Week 7. Challenges in Comparing Public Policy Across National Lines

We face several challenges when comparing public policy across national lines. Each set of policy approaches is driven by a vast array of cultural, societal, economic, and political motivations that heavily influence what types of policies make it onto the systemic and institutional agendas of different governments. In addition, the dynamics of these various factors constantly shape and redefine policy priorities as changes in leadership, the economy, and societal norms impact public opinion and bring new issues to light. Many of the policy decisions that get made cannot be compared on a one-to-one basis. This is most evident in our discussion of social policy.

Each country discussed in Adolino and Blake (as well as those from the additional readings) has developed its own unique interpretation of the "welfare state". These definitions are contingent on a culmination of factors that do not easily translate from one country to another. For example, historical contexts played a huge role in countries like Germany and France where the implementation of universal benefits was a reaction to declining birth rates following WWII. These governments expanded child allowances and policies that encouraged families to have multiple children (Adolino & Blake).

In contrast, countries like the US and UK have chosen not to include universal benefits as part of their systemic agendas and tend to use economic indicators to drive policy expansion/reduction such as tax deductions for low-income families and welfare-to-work programs. Differences in social policy can also be attributed to cultural factors. These countries belong to the Anglo-American family of nations discussed in chapter 1 which tends to hold an individualistic approach to the types of benefits afforded to low-income families versus more collectivist cultures like Japan and the Asian Tigers (Wagstaff, 2006). In this comparison it is difficult to assess successes and failures because the asian countries are less industrialized and have yet to fully develop strong social policies.

Many barriers stand in the way of ultimately determining which policies are "better" than others because they all exist in very different circumstances. In addition, Adolino and Blake make a good point that what defines success can greatly differ as well. They use the example of poverty and discuss the "lack of agreement on a common standard makes meaningful cross-national comparison of absolute poverty statistics difficult" (p. 317). Ultimately, comparing policies requires a global perspective and should include as many interpretations of policy approaches as possible.