Suchergebnisse

IN EXAMINING THE FEASIBILITY OF A PUBLIC POLICY, ONE ANSWERS THE QUESTIONS OF WHETHER IT SATIFIES ALL LIMITS. POLITICAL FEASIBILITY, HOWEVER, HAS NO SUCH PRECISE CONSTRAINST OT DEFINE ITSELF. THREE GROUPS OF POLITICAL CONSTRAINTS ARE PRESENTED HERE: LIMITIATIONS OF AVAILABLE POLITICAL RESOURCES, DISTRIBUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS, AND CONSTRAINTS IMPOSED BY THE INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK.

Though many economists favor a transition to a fully funded pension system, it is not even considered by politicians in Germany. This paper examines the hypothesis that this is in accordance with the preferences of the population. By performing a dynamic CGE analysis referenda on pension policies are simulated. They show that a fully privatizing scheme is not politically feasible in Germany, however long the pre-announcement period, if the alternatives are the current policy or a partially privatizing policy. This explains why a fully privatizing policy is not an issue in the political debate in Germany. In order to examine what are the reasons for this outcome, the German Bismarckian System is compared to a Beveridge-System, which is similar to the British pension system. In the latter case, a transition to a fully funded system is what the majority opts for in a dynamically consistent equilibrium. This is evidence that the future of the pension system depends on its history. 6 Tables, 2 Figures, 52 References. Adapted from the source document.

Factors needing consideration in assessing feasibility.

Factors relevant to political feasibility assessment of public policy include: timeliness, support, ideological consistency, bureaucratic support, definition of policy failure, & policy consensus. These factors form the basis of a framework that can be elaborated both empirically, with reference to successful past policies, & a priori. Current treatment of political feasibility issues by political scientists is critically reviewed. 1 Table, 13 References. J. Peterson

Four criteria are proposed to evaluate the implementation of US federal grant agency project processing procedures. The criteria -- anonymity, nonperversity, implementation of program goals, & adequacy -- go beyond the arguments over rational-analytic vs incremental policy making by suggesting criteria that both models can meet. Examples of two federal programs' selection procedures are used to illustrate the applicability of, & divergency from, the proposed criteria. Factors important to administrators in selecting project processing procedures are also discussed. 24 References. HA.

THIS PAPER PROPOSES FOUR CRITERIA TO EVALUATE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF U.S. FEDERAL GRANT AGENCY PROJECT PROCESSING PROCEDURES. THE CRITERIA - ANONYMITY, NON-PERVERSITY, IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAM GOALS AND ADEQUANCY - GO BEYOND THE ARGUMENTS OVER RATIONAL-ANALYTIC VERSUS INCREMENTAL POLICYMAKING BY SUGGESTING CRITERIA WHICH BOTH MODELS CAN MEET. EXAMPLES OF TWO FEDERAL PROGRAMS' SELECTION PROCEDURES ARE USED TO ILLUSTRATE THE APPLICABILITY OF, AND DIVERGENCY FROM, THE PROPOSED CRITERIA. THE PAPER CONCLUDES WITH A DISCUSSION OF THE FACTORS IMPORTANT TO ADMINISTRATORS IN SELECTING PROJECT PROCESSING PROCEDURES.