public policy problems

 

KWA (Karegnondi Water Authority)

was the new water system Flint joined to save money, which led to the decision to temporarily draw water from the Flint River. This switch triggered the city’s water contamination crisis. The KWA case highlights the risks of cost-driven policy decisions and poor intergovernmental communication. It demonstrates how infrastructure, finance, and politics intersect in ways that can harm public health when accountability and oversight break down.

Lansing v. Flint

refers to tensions and policy conflicts between the state capital, Lansing, and the city of Flint over control, funding, and responsibility for the water crisis. The case reflects broader issues in federalism and intergovernmental relations—how power imbalances between different levels of government can delay action and worsen policy outcomes. It shows that local communities can suffer when higher levels of government fail to provide oversight or adequate support.

Legionnaires’ Disease

severe form of pneumonia caused by bacteria that spread through contaminated water systems. During the Flint Water Crisis, an outbreak of Legionnaires’ was linked to the city’s switch to unsafe water sources. This outbreak revealed failures in public health monitoring, communication, and transparency between local and state agencies. It underscores how environmental and health policy are closely connected, and how neglect in one area can lead to deadly consequences in another.

Emergency Manager (Michigan)Hal Rogers

manager law allows the state to appoint officials to take control of financially struggling cities. In Flint, the state-appointed emergency manager made cost-cutting decisions that led to the city’s water contamination crisis. This case shows how efforts to solve fiscal problems through centralized control can undermine local democracy and public health. It demonstrates the risks of removing accountability from elected officials and prioritizing budgets over citizen well-being.

Hal Rogers

a long-serving Congressman from Kentucky who illustrates how political power and seniority influence the allocation of government resources. Known for securing federal funding for his district (“pork barrel politics”), Rogers shows how legislators use their positions to deliver local benefits, claim credit, and build political support. His case highlights how the incentives of elected officials often drive spending decisions and shape public policy outcomes, sometimes prioritizing local or political gain over national needs

Fifth Vital Sign

was a medical campaign that encouraged doctors to treat pain as equally important as other vital signs like heart rate and blood pressure. This movement, promoted by the American Pain Society and supported by pharmaceutical companies, led to an increase in opioid prescriptions. It illustrates how medical guidelines, even when well-intentioned, can have harmful policy effects when combined with commercial interests and inadequate oversight. The “fifth vital sign” is an example of how framing a health issue can shape national practice and policy with serious unintended consequences.

OxyContin

prescription painkiller developed by Purdue Pharma that played a central role in the opioid crisis. Its aggressive marketing and misleading claims about addiction risk led to widespread misuse, addiction, and overdose deaths across the U.S. The OxyContin case shows how corporate influence, weak regulation, and profit-driven health policy can produce devastating public health outcomes. It also highlights the role of government agencies like the FDA in protecting the public and the political barriers to regulating powerful pharmaceutical companies.

 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

was created after 9/11 to coordinate national efforts to protect the U.S. from terrorism and respond to emergencies. However, its large and complex structure has often made coordination between federal, state, and local governments difficult. During Hurricane Katrina, DHS and FEMA (a sub-agency) were criticized for slow and disorganized responses. The department’s challenges illustrate the limits of bureaucratic reorganization as a policy solution and the importance of clear leadership, communication, and preparedness in crisis management.

 

Levees

are flood control structures designed to protect communities from rising water, but they also represent the challenges of maintaining critical infrastructure. The failure of levees during Hurricane Katrina exposed weaknesses in U.S. disaster preparedness and intergovernmental coordination. Their collapse caused catastrophic flooding in New Orleans and revealed how neglected infrastructure, unclear lines of responsibility, and underinvestment can turn natural hazards into public policy crises. The case of the levees shows why proactive maintenance and clear accountability are essential for public safety.

Michael Brown

in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014 was a major moment in public policy because it highlighted systemic problems in policing, racial inequality, and the use of force by law enforcement. The case drew national attention to issues of accountability and the lack of transparency in police departments. It led to calls for reforms such as body cameras, changes in police training, and new approaches to community policing. The public reaction and the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement also showed how citizen activism can pressure policymakers to respond to visible social problems.

Tax Expenditure

are government benefits delivered through the tax code in the form of deductions, credits, or exclusions. They function like direct spending but are less visible to the public. Examples include the mortgage interest deduction and employer-provided health insurance tax breaks. Because they are hidden, they often escape scrutiny and disproportionately benefit higher-income individuals. Tax expenditures reduce transparency in fiscal policy and make it harder to see the true size of government. They are important for understanding the politics of taxation and inequality. Recognizing them as “hidden spending” helps reveal how government priorities are implemented quietly through the tax system rather than open legislation.

