|
Evaluating Policies
|
|
II. Special Focus on the International Level of Organization:
Understanding and Evaluating Foreign Policies
I. A Guide for Analyzing, Evaluating, and Creating Public Policies The "systems framework" of four levels of organization may also be used as the basis for the analysis and evaluation of specific public policies. By using a framework adapted to public policies, one can explore the impact of specific policies on the development and well-being of individuals, social collectivities, the environment, and the cosmos as a whole. This framework may also be helpful in the process of formulating policies that one wishes to advocate in the public square. The various sets of questions should help individuals and groups to carefully refine their policy proposals and demonstrate how these proposals contribute to the development of all of the interests affected by them. As with the candidate framework, a set of assumptions will be provided for each level of organization, followed by questions based on the assumptions.
A. Analyzing and Evaluating the Impact of Policies on Individual Development Assumptions: In order to be effective, policies must somehow promote the development of entities at all levels of organization. They must enhance the well-being of individuals, specific groups, society as a whole, and the environment. One may analyze and assess a policy’s impact on individual development and well-being by considering the following assumptions about the welfare of individuals. On the basis of these assumptions, one may then ask various specific questions that will help one to decide whether a policy merits support. 1. Physical, Relational,
Economic, Political, Cultural, Moral, Spiritual, and Artistic Dimensions of
Development Political competence
represents an understanding of political life as well as the ability to
participate meaningfully in the political process. Cultural competence
represents the opportunity to learn and pass on important customs from one’s
particular ethnic or primary social group. Moral competence is the
ability to articulate and consistently act upon a clear set of values and
priorities that guide one’s everyday life. Spiritual competence
is the ability to reflect on questions of meaning and purpose in one’s life,
as well as the cultivation of habits and techniques that deepen this reflection.
Artistic competence is the ability to express one’s beliefs and
values through some form of symbolic action. This ‘self-expression’ may
include artistic works or artistic tastes in music, the visual arts, and/or the
performing arts. It may also include such avocations as sports and hobbies. 4. A Full Range of Human Rights and the
Relationships between Them Questions: How does the policy enhance physical, economic, relational, political, cultural, moral, and spiritual development? Does the policy recognize the developmental character of individual liberty and happiness? Does it consider the roles that personal initiative and institutional support play in the development of individuals? How does it make room for both? Does the policy protect and promote the full range of human rights? Does the policy recognize the need to limit, when necessary, the exercise of individual rights in order to protect the rights of others and preserve the common good? On the basis of your religious beliefs or philosophical orientation, are there any other assumptions that you would like to add and questions that you would like to ask regarding the effects of this policy on the development of individuals? Would you like to add any additional assumptions and questions regarding the effects of the policy on human rights? Instructions on how to add assumptions and questions to the frameworks will be provided in the software program for evaluating policies that will be available on the PEAC web site (see above, item E under the "Web Site" section of "Programs").
The social world is complex. There are countless
institutions, large and small, local, national, and international in
scope, that pursue their diverse missions in society. We propose four
ways to divide society into different types of groups. Each of these social
perspectives is useful for analyzing and evaluating a candidate’s
understanding of social dynamics. The first perspective involves focusing on specific
institutions such as families, churches, and business firms. The second
identifies social sectors, -- including the state, the market, and civil
society – that consist of institutions sharing some common function or goal.
The third recognizes different socio-cultural collectivities, which are
broader groups of persons joined by some biological, cultural, or economic
characteristics. These groups include different races, genders, and economic
classes. The fourth social perspective examines different levels of social
organization, including local, state, national, and international levels of
social organization. Assumptions: The first social framework focuses on social institutions such as the family, business firms, churches, voluntary organizations of all sorts, and specific departments and branches of government. An institution is any group of persons united in the pursuit of some common interest. Families, business firms, government departments, and civic organizations are all institutions that enable people to combine resources in order to address some common interests or needs. It is assumed that all institutions must somehow contribute to the common good of society. Whether they be banks, families, government agencies, or garden clubs, it is reasonable to expect that they must somehow build up society as they pursue their interests. They should promote those dimensions of individual growth (see above) that are affected by their programs and policies. They should also care for the environment. More concretely, it is assumed that all institutions should strive for three specific institutional goals in their mission, programs, policies, and values. 1) The first goal is competence in the basic skills necessary for forming healthy human relationships, including skills in empathy, communication, the clarification of key values and guidelines for behavior, and the ability to cooperate as a team toward desired goals. 2) The second goal is a commitment to excellence in the development of specialized skills necessary for the achievement of a group’s mission. These may include technological skills, skills in managing projects, or even skills needed to perform charitable works if it is a service organization. Regardless of the necessary capabilities, institutions should strive for continual improvement of vocational skills among all of their members and employees. 3) The third goal is inclusion: institutions should not deny individuals the resources that they need for self-development on the basis of individuals’ race, creed, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or political views. Obviously, churches may be exempt from including persons of other creeds in their programs, and single-sex schools may exclude members of the other gender. But for the vast majority of groups, particularly economic and political institutions, all of these norms of inclusion should be respected. Questions: Does
the policy encourage specific institutions to promote their own interests to the
detriment of the common good? Does it help institutions to promote their
interests in ways that reinforce the common good? How does the policy help
different types of institutions, such as business firms, schools, and government
agencies, to promote the various dimensions of personal growth? social progress?
