I woke up to an email this morning from my undergrad thesis advisor that he published a project we worked on during undergrad about GPS technology, and it was featured in the New York Times today!
Here is the New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/02/technology/gps-and-human-error-can-lead-drivers-astray-digital-domain.html
And here is the full study: http://mobilelifecentre.org/upload/publication/219/original/GPS_paper_-_CHI_camera_ready.pdf
AP in DC
Al is FINALLY blogging from the United States. Who would've thought.
All content on this blog is original work produced by Allison Primack. Do not republish or print without permission.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Thursday, July 12, 2012
How Is the Government Communications Office Changing?
My most recent publication, discussing how government communications offices must change in light of digital and social media.
http://gov.aol.com/2012/06/28/how-is-the-government-communications-office-changing/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-ressler/how-is-the-government-com_b_1627803.html
http://gov.aol.com/2012/06/28/how-is-the-government-communications-office-changing/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-ressler/how-is-the-government-com_b_1627803.html
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Can a government-wide mentorship program really work?
I am happy to announce that I am OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED IN A JOURNAL! It was published in print on June 15, 2012 for the summer issue of "The Public Manager", but a link can also be found on GovLoop (not allowed to share anywhere else due to copyright).
The article is a five page report about the pilot of the mentors program I help run over at GovLoop. Check it out here!
http://www.govloop.com/profiles/blogs/can-a-government-wide-mentorship-program-really-work
The article is a five page report about the pilot of the mentors program I help run over at GovLoop. Check it out here!
http://www.govloop.com/profiles/blogs/can-a-government-wide-mentorship-program-really-work
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
How Government Agencies Deal with Underperformers
Here is a recent submission to the Washington Post, which compiled an assortment of quotes and opinions about slackers in government offices.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/how-government-agencies-deal-with-underperformers--fedbuzz/2012/06/11/gJQAxCu9UV_blog.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/how-government-agencies-deal-with-underperformers--fedbuzz/2012/06/11/gJQAxCu9UV_blog.html
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Pinterest's Potential to Inspire Public Engagement
My newest piece for GovLoop, talking about a new social media website called "Pinterest", and whether or not government agencies would benefit from posting content on it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-ressler/government-on-pinterest-_b_1533640.html
http://gov.aol.com/2012/06/06/pinterest-s-potential-to-inspire-public-engagement/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-ressler/government-on-pinterest-_b_1533640.html
http://gov.aol.com/2012/06/06/pinterest-s-potential-to-inspire-public-engagement/
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Economic Analysis - Gasoline Prices
As a part of my economics course this semester, we were asked to use the concepts we learned in class and apply them to a current policy issue. I chose to write about gasoline prices. Enjoy!
Reducing
U.S. Gasoline Consumption By Raising Taxes
Introduction
Gas prices have returned to a hot topic
in the news, as prices are expected to soar again over the summer to all time
highs of $5 per gallon. These high prices have clearly upset Americans –
however, despite these prices, high volumes of gasoline continue to be consumed
throughout the United States. In other words, the American short run demand for
gasoline is inelastic. Even though companies are not making that much more on
gasoline due to higher acquisition costs, the lack of substitutes allows gasoline
companies to maintain a transportation monopoly in many parts of the country.
It
is no secret that consuming the amount of gas that Americans do has a lot of
negative consequences. Because there are countless political issues with
drilling American oil in Alaska, California, or on ocean shelves in the gulf,
most of the money being pumped into gasoline every year is escaping the
American economy, and going into foreign markets. Additionally, the emissions
created by gasoline have many negative impacts on health the environment.
Because
of this, lawmakers have been looking into ways to reduce reliance on gasoline
in the United States, and have been grappling with the idea of increasing taxes
on gasoline in order to achieve this goal. This policy is attractive because assuming
that the demand for gasoline is more elastic in the long run, the tax will change
consumption patterns while simultaneously collecting additional revenue. Historically,
in the United States gasoline has only had excise taxes, whose purpose is to
create revenue, not curb behavior.
Is this idea economically sound? Would raising
taxes on gasoline be a good policy move for the United States, or is there an
alternative that would be more successful? To speak to these issues, this paper
will give a background on gasoline taxes in the United States, and discuss how
raising these taxes will induce income and substitution effects. It will then
outline the issues associated with raising these taxes, and give some
alternative solutions to achieve the goal of curbing consumer demand of
gasoline. The paper will conclude
by discussing the political feasibility of this proposal.
Background: Excise Taxes
on Gasoline
An
excise tax, which is a tax on a specific good, was first applied to gasoline in
the state of Oregon in 1919. Within the following ten years every state had
adopted some form of a gasoline excise tax[1].
To this day, every state has a varying amount of excise tax on gasoline; this
is the main reason why gas prices vary from state to state.
Even though it initially failed in
Congress in 1914, a federal excise tax of one cent per gallon of gasoline was
added amongst a wide range of other excise taxes as a part of the Revenue Act
of 1932 to balance the federal budget[2].
The gasoline tax proved to be extremely lucrative, generating $125 million in
the first year, which amounted to over 15% of the internal revenue collected in
1933. Originally, this tax was meant to be temporary, and was supposed to be
removed as soon as highways and roads were built and/or maintained.
However, because of its success, it was
not repealed, and is still in effect today as a part of the Highway Revenue Act
of 1956, with the creation of the Highway Trust Fund. This changed the purpose
of the tax from collecting revenue to become a type of user tax for the state
highways and roads. Instead of the money simply going to the general treasury,
the earnings from the gasoline excise tax went into a special account to be
specifically used for roads. Starting in 1982, under the Surface Transportation
Assistance Act, a small percentage of these funds were also allocated to mass
transit purposes.
