In each of the three scenarios presented in the case, opponents and proponents have divergent views of government regulations. One view is on the public benefit, the other is on the cost to private industry. How can you decide which view to accept?
Currently being a member of the public, I would side with the benefit viewpoint. I also must imagine that people in the private industry, albeit concerned with their company and its profits, also enjoy the world that they live in and don’t want to see it burned to the ground. This being the case I feel that the public benefit view of government regulation is more widely accepted over concern of the private industry costs. One way to gauge which view to accept is the benefit/cost ratio (BCR). The
…show more content…
The benefits of DHS’s actions are rooted in safety. The thought is that human
life is more valuable than profit. I think that the public benefits outweigh the private cost in this scenario. Second is federal legislation guidelines on tractors, making them more environmentally friendly. The chief cost here is financial. New model tractors that meet regulations cost upwards of $10,000 more than the old models, and they are more expensive to service. This can lead to other problems like farms failing from their inability to afford the new equipment. The benefit is environmental. Through cleaner technologies the environment is improved helping people
(theoretically) globally. I am unconvinced that public benefit is the right viewpoint here. The costs seem to outweigh benefits.
Lastly is the legislation pertaining to increased inspections on imported containers to the
U.S. The benefit here is similar to the DHS airport security regulations mentioned earlier; the value and safety of human life is of utmost importance. The fear is that terrorist attempt to ship dangerous things in these containers. The more containers that are searched, the more
…show more content…
3. Should the government intervene in setting regulations to increase security and help the environment? Or should private industry take on this role?
I think that government taking on a regulatory role can be very beneficial to both the public and private parties. An appropriate example can be found in the transportation policy.
The text describes a scenario on page 73 where the private sector is incapable of developing a transcontinental highway. “Efficient rail and highway routes require government assistance in securing land from private owners; if the government did not assert its power of eminent domain, routes would be quite circuitous and inefficient.” Here government intervention is the right idea.
As the text states, “the public agency is concerned about costs and benefits to all parties affected by the project.” I am not sure that there is always one viewpoint that proves correct over the other. I am relatively sure that often times a happy medium is what many in the private industries strive for. Government regulations are meant to help more than just the one entity; the greater good as it were. As the aforementioned example of highway development describes,
“the exercise of that authority is curbed and shaped by the concern of government officials for its possible adverse effects of business, since adverse effects can cause unemployment and other consequences that government officials are unwilling to accept. In other areas of public policy, the authority of government is again curbed and shaped by concern for possible adverse effects of business” (Lindblom page 178).
Eminent Domain is defined as “the power to take private property for public use by a state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character, following the payment of just compensation to the owner of that property” (Farlex, par. 1). Eminent domain has a long and distinguished legal history, dating back to the Magna Carta. The term “eminent domain” was coined by Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), a Dutch jurist and philosophe, to describe the power of the state over natural property (Dalton, par. 3). This legal process has been used in many nations ostensibly for the “greater good.” Recently, Russia has come onto the world stage as abusing the power of eminent domain in preparation for the 2014 Olympic Games, as has Brazil in regards to the World Cup and upcoming 2016 Olympic Games. They, like many nations, have been accused of not giving just compensation for property taken. World-wide, eminent domain and it abuse of have been increasing as the world’s population and economy change. Author Tit Elingtin writes “The governments have taken advantage of that eminent domain ruling, and you, the media, have failed at protecting citizens” (Elingtin par. 13). This quotation reflects many people’s opinions today. Many believe that governments abuse the power they are given with eminent domain and call on the United Nations to remove the problem.
The amount of government regulation, restriction, and intervention in the economy is substantial. No free markets, and rapid innovations in technology and communications, the need for government intervention in the economy is necessary to correct abuses or to promote general welfare.
...nments, corporations and public institutions for the common good. [Which]… required a broadly framed policy” (229).
Overall regulations were created to help society. I believe these regulations came along way to help organize society and keep the economy running efficiently and properly. These regulations better the people and the industries as a whole to American society.
This was practiced when private land was taken to construct roads or other needs for the colonies. Although the development of roads benefited the public, the matter of payment for the seized land wasn’t a regulation. The payment to the private land owners was seen more as a courtesy then requirement. The power to exercise eminent domain by the federal government laid inactive until the case of Kohl v. United States, where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government in 1875. Justice William Strong came to the conclusion that “the very nature of sovereignty allowed the taking of land for public use, and also invoked the Takings Clause as supporting the government's right to exercise eminent domain powers” (Newton 1). As the years pass, the powers of eminent domain seem to get interpreted more
Spokane Industries has contracted Franklin Electronics for an 18 month product development contract. Franklin Electronics is new to using project management methodologies and has not been exposed to earned value management methodologies. Even though Franklin and Spokane have worked together in the past, they have mainly used fixed-price contracts with little to no stipulations. For this project, Spokane Industries is requiring Franklin Electronics to use formalized project management methodologies, earned value cost schedules, and schedules for reports and meetings. Since Franklin Electronics had no experience with earned value management, the cost accounting group was trained in the methodology in order to bid for the project.
4.)Which is more important: the good of the public or the rights of the individual? Why?
Each policy has its own importance and individual purpose but we see Regulatory as the most important. Regulatory effects next to every American and the goal of Regulatory policies is to protect Americans from next to everything. Unlike costly Redistributive policies, or small scale Distributive policies Regulatory policies stand out as the ones that do the most good for the largest amount of Americans.
In order to analyse the consequences of the two proposals the current law will be summarized so that an analysis of each can be advanced. The essay will then examine other available options. The essay will conclude that neither of the proposals is appropriate in that the theoretical consequences outweigh the practical benefits, moreover, provisions already exist that if strengthened would provide more effective solutions.
The second way is to achieve low direct and indirect operating costs is gained by offering high volumes of standard products and offering basic no-frills products. Production costs are kept low by using less parts and using standard components. Limiting the number of models produced to ensure larger producti...
Over all the appropriate role of government has always been an argument discussing whether it is actually helping our economy or is the government gaining too much power over the markets. However the economy could not prosper without the actions imposed to assist in diffusing the power over the markets and regulating as well as enforcing the law in order for things to done in a beneficial way to both the consumers and the markets.
A basic and a sensible requirement for most of the customers is to know how much something costs and if they can find it cheaper someplace else. We have come to a point where the cost of the product or service matters more than the quality. We expect to get a lot more for much less cost. Big companies are trying to maximise their profits by reducing labor costs.
Persons studying public choice do not consider that government officials are in fact concerned with public interests. The dispute here is that these administrators function in an environment which replicates poor communication on current political issues or just do not care to address these issues. Administrators do not focus on public choice since their main objective is policy making process. It is certain in all societies that there will be self-interest in all aspects of public policy making. For example, government officials will prepare a country’s budget based on their own self-interest and how they can be benefitted mostly.
...iffusion of Regulatory Capitalism. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 598 (21), pp. 12-32.