ecological integrity? Does the policy enhance inclusiveness and diversity in
institutions affected by it? Does it protect individuals and groups against
discrimination? How does the policy promote the development of specialized
skills in institutions? How does it help institutions to develop skills
necessary for healthy human relationships – empathy, good communication,
teamwork? In this capacity, political parties greatly shape the landscape of public life. On a broader level, they issue platforms that outline their general philosophies as well as specific policy proposals. We have created applications to help citizens to better understand these platforms. In this section of the framework, however, we focus not on parties' platforms, but rather on their sources of support: their members and donors. We explore how the interests of these sources may influence the policies that the parties propose. By doing so, we hope to get a clearer idea of the various influences that shape a public policy. The following questions will help citizens to discern and evaluate these influences.
Membership and Support Relationships with Other Parties Assumptions: Different types of social institutions may be grouped into
three social sectors, or collections of institutions that have a similar
mission and function. Institutions that have as their primary goal the exchange
of goods and services for profit comprise the market sector. Institutions
that make and enforce laws comprise the state or government sector.
The last sector, which may be called civil society, is comprised of
organizations that provide participants with opportunities for educational,
cultural, moral, and spiritual enrichment. These organizations include schools,
churches, and environmental organizations, as well as organizations that
represent the interests of such groups as the elderly, the handicapped, and the
mentally ill. a) Relationships within Sectors Questions: How
does the policy contribute to an atmosphere of healthy competition and
innovation in the market sector? Does it maintain and strengthen the system of
checks and balances that must operate between government bodies? Does it
encourage creativity, healthy competition, and diversity among religious,
educational, and cultural institutions? Does it promote cooperation between
firms on significant technological projects if this is warranted? Does it enable
government bodies to coordinate their resources in order to accomplish important
governmental functions? Does it encourage religious, cultural, and educational
organizations to team up in order to address significant issues that call for
coordinated projects in civil society? In a more adversarial manner, the three sectors must
"check and balance" each other just as the three branches of
government hold each other accountable to the common good. The state should
regulate the market so that business practices and products contribute to the
common good. Organizations in civil society may have to pressure the state and
the market to meet some glaring public need and serve the common good. In turn,
the state must regulate organizations in civil society in order to ensure that
these groups use their funds and pursue their missions in an ethical manner. Destructive relationships between sectors are very common,
however. Like constructive relationships between sectors, these may be
cooperative or adversarial interactions. For example, a business firm may donate
money to political parties in order to influence public policy in a way that
serves the firm's economic interests. In this case, the state and the
market cooperate to promote the firm's private interest in ways
that may not serve the public good of society as a whole.
Similarly, faith communities in civil society may try to cooperate with
governments in order to gain political leverage. They may then use this
leverage to impose their beliefs and values on citizens against their
will. This possible scenario is perhaps the most historically infamous
illustration of the need for checks and balances between sectors, and it has led
most democratic governments to insist that churches and the state must remain
separate. Questions: How
does the policy encourage constructive cooperative relationships between
sectors: How does it enable the state and the market to cooperate in the
development of important new technologies and services? How does it help sectors
cooperate on humanitarian and environmental projects that require more resources
than any one sector can provide? How does it discourage cooperative
relationships that are detrimental to the common good? How does it help the
state to effectively regulate the market? How does it enable civil society to
hold the state and market accountable to the common good of society and the
environment? Assumptions: It is also useful to break the social world down into different levels of organization from least to most comprehensive. There are a lot of ways in which one might do this. One could, for example, describe geographic regions of increasing scope, moving from geographic regions to subcontinents to continents. However, this framework will organize society primarily according to levels of political administration. We thus highlight neighborhood, municipal, state, regional, national, and international levels of social organization. The question often arises: "Should significant social issues be addressed on more local or more centralized levels of social organization?" Some views favor local administration in business, governmental, and civic affairs. Some claim that central coordination and control for problems to be addressed in an efficient, thorough, and comprehensive manner. We maintain that one must strike a delicate balance in the relationships between local and centralized levels of organization. On the one hand, it is best to promote local responsibility and control in business firms, governments, and civic organizations. This enables people to develop responsibility and a sense of vision for their personal and collective destinies. They learn more about their civic affairs; they plan for the future; they feel a sense of pride and investment in their local community. However, it is also essential to acknowledge that some issues, especially in the state and market sectors, can only be effectively addressed by coordinating strategies and resources at higher, more centralized levels of organization. In short, social decision-making should be as local as possible and as centralized as necessary in order to effectively serve the common good. Local levels should respect the need for higher levels to coordinate responses to social projects. Higher levels should help lower levels to take as much initiative and responsibility as possible in these projects. In the field of ethics, this norm has become known as the principle of subsidiarity. In reality, problems can seldom be addressed on local or centralized levels alone. In practically all institutional contexts – economic, political, religious, civic, or cultural, cooperation between local and centralized levels of administration is essential. So it is foolish to disregard the legitimate roles and functions that each level of organization must assume if issues and problems are to be effectively addressed. Local and centralized levels must work together, with each level respecting the knowledge, expertise, and initiative that the other level can contribute to the process of managing social projects. Questions: How