In the 1990s, the excise tax for gasoline
continued to rise. The Omnibus Budget Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990
changed the function of this tax again by allocating some of its funds away
from the Highway Trust Fund to deficit reduction and the Leaky Underground
Storage Tank Trust Fund. Over the decade the distribution of the tax between
these different funds shifted several times.
Currently, the federal tax on gasoline is
18.4 cents per gallon, or 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel fuel. State taxes
range from 4 to 32 cents per gallon, with some states having provisions to
fluctuate their rates in response to any change in the federal rate. This would
offset changes to the federal tax level for consumers, and keep the combined
State-Federal tax nominally constant[3].
Recently, has been discussion about
expanding the gasoline taxes to cover some of the negative externalities
associated with high gasoline consumption. In his discussion paper, Ian W.H. Parry
conducted a cost-benefit analysis, correcting some of these negative
externalities through Pigouvian taxes on gasoline. The externalities he chose
to include in his analysis were local pollution, global warming/CO2 pollution,
oil dependence, congestion, and accidents[4].
He concluded that to cover all this and the current revenue needs, gasoline
taxes should be at least $1.23 per gallon, which is almost seven times the
amount of the current tax. Legislation has not been made in this direction yet
because it lacks political support and would change the nature of the tax
completely.
How Raising Taxes on
Gasoline Causes Income and Substitution Effects
Changing the price of a good incites two
different types of changes to consumption – income effects, and substitution
effects. As Browning and Zupan explain, these effects cannot be observed
separately; rather, when consumers change their behavior, the combined effect
of both factors can be observed[5].
The
income effect is the change in the consumer’s real purchasing power brought
about by a change in the price of a good[6].
If gasoline prices were to go up, the consumer’s real purchasing power for all
other goods decreases, thus shifting back their budget line in a parallel
fashion. This price increase would decrease real income, which causes the
consumer to fall to a lower consumer curve.
The
substitution effect is an incentive to increase consumption of a good whose
price falls at the expense of other, now relatively more expensive goods[7].
As prices change around each other, the consumer will choose to consume different
consumption bundles based on their preferences at a given price. When gas
prices rise, it is expected that the consumer will substitute away from driving
and consuming gasoline in favor of other less expensive ways to transport
themselves, such as using a carpool, public transportation, obtaining a more
fuel efficient car, etc.
It is easy to see how these effects go
hand in hand. As expected, as prices rise there is a negative income effect and
a negative substitution effect. In order to maintain gas consumption at the
higher prices, consumers would have to change their consumption bundles and
substitute other goods for gasoline, or find alternatives and spend less on
gasoline. Because employers will not raise salaries just because gas prices go
up, it can be assumed that consumers will generally have the same income, and
thus it is guaranteed that their purchasing power will decrease.
Issues with Increasing
Taxes
If taxes on gasoline are raised, it is
expected that the elasticity, or consumer responsiveness of the quantity of
gasoline demanded to a change in price, will change. When considering this
policy, it is important to take two different types of elasticity into
consideration – short run, which looks at more immediate changes in consumption,
and long run, which looks at changes over a longer period of time. Demand elasticities
can either be positive or negative to indicate which direction the quantity
changes in, but we are more concerned with the magnitude of the elasticity than
the direction. For this reason, it is common to consider elasticity as an
absolute value during analysis. If the elasticity of demand is zero, it is
perfectly inelastic and quantity consumed is immune to price changes. The
elasticity of demand is considered inelastic if its absolute value is between
zero and one, and elastic is its absolute value is greater than one.
Luckily,
because of fluctuations in state taxes and in the pretax price of gasoline, we
are able to predict elasticities on gasoline despite the fact that the federal
tax has not changed in recent years. Currently, studies show that the elasticity
of demand for gasoline is between -0.034 and -0.077 in the short run[8].
These results are highly inelastic. The long run elasticity is more difficult
to calculate due to many outside factors over time (including recessions,
embargoes, etc.), but studies estimate that it is also highly inelastic, at an
approximate value of -0.31[9].
This makes sense because there are not many substitutions for gasoline in some
areas, so consumers have no choice but to consume gasoline. Elasticity may be
higher if alternative transportation options were more prevalent in the United
States, but these are not necessarily a reality outside of metropolitan areas.
From
an economical perspective, the inelasticity of gasoline is fantastic news for
the federal government because even if the price is raised due to taxes on a
good with inelastic demand, people will continue to consume it. Based on the
elasticities stated above, if gas prices were to rise 10% due to additional
taxes, demand would only decrease by 0.55% on average in the short run, and by
3.1% in the long run. This means that a significant amount of tax revenue can
be collected as a result.
On the other hand, from a social
perspective the inelasticity of gasoline is not good. While increasing taxes on
gasoline would be beneficial for previously stated reasons, it will also hurt
the consumers by decreasing their purchasing power. Excise taxes are extremely
regressive, and affect lower income families more than others. Policymakers
need to take this into account while making their analysis. To address this,
many have suggested that a “tax-plus-rebate” program should be used to help
offset the income effect, where qualified consumers would get a tax rebate in
the form of unrestricted cash transfers[10].
However, this is not ideal because there is no clear way to define who would be
qualified for the rebate (i.e., based on location, income level, or both) and
it would go against the goal of the policy by not promoting consumption
reduction.
