We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent policy response to mitigate disease spread had far-reaching impacts on health and social well-being. In response, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) underwent several pandemic-era modifications, including a 15 % monthly benefit increase on January 1, 2021. Research documenting the health effects of these SNAP modifications among low-income households and minoritized groups who were most impacted by the economic fallout during the first years of the pandemic is lacking. We aimed to estimate the health effects of the 15 % SNAP benefit increase in January 2021, among SNAP-eligible US households.
Design:
We estimated the effects of the SNAP increase on food insufficiency, mental health, and financial well-being using a rigorous quasi-experimental difference-in-differences (DID) analysis.
Setting:
August 19, 2020, to March 29, 2021.
Participants:
Participants were drawn from the national US Census Bureau Household Pulse Survey waves 13–27 (n 44 477).
Results:
Compared with SNAP-eligible non-recipients, SNAP-eligible recipients experienced decreased food insufficiency (–1·9 percentage points (pp); 95 % CI –3·7, –0·1) and anxiety symptoms (–0·09; 95 % CI –0·17, –0·01), and less difficulty paying for other household expenses (–3·2 pp; 95 % CI –4·9, –1·5) after the SNAP benefit increase. Results were robust to alternative specifications.
Conclusions:
Expansions of federal nutrition programmes have the potential to improve health and financial well-being. This study provides timely evidence to inform comprehensive safety net nutrition policies during future economic crises and public health preparedness response plans.
Fuel subsidies have been an enduring policy in Ecuador’s political and economic history. Given their lack of targeting and high opportunity cost, they have been amply criticized. As of 2017, the Ecuadorian government started a budget consolidation plan that so far has involved seven reforms to subsidies policy in less than seven years. In late 2019, in response to social unrest motivated by a temporal elimination of fuel subsidies, the government pledged to study new targeting mechanisms for this policy to mitigate the impact on the most vulnerable sectors. This work seeks to contribute to that effort by evaluating the macroeconomic effects of these subsidies and serving as a guideline for targeting. A computable general equilibrium model is used to assess counterfactual scenarios. The results suggest that by implementing progressiveness and productive linkage criteria, targeting household final consumption and intermediate consumption is a feasible way to reduce the reforms’ negative effects.
Childhood obesity and overweight rates in New Zealand are considerably higher than that globally with one in three children aged between 2-14 years being overweight or obese(1). Children’s dietary knowledge and food preferences are influenced by various factors including the food environment. Schools are an excellent setting to influence children’s dietary behaviours since they have the potential to reach almost all children during the first two decades of their lives. However, previous analyses indicate many school canteens and food providers do not supply foods that promote healthy eating and nutrition behaviours (2,3). The Ministry of Health (MoH) recently implemented a ‘Food and Drink Guidance for Schools’ which utilises a traffic-light framework dividing foods into three categories: ‘green’, ‘amber’, and ‘red’(4). The aim of this study was to assess primary school canteen food menus against the newly implemented MoH Guidance. A convenience sample of 133 primary school canteen menus were collected in 2020 as part of the baseline evaluation of the Healthy Active Learning initiative across New Zealand. Four researchers (three nutritionists and one dietitian) developed a menu analysis toolkit to undertake the analysis of all menus collected. The toolkit provided a breakdown of commonly packaged foods and meals/menu items available to purchase within schools based on Health Star Ratings, ingredients, and/or standard recipes. Assumptions were created for menu items requiring additional detail to be categorised according to the guidance through consensus by all four researchers. Primary school menus were coded by two researchers, and intercoder reliability was ensured by independent coding and cross-checking of 10% of menus. Descriptive and inferential analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS and P<0.05 denoted significance. Analyses of canteen menus revealed that most menu items belonged to the less healthy amber (41.0%) and red (40%) food categories. Low decile schools had a lower percentage of green food items (8.6%) and a higher percentage of red food items (48.3%) compared to high decile schools (p = 0.028). Similarly, schools in low deprivation areas had a significantly higher percentage of green food items (14.2%) compared to high deprivation areas (8.6%) (p = 0.031). Sandwiches, filled rolls, and wraps were the most commonly available items (86%) followed by baked foods and foods with pastry (71%). Sugar-sweetened beverages were just as prevalent as water on school food menus (54% each). Over half of in-house catered canteen menu items were classified as 'red’ foods (55.3%). This study highlights that most school canteens were not meeting the guidelines for healthy food and drink provision outlined by the MoH. Improving school food availability for children in socioeconomically deprived areas needs to be prioritised to reduce inequities. Findings suggest the need for more robust national policies and mandated school guidance to improve the food environments in New Zealand schools.
