Ad hoc vs. normative policies: which do you prefer?

[Machjo]

Right now, the co-alition is talking about subsidizing the auto industry. My question is this:

Which would you prefer among the following scenarios:


a) a law saying the government will give X to company y.

or

b) a law saying they will give X to any company that meets specific criteria.

An example of a) above would be the government giving a certain amount of money to the auto industry exclusively according to a favouratist policy.

An example of b) above migth be, for example, saying that a company (any company, even a one-man company), that can prove that the only barrier to the company not laying off any staff is the lack of training of the staff, can have training for the staff in a course of the company's choice paid for by the government, or a company proving that the only barrier to its hiring more staff is the lack of qualifications of applicants, in which case the government could pay for the training costs of any candidate the company promises to hire after the course, in a school of the companty's choice.

It would seem to me to be more logical to go with a more normative policy on a number of grounds:

1. There's no favouritism and the rules apply to all.

2. It's guaranteed to prevent lay offs, create jobs, or guarantee promotions in a company that is obviously growing or at least not suffering too much.

3. The workers and companies benefit equally across the company.

The problem I see with an ad-hoc philosophy is that it favours a particular industry randomly with no explanation as to why this industry is more important than that one.

2. It makes no guarantee that that money will help improve car sells, and therefore no guarantee of long-term job creation or retention, etc.

3. It might even be stalling the inevitable demise of a company who's days are numbered anyway.

What are your thoughts? Are you more in favour of ad-hoc policy-making or normative policy-making?

 

[Machjo]

Another problem I see with ad-hoc policy making is that it is essentially a tacit confession that the current normative policies that are already in place have failed but that the governemtn doesn't really know how to reform the current normative policies to correct the fault, and so opts for ad-hoc short-term solutions to problems as they come along.

Allowing ad-hoc policy-making also allows for more corruption and back-room deals, since 'normative policies are automated with objective criteria spelled out for all to see and benefit from on an equal footing.
Another problem I see with ad-hoc policy making is that it bogs the federal government down in micromanagement, imposing tunnel vision and not allowing the government to deal with other issues. A more normative policy-making philosophy favours automation of policy-execution, thus allowing the government to pass responsibility for the management of the new policy down to teh civil service, thus allowing the government to move on and tackle new problems. Another issue is taht to make or reform a normative policy forcces the government to difine terms more celarly, thus forcing it to think about and understand the problem, causes and consequences better, whereas an ad-hoc policy can be done on a whim with no checks or balances, and thsu no requirement to explain standards, long-term consequences, checks, balances, etc.

your thoughts?

 

[scratch]

Machjo,
With all due consideration to you, I am not in favour of the Federal Government providing money to any given company or organization.

The money that the Feds receive from the provinces and are then returned in the form of Regional payments should be used(as the money is taxpayers dollars)to rebuild the infrastructure, build new schools (or do necessary renovations etc.)

If a company or group of companies or institutions have been negligent in the use of their resources too bad for them.

Taxpayers' dollars are not to bail out inefficient and irresponsible companies or institutions...period.

Just an observation.
regards
scratch

 

[Machjo]

Machjo,
With all due consideration to you, I am not in favour of the Federal Government providing money to any given company or organization.

The money that the Feds receive from the provinces and are then returned in the form of Regional payments should be used(as the money is taxpayers dollars)to rebuild the infrastructure, build new schools (or do necessary renovations etc.)

If a company or group of companies or institutions have been negligent in the use of their resources too bad for them.

Taxpayers' dollars are not to bail out inefficient and irresponsible companies or institutions...period.

Just an observation.
regards
scratch

Guess what, Scratch. I think I totally agree with what you said there, and I beleive that banning ad-hoc policies would put a stop to that. I don't know if you read the OP from start to finish, but you'll notice that in the example of a normative policy that I gave, not one cent would actually go to the company. The governemtn would merely be providing training for workers so that the company could hire them on its own money if training is the only thing stopping a company from hiring any more workers or, worse yet, considering moving abroad owing to a shortage of qualified workers in Canada.

I do believe that forcing the government to a normative policy would put an end to this silliness.