does the policy encourage local responsibility in important economic,
political, and cultural projects? How does it encourage responsible action on higher
levels of administration when this is necessary? Overall, does it recognize
the need for both local initiative and central coordination in order to
successfully address social projects and problems of all types? 4. The Impact on Various Socio-Cultural Collectivities Assumptions: In the social section of our framework, we also group persons according to income, ethnicity, gender, creed, age, race, and sexual orientation. We have chosen these specific characteristics because they very often have a significant impact on an individual’s ability to gain access to resources that they need in order to develop themselves. For example, young people in lower economic classes may lack the resources and social support needed in order to gain a high level of education and career training. By contrast, those in a higher class may have access to abundant resources necessary for developing vocational skills, including special tutoring and enrichment experiences. More affluent individuals may also enjoy the social support of affluent family members and the institutions to which they belong. Similarly, someone in a particular religious tradition, race, or ethnic group may be discriminated against by persons in other faiths or ethnic groups. These oppressed individuals may be excluded from participating in educational, economic, spiritual, political, and civic organizations. We propose that the key principles that
should govern relationships within these socio-cultural groups are equal
opportunity and inclusion. Persons
in all classes, races, genders, faith traditions, and ethnic groups, as well as
those who share different sexual orientations, should enjoy the same
opportunities to develop all areas of competence that contribute to personal
liberty and fulfillment. We propose
that the state may have to take proactive and even aggressive measures to ensure
that members of all groups gain opportunities to advance themselves,
particularly if some groups Questions: How does the policy encourage inclusiveness and opportunities for all groups, minorities and majorities? Does the policy respect the equal rights of persons of all classes, races, ethnic groups, faiths, genders, and sexual orientations to develop themselves and aspire to some notion of fulfillment that is compatible with the common good? How specifically does it secure opportunities for different groups, particularly those that have been oppressed in some way? How does it help to moderate the "income and opportunity gaps" between the classes?
The evaluation of foreign policy is relevant to the international level of social organization, and thus belongs in this section of the framework. However, the foreign policy section includes questions on all four levels of organization. It will thus be helpful to finish the main section on evaluating policies before reading through the section that deals with foreign policies (see section VII below). On the basis of your religious beliefs or philosophical orientation, are there any other assumptions that you would like to add and questions that you would like to ask regarding the effect of this policy on social progress – that is, its effect on the ability of institutions to promote social progress? the ability of different social sectors to promote progress? its effect on relationships between different levels of social organization? on the role of different socio-cultural collectivities in the promotion of social progress: different races, classes, ethnic groups, genders, and persons with different sexual orientations? Do you have any additional assumptions and questions regarding the effects of this policy on relationships between churches and states? Instructions on how to add assumptions and questions to the frameworks will be provided in the software program for evaluating policies that will be available on the PEAC web site (see above, item E under the "Web Site" section of "Programs").
Assumptions: In this proposal, the natural world includes all living things, including human societies, and the habitats in which they live. Like the social world, the world of nature can be broken down into different levels. The most basic is the level of species, which represent unique types of organisms. Ecosystems are complex "webs of life" composed of a variety of species that live within a particular habitat and depend on each other to maintain a state of ecological balance and equilibrium. The most inclusive level is the biosphere, which is the entire envelope of air, soil, and water that circles the globe, containing all ecosystems and habitats within it. 2. Relationships between Species, Ecosystems, and the Biosphere Individual species depend on
the health and integrity of other species and ecosystems. They depend on other
species that they eat. They depend on species that eat them and thus control
their populations. They also depend on all other species that somehow help to
create an environment that is suitable for their survival and growth. The
stability of ecosystems depends on all of the species that occupy
"niches" within them. Ecosystems are also intimately connected to each
other. When ecosystems are damaged, surrounding ecosystems are inevitably thrown
out of balance and the survival of species within them is jeopardized. All
ecosystems (and species) are, in turn, dependent upon the integrity of the biosphere
as a whole – the global layer of all ecosystems and the natural resources that
are necessary for their survival. If the balance of the components of the
biosphere is disrupted, all organisms and all ecosystems are somehow affected.