Alternative Solutions
In
order to achieve the goal of reducing gas consumption, the federal government
has several other options to consider, other than increasing and expanding the
current excise taxes:
Regulation
Regulating
gas prices, and/or consumption, is an alternative solution that has been
relatively popular. If the government
chose to regulate prices, they would create a price ceiling, or maximum price
that could not be surpassed by any firm, and the market would determine the
quantity supplied. Because much of our gasoline is from the foreign market at
prices we cannot control, this is a dangerous policy to put into effect. As
seen in the Arab Oil Embargo in 1973, these prices could quadruple overnight,
which would make the regulation worthless. If companies cannot make or sell
their product at the set price, they will make less of it and shortages will be
created. Studies in various industries have proven that the market and natural
supply and demand works better than regulation, so this should be avoided if
possible.
Another
form of regulation that has been discussed is limiting the amount of gas an
individual can consume, a form of rationing. This would be similar to the “cap
and trade” programs being created in response to greenhouse gas emissions, in
that the government would create an aggregate amount to be consumed, and make
available only enough permits to match this amount[11].
In this way they are specifying the quantity, and letting the market choose the
prices. Those who need more gasoline could buy extra amounts from those who do
not need nor want it. Again, this would be disadvantageous to many Americans
who do not have transportation alternatives to substitute into, so it would be
difficult to get Congress to pass such a bill. For citizens living in more
rural areas of the country with less access to public transportation and other
fuel alternatives, it is not reasonable to limit them to the same amount of
fuel as Americans living in larger cities with many other options. Additionally
there may be high transactions costs in running this type of program, making in
not technically feasible. Despite these issues, historically cap and trade
style programs have been more politically feasible than other regulations because
they can specify limits with more ease and still allow flexibility in the
market. On top of this they do not specifically tax people, which is good in
our tax-adverse society.
Creating More Low-Cost Green Alternatives
While
some automobile companies have begun to create cars that are more fuel
efficient, these options are not always economically available to all
Americans. The Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), also known as “Cash for
Clunkers” program tried to help offset this in the summer of 2009 by giving
vouchers between $3500 and $4500 to Americans for new vehicles whose current mileage
ratings were 18 mpg or less[12].
The hope was that this would help the environment and cut gasoline costs for Americans
while stimulating the economy because new cars get better mileage and create
lower emissions. When the program concluded in August 2009, a total of 690,114 “clunkers”
were traded in, with $2.877 billion in vouchers distributed[13].
A study by the University of Michigan reported that this program improved the
fuel economy in the United States by 0.6 mpg in July 2009 alone[14]. However, most economists agreed that
this program spent billions of dollars to accelerate purchases of new cars only
by a few months; studies show that as gas prices rise the sales of high-mpg
vehicles rises without intervention[15].
A large amount of government money was spent on a program that made a limited
impact, so CARS was not very effective.
Other
incentives can be created to promote green options. One program run by the U.S.
Department of Energy is the alternative fuel tax program, which refunds
consumers 50 cents per gallon for using gasoline alternatives, such as
compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas,
P-Series fuel, liquid fuel derived from coal through the Fischer-Tropsch
process, and compressed or liquefied gas derived from biomass[16].
If these programs were better known, consumers may be more likely to use these
alternative resources and reduce gasoline consumption. The problem with
alternative fuels is that they cost more to produce than you can sell them for.
Crops need fertilizer and gas to harvest and transport. Electricity needs to be
generated at a time when the grid is overwhelmed and the supply constrained.
Electric cars have limited range and take a long time to charge. Hydrogen is
very explosive and there are few stations to provide it. Natural gas is bulky
and needs high-pressure tanks. Unfortunately gasoline is a perfect medium, as
is diesel, and getting a new car with better mileage and lower emissions will
be more cost effective than dealing with this green alternative.
More Emphasis on Public Transportation
If
policymakers truly wanted to reduce reliance on gasoline, it would be essential
to provide more, and better alternative forms of transportation for consumers
to substitute into. In Europe, for example, the short run elasticity of demand
on gasoline is closer to the world demand of -0.40, which is significantly more
elastic than the U.S. elasticity of demand[17].
Because public transportation is more commonly used, they are able to tax
significantly more on gasoline – currently, taxes on gasoline in many European countries
exceed $2 per gallon[18]. This tax
provides much more revenue, and is widely accepted because public
transportation is a solid substitute.
Because public transportation in the
United States is not as widespread or developed to the same degree as Europe,
and major cities and businesses are more geographically spread out, it is
difficult to use that as a substitute for consumers if prices of gasoline were
to go up. However, if excise taxes continue to help pay towards these transportation
development projects, this could eventually be a possibility. This is probably
the most politically feasible option, but it still has its issues.
Conclusion and Political
Feasibility
There is no clear answer on what policy
is best to reduce gasoline consumption in the United States. Most policymakers
agree that gasoline taxes are low, not only in comparison to other countries
internationally, but simply because they have not been adjusted in years. While
it has remained constant in nominal value, it has decreased in real value because
it has not even been adjusted for inflation. It is reasonable to expect this
tax to rise in the coming years, if not only to adjust for inflation.
Raising taxes on gasoline is not
impossible since the government has done this already with other excise items,
such as cigarettes. Behavioral economic analyses and econometric studies
produced consistent estimates, showing that the price elasticity of demand in
cigarettes rose as price rose. Long run elasticities were between -0.27 and -0.48,
approximately double of the estimated short run elasticities[19].
This means that people were more likely to change their consumption habits over
time; they bought tobacco from alternative sources, quit smoking, or reduced
their consumption as prices went up. This was a market-based solution to the
problem, and proved that the government is capable of gaining extra revenue
while still causing behavioral changes.
