Andrea
This week, a nearly yearlong policy controversy in New York City reached a turning point when a Manhattan judge struck down Mayor Bloomberg’s proposed large sugary drinks ban. New York State Supreme Court Justice Milton A. Tingling, Jr., found it “arbitrary and capricious,” explaining that the laws rules and loopholes made it unwieldy and unenforceable. Here, despite the leap in contexts, it seems Romer’s essay, “Technologies, Rules, and Progress: The Case for Charter Cities,” is applicable. Romer (2010) argues that the principle constraint to improving quality of life is limited rule implementation capacity.
In the City of New York, the Mayor’s attempt to limit and tax the sale of sugary drinks in an attempt to curb the growing obesity epidemic is an attempt to use available local resources (enforcement by the NYC Health Department) to implement new rules. The conflict here is between what is traditionally understood to be the role and implementation capacity of policy at the sub-national level, and Bloomberg’s attempt to stretch local government rules to new frontiers. There is no question that Bloomberg’s intention is for his sugary drinks ban be a “rule-that-changes-rules.” When the proposal was announced last spring, it hailed a breakthrough by public health officials. Other municipalities have followed suit, making plans to enact similar policies.
In New York, the nation’s largest city, Romer’s argument about one of the key features of new technology, that it is are sharable, as opposed to the scarce availability of other resources, is also applicable to this policy (2). As the proposed copycat initiatives being undertaken in other cities demonstrates, the positive effects of innovative urban policymaking can also be shared can also be shared in other cities and have substantial external benefits. In just New York, the sugary drinks ban can potentially improve health outcomes for New York’s 8 million residents, as well as the millions of commuters who work here each day, and the thousands of tourists and other visitors.
As Romer explains, that fact that cities are where millions of people co-exist is part of what makes them so important; the effects of urban policy have wide-reaching impact. Like technologies, urban policies are often easily replicable, and can be applied to other local contexts to improve quality of life there.
In his argument about new technologies, Romer also points out that new technologies require new rules. The same can be said for innovative policies. In his ruling, Justice Tingling deemed the rules of the sugary drinks ban unworkable and complicated. While it is no doubt true that the contextual enforcement of the rule (only in food establishments under the jurisdiction of the NYC Health Department) might potentially make things confusing at first, perhaps this policy calls for a rethinking of rules and rule enforcement strategies.
Just as Romer argues that new technologies and rules can facilitate the development of new systems like charter cities, so can “prosperity-inducing” policies be used improve living standards. In the context of the sugary drinks ban, the correlations are very straightforward: discouraging consumption of high-sugar drinks will improve health outcomes, lowering obesity-related chronic disease rates and substantially lowering long-term health care costs. Bloomberg’s proposed sugary drinks ban is indeed a meta-rule; the growth of which can drive progress in improving health outcomes in the rest of the country (10).
Resources:
Grynbaum, Michael. “Judge Blocks New York City’s Limits on Big Sugary Drinks.” The New York Times. March 11, 2013.
Romer, Paul, Technologies, Rules, and Progress: The Case for Charter Cities, Center for Global Development Essay, Washington, D.C., 2010.
This week, a nearly yearlong policy controversy in New York City reached a turning point when a Manhattan judge struck down Mayor Bloomberg’s proposed large sugary drinks ban. New York State Supreme Court Justice Milton A. Tingling, Jr., found it “arbitrary and capricious,” explaining that the laws rules and loopholes made it unwieldy and unenforceable. Here, despite the leap in contexts, it seems Romer’s essay, “Technologies, Rules, and Progress: The Case for Charter Cities,” is applicable. Romer (2010) argues that the principle constraint to improving quality of life is limited rule implementation capacity.
In the City of New York, the Mayor’s attempt to limit and tax the sale of sugary drinks in an attempt to curb the growing obesity epidemic is an attempt to use available local resources (enforcement by the NYC Health Department) to implement new rules. The conflict here is between what is traditionally understood to be the role and implementation capacity of policy at the sub-national level, and Bloomberg’s attempt to stretch local government rules to new frontiers. There is no question that Bloomberg’s intention is for his sugary drinks ban be a “rule-that-changes-rules.” When the proposal was announced last spring, it hailed a breakthrough by public health officials. Other municipalities have followed suit, making plans to enact similar policies.
In New York, the nation’s largest city, Romer’s argument about one of the key features of new technology, that it is are sharable, as opposed to the scarce availability of other resources, is also applicable to this policy (2). As the proposed copycat initiatives being undertaken in other cities demonstrates, the positive effects of innovative urban policymaking can also be shared can also be shared in other cities and have substantial external benefits. In just New York, the sugary drinks ban can potentially improve health outcomes for New York’s 8 million residents, as well as the millions of commuters who work here each day, and the thousands of tourists and other visitors.
As Romer explains, that fact that cities are where millions of people co-exist is part of what makes them so important; the effects of urban policy have wide-reaching impact. Like technologies, urban policies are often easily replicable, and can be applied to other local contexts to improve quality of life there.
In his argument about new technologies, Romer also points out that new technologies require new rules. The same can be said for innovative policies. In his ruling, Justice Tingling deemed the rules of the sugary drinks ban unworkable and complicated. While it is no doubt true that the contextual enforcement of the rule (only in food establishments under the jurisdiction of the NYC Health Department) might potentially make things confusing at first, perhaps this policy calls for a rethinking of rules and rule enforcement strategies.
Just as Romer argues that new technologies and rules can facilitate the development of new systems like charter cities, so can “prosperity-inducing” policies be used improve living standards. In the context of the sugary drinks ban, the correlations are very straightforward: discouraging consumption of high-sugar drinks will improve health outcomes, lowering obesity-related chronic disease rates and substantially lowering long-term health care costs. Bloomberg’s proposed sugary drinks ban is indeed a meta-rule; the growth of which can drive progress in improving health outcomes in the rest of the country (10).
Resources:
Grynbaum, Michael. “Judge Blocks New York City’s Limits on Big Sugary Drinks.” The New York Times. March 11, 2013.
Romer, Paul, Technologies, Rules, and Progress: The Case for Charter Cities, Center for Global Development Essay, Washington, D.C., 2010.
RSS Feed