Since I haven’t blogged much outside of the weekly devotionals, I thought I’d share a short assignment that I recently completed for my Policy Formulation course. We were instructed to write about the “policy actors” involved in the tobacco debate, such as public health advocates and the court system.

We were also to give feedback on one scholar’s (Jonathan Turley) take on judicial activism (trying to direct policy from the judge’s bench) and any thoughts on issues related to tobacco policy. I received high marks (woohoo!), and my prof remarked that she liked the forward-thinking approach that I took concerning the issue.

So, what do you think? Is the tobacco industry too big to fail? Is it even the place of government to try to regulate people’s consumption of tobacco? If the answer is yes, then what’s to keep farmers from exporting the crop? If the answer is no, then what about similar debates concerning marijuana and even harder street drugs? It’s a complicated issue, no matter how you look at it.

Policy Actors in the Tobacco Debate­

From 1900 to present, per capita cigarette use peaked in the late-1970s to early-1980s, capping out at approximately 640 billion total cigarettes consumed in 1981 (CDC 2010). By 2006, the CDC reported that total cigarette consumption dropped to circa 1950s levels, or 380 billion. Although this 40.6 percent decline in cigarette use is a significant step toward positive improvements in Americans’ health, the tobacco issue remains embroiled in heated debate. The question at hand is whether or not the court system is the optimal route to take to address the problems.

Citing the Madisonian problem-solving perspective of how over what, Turley explained, “We are not immune to bad decisions, but our process protects the integrity of the system and gives it direction” (2000, 2). In essence, Turley stated that the three branches of government are designed to work in synchronization, not separate efforts to trump one another in a power play. When the court system is manipulated to serve as a policy-making entity, the process is known as judicial activism. In the case of tobacco-related litigation, public health advocates have purported that lawsuits could result in increased prices and subsequently decreased consumer demand for cigarettes; however, such judicial measures have yet to destroy the industry, entirely.

In fact, although tobacco use has markedly decreased in the U.S. in recent decades, demand abroad is extraordinarily high (Etter 2007). The industry remains strong, despite opposition. This concept of adjusting output to meet the worldwide demand for goods and services is dubbed comparative advantage. Kapstein (1996, 17) purported, “It is hardly sensationalist to claim that in the absence of broad-based policies and programs designed to help working people, the political debate in the United States and many other countries will soon turn sour.” When an industry – or, in this case, proactive farmers – modifies its output to meet the demand for a particular good or service, then the end result is mutually beneficial, at least economically speaking.

The concern with the tobacco debate (and similar debates occurring around the globe, such as poppy crops in nations such as Afghanistan, which contribute to illegal opium production and stand in stark contrast with the War on Drugs and War on Terror) is that the crop itself is dangerous to the consumer. Yet, the demand is real – and profitable. As Etter (2007) noted, the payout for tobacco is hard to compete with, when compared to other agricultural crops – even heavily subsidized corn. The incentive for farmers to continue to grow tobacco in the face of opposition supersedes the negative backlash that may arise domestically by political activists who seek to put an end to the tobacco industry, all together.

Practically speaking, the judicial branch may play a role in ameliorating a wrongdoing by one party against another. To use the examples provided by Jacobson and Soliman (2002), workers exposed to asbestos successfully filed suit against manufacturers for recompense due to pulmonary disease and other health complications. Similarly, dangerous contraceptive devices were eliminated from the market after litigation regarding women’s health risks. In each of these cases, the issue at hand concerned harm done to an individual (or a class action suit by numerous individuals).

Large damage awards and consumer backlash happened to put the manufacturers of the dangerous goods out of business, but policy creation was not necessarily the goal of the litigation. As Jacobson and Soliman noted, “Under almost any circumstances, the policy agenda is rarely determined exclusively by the courts” (2002, 225). The courts played a role, but they were not solely responsible for the outcome.

In contrast to Turley’s assertion, the judicial branch did not appear to usurp the other branches of government, in these instances. The court system weighed in on the issue, as it pertained to specific cases of interest, and such decisions do not necessarily make the judge a judicial activist. I believe that the courts have a valid role to play concerning claims of harm or wrongdoing, but the line in the sand is when a judge uses a lawsuit as a platform to make a political stance. The facts of the case must be considered at face-value, and the pieces fall into place, as they must. Turley raised a valid point concerning judicial activism as a rallying cry for policy change, yet it is important to note that not all judicial decisions are necessarily intended to direct policy, on the whole. They are designed – and should be treated – on a case-to-case basis.

On the whole, policy changes concerning tobacco could have far-reaching, long-term ramifications for similar issues. For example, tobacco-related policy will set a precedent on how the government addresses marijuana use. Although marijuana is currently classified as a Schedule I substance (meaning that it has a high likelihood of dependency with no recognized medical benefits) by federal standards, marijuana is available by prescription in 17 states, plus the District of Columbia (NCSL 2012).