For example, such phenomena as acid rain and the greenhouse effect receive a
great deal of study and attention simply because they are large-scale phenomena
that affect the entire biosphere and all of the ecosystems within it. Thus,
indirectly or directly, all species and organisms on the planet will be affected
by them. 4. The Many Ways of Valuing the Natural World 5. The Impact of Human Activities on the Natural
World Environmental issues affect all living things profoundly, including human societies. And they do so on a long-term basis. While individuals may suffer and societies may decline without a lasting effect on the welfare of the planet, the integrity of ecosystems affects all people for long periods of time; indeed, much damage to the environment is irreversible. It is thus imperative that all public policies take these issues into account. 6. Addressing Environmental Problems through Public
Policy 7. The Global Need for Sustainable Technologies Questions: How does the policy deal with alleged conflicts between economic prosperity and sound environmental policies? Does the policy support specific international treaties and agreements that address environmental issues, such as global warming and the ozone layer, by coordinating policies in all nations? Does the policy encourage the development of cleaner energy sources around the globe? Does it promote more energy-efficient designs for housing and office buildings? Does it encourage the global development of manufacturing processes that are less harmful to the environment? Does it encourage the development of less polluting forms of transportation at home and abroad? Does it promote the development of public transportation? Does the policy promote recycling of resources and effective global waste management? Does it promote patterns of human settlement that preserve habitats for different plant and animal species? In all of these areas of concern, does the policy advocate the transfer of environmentally sound technologies from nations that do have them to nations that don’t? Does it help nations acquire, through aid or trade, less polluting technologies for energy generation, transportation, manufacturing, etc.? Since all human activities have some effect on the environment, we have attempted to identify several areas of special concern that have the greatest impact on species and ecosystems around the planet. This list is by no means exhaustive, but it identifies urgent environmental issues that all human societies face. On the basis of your religious beliefs or philosophical orientation, are there any other assumptions that you would like to add and questions that you would like to ask concerning the impact of this policy on the environment – on species? ecosystems? the biosphere as a whole? Instructions on how to add assumptions and questions to the frameworks will be provided in the software program for evaluating policies that will be available on the PEAC web site (see above, item E under the "Web Site" section of "Programs").
D. Analyzing and Evaluating the Impact of Policies on Cosmic Patterns of Change Assumptions: Most religions and philosophies maintain that all entities and events on all
levels of organization are somehow influenced by a deity(ies) or some cosmic
principle. For example, some
traditions believe in
cosmic principles such as karma or yin-yang.
Many theistic religions believe that all earthly events are part of a
divine plan. Some traditions believe that
a system of divine justice operates in earthly affairs. On the basis of your religious beliefs or philosophical orientation, are there any other assumptions that you would like to add and questions that you would like to ask regarding the relationship of this policy to universal laws, principles, or views of history? Instructions on how to add assumptions and questions to the frameworks will be provided in the software program for evaluating policies that will be available on the PEAC web site (see above, item E under the "Web Site" section of "Programs").
Assumptions: When using the above framework, it is essential to strive for a comprehensive view of the effects of policies on the different levels of organization. Historically, some political ideologies have focused on the individual level; others have focused on social collectivities. Others have stressed the ecological and cosmic levels. It is important to integrate concepts and norms from all of these levels in the analysis of policies in order to avoid the possibility of unpleasant consequences that may defeat the purpose for which the policy was created. For example, a job training program may be very effective at developing the economic competence of individuals. However, when one moves to the social level, one may discover that the policy unfairly benefited one racial or ethnic group, thus arousing racial or ethnic tensions that endanger social stability and economic growth. Had the policy been evaluated in terms of all levels of organization, such an oversight could have been avoided. Just within the social level, this holistic perspective is challenging to achieve. Consider a government policy that regulates an international corporation. The social framework enables one to consider the firm as an institution and as part of the market sector. It also helps one to see issues on different levels of social organization. One may, for example, try to determine if it is more effective to regulate the firm through state, federal, or international laws and policies. In addition, the employees of the corporation, all of whom might be affected by the policy, may be drawn primarily from one ethnic group. If so, it would be necessary to consider norms regarding socio-cultural collectivities when creating or evaluating this policy. Challenging as it may be, this holistic perspective thus helps one to grasp the full context of social issues and to create the types of policies that best address them. Each level of organization provides key insights into how policies work and how they can be made more effective. Questions: Has the policy been evaluated on the personal, social, ecological, and cosmic levels? Are policymakers aware of the impact of the policy on individuals, social collectivities, and the environment? Does your analysis integrate concepts and norms from all levels? Has each framework on the social level been considered? institutions, sectors, levels of social organization, socio-cultural collectivities?
F. Recognizing the Impact of
Policies on Dynamic Relationships between the Levels of Organization
Assumptions: It is important to analyze policies on all levels of organization simply because all of these levels are dynamically related to each another. The actions of individuals affect institutions and the environment, institutional policies affect individuals and the environment, and environmental policies affect individuals and institutions. The distinctions between the levels or organization in this framework can thus be misleading. While these distinctions help one to analyze policies more clearly, they may cause one to overlook the relationships between all of the levels and the ways in which these relationships influence the effectiveness of social policies in the long run. For example, a policy that develops individuals while undermining social institutions and damaging the environment will be a disaster for many individuals in the long-term when the environment and social institutions can no longer provide the necessary resources for their development. Similarly, a policy that strengthens institutions while oppressing individuals will ultimately lead to social conflict, which will in turn undermine many institutions. The task of predicting the long-term effects of policies on relationships between different levels of organization is perhaps the most challenging part of using this framework. One may have to consult research in such fields as sociology or ecology in order to gain insight into these complex relationships. This holistic, diligent approach is worth the effort, however, since it may prevent the unhappy discovery of unintended, negative consequences that result from the implementation of flawed, short-sighted policies. Questions: How do policies affect relationships between the different levels of organization in the long run? Do policies benefit some individuals while harming social groups? Do they harm the environment while providing short term benefits to societies? Or do they benefit individuals, societies, and the environment in the long run? How does the policy affect relationships between the different social frameworks? Does your analysis of policies consider the impact of policies on institutions as well as the ways in which these impacts on institutions will affect social sectors? different levels of organization? socio-cultural groups? and visa-versa for all of these?
