Claude Joseph
Amy’s paper “Why Policy Analysis and Ethics are Incompatible” does not provide a clear picture as to how the relationship between ethics and policy analysis should be grasped. In contrast to Amy, I don’t believe that ethics is neglected in policy analysis. Quite to the contrary, policy analysis is a normative endeavor that constantly looks for objective technique to support a given ethical stance. Ethics, more precisely moral philosophy, is indeed the philosophical root of policy analysis. The rationale behind any policy analysis can be found in Aristotle’s virtue ethics, Kant’s deontological ethics, Gauthier’s moral by argument, Hume’s ethical intuition and Bentham’s utilitarianism, to mention a few.
Some of these ethical frameworks are to a large extent mutually exclusive. Emmanuel Kant’s deontological ethics differs from Bentham and Mill’s utilitarianism. While the latter is a consequentialist theory whose core principle is to maximize utility regardless of the means used, the former argues that sometimes the intention behind the act matters most. Therefore, to Kant, means matters. Aristotle, on the other hand, would argue that it is neither the means nor the end that matters, but the person that undertakes the action. While a utilitarian or a deontologist would ask what should a policy analyst do when face with an ethical dilemma, Aristotle would ask what should he be. For Aristotle, moral behavior expresses virtues or qualities of character. Another interesting ethical viewpoint in policy analysis is John Rawls and Amartya Sen’s distributive justice, which takes on both Kant and Bentham.
In policy analysis, Bentham’s utilitarianism perspective is manifested in the form of cost-benefit analysis. This approach aims at maximizing total utility without any regard to the harm that might cause. Thus, when mayor Giuliani decided to exclusively use competitive bids (sealed bidding) to award public contracts to private businesses provided that the administration knew well that Minority Business Enterprises aren’t capitalized enough to compete against big business, it was a deliberate ethical decision, not just a technical one. Therefore, arguing that there is a clash between ethics and policy analysis is misleading. Policy analysis is a battle over competing ethical choices. And, as it happens, each ethical choice is rooted in an ideology. For instance, democrats believe that minorities stand to lose a great deal from privatization. So, to minimize those losses, they believe that governments should select privatization arrangement carefully and monitor them closely (Suggs, 2004). Conversely, in his book “Privatization in the City: Successes, Failures, Lessons” with a foreword by Rudolph W. Giuliani, Savas, a republican, advocates a system of privatization that would favor big businesses. The rationale is that relying on good techniques to contract out public services would avoid the problem of principal-agent such as adverse selection or information asymmetry.
The whole approach about equity, justice and fairness is likewise a normative perspective that is ideologically oriented. The G.I Bill, the Great Society program, among others, were enacted under democratic leadership. Tax cut for the rich, on the other hand, was a republican byproduct.
Ethics is not neglected in policy analysis. Quite to the contrary, policy analysis is a battle over ethical choices where each choice is associated with a devised technique as a support. The cost-benefit analysis is a technical support for the normative utilitarian perspective.
Amy’s paper “Why Policy Analysis and Ethics are Incompatible” does not provide a clear picture as to how the relationship between ethics and policy analysis should be grasped. In contrast to Amy, I don’t believe that ethics is neglected in policy analysis. Quite to the contrary, policy analysis is a normative endeavor that constantly looks for objective technique to support a given ethical stance. Ethics, more precisely moral philosophy, is indeed the philosophical root of policy analysis. The rationale behind any policy analysis can be found in Aristotle’s virtue ethics, Kant’s deontological ethics, Gauthier’s moral by argument, Hume’s ethical intuition and Bentham’s utilitarianism, to mention a few.
Some of these ethical frameworks are to a large extent mutually exclusive. Emmanuel Kant’s deontological ethics differs from Bentham and Mill’s utilitarianism. While the latter is a consequentialist theory whose core principle is to maximize utility regardless of the means used, the former argues that sometimes the intention behind the act matters most. Therefore, to Kant, means matters. Aristotle, on the other hand, would argue that it is neither the means nor the end that matters, but the person that undertakes the action. While a utilitarian or a deontologist would ask what should a policy analyst do when face with an ethical dilemma, Aristotle would ask what should he be. For Aristotle, moral behavior expresses virtues or qualities of character. Another interesting ethical viewpoint in policy analysis is John Rawls and Amartya Sen’s distributive justice, which takes on both Kant and Bentham.
In policy analysis, Bentham’s utilitarianism perspective is manifested in the form of cost-benefit analysis. This approach aims at maximizing total utility without any regard to the harm that might cause. Thus, when mayor Giuliani decided to exclusively use competitive bids (sealed bidding) to award public contracts to private businesses provided that the administration knew well that Minority Business Enterprises aren’t capitalized enough to compete against big business, it was a deliberate ethical decision, not just a technical one. Therefore, arguing that there is a clash between ethics and policy analysis is misleading. Policy analysis is a battle over competing ethical choices. And, as it happens, each ethical choice is rooted in an ideology. For instance, democrats believe that minorities stand to lose a great deal from privatization. So, to minimize those losses, they believe that governments should select privatization arrangement carefully and monitor them closely (Suggs, 2004). Conversely, in his book “Privatization in the City: Successes, Failures, Lessons” with a foreword by Rudolph W. Giuliani, Savas, a republican, advocates a system of privatization that would favor big businesses. The rationale is that relying on good techniques to contract out public services would avoid the problem of principal-agent such as adverse selection or information asymmetry.
The whole approach about equity, justice and fairness is likewise a normative perspective that is ideologically oriented. The G.I Bill, the Great Society program, among others, were enacted under democratic leadership. Tax cut for the rich, on the other hand, was a republican byproduct.
Ethics is not neglected in policy analysis. Quite to the contrary, policy analysis is a battle over ethical choices where each choice is associated with a devised technique as a support. The cost-benefit analysis is a technical support for the normative utilitarian perspective.
RSS Feed