There is skepticism of whether the same
effect would happen with gasoline because at best it would take a 10% increase
in gasoline prices in order to achieve a 1% decrease in gasoline consumption in
the short run[20]. However, a
study in 2011 tested correlation between gasoline taxes and tax-exclusive
gasoline prices and several factors that effect consumption, and found that in
four of their six specifications gasoline consumption is more negatively
correlated with the tax rate than with the tax-exclusive price[21].
Their results suggested that higher taxes on gasoline might affect consumer
demand more than previously estimated – elasticity of demand will be different
based on the consumer’s perception of whether the change in gasoline price is
permanent or not[22]. Because taxes
seem more permanent, they predict that the elasticity of demand would actually
be higher than predicted, and that a higher tax would change consumer demand.
As previously mentioned, because some of
the excise taxes are being used on other transit projects, it is not
far-fetched to use gasoline taxes to achieve other goals than as a user fee for
highways and public roads; it’s just a matter of how much we are willing to
charge. As discussed in Ian Parry’s article, we have to ask ourselves how
serious we are about correcting these externalities created by gasoline and
reducing consumption. Luckily, there are many feasible options for the United
States to explore and use in combination with each other. For example, Richard
Posner claims that a Pigouvian tax would still bring in revenue because
complete substitution is rarely achieved. If policymakers wished to induce this
type of tax instead of our current excise tax, the original purpose of the
excise tax would not be completely lost.
The biggest roadblock to this regulation
is the politics themselves. Because terms in Congress are so short it is better
to pass legislation that would produce quick results; this would not be the
case if taxes on gasoline were raised. As previously discussed the demand for
gasoline is extremely inelastic in the short run so you will not see an
immediate impact – you will only see minor results in the long run, which is
most likely past the political life of the politicians currently in office. This
issue is extremely politically sensitive, especially in a down economy. In a
political climate where an annual budget cannot be passed as 85% of the GOP has
pledged to never raise taxes, it is hard to expect Congress to agree to change
and raise this tax. However, if this legislation were changed in a way that
would protect the middle class and poor families from negative income effects,
such as the aforementioned tax-plus-rebate program, there would be many
positive effects in the United Stated economy and the goal of reducing gasoline
consumption would be achieved.
References
American
Petroleum Institute. “Motor Fuel Taxes: State Gasoline Tax Reports”. Last
modified April 2012. http://www.api.org/Oil-and-Natural-Gas-Overview/Industry-Economics/Fuel-Taxes.aspx.
Browning, Edgar K. and Mark A. Zupan. Microeconomic Theory & Applications, 10th Edition. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.), 2009.
Browning, Edgar K. and Mark A. Zupan. Microeconomic Theory & Applications, 10th Edition. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.), 2009.
Chaloupka, Frank
J. “How Effective are Taxes in Reducing Tobacco Consumption?” August 1998. http://tigger.uic.edu/~fjc/Presentations/Papers/taxes_consump_
rev.pdf.
rev.pdf.
Department
of Transportation. “Cash for Clunkers Wraps up with Nearly 700,000 car sales
and increased fuel efficiency, U.S. Transportation Secretary LaHood declares
program ‘wildly successful’”. DOT Press Release, August 26, 2009. http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2009/dot13309.htm.
Executive
Office of the President Council of Academic Advisors. “Economic Analysis of the
Car Rebate System (Cash for Clunkers).” September 10, 2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Cash_for_Clunkers_Report_FINAL.pdf.
Francis, Brian. “IRS
Report: Gasoline Excise Taxes, 1933-2000”. Winter 2001.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/00gastax.pdf.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/00gastax.pdf.
Havranek, Tomas,
Zuzana Irsova, and Karel Janda. “Demand for Gasoline Is More Price- Inelastic
than Commonly Thought”. Working paper from September 2, 2011. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/120416/2/CUDARE%201118%20Janda.pdf.
Hughes, Jonathon
E., Christopher R. Knittel, and Daniel Sperling. “Evidence of a Shift in the
Short-Run Price Elasticity of Gasoline Demand”. February 14, 2007.
http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/knittel/papers/gas_demand_083006.pdf.
Li, Shanjun,
Joshua Linn, and Erich Muehlegger. “Gasoline Taxes and Consumer Behavior”.
March 2011. http://economics.stanford.edu/files/muehlegger3_15.pdf.
Metcalf,
Gilbert. “Market-based Policy Options to Control U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions,” JEP Spring 2009.
Parry, Ian W.H.
“How Much Should Highway Fuels Be Taxed?” Resources for the Future Discussion
Paper 09-52, December, 2009.
Pindyck, Robert
and Daniel Rubinfeld. Microeconomics, 7th edition (Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.), 2009.
Posner,
Richard. “Should Gasoline Taxes Be Raised or Lowered? Posner’s Comment”. July
2008. http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2008/07/should-gasoline-taxes-be-raised-or-lowered-posners-comment.html.
Sivak, Michael
and Brandon Schoettle. “The Effect of the ‘Cash for Clunkers’ Program on the
Overall Fuel Economy of Purchased New Vehicles.” September 2009. http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/64025/1/102323.pdf.
Small, Kenneth
A. and Kurt Van Dender. “Fuel Efficiency and Motor Vehicle Travel: The
Declining Rebound Effect”. Working Draft, June 3, 2005. http://www.economics
.uci.edu/files/economics/docs/workingpapers/2005-06/Small-03.pdf.
.uci.edu/files/economics/docs/workingpapers/2005-06/Small-03.pdf.
U.S. Department
of Energy. “Alternative Fuel Excise Credit”. June 2011. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/laws/law/US/319.