Assumptions: As one considers the personal, social, and ecological consequences of different policies, it becomes clear that effects on the different levels of organization do not have the same degree of impact on the common good. Individuals may suffer harm without necessarily affecting the well-being of institutions and ecosystems. As one moves to the level of institutions, however, the stakes go higher, since harm to institutions inevitably affects the many individuals whose lives are touched by them. Furthermore, harm to ecosystems can be the most disastrous in the long run, since individuals and entire societies depend on the environment for their health and well-being. It thus seems reasonable to propose that there is a hierarchy of values that exists among the different levels of organization. This hierarchy of values is based on the insight that the well-being of entities on lower levels of organization depends on the well-being of more comprehensive, higher levels of organization. Individual development depends on effective social institutions that provide opportunities for individuals to address their needs and exercise their personal freedoms. In turn, all institutions and societies depend on the health of ecosystems for their survival. These insights are not ideological opinions. They are facts that can be empirically proven through sociological and ecological research. When institutions break down, individuals suffer from the lack of opportunities to better themselves; when ecosystems break down, societies experience a much lower quality of life, and individuals inevitably suffer as parts of these societies. There are several fairly obvious implications of this hierarchy of values. First, it is absolutely essential to promote the integrity of ecosystems if societies and individuals are to thrive. Thus, the health of the environment is the most important issue for public policy. If the environment is damaged, then all societies and individuals suffer the consequences. Next, it is essential to create and maintain dynamic institutions that enable individuals to lead full, satisfying lives. Public policies must respect this hierarchy of values. They must never permit individuals to seek their interests at the expense of institutions. They must never allow individuals and societies to pollute the environment in pursuit of short-term goals that ultimately lead to ecological crises. We do not wish to minimize individual rights – the traditional pillars of free, democratic societies. We simply insist that policies respect the need to preserve the social order and ecological systems within which individual freedoms are exercised. Individuals depend upon these institutions and ecosystems for the resources they need to survive and pursue their vision of happiness. Outside of society and the natural world, individual liberties mean nothing. Questions: Does the
policy respect the hierarchy of values that exists among the different levels of
organization? Does it respect the priority of the ecological level, followed by
the social level, and then by the level of individual persons? Does it promote
entities at lower levels of organization while damaging those on higher levels?
For example, does it promote personal liberty to the detriment of social
institutions or sectors? Does it promote economic activities in the market
sector to the detriment of ecosystems? If so, can the policy be revised so that
it respects the hierarchy of values? H. Evaluating the Policy within an ‘Experimental Approach’ to Policy-Making Assumptions: As discussed above in section III.H, we advocate an ‘experimental approach’ to policy-making. According to this approach, one should tackle difficult social problems by trying a variety of sound policies. One can try different policies in different regions, or implement different policies in the same region over the course of an extended period of time. One may then compare the results of these different policies in order to determine which approaches are most effective. This approach may not be appropriate for addressing all types of social issues, but in many cases it is the only reasonable approach to solving problems that have no easy, clear-cut solution. Questions: Provided that such an approach is possible in this context, is this policy part of an experimental approach to foreign policy-making?
II. Understanding Foreign Policies
Assumptions: On the international level, we assume that the goal of foreign policy should be to promote the development of individuals, social groups, and ecosystems in all nations affected by specific policies and programs. In order to evaluate foreign policies, one may therefore ask questions on all three of these levels of organization. For those who espouse a faith tradition or philosophy with a broader cosmic perspective, questions for this most inclusive level are included as well. The reader is encouraged to review the assumptions for
each section of the policy framework before answering the sets of questions
below. A. The Impact of Foreign Policies on Individuals: Dimensions of Competence and Human Rights Assumptions:
One may consider the following assumption as one assesses
the impact of a foreign policy on individual development and well-being in all
nations affected by it. 2. The Developmental
Nature of Liberty and Fulfillment 4. A Full Range of Human Rights
and the Relationships between Them
Assumptions: On the social level of organization, we examine foreign policies as they affect social dynamics within nations and between nations.