Credit Claiming

occurs when politicians take visible ownership of a popular policy or success to gain voter approval. This behavior shapes how policies are framed and implemented—often prioritizing visibility over long-term effectiveness. For instance, politicians may prefer to fund new projects rather than maintain existing infrastructure because new projects offer more credit opportunities. Credit claiming reveals the incentives behind public decision-making and the link between policy and political survival. While it can help drive progress on visible issues, it can also distort priorities. Understanding credit claiming helps explain why some necessary but less glamorous policies, like prevention or maintenance, are often neglected.

Time Horizons

refer to how far into the future policymakers consider the effects of their decisions. Short-term horizons are common because political cycles reward quick wins and visible results. However, many major problems—like climate change or infrastructure decay—require long-term investment. When policymakers focus narrowly on short horizons, they often underfund prevention and maintenance. This leads to crises that could have been avoided with foresight. Time horizons are important because they shape the sustainability and effectiveness of government action. Expanding the policy time frame can improve resilience, save money, and promote intergenerational fairness.

Bureaucratic Reputation

reputation refers to the collective image of a government agency in the eyes of the public, politicians, and other institutions. It is built through perceived competence, fairness, and reliability over time. Agencies with strong reputations often enjoy greater autonomy and influence, while those with weak reputations face oversight or reform pressures. Bureaucratic reputation affects everything from funding levels to citizen compliance. It also shapes how much leeway bureaucrats have in implementing controversial policies. Understanding reputation helps explain the behavior of public agencies, which often act not just to serve policy goals but to protect their image. It is therefore central to analyzing bureaucratic politics and policy implementation.

Networked Governance

describes how policymaking and implementation increasingly occur through interconnected networks rather than hierarchical bureaucracies. These networks can include public agencies, nonprofits, and private firms working together on shared issues. This model reflects the reality that modern problems—like climate change or cybersecurity—cut across boundaries. Networked governance allows for innovation, flexibility, and resource sharing, but it also complicates accountability. No single actor is fully in charge, making blame and credit diffuse. Understanding this concept is crucial for modern policy design, as it helps explain both the power and the pitfalls of decentralized decision-making. It pushes policymakers to focus on coordination, trust, and performance metrics across sectors

Turf

refers to the territory of authority, resources, and influence that bureaucratic actors seek to protect. Agencies and officials often guard their turf to preserve control over budgets, programs, or prestige. These turf battles can lead to inefficiency, duplication, or outright conflict between departments. For example, overlapping jurisdiction between FEMA and state emergency agencies can delay disaster response. Turf protection is a natural feature of bureaucratic politics, but it can make collaboration difficult. Understanding turf helps explain why rational reforms are often resisted from within. Policymakers must design systems that align incentives and reduce zero-sum competition among institutions.

Complexity of Joint Action

action describes the difficulty of implementing policy when multiple agencies, governments, or organizations must work together. Each actor has its own priorities, rules, and incentives, which can slow coordination and create conflict. This complexity often results in policy failure even when goals are widely shared. For example, disaster response requires federal, state, and local coordination—yet miscommunication can delay life-saving aid. The concept underscores how implementation, not just policy design, determines success. Understanding joint action helps reveal why cooperation structures and clear accountability are essential. It also explains why some of the hardest public problems persist despite strong consensus on their importance.

 

Regulatory Capture

occurs when a regulatory agency becomes influenced or controlled by the industry it is supposed to oversee. This happens when industry actors use lobbying, revolving-door employment, or information control to shape regulations in their favor. As a result, public interest goals—like consumer protection or environmental safety—can be compromised. Regulatory capture is dangerous because it undermines public trust and weakens policy effectiveness. It shows how power and influence can distort the intended purpose of government oversight. Understanding capture helps policymakers design stronger safeguards, such as transparency rules and independent oversight. It reminds us that accountability must be built into every stage of the regulatory process.

 

Public Sector Entrepreneurship

refers to innovation within government, where individuals or agencies develop new programs or policies to solve problems creatively. These entrepreneurs take risks, challenge bureaucratic norms, and mobilize political support for new ideas. Unlike private entrepreneurs, their goal is not profit but public value—such as efficiency, equity, or improved service delivery. Famous examples include the creation of 911 emergency systems or open data initiatives. Public sector entrepreneurship is vital because it shows how change can emerge from within slow-moving institutions. It helps governments adapt to new challenges without waiting for external crises. Understanding this concept highlights the role of leadership, creativity, and initiative in the public sphere.

