Policy Instruments

The Formulation of Policy Tools

The formulation of policy tools is guided by public policy. Policy instruments are rules or laws enacted by federal, state, and international governments to address a certain occurrence or problem and achieve a specific goal (Hatzopolou and Miller, 2009). Policy tools influence how commodities and services are distributed to the general public. However, policy instruments have their own set of issues; there are usually roadblocks that prevent the system regulations from being fully operationalized. This study will look at the Vancouver mass transit system, the policy instruments that have been developed to cope with the transportation network, and the policy restrictions that have influenced those rules. Vancouver is a coastal city in the province of British Columbia, Canada. It is a tourist destination with good hotels and the sandy beaches. There are transport problems, and the City Council of Vancouver pinpointed public infrastructure and public transit as their main issue of concern. Of great concern was the transportation sector (Lascoumes and Le Gales, 2001). TransLink, the Vancouver transport authority noted that there were constant traffic jams. To ease congestion, they advised the authorities to come up with a new infrastructural policy that would reduce the problem. Under the infrastructural plan, Vancouver is to have a new four-lane Pattullo Bridge, a Subway in the city, and a light rail in the Surrey. The interventions brought by the infrastructural policy are aimed at decongesting the city. To complete the project, it required around $7.5 billion. The funds would be realized by taxing the city’s inhabitants. The congestion improvement tax was introduced. Under the arrangement, each household is to pay $125 per year in the next decade. The project will take at least ten years for its completion.

Economic and Fiscal Instruments

The proposed new infrastructural improvements can be categorized as economic and fiscal instruments (Linblom, 1959). Economic and financial instruments are usually considered regarding their economic and social efficiency. The primary objective is to improve economic activities in an area and enhance social activities as well. A new improved transport network in Vancouver increases faster movement of goods and services, and this improves the economy; people will also access the social amenities easily, and this improves the social life of its inhabitants. The $7.5 billion required to fund the project has faced some stiff opposition. The transit tax that has been inflated to support the project has been criticized for putting a proportionally significant burden on less affluent people. The $125 per year congestion improvement tax that each household will pay for the next decade is expected to rise, and the citizens have lamented that it is putting a burden on them on some ineffective venture. The City Council of Vancouver has been blamed for the lack of efficiency in carrying out their mandate; since 1997, the Council has been levying development charges on the population but how it has been utilized leaves a lot of questions than answers. Also, TransLink has efficiency problems. Opinion makers have argued that the transport authority has not managed the transport system of Vancouver. The new infrastructure instrument has faced a lot of hurdles because of the lack of credibility of the administrators. People view that it will not be successful because similar initiatives have been done before but have not been effective because of the failure of those who manage the same.

Precise Formulation and Review

The administrators in the Vancouver adopted the new infrastructure policy instrument after a precise formulation and review. In 2014, the chairperson of the mayors’ council noted that the Metro Congestion Improvement Tax (CIT) had been under consideration in the past decade. The formulators adopted the rational, comprehensive method (root method) in coming up with the regulation; all the possible ways of solving the traffic congestion in the city had been evaluated. In the method above, the costs and benefits of each option are identified and compared; the option that promises the great result is selected (Linblom, 1959). The expansion of the bridge, the new subway, and the light rail was recognized as the best methods of solving the problem regarding the expected results and costs. Building a new bridge was not adopted because it was viewed as an expensive venture with a relatively minimal output. The root method is guided by values. All the related values in policy are listed concerning importance. An example is in Vancouver, where the administrators are to tax the inhabitants to fund the project. The objectives of the policy; ensure everyone contributes the normal amount, tax people a reasonable amount affordable to all, build a new transport network and avoid friction with the residents. Prudent administrators ensure that they list all the values in terms of importance; social objectives do not always have the same relative values. The officials value high-speed completion of a project as well as maintain good public relations with the people. They have two choices; sacrifice a little speed for a happy clientele or offend the people and complete the work faster (Gundmundsson and Wyatt, 2005). It has been argued that the failure of the Vancouver transport project to take off as expected is because the authorities decided on the policy without clarifying the objectives.

Other Policies and Instruments

Other policies that could fund the mass transit project include road tolling, vehicle levies, and gasoline taxes. The policies are already in place, but the authorities are blamed for not effectively managing them and clarifying their objectives. It can be argued that in coming up with the policies; the authorities adopted the successive limited comparison method (branch method). The means and ends of achieving objectives are intertwined (Linblom, 1959). The administrators decide policy without clarifying goals first and in the case of conflict between the values, they fail to rank them per importance. The above scenario has led to those policies not being effectively utilized. Also, other instruments include traffic management, attitudinal changes of the people like ride sharing to reduce the number of cars on the road, and Information Technology to provide services like route guidance to motorists.

The Political Social Approach

The political social approach is critical for public policy instrument and public policy change. The public policy instruments appreciate the social relations between the people and the state. The instrument operationalizes government policy and thus brings social control. In Vancouver, the authorities decided to improve the transport network after the traffic congestion that had affected the peoples’ social lives. The CIT is to fund the project and bring some form of social control; easing traffic problems in the city. Usually, policy instruments fail to achieve their objectives because those who formulate and implement it fail to clearly clarify the objectives first and also to compare with other options and come up with the best objective. The root method is the best way of coming up with a policy. It explores all the available options and chooses the best that will achieve the greatest result. The Vancouver mass transit project is still underway, and time will tell if the policy will achieve the intended specific objective which is to ease congestion.

References

Gundmundsson, H., & Wyatt, A. (2005). Benchmarking and sustainable transport policy: Learning from the BEST network. Transport Reviews, 669-690.

Hatzopolou, M., & Miller, E. (2009). Transport policy evaluation in metropolitan areas: The role of modeling in decision making. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 323-338.

Lascoumes, P., & Le Gales, P. (2001). Introduction: Understanding public policy through its instruments-from the nature of istruments to the sociology of instrumentation. Governance, 1-21.

Linblom, C. (1959). The science of ’muddling through. Public Administration Review, 79-88.