Zingales,
Luigi. “It’s Not About Revenue”. The
Economist, June 2010. http://www.economist.com/economics/by-invitation/guest-contributions/
its_not_about_revenues
its_not_about_revenues
[1]
Brian Francis. “IRS Report: Gasoline Excise Taxes, 1933-2000” (2001) http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/00gastax.pdf.
[3]
Francis. “IRS Report: Gasoline Excise Taxes, 1933-2000”
[4]
Ian W.H. Parry. “How Much Should Highway Fuels Be Taxed?” Resources for the
Future Discussion Paper 09-52, (2009).
[5]
Edgar K. Browning and Mark A. Zupan,
Microeconomic Theory & Applications, 10th Edition
(Hoboken: John Wiley&Sons 2009) 90
[8]
Jonathon E. Hughes, Christopher R. Knittel, and Daniel Sperling. “Evidence of a
Shift in the Short-Run Price Elasticity of Gasoline Demand”. February 14, 2007.
http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/knittel/papers/gas_demand_083006.pdf.
[9]
Tomas Havranek, Zuzana Irsova, and Karel Janda. “Demand for Gasoline Is More
Price- Inelastic than Commonly Thought”. Working paper from September 2, 2011.
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/120416/2/CUDARE%201118%20Janda.pdf.
[11]
Gilbert Metcalf, “Market-based Policy Options to Control U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions,” JEP Spring 2009.
[12]
Executive
Office of the President Council of Academic Advisors. “Economic Analysis of the
Car Rebate System (Cash for Clunkers).” September 10, 2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Cash_for_Clunkers_Report_FINAL.pdf.
[13]
“Cash
for Clunkers Wraps up with Nearly 700,000 car sales and increased fuel
efficiency, U.S. Transportation Secretary LaHood declares program ‘wildly successful’”.
DOT Press Release, August 26, 2009.
http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2009/dot13309.htm.
[14]
Michael
Sivak and Brandon Schoettle. “The Effect of the ‘Cash for Clunkers’ Program on
the Overall Fuel Economy of Purchased New Vehicles.” September 2009. http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/64025/1/102323.pdf.
[15]
Shanjun Li, Joshua Linn, and Erich Muehlegger. “Gasoline Taxes and Consumer
Behavior”. March 2011. http://economics.stanford.edu/files/muehlegger3_15.pdf.
[16]
U.S.
Department of Energy. “Alternative Fuel Excise Credit”. June 2011.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/laws/law/US/319.
[17]
Robert
Pindyck and Daniel Rubinfeld. Microeconomics, 7th edition
(Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.), 2009, 56.
[18]
Parry. “How Much Should Highway Fuels Be Taxed?”, 9.
[19]
Frank J. Chaloupka. “How Effective are Taxes in Reducing Tobacco Consumption?” August
1998. http://tigger.uic.edu/~fjc/Presentations/Papers/taxes_consump_rev.pdf.
[20]
Kenneth A. Small and Kurt Van Dender. “Fuel Efficiency and Motor Vehicle
Travel: The Declining Rebound Effect”. Working Draft, June 3, 2005. http://www.economics.uci.edu/files/economics/docs/workingpapers/2005-06/Small-03.pdf.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Program Evaluation - Final Project
For my program evaluation course's final, we were asked to respond to a RFP for an actual impact evaluation. It was a partner paper, but here was the section that I completed.
UN
WOMEN: UNITED NATIONS ENTITY FOR GENDER EQUALITY AND THE EMPOWERMENT OF WOMEN
MAY
2012
Impact
Evaluation Proposal of the
Safe Cities Free of Violence Against Women and Girls Project
in New Delhi, India
I.
Executive Summary
Purpose: The Safe Cities Free of Violence
Against Women and Girls Project in New Delhi, India aims to be the first proven
model on how to prevent and reduce sexual harassment and violence against women
and girls in public spaces for eventual adaptation by local authorities and other
decision-makers worldwide, in partnership with grassroots women’s organizations
and community groups. This program is targeting slum areas and impoverished
neighborhoods in five different cities worldwide: Cairo (Egypt), Kigali
(Rwanda), Port Moresby (Papua New Guinea), Quito (Ecuador), and the focus of
this impact evaluation, New Delhi (India). Ideally, these efforts will empower
women and their communities to end this gender-based violence. The purpose of
this document is to lay out a strategic framework that assesses the impact of
this program in New Delhi.
Scope and Methods:
A variety of methods
will be used to evaluate the impact of this program. We propose a
quasi-experimental evaluation in conjunction with a comprehensive pre- and post-intervention
evaluation. Quantitative data will include existing and relevant government
statistics and surveys, as used in the baseline study already published.
Qualitative data will include open ended questionnaires, interviews, focus
groups, and video footage of public spaces. Data was collected from the nine
geographical districts of Delhi: Central, East, New, North, North-East,
North-West, South, South-West, and West. Within these districts, two to three
survey sites were selected which included markets, train stations, bus
terminals, parks, and school campuses.
Recommendations: To ensure the success of this
evaluation, we recommend encouraging feedback from key-stakeholders and policy
makers regarding this evaluation and progress of the program thus far, review
other Safe Cities programs and evaluations to consider implementing their best
practices, and increase outreach to religious leaders and men’s organizations
for their participation and support.
II. Introduction
This
is a proposal to create and carry out an impact evaluation for the Safe Cities
Free of Violence Against Women and Girls program in New Delhi, India. Using the
model outlined in this report, Lauren Deutsch and Allison Primack from The
George Washington University in Washington, DC, will
carry out an evaluation to determine the extent to which this program has
reduced gender-based violence, increased mobility of women and girls in public
spaces, and increased awareness about the enjoyment of women and girl’s rights
to access and use public spaces.