 

Collaborative Governance

is a decision-making approach that brings together public agencies, private companies, and community organizations to solve policy problems. It emphasizes joint decision-making, shared resources, and trust-building among diverse stakeholders. This model recognizes that no single actor can solve complex problems like climate change, public health, or disaster response alone. While collaboration can increase legitimacy and creativity, it also introduces challenges of coordination, accountability, and competing interests. Collaborative governance is important because it reflects how policymaking increasingly happens across institutional boundaries. It provides a framework for improving cooperation in fragmented systems. When done effectively, it can create more durable and inclusive policy solutions.

 

Abundance

refers to a situation where resources, information, or opportunities are plentiful, reducing the urgency for policy coordination or reform. In times of abundance, policymakers and citizens may become complacent, assuming problems will solve themselves or that crises are unlikely. This can lead to inefficiency, duplication, and fragmented decision-making across agencies. For example, when funding is abundant, governments may overbuild infrastructure or neglect long-term maintenance. Abundance can also create policy complexity as too many actors pursue their own goals without a shared sense of scarcity. Understanding this concept helps explain why urgency often drives innovation, while comfort leads to stagnation. Policymakers must therefore balance abundance with accountability and strategic focus.

Entrepreneurial Politics

arises when a small, motivated group advocates for a policy that produces widespread benefits but imposes diffuse costs on the public. Because the beneficiaries are numerous but not well-organized, success depends on political entrepreneurs who use strategy, framing, and persistence to gain support. Examples include consumer safety reforms or environmental regulations championed by dedicated advocates. These entrepreneurs often act out of moral conviction or professional expertise rather than personal gain. Entrepreneurial politics shows how change can occur even when most citizens are passive or unaware. It highlights the power of leadership and agenda-setting in shaping public outcomes. Understanding this dynamic is essential for explaining how reform happens despite collective action barriers.

Government by Proxy

occurs when public responsibilities are carried out by private contractors, nonprofits, or state and local agencies instead of federal employees. This structure can make government programs more flexible and efficient, as specialized organizations can often deliver services effectively. However, it can also blur accountability and reduce transparency, since decisions and performance are harder to monitor. Examples include defense contracting, disaster relief, and social service programs administered by local partners. This arrangement reflects the complexity of modern governance and the limits of federal capacity. Understanding government by proxy helps scholars analyze how authority and responsibility are distributed in public policy. It also raises important questions about oversight, equity, and the public interest.

 

Submerged State

refers to government programs that deliver benefits indirectly through the tax code or private institutions, rather than through visible public spending. Examples include mortgage interest deductions, student loan subsidies, or employer-based health insurance tax breaks. Because these benefits are hidden, many citizens are unaware they are receiving government assistance. This lack of visibility weakens support for public programs and fuels misconceptions about “small government.” The submerged state demonstrates how policy design shapes political perception and public trust. It also reveals inequalities, as wealthier groups are more likely to benefit from hidden subsidies. Understanding this concept helps policymakers design fairer and more transparent systems of governance.

Market Failure

refers to government programs that deliver benefits indirectly through the tax code or private institutions, rather than through visible public spending. Examples include mortgage interest deductions, student loan subsidies, or employer-based health insurance tax breaks. Because these benefits are hidden, many citizens are unaware they are receiving government assistance. This lack of visibility weakens support for public programs and fuels misconceptions about “small government.” The submerged state demonstrates how policy design shapes political perception and public trust. It also reveals inequalities, as wealthier groups are more likely to benefit from hidden subsidies. Understanding this concept helps policymakers design fairer and more transparent systems of governance.

Problems of Omission

occur when policymakers fail to act on an issue that requires government attention. These omissions can lead to serious social, economic, or environmental harm even without any active wrongdoing. Often, they stem from lack of visibility, political risk, or limited resources that make preventive action unattractive. For example, failing to maintain infrastructure or prepare for natural disasters can cause crises later. Problems of omission show that inaction can be just as damaging as bad policy decisions. They highlight the importance of foresight, agenda-setting, and long-term planning in governance. Understanding omissions helps policymakers identify areas where silence or delay leads to harm and design systems that reward prevention, not just response.

 

Submerged State

refers to government programs that deliver benefits indirectly through the tax code or private institutions, rather than through visible public spending. Examples include mortgage interest deductions, student loan subsidies, or employer-based health insurance tax breaks. Because these benefits are hidden, many citizens are unaware they are receiving government assistance. This lack of visibility weakens support for public programs and fuels misconceptions about “small government.” The submerged state demonstrates how policy design shapes political perception and public trust. It also reveals inequalities, as wealthier groups are more likely to benefit from hidden subsidies. Understanding this concept helps policymakers design fairer and more transparent systems of governance.