1. The Impact of a Foreign Policy on National and International Institutions
Regarding the norms that govern the activities of these large-scale institutions, emphasis is appropriately placed on the common good of large-scale entities such as nation-states, international coalitions, and the biosphere as a whole. As with all other institutions, large-scale organizations such as the United Nations and international alliances are responsible for the welfare of all of the social and biological systems that are affected by their values, programs, and policies. a) National Governments Second, the violent means to be
employed must be proportionate to the goals to be achieved -- in other words,
the goals to be achieved must be able to justify the destruction of life and
property that is likely to accompany the military action. Finally, military
force should be employed only when all nonviolent methods for resolving the
conflict have been exhausted. In addition to these politically-focused national and
international institutions, the foreign policy should also help educational,
cultural, familial, religious, economic, media, and civic organizations to
flourish both within and across national boundaries.
c) Special Institutional Focus: Exploring the Influence
of Political Parties on
Foreign Policies In this capacity, political parties greatly shape the landscape of foreign relations. On a broader level, they issue platforms that outline their general philosophies as well as their foreign policy proposals. We have created applications to help citizens to better understand these platforms. In this section of the framework, however, we focus not on parties' platforms, but rather on their sources of support: their members and donors. We explore how the interests of these sources may influence the foreign policies that the parties propose. By doing so, we hope to get a clearer idea of the various influences that shape a foreign policy. The following questions will help citizens to discern and evaluate these influences.
Membership and Support Relationships with Other Parties
On all levels of organization, it is essential to maintain both cooperative and adversarial relationships between the three social sectors of the market, the state, and civil society. On the international level, this is a great challenge. Regarding the government sector, the autonomy of nations is greatly esteemed around the world, so there is no single "world government" that can regulate global markets or coordinate environmental policies. This must be done through several international organizations such as The World Trade Organization, The World Bank, and others. The United Nations seeks to establish norms and programs for a variety of economic, military, social, cultural, and environmental concerns. It acts as both an international governing organization and as a part of a "global civil society." In that international market sector, many business firms conduct their business across national boundaries. Many organizations that make up civil society have roots across the globe. Churches are one example, as are relief agencies such as The Red Cross. All three sectors have a global presence, yet their power and influence varies greatly from sector to sector, and from region to region. It is also difficult to coordinate the organizations that make up the sectors, since they have roots in so many different cultures and value systems. Relationships between sectors are thus much more complicated on the international level. However, the same basic principles apply: it is essential for sectors to cooperate on projects that are urgent priorities for societies across the globe. Poverty and environmental concerns are two examples of such issues. Businesses, governments, and groups in civil society must combine resources in order to address these massive issues that affect the welfare of billions of persons. The sectors must also maintain an inevitable tension in their relationships. The business sector must pressure governments and international organizations to maintain a favorable climate for trade and entrepreneurship. Churches and advocacy groups must pressure states to promote the welfare of all individuals and groups, of all races and classes. International governing bodies must regulate business firms so that they promote the well-being of employees, customers, and ecosystems. They must also monitor the activities of groups in civil society so that these groups remain faithful to their educational, spiritual, and cultural missions. Overall, a careful balance between cooperation and tension must be maintained between sectors on all levels, from neighborhoods to the entire globe. Relationships within sectors on the international level are complicated as well. Within the government sector, foreign policies must promote a balance of power between the different branches of government in all nations affected by them. In the international political arena, policies must create and reinforce a healthy balance of power between different states and between international coalitions or blocs. Regarding the market sector, foreign polices must preserve a favorable climate for business firms, small and large. They should try to enhance the economic status of all nations and all of their citizens. Policies must promote economic opportunities for all persons, regardless of class, gender, or race. They must encourage fair and open trade relationships between nations. They must help international organizations to establish a wide distribution of economic wealth and opportunity within and between nations and between different regions of the globe. Within civil society, policies must help educational, spiritual, and cultural institutions to achieve their goals without undue interference from the state and from one another. Policies must also facilitate cooperation between these groups when this is necessary in order to achieve some social goal.
Questions: Relationships within Sectors
National Government Sectors and International Political
Coalitions Regarding international political dynamics, how does the policy affect the balance of power between nations? Does it promote or destabilize this balance? Is this positive or negative for the nations involved?
The National Market International Markets
National and International Non-Governmental Organizations Questions: Relationships between Sectors Cooperation and Competition between Sectors Does the policy facilitate cooperation between civil society, the market, and governments when this is necessary? Does it help institutions in civil society to hold governments and business firms accountable to the task of promoting the global common good? Does it help governments to regulate businesses so that their economic activities consistently promote the common good? Does it enable business firms to operate without excessive regulation and restriction of trade?
Assumptions: The proper scope and function of institutions at different levels of organization is a particularly important issue for foreign policy. According to the principle of subsidiarity, it is essential that foreign policies encourage responsibility and initiative on lower levels of organization whenever this is possible. This principle applies to all contexts and types of institutions: political, economic, spiritual, educational, etc. Yet, when international and national coordination is essential in order to address major global issues, action must be taken on higher, more centralized levels. Maintaining a balance between these two imperatives is the great challenge for those who create foreign policy. Many policies require actions at all levels of organization – from global to local. Policies should thus encourage responsibility and initiative on more local levels, yet also insist on coordination on higher levels when this is necessary. They must encourage a spirit of respect between leaders at lower and higher levels so that they may more readily cooperate on broad social projects. Questions: As it pursues social goals and addresses social problems, is this foreign policy faithful to the principle of subsidiarity: does it encourage a prudent balance between 1) local initiative and 2) coordination on the national and international levels?
Assumptions: As
discussed above in section I.B.4 of the policy framework above, all persons
should have an equal opportunity to develop themselves and pursue their
understanding of happiness and fulfillment (provided that their pursuit of
happiness does not injure other persons or the environment). Persons may not be
discriminated against because of their economic class, race, religion,
ethnicity, age, gender, or sexual orientation. Furthermore, if any group has been
historically oppressed on the basis of one of these characteristics, society is
obliged to take positive steps to ensure that its members are able to overcome
the lasting effects of this oppression. Questions: Does this foreign policy facilitate just and equitable relationships between different classes, races, religions, ethnic groups, genders, and between those of different sexual orientations? Does it help all members of these groups to enjoy equal opportunities for self-development and for participation in society?
Assumptions: For foreign policy, there is perhaps no more urgent issue than the environment. Ecosystems, unlike cultures and nations, ignore boundaries set by human convention. One nation’s environmental problems almost always have some tangible impact on other nations. Consequently, environmental issues demand focused and coordinated efforts by many nations, regardless of culture, creed, or political ideology. Foreign policies may focus on issues related to the
protection of species, ecosystems, and the entire biosphere (for a discussion of
these terms, see section VI.C: "Analyzing and Evaluating the Impact
of Policies on the Environment: The Level of Ecosystems and Natural
Resources"). They provide
opportunities to reach broad international accords that call upon all nations to
enact specific environmental policies. They may also create agreements that
somehow transfer "green technologies" from nations that have them to
nations that need them. The environmental impact of all foreign policies, even
those that do not specifically address environmental issues, should be carefully
assessed in order to predict their short- and long-term effects on species,
ecosystems, and the biosphere as a whole. In all of these areas of concern, does the policy advocate the transfer of environmentally sound technologies from nations that do have them to nations that don’t? Does it help nations acquire, through aid or trade, less polluting technologies for energy generation, transportation, manufacturing, etc.? Since all human activities have some effect on the
environment, we have attempted to identify several areas of special concern that
have the greatest impact on species and ecosystems around the planet. This list
is by no means exhaustive, but it identifies urgent environmental issues that
all human societies face. Assumptions:
Most religions and philosophies maintain that all entities and events on all
levels of organization are somehow influenced by a deity(ies) or some cosmic
principle. For example, some
traditions believe in
cosmic principles such as karma or yin-yang.
Many theistic religions believe that all earthly events are part of a
divine plan. Some traditions believe that
a system of divine justice operates in earthly affairs. Since
foreign policies affect large regions around the globe as a whole, they are often
interpreted through the lens of religious belief systems. On the basis of your religious beliefs or philosophical orientation, are there any other assumptions that you would like to add and questions that you would like to ask regarding the impact of this foreign policy on all persons, societies, ecosystems, and cosmic trends affected by it? Instructions on how to add assumptions and questions to the frameworks will be provided in the software program for evaluating policies that will be available on the PEAC web site (see above, item E under the "Web Site" section of "Programs").
E. Evaluating the Impact of a Foreign Policy on Relationships between Different Levels of Organization Assumptions: It is important to analyze significant issues on all levels of organization because all of these levels are dynamically related to each another. The actions of individuals affect institutions and the environment, institutional policies affect individuals and the environment, and environmental policies affect individuals and institutions. The distinctions between the levels or organization in this framework can thus be misleading. While these distinctions help one to analyze policies more clearly, they may cause one to overlook the relationships between all of the levels and the ways in which these relationships influence the effectiveness of social policies in the long run. For example, a policy that develops individuals while undermining social institutions and damaging the environment will be a disaster for many individuals in the long-term when the environment and social institutions can no longer provide the necessary resources for their development. Similarly, a policy that strengthens institutions while oppressing individuals will ultimately lead to social conflict, which will in turn undermine many institutions. The task of predicting the long-term effects of policies on relationships between different levels of organization is perhaps the most challenging part of using this framework. One may have to consult research in such fields as sociology or ecology in order to gain insight into these complex relationships. On the international level, this task is even more daunting, since policies may have an impact on individuals, social groups, and ecosystems throughout entire nations, international regions, and the entire globe. While it may be demanding for political experts and citizens alike, this holistic, diligent approach is worth the effort, since it may prevent the unhappy discovery of unintended, negative consequences that result from the implementation of flawed, short-sighted policies. Questions: How does this foreign policy affect relationships between the different levels of organization in the long run? Does the policy benefit some individuals while harming social groups? Does it harm the environment while providing short term benefits to societies? Or does it benefit individuals, societies, and the environment in the long run?
