed to make an educated decision for a specific community. Big picture thinking is needed along with strategic planning from local entities. Local communities understand the needs and wants for their metropolis to thrive.

In the end, both top-down and bottom-up approaches need to work together to communicate and give permission when conflicts arise. Territorial structures will be the biggest influence on regional governance. What is needed most includes a vision and system in place that will help hand off power to each level of government in an efficient and quick process. Regional governance is the new innovative way to help cities and its surroundings survive even if part of the country is struggling elsewhere. As competitive globalism continues to thrive we must adjust our power to more regional entities rather than our state and federal governments. Federalism is what made America great and it needs to be continually implemented for the regions and municipalities in order to have a prosperous future.

As our book puts it best “Without metropolitan coordination, and lacking support from higher levels of government, cities simply do not possess the resources they need to address commanding problems of everyday life. At some point in the future, national leaders must provide the vision necessary to share responsibility for regional concerns at the federal and state levels. Until then, the quality of life is not only in central cities, but across metropolitan regions as a whole will be dependent on the well-being of local business concerns within an increasingly competitive global economy.” (Gottdiener et al 2014).

Foster, Kathryn Ann. Regionalism on Purpose. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2001. Print.

Gottdiener, Mark, Ray Hutchison, and Michael T. Ryan. The New Urban Sociology. 5th ed. Boulder, CO: Westview, 2014. Print

Jonas, Andrew E., Andrew R. Goetz, and Sutapa Bhattacharjee. "City-Regionalism as a Politic Collective Provision." Urban Studies 51.11 (2014): 2444-2465. Web. 1 Mar. 2016

What does our community mean to us?

Chapter 6 refers to the Broken Windows theory. The aspect of the broken window theory that I want to discuss is the actual structural confusion within the community. Its discussed that the structural confusion, like different graffiti, garbage filled streets, etc. I want to touch on how these type of things are actually accepted and in some aspects even praised in communities. I looked at the movie, Honey. Honey is a movie about a aspiring choreographer loves the youth of her community and how she wants to better the community by helping them through dance. While in her pursuit, she runs into a crowd of young boys who are deep into the street life. They embrace the different structural confusions of their community and accept the fact that, that is just the way things go.

 

 The different confusions throughout the community makes it almost acceptable for them. I've added a clip that can be found on YouTube from the movie honey (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbbatiKJ6rQ). In this first scene it shows two women leaving the club and running into a group of boys dancing. Once they exchange a few words, one of the women ask them why are they out so late. The boy responds by saying that his mother is not worried about anything but her crackhead boyfriend. The group of boys immediately begin laughing. This is shocking but shows the different confusions and acceptance in the neighborhood. The boy actually thinks that its okay, and even begins to make fun of the disfunction, confusion, and broken families and structures.

Another example is Boyz in the Hood film. This film shows how, there is so much violence and chaos within their own community, it becomes just another trend. In these scenes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C--iuM8NcQc, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pjv6aWKH5yw)  the character Ricky is being killed because the boys did not like her brother. The next scene goes to his brother going back to kill the guys that killed his brother. In the end, his brother was then killed not to long after. It just goes to show that violence can be so accepted in a community that some people actually embrace the fact that their future involves that same violence and chaos.