III. Background
In a
June 2011 survey, Thomson Reuters ranked India the fourth most dangerous place
for women in the world based on high rates of female infanticide, foeticide and
sex trafficking[1]. While India
has made impressive strides to protect their female citizens, violence against
women remains prevalent in New Delhi. In order to determine an
appropriate methodology for this study, it is crucial that scoping studies are
conducted to gain a deeper understanding of the nature of sexual violence and
harassment in New Delhi. Special care has been taken to ensure that these
activities are gender, age, and culturally appropriate.
Description
of the Program
Safe
Cities Free of Violence Against Women and Girls program aims to be the first
proven model on how to prevent and reduce sexual harassment (also referred to
as “eve-teasing”) and violence against women and girls in public spaces by
partnering with local authorities, global decision-makers, and grassroots
women’s organizations and community groups. This model can be scaled up in many
contexts—furthering women’s empowerment equality, while enhancing the quality
of urban life for all.
Key
Strategies and Components
The
Safe Cities for Women and Girls key strategies and components are outlined by
the programs description, as follows:
•
furthering
enhanced laws, policies and protocols to address these forms of violence
explicitly, end impunity for abusers, and strengthen governmental
accountability;
•
carrying
out surveys and data collection, to capture the magnitude and nature of sexual
harassment and violence in public spaces, gage the attitudes of men, women and
young people; as well as to inform public policies and assess progress;
•
undertaking
“safety audits”, considered a best practice internationally, which involve
women and other community members in identifying unsafe areas and needed
interventions, mapping “hotspots” of risks of assault and harassment, and
formulating solutions in dialogue and partnership with local authorities;
•
improving
municipal planning in various sectors, including urban design through the
introduction of practical safety measures by local authorities, in
collaboration with women and their communities — such as changes in street
lighting, signage, location of bus stops, and access to emergency hotlines in
bus and train stations;
•
advancing
prevention efforts, including through mass media campaigns and community
mobilization on `zero tolerance’ for sexual harassment and lewd behavior
towards women — with a special focus on engaging young people and men of all
ages;
•
training
and improving the capacities of local authorities and other key actors to
respond to violence against women and girls in public spaces, including the
police, judges, social services and the media;
•
applying
gender-responsive budgeting, a methodology utilized to analyze resource flows
and their responsiveness to women’s needs and rights, in order to identify the
level of existing allocations to address violence against women issues, inform
budgetary appropriations, and track relevant public sector investments;
•
crafting
and pursuing a first-of-a-kind rigorous impact evaluation, in order to
demonstrate the model’s value and relevance for policy-makers and others in
cities and countries around the world working towards making cities safer for
women and girls.
This
list will be used later in the Theory of Change logic model as the activities
used to create the outputs and outcomes. The strategy set forth in this report
will fulfill the last component on the list — a rigorous impact evaluation.
Relevant
Past Research and Evaluation Findings
In
order to effectively determine an impact evaluation design for the Safe Cities
Program in New Delhi, it is useful to look to the baseline data - a
joint-action research survey initiative carried out by the Indian Department of
Women and Child Development, Government of New Delhi, JAGORI (which means
“awaken women!” in Hindi), the UNIFEM (now UN Women) South Asia Regional
Office, and UN Habitat. The survey was conducted using a sample of 5,010 women
and men in 23 areas and 50 interview sites between January and March 2010. Data
was also collected from “common witnesses,” people who live close to large
public spaces that frequently observe sexual harassment crimes.
The
study found that a high percentage of the respondents believe that sexual
harassment in public places is the single most important factor that renders
New Delhi an unsafe city. 85.4% women, 87% men, and 93% common witnesses
responded that these problems are “rampant” in New Delhi. Verbal harassment is
the most common form, followed by visual harassment and stalking. This
harassment is most commonly experienced in market places, metro stations, areas
around schools and colleges, and industrial areas.
Many
factors lead to women feeling unsafe in public spaces. These include lack of
gender-friendly functional infrastructure such as public transportation
systems, public use of drugs and alcohol, lack of clean and safe public
restrooms, and lack of effective and visible police presence. If they were ever
subject to sexual harassment, 58% of women stated that they would not even
consider going to the police, and only 0.8% of the women surveyed have ever
reported incidents. Police are avoided because it is perceived that they will
not do anything to solve the problem, they will trivialize the incident, or
shift blame to the victim. Additionally, over half of respondents reported that
if they saw an incident occurring that they would not get involved or contact
the authorities to help.
Relevant
Literature on the Program
IV. Evaluation Questions
This
impact evaluation establishes three goals to determine the extent to which the
program has:
1.
Reduced
gender-based violence;
2.
Increased
mobility of women and girls in public spaces, and;
3.
Increased
awareness about the enjoyment of women and girl’s rights to access and use
public space in New Delhi.
In
order to determine if these goals are achieved, we should specifically answer
the following questions. These questions were derived from the baseline data
and its key components. They are aimed to measure program impact, program
outcomes, program outputs, and the effectiveness of the program’s strategies
and processes:
1.
As
a result of Safe Cities initiatives, do women perceive to be safer in public
spaces?
2.
As
a result of Safe Cities initiatives, are women more inclined to report
incidents to the police?
3.
Has
the number of sexual harassment cases decreased in public spaces since the Safe
Cities program began, or changed the type and occurrence of these incidents?
4.
Has
the Safe Cities program led to laws or government led initiatives to promote
gender equality and women safety in public spaces?
5.
Has
the Safe Cities program produced policies or budgets to improve infrastructure
(i.e. public transportation and public restrooms) to make it safer for women?