National Action Plans (NAPs) are a possible implementation measure for the Global Plastics Treaty, through a NAP-based approach. Their effectiveness in other international agreements is contested, and their current format allows for weak, voluntary measures with limited accountability. By analysing stakeholder and country submissions to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) secretariat ahead of INC-2 negotiations in Paris, June 2023, conducting a literature review, and interviewing key actors, this study aims to determine the support that governments and stakeholders have for a NAP-based approach in the Treaty, and identify the key enablers needed to ensure that NAP-based approaches, if adopted in the Treaty, are effective. Results indicate that by INC-2, more than 85% of countries supported a NAP-based approach, suggesting a high chance of this approach being selected as the means of implementation of the Treaty. However, interviewees and literature reviews indicate that NAPs in their current form are not likely to be effective at delivering ambitious Treaty targets. Six key enablers to improve the effectiveness of plastics NAPs are identified. These enablers should be integrated into any plastics NAPs both independently, and as potential requirements of the Treaty to ensure that NAP-based approaches are effective and have the impact intended.
Firearm violence has soared in American cities, but most states statutorily preempt municipal firearm regulation. This article describes a unique collaboration in Philadelphia among elected officials, public health researchers, and attorneys that has led to litigation based on original quantitative analyses and grounded in innovative constitutional theories and statutory interpretation.
Grand challenges are shaping twenty-first-century politics. Threats connected to health, climate, demographics and welfare are increasingly intruding on the lives of citizens. Still, governments are often found off-guard, and policymakers need strategies grounded in longer-term perspectives. Strategic foresight (SF) helps us to design and shape policies to prepare to withstand shocks, anticipating and adapting to changes. However, as governments work towards embedding SF into their policymaking processes, the empirical evidence suggests that applications are still piecemeal and predominantly limited to the agenda-settings and policy formulation stages. In this article, we argue that to drive anticipatory governance, foresight needs to be applied at all stages of the policy cycle, including in evaluating policies to draw lessons for future interventions. We maintain that considering SF systemically throughout the policymaking cycle, from agenda setting to evaluation, strengthens anticipatory governance.
The current study presents results of a midpoint analysis of an ongoing natural experiment evaluating the diet-related effects of the Minneapolis Minimum Wage Ordinance, which incrementally increases the minimum wage to $15/h.
Design:
A difference-in-difference (DiD) analysis of measures collected among low-wage workers in two U.S. cities (one city with a wage increase policy and one comparison city). Measures included employment-related variables (hourly wage, hours worked and non-employment assessed by survey questions with wages verified by paystubs), BMI measured by study scales and stadiometers and diet-related mediators (food insecurity, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participation and daily servings of fruits and vegetables, whole-grain rich foods and foods high in added sugars measured by survey questions).
Setting:
Minneapolis, Minnesota and Raleigh, North Carolina.
Participants:
A cohort of 580 low-wage workers (268 in Minneapolis and 312 in Raleigh) who completed three annual study visits between 2018 and 2020.
Results:
In DiD models adjusted for time-varying and non-time-varying confounders, there were no statistically significant differences in variables of interest in Minneapolis compared with Raleigh. Trends across both cities were evident, showing a steady increase in hourly wage, stable BMI, an overall decrease in food insecurity and non-linear trends in employment, hours worked, SNAP participation and dietary outcomes.
Conclusion:
There was no evidence of a beneficial or adverse effect of the Minimum Wage Ordinance on health-related variables during a period of economic and social change. The COVID-19 pandemic and other contextual factors likely contributed to the observed trends in both cities.
Climate change governance is becoming more polycentric. From the global to the municipal level, an unprecedented number of actors are addressing climate change. But will polycentric governance generate significant emissions reductions? What brings disperse action together to build cumulative outcomes capable of limiting climate change to well below two degrees of warming? How will actors in different institutions and jurisdictions be able to learn from one another and thereby generate significant governance synergies? These important questions relate directly to the vexed question of policy evaluation, an underappreciated, but potentially highly consequential element of polycentric climate governance. In spite of substantial growth of evaluation activity and theorization, its role in assessing and possibly improving climate governance has been insufficiently explored. This chapter introduces the book, which tackles this challenge head-on by developing new, cutting edge theory and then conducting an empirical test in the context of the European Union, Germany and the United Kingdom.