F. Determining Whether or Not the Foreign Policy Respects the Hierarchy of Values that Exists among the Different Levels of Organization As discussed in section III.G, we propose that there is a hierarchy of values that exists between the different levels of organization. The well-being of the ecological level is the most important, since all societies and individuals depend on the health of the environment for their own survival and well-being. The well-being of social groups is, in turn, more important than that of individuals, since individuals rely on society to provide opportunities to develop the skills and capabilities necessary to achieve some degree of happiness and fulfillment. Once again, we do not wish to devalue personal rights and liberties. We simply point out the facts – these rights and liberties can be exercised most freely in societies with healthy ecosystems and ethical, efficient institutions. Like domestic policies, foreign policies must respect this hierarchy if they hope to promote the welfare of the nations that are affected by them. Questions: Does this
foreign policy respect the hierarchy of values that exists among the different
levels of organization? G. Assessing the Approach to Foreign Policy-Making Assumptions: As discussed above in section III.H, we advocate an experimental approach to policy-making. According to this approach, one should tackle difficult social problems by trying a variety of sound policies. One can try different policies in different regions, or implement different policies in the same region over the course of an extended period of time. One may then compare the results of these different policies in order to determine which approaches are most effective. This approach is much more difficult to implement on the level of foreign policy for several reasons. One simply may not have enough control over policies and events in other countries. It would thus be difficult to systematically try out different approaches in the shifting seas of international affairs. One may have to make policies in conjunction with other nations, and such alliances may be very difficult to achieve for even a short period, much less over a longer period of sustained policy experimentation. Also, nations understandably demand to be treated fairly, so any approach that appears to apply one set of values and policies to one nation and another set to another nation might be resisted by some or all of the parties involved, even if the policy-makers act with sincerity and good will. Nonetheless, whenever possible, an experimental approach should be implemented, particularly in foreign aid and development programs. One may try some approaches to assisting nations in one region, and another approach in another region. While results may not be so easily compared and evaluated, one will surely learn a wealth of additional information by trying out a variety of sound approaches to aid and development. Over the course of many years, it is likely that some approaches will prove themselves to be more productive than others. Questions: Provided that such an approach is possible in this context, is this policy part of an experimental approach to foreign policy-making?
A. Organizing and Training Political Education and Action Groups (PEAGs) It is never easy to work through this entire framework on one’s own. One may not have a clear grasp of all of the sections of the framework, or one may know enough about the policy in question. It is thus essential for citizens to use this framework in groups so that they may pool their insights as they evaluate policies. We thus propose that this strategy for evaluation and
advocacy is most effective when used within Political Education and Action
Groups (PEAGs). As discussed in the "General
Introduction" above, PEAGs will be small groups of citizens who wish to
come together to engage in political dialogue and advocacy. One may form a PEAG
in one’s neighborhood, faith community, workplace, or school, or civic
organization. The process of moving from political dialogue to political
action involves four basic steps: 1) carefully evaluating a broad range of
policies that address a particular social issue or problem, 2) identifying the
policies that look the most promising, 3) building a consensus around a cluster
of policy options that are acceptable to all members of a PEAG, and 4)
communicating these policy proposals in the public square. Such an experimental approach to policy solutions
helps policymakers to accept the uncertainty that is inherent in the process of
addressing complex social problems. When one attempts to tackle complex
problems, even the most insightful and carefully planned policies may not be as
effective as was hoped. This uncertainty often keeps politicians from proposing
bold policies that are promising but unproven. If citizens explicitly support an
experimental approach to public policy-making, officials will not be so
paralyzed by the fear of failure. They may be reassured that the public supports
a strategy of addressing social issues through prudent and pragmatic trial and
error. This experimental approach cannot be used for all types of
policies, of course. It would not be wise, for example, to legalize a drug in
some states and not in others. In cases such as this, groups must simply try to
create a consensus on just one or two policies that most effectively promote the
norms and values that they espouse. They may then advocate these options in the
public square. Still, for most issues, an experimental approach to policy-making
is most appropriate. It calls for a variety of options to be tried and tested.
Whether different policies are successful or not, the results of these
"policy experiments" will almost certainly provide a wealth of
information that may be used to refine strategies for solving pressing social
problems. After groups reach a consensus on a cluster of policy options that they can all support, they may write or e-mail their proposals to their own congresspersons as well as other officials. They may also publicize their consensus by posting their views on the web. Beyond this, they may build coalitions by searching for other like-minded PEAGs (or other groups) through the web or some other networking media. These coalitions may then combine resources in order to 1) coordinate mass mailings to lawmakers and/or 2) publicize their views by publishing them on the web or, preferably, by purchasing advertisements in print and broadcast media. Networking can be very broad in scope if group leaders invest a lot of effort in building coalitions for political action. These coalitions can send powerful messages to lawmakers and their staffs if PEAGs and their partners work together and resolve to act with courage and conviction. With the global spread of the internet, there are effective and inexpensive technologies for mass communication. It is possible to communicate views across town and around the world, in practically any culture. Once again, the scope of advocacy depends on the commitment and determination of those who seek to make their voices heard in the public square. If people want to raise their voices for social reform, it can be done. This overall strategy is designed to provide individuals
and groups with a common framework for analysis and a common call to action. It
is designed to facilitate analysis, evaluation, proposals, coalition building,
and public communication on a broad scale. It does so using clear, accessible
concepts for dialogue and simple, practical strategies for effective political
action. |