6.
Has
the Safe Cities program changed men/boys perspective of appropriate behavior
towards women in public spaces?
7.
As
a result of Safe Cities initiatives, are citizens more likely to intervene if
they witness sexual harassment occurring in a public space?
8.
Have
the multimedia methods effectively shaped public perception of these issues?
9.
Were
there any unanticipated outcomes from the Safe Cities program?
10. How well did the Safe Cities program
implement its core strategies?
11. What were the main challenges of
effective implementation, and how were they overcome?
V. Evaluation Design
This
impact evaluation design will incorporate gender equality and human rights
approaches, participatory techniques, a mixed-methods approach incorporating
qualitative and quantitative methodologies, construction of counterfactuals to
help assess impact attribution, and a longitudinal study involving baseline,
mid-term, end line, and ex-post assessments.
In
order to better understand what impact will be evaluated, it is critical to
outline the Safe Cities Theory of Change (TOC). By analyzing the long term
goals of the program and their supporting assumptions, we will be able to
easily connect the preconditions and requirements necessary to achieve the goal
of reducing sexual harassment in public spaces, identify which interventions
will be most effective, and develop indicators to measure the success of these
interventions.
Long
Term Goals and the Assumptions Behind Them
The
ultimate goal of this initiative is to prevent and reduce sexual harassment of
women and girls in public spaces in New Delhi, India. As previously mentioned,
this is to be achieved by three broad goals. First is to reduce gender-based
violence, which assumes that this type of violence is prevalent, and that women
and girls currently do not feel comfortable using available resources. Second
is to increase mobility of women and girls in public spaces, which assumes that
this fear of harassment is preventing women and girls from using these public
spaces safely, and that there is a lack of infrastructure to help prevent these
crimes. The final goal is to increase awareness about the enjoyment of women
and girl’s rights to access and use public space in New Delhi, which assumes
that there is a lack of community effort to raise awareness on this issue. This
is the basis of the logic used in our TOC model.
Connecting
Preconditions and Requirements Necessary to Achieve the Long-Term Goal
The
following logic model is a diagram mapping the inputs, activities, outputs, and
outcomes of this program. The activities/key components are adopted from the
list of “key strategies and components,” as listed earlier in the report. This
model can be seen on the following page.
There
are some external factors that could affect this logic model, the most
prevalent being the cultural differences between India (New Delhi in
particular) and the United States. The response to these programs may be
different based on their cultural norms, their patriarchal society and
historically misogynistic beliefs. Sexual acts of violence such as rape are
still very much taboo in Indian culture and the timeframe associated with this
logic model may be too progressive.
Indicators of Success
In
order to determine if the program is successful, several indicators must be in
place to analyze various outputs of the program. The indicators are outlined in
the table below:
Output
|
Indicator
|
Population Measured
|
Performance Threshold
|
Women
better protected by the law
|
More
provisions about sexual harassment added to the law
|
Lawmakers,
Law Enforcement Officers
|
At
least two provisions added per year, or in the process of being added
|
Dangerous
“hotspots” identified and targeted for infrastructure improvement
|
Safety
audit results, plans for infrastructure improvements set into place and put
into action
|
Women/Girls,
Lawmakers, City/Urban Planners, Law Enforcement Officers
|
Make
infrastructure improvements in at least two hotspots per district per year
|
Changed
public perception of sexual harassment issues
|
Public
opinion surveys
|
Local
Media Outlets, Women/Girls, Men/Boys
|
At
least 25% more aware of sexual harassment issues per year
|
Women
feel safer in public spaces
|
Interviews
with women, public opinion surveys
|
Women/Girls,
Law Enforcement Officers
|
Safety
ratings increase by 25%
|
More
public money allocated to community resources for women
|
Budgets,
provisions added to the law
|
Lawmakers,
Community Directors
|
At
least 10% more funds allocated to community resources
|
Police
better equipped to properly deal with these cases
|
Surveys
rating the additional training programs, surveys from women’s perceptions
|
Law
Enforcement Officers, Lawmakers
|
85% of
officers complete training in first year, 100% by second year
|
Evaluating
Impact
The
RFP presents three main options that are to be considered for the impact
evaluation design to determine if the aforementioned goals were achieved:
1.
Experimental
evaluation, using randomized trials with control and treatment groups;
2.
Quasi-experimental
evaluation, involving cluster trials (to compare the interventions’ effects on
beneficiaries with comparable communities in which the intervention was not
implemented; and/or
3.
Comprehensive
pre- and post-intervention evaluation, without a comparison or treatment or
control group.
For
this program, an experimental evaluation is not feasible. Due to the sensitive
nature of topic, it is not ethical to allow some women to participate but then
withhold victim services if they were in fact required. We propose to use a
quasi-experimental evaluation, not only because it is indeed viable, but it is
also only second best to a random control trial and allows us to compare
communities in New Delhi with one another. A comprehensive pre- and
post-intervention evaluation will be used in conjunction with this to support the
quasi-experimental results by using quantitative data from the government.
VI. Data Collection
To
conduct our impact evaluation, we will be collecting a wide range of data from
various sources. These methods are outlined below.
Sources
of Data Available
Unfortunately,
due to its taboo nature in New Delhi, there is not much existing data on this
issue yet. The most comprehensive report we currently have is the baseline data
collected in 2010. However, it would be useful to obtain government data on
reported incidents, and compare this information to the baseline data. It may
be that the number of reported incidents may go up even though that the total
number of sexual harassment cases decrease — this would be helpful to see in
the study, because it would show that the program is effective in empowering
women to report these cases to the police.