Polycentric governance and evaluation literatures remain disconnected, as they have emerged from separate scholarly communities. This high level of fragmentation significantly impedes necessary theoretical development in order to leverage the synergies that emerge from a combination of the two perspectives. This chapter begins this work, by first assessing polycentric governance as an emerging theory, and then distilling three core, foundational ideas from it, namely that governance centers can and do self-organize, that context matters for governance and that there are interactions between governance centers. Drawing on thinking on monitoring in polycentric governance literatures, the chapter then reveals how these three foundational ideas connect to thinking in policy evaluation literatures, which had also addressed evaluation actors, context as well as, to a lesser degree, how evaluation may be a carrier of insights between different governance centers. The exploration of these ideas demonstrates that evaluation has great theoretical potential to enable polycentric climate governance by potentially linking the efforts of state and non-state organizations.
Policy evaluation has great potential to enhance polycentric climate governance, but that potential has not yet been fully realized. This concluding chapter draws together the key contributions of the book, which not only emerge from significant theoretical development, but also from a novel empirical analysis that is the first to investigate policy evaluation in the polycentric setting of the EU, as well as in Germany and in the United Kingdom. Future research should further explore causal drivers of the emergence of policy evaluation in polycentric governance systems, and unpack the actual use of knowledge in policy-making, a difficult, but necessary area of inquiry going forward. Additional aspects of polycentric governance theory, such as the role of evaluation in building trust and generating linkages between different actors, should also be explored. The collective research and climate governance endeavor will continue—this book has offered some new directions in which the journey may advance.
Following the theoretical rationale for a role of policy evaluation in polycentric climate governance, what can be said about its actual role in light of theoretical expectations? The empirical data show that the theoretical expectations play out insofar as the elements that were hypothesized do exist in the context of the EU, Germany and in the EU, namely that both self-organized and non-self organized evaluation exist. The collective action dilemmas that feature at the very core of polycentric governance theorizing also materialize through evaluation, pointing to a significant role of the state, while non-state actors also contribute. Lesson-drawing may thus emerge as a function of evaluation, but the full theoretical potential of evaluation has not yet been realised, given the various deficiencies that both state-funded as well as society-funded evaluations contain.
The European Union, Germany and the United Kingdom have been characterized as leaders in policy evaluation, including in the area of environment and climate policy. The first approaches to evaluation emerged in the 1980s and 1990s, as the EU started dispersing funding to new Member States and various types of reforms demanded more efficient and effective government action. Unpacking such developments, this paper focuses on the historical development of policy evaluation at the EU level, as well as in Germany and in the United Kingdom. It focuses particularly on the actors and institutions that have advanced evaluation, especially the area of environment and climate policy evaluation. The chapter closes with what we know about evaluation in these three jurisdictions and the three foundational ideas of polycentric governance, namely self-governance, context and interactions between governance centers. It provides the starting point for the empirical exploration in this book.
Polycentric climate governance holds enormous promise, but to unleash its full force, policy evaluation needs a stronger role in it. This book develops Nobel Laureate Elinor Ostrom's important work by offering fresh perspectives from cutting-edge thinking on climate governance and policy evaluation. Driven by theoretical innovation and empirical exploration, this book not only argues for a stronger connection between polycentric climate governance and practices of evaluation, but also demonstrates the key value of doing so with a real-world, empirical test in the polycentric setting of the European Union. This book offers a crucial step to take climate governance to the next level. It will be of interest to advanced students and researchers in climate governance, as well as practitioners who seek to enhance climate action, which is needed to avoid a climate catastrophe and to identify a pathway towards the 1.5° Celsius target in the Paris Agreement.
Normative welfare economics commonly assumes that individuals’ preferences can be reliably inferred from their choices and relies on preference satisfaction as the normative standard for welfare. In recent years, several authors have criticized welfare economists’ reliance on preference satisfaction as the normative standard for welfare and have advocated grounding normative welfare economics on opportunities rather than preferences. In this paper, I argue that although preference-based approaches to normative welfare economics face significant conceptual and practical challenges, opportunity-based approaches fail to provide a more reliable and informative foundation for normative welfare economics than preference-based approaches. I then identify and rebut various influential calls to ground normative welfare economics on opportunities rather than preferences to support my qualified defence of preference-based approaches.
Political elites increasingly express interest in evidence-based policymaking, but transparent research collaborations necessary to generate relevant evidence pose political risks, including the discovery of sub-par performance and misconduct. If aversion to collaboration is non-random, collaborations may produce evidence that fails to generalize. We assess selection into research collaborations in the critical policy arena of policing by sending requests to discuss research partnerships to roughly 3,000 law enforcement agencies in 48 states. A host of agency and jurisdiction attributes fail to predict affirmative responses to generic requests, alleviating concerns over generalizability. However, across two experiments, mentions of agency performance in our correspondence depressed affirmative responses – even among top-performing agencies – by roughly eight percentage points. Many agencies that initially indicate interest in transparent, evidence-based policymaking recoil once performance evaluations are made salient. We discuss several possible mechanisms for these dynamics, which can inhibit valuable policy experimentation in many communities.
Prioritarianism is an ethical theory that gives extra weight to the well-being of the worse off. In contrast, dominant policy-evaluation methodologies, such as benefit-cost analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, and utilitarianism, ignore or downplay issues of fair distribution. Based on a research group founded by the editors, this important book is the first to show how prioritarianism can be used to assess governmental policies and evaluate societal conditions. This book uses prioritarianism as a methodology to evaluate governmental policy across a variety of policy domains: taxation, health policy, risk regulation, education, climate policy, and the COVID-19 pandemic. It is also the first to demonstrate how prioritarianism improves on GDP as an indicator of a society's progress over time. Edited by two senior figures in the field with contributions from some of the world's leading economists, this volume bridges the gap from the theory of prioritarianism to its practical application.
Prioritarianism is a framework for ethical assessment that gives extra weight to the worse off. Unlike utilitarianism, which simply adds up well-being numbers, prioritarianism is sensitive to the distribution of well-being across the population of ethical concern. Prioritarianism in Practice examines the use of prioritarianism as a policy-evaluation methodology – across a range of policy domains, including taxation, health policy, risk regulation, climate change, education, and responses to the COVID-19 pandemic –and as an indicator of a society’s condition (as contrasted with GDP). This chapter is an introductory chapter to the Prioritarianism in Practice volume.It surveys the intellectual roots of prioritarianism: in the philosophical literature, in welfare economics, and in scholarship about public health. And it provides brief summaries of each of the volume’s chapters.
Labour markets for personal and household services (PHS) are rife with informal employment. Some policies aim to combat informality in PHS with subsidized service vouchers, but their effects are poorly documented. This contribution evaluates the Belgian service vouchers (1) documenting their formalization effectiveness, and (2) accounting for the persistence of informal employment. To this end, we exploit several types of data and methods.
A first analysis, based on Eurobarometer data, brings in evidence that informal PHS purchased were approximately halved under the policy introduced in 2001. Second, a discrete choice experiment shows that households prefer formal employment, including those that currently employ informally. Third, a survey in the Brussels metropolitan area shows that the persistence of informal employment lies in the relationship of informal employers with their domestic, from whom they are not willing to part. They nevertheless intend to switch to formal employment in the case of turnover. One thus expects partially delayed effects of formalization policies in general, and of the service voucher system in particular. Overall, these results are in line with Portes’ claim that informality is facilitated by strong social relationships, and by differences in price and transaction costs.
This article proposes a framework for evaluating the development and evolution of economic instruments for environmental conservation through the examination of their design and the interactional and structural aspects of their implementation. The framework is applied to comparatively describe the historical evolution of the world's longest-running ecological fiscal transfer (EFT) scheme in two Brazilian sites. Results show that while legislative aspects of programme design, such as linkages and flexibility, are crucial for performance, interactional and structural characteristics during implementation, such as capacity, knowledge-sharing and transparency, can be determining factors in how the programme functions at the municipal level. Policy recommendations are provided for the development of this type of programme elsewhere. Results contribute towards the conceptual understanding of EFTs, an under-utilised mechanism with great potential for a role in conservation policy mixes.
In this paper, we develop a framework to analyze the relationship between evidence and policy. Postulating a normative criterion based on cost–benefit analysis and the value of a piece of information, as well as a topology of the policy space defined by three characteristics (epistemic uncertainty, interests, and the degree of value conflicts), we identify the (Nash) equilibria of an interaction between experts and citizens in providing information to a decision maker. In this setup, we study three institutional arrangements (evidence-based policy, deliberative governance, and negotiated conflict) that differ in terms of reliance on experts and citizens for providing information. We show that different degrees of uncertainty, interests, and value-relevance surrounding the issue at stake result in vastly different arrangement performances; hence, to foster efficiency, rules should be contingent.