Policies on other so-called “recreational” drugs may also look to tobacco as the trend setter. It will also be interesting to see how tobacco policy trickles down into related areas, such as nicotine supplements, electronic and “smokeless” cigarettes, and the like. Furthermore, the international demand for tobacco will be an important matter to track in coming years, as this presents an alternative avenue for U.S. farmers to benefit from exported crops.

Reference

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2010. “Consumption Data.” Smoking and Tobacco Use. Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/economics/consumption/index.htm.

Etter, Lauren. Sept. 19, 2007. “Farmers rediscover allure of tobacco No longer subsidized, crop gains acres in U.S.” The Wall Street Journal.

Kapstein, Ethan B. 1996. “Workers and the World Economy.” Foreign Affairs, May-June, 75(3): 16-37. Stable URL: www.jstor.org/stable/20047578.

Jacobson, Peter D.; Soheil Soliman. Summer 2002. “Litigation as public health policy: Theory or reality?” The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 30(2):224-238.

National Conference of State Legislatures. May 2012. “State Medical Marijuana Laws.” Issues & Research: Health. Retrieved from: http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/state-medical-marijuana-laws.aspx.

Turley, Jonathan. Summer 2000. “A Crisis of Faith: Tobacco and the Madisonian Democracy.” Harvard Journal on Legislation. 37:433-481.

… Sounds riveting, doesn’t it? It’s pretty fascinating to me, actually, but you already know that I’m a nerd. 🙂 I’m reading some interesting material about the various factors that come into play when formulating public policy for my summer courses, but I’ve also been busy reading/researching at work.

In addition to many other sections pertaining to corporations and whatnot, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 outlined some specific boundaries and criteria concerning donors and nonprofit organizations. Private foundations have come under a lot of scrutiny in recent years for misusing charitable dollars — whether for private use (“inurement” or “self-dealing”) or making so-called donations that offer kick-backs or other perks (“non-incidental benefits”) to the donor.

This is an especially important issue when an organization, such as a college or university, raises funds for athletics, the arts and other areas where ticketed events take place. Let’s say that a donor wants to buy a table at a fundraising dinner for her favorite charity. For the sake of illustration, let’s say that it only costs $100. The actual food cost of the dinner is $30, and the rest goes to the charity. Guidelines from the PPA of 2006 mandate that the donor cannot pay the $30 out-of-pocket and the other $70 from her family foundation. This  is called bifurcating, or cost-splitting.

Furthermore, that same donor cannot use her family foundation to buy the table and then attend the event … or even give the tickets to her family, friends or neighbors. This is considered self-dealing and is frowned upon by the IRS. The foundation may buy the table and give the seats back to the host charity, to disburse as they choose, and the foundation may receive recognition for their contribution, but they can’t actually attend the event.

It can get pretty sticky, as you can tell. The sad thing is that I don’t think a lot of donors, and even foundations, are aware of some of these stipulations. Many wealthy families create private foundations as a conduit for their philanthropic interests, and unless they have savvy financial advisors who are in the know concerning these issues, then they may find themselves in a pickle.

The summer term begins tomorrow, and I’m looking forward to the two classes I am taking (Comparative Public Policy and Public Policy Formulation). They count as “concentration” courses in my field, which you might have already guessed is Public Policy. 🙂 Instead of two brief summer terms, Valdosta has one long term, so it’s like another regular semester.

I finally got feedback last week on my term paper about the Art & Science of Strategic Philanthropic Management. I’ve mentioned before that this particular prof has some very interesting ways of looking at the world universe, and it would behoove you, as a student, to try to grasp his various trains of thought and hold on for dear life.

I had hoped that my topic would pique his interest because of the focus on technology and consideration of scholars outside of those we discussed in class. In the comments section for my grade, he remarked that my paper was good (hooray!), but its main flaw was that I referred to the “transformational” role that the nonprofit sector plays, yet I failed to consider the possibility that all nonprofit organizations may not, in fact, exist for the betterment of humanity. For instance, some terrorist cells masquerade as nonprofit organizations; therefore, I glossed over some potential ethical dilemmas. *sigh – fine. I’ll take my A- and be happy with it … besides, I made an overall A in the class! Wahoo!

There are tens of thousands of management books on the market, not to mention academic articles on the subject. One that came to my mind today was popularized by Kotkin and Kishimoto (1986), dubbed the “Theory F” style of management.

Theory F is different from micro-management, because the supervisor is not necessarily over the employees’ shoulders, though the staff are certainly under the manager’s thumb. Theory F is a fear-mongering style of management, one that means being concerned about losing your job for mistakenly ghostwriting a letter with the closing “Sincerely” instead of the preferred “Yours sincerely” (capital Y, never S). Theory F means saying yes to whatever is thrown your way, because the alternative is not having a job.

Except for rare cases in which one’s job is truly a matter of life and death, the implementation of Theory F management is generally dehumanizing and belittling and should be avoided.

Reference

Kotkin, J. and Y. Kishimoto. April 1, 1986. “Theory F.” Inc. Magazine. New York City, NY: Inc.

Still working on my term paper … about halfway there! 🙂

Starting in June 2014 till the indefinite future, I plan to read nothing but sassy romance novels. 😉