Measures
Used to Address the Research Questions
Various
kinds of data will be collected before, during, and after the program in order
to portray an accurate depiction of the city at that time. Quantitative data
will include existing, relevant government statistics and surveys, as used in
the baseline study. Qualitative data will include open-ended questionnaires and
interviews of women who are involved in the program’s activities, and of random
people approached on the street. Focus groups will be hosted with program
directors and other leaders to brainstorm ways to confront these issues from a
legal standpoint. Additionally, video footage will be collected in public
spaces as evidence for the researchers to observe and record changes over time.
Data
collection methods
In
order to conduct a rigorous impact evaluation, data will be collected at four
points in time: before the program begins (baseline), halfway through the
program (mid-term), at the end of the program (end line), and at the end of all
activities that supported the program (ex-post). Since the baseline evaluation
has already been conducted, we can only rely on the resulting survey data. For
the midterm evaluation moving forward, all of the data mentioned above will be
collected. We will rely on participants to describe incidents based on memory
and provide reactions to baseline data during the midpoint evaluation.
Sampling
procedures
For
this impact evaluation, both non-probability and probability sampling methods
will be used to create a complete picture of the situation in New Delhi. For
the interviews and focus group discussions, it is essential to use purposive
samples in order to include community leaders, and women having endured a
variety of incidents. The surveys and questionnaires will be distributed at
random to the population. This will be achieved through stratified random
sampling, dividing the population based on their age, location, and other
demographic factors in an attempt to compile a diverse data set. The police
data collected will be sampling the entire population.
Limitations
to Validity and Reliability
The
nature of the data in this study poses some threats to validity and
reliability. Fortunately, there are precautions that can be taken to minimize
the impacts of these limitations on our impact evaluation:
•
Selection
is a major threat to this study. Because sexual harassment is not openly
discussed in Indian culture, it is expected that not every woman will be openly
willing to participate in the study. Whatever group volunteers to opt in to the
study may not truly represent the feelings of the majority. To attempt to
correct for this it should be made clear upfront that their participation or
responses will not jeopardize their safety or well-being so as to successfully
reach along the entire spectrum of respondents.
•
History
can be a threat to internal validity, because a particular event in the region
pertaining to sexual harassment may cause a particular reaction or change that
has nothing to do with the Safe Cities program, and thus throw off the results.
For this reason, it is essential to be aware of all events pertaining to sexual
harassment in the New Delhi region, recording these events in the study,
especially those leading directly to changes in government intervention, the
response over the duration of the study, and violent incidents shared in the
media.
•
Attrition,
also referred to as mortality, can also affect the results of the study,
especially pertaining to individuals we hope to track over time through
interviews and surveys. If for any reasons the participant feels like they are
scared or threatened by being involved, we could lose their input or support.
To make sure this does not occur, it is essential to maintain anonymity, and go
to extra measures to ensure that they feel safe sharing private and somewhat
embarrassing information.
•
Spillover
effects are likely to occur with the onset of this program and affect sexual
harassment and violence outcomes in areas outside of New Delhi that are used
for comparison. This is most likely to happen if the Safe Cities program
incites new government regulations regarding sexual harassment in public
places. This is not necessarily a bad thing because the program is helping more
women than expected, but it could also contaminate the comparison group, which
makes it difficult to determine the actual impact of treatment. Indicating if
and when local or national changes are made can combat this.
•
Measurement
is a large threat to both validity and reliability in this study. There are
concerns about whether the data collected is actually representative of the
population, and if it is consistent. To help combat this, it is extremely
important that the same measures are used for baseline, midpoint, and endpoint
evaluations in order to avoid the easy pitfall of instrumentation issues.
Design
Matrix
The
following design matrix summarizes the data collection techniques in a table
format:
Evaluation
Question
|
Information
Source
|
Sampling
|
Data
Collection Mode/
Respondents
|
Specific
Questions
|
As a
result of Safe Cities initiatives, do women perceive to be more safe in
public spaces?
|
Women
and girls
|
Stratified
random sampling of women and girls
|
Survey,
Open-ended questionnaire, Interviews
|
- On a
scale of 1-5, how safe do you feel in Space X?
- What
makes you feel safe in public spaces?
|
As a
result of Safe Cities initiatives, are women more inclined to report
incidents to the police?
|
Women
and girls
|
Stratified
random sampling of women and girls
|
Survey,
Open-ended questionnaire, Interviews, Government Data
|
- Have
you ever reported a sexual harassment case to the police?
- Would
you feel comfortable reporting a sexual harassment case to the police?
|
Has the
number of sexual harassment cases decreased in public spaces since the Safe
Cities program began, or changed the type and occurrence of these incidents?
|
Lawmakers,
Law Enforcement
|
Collection
of all police/
government
data
|
Government
Data, Video footage
|
N/A,
only data analysis
|
Has the
Safe Cities program led to laws or government led initiatives to promote
gender equality and women safety in public spaces?
|
Lawmakers
|
Collection
of government data
|
Government
Data
|
N/A,
only data analysis
|
Has the
Safe Cities program produced policies or budgets to improve infrastructure
(i.e. public transportation and public restrooms) to make it safer for women?
|
Lawmakers,
City/Urban planners
|
Collection
of government data
|
Government
Data
|
N/A,
only data analysis
|
Has the
Safe Cities program changed men/boys perspective of appropriate behavior
towards women in public spaces?
|
Men and
boys
|
Stratified
random sampling of public
|
Survey,
Open-ended questionnaire, Interviews
|
- What
type of behavior is appropriate towards women?
- Do
you think women and men are treated the same in public spaces?
|
As a
result of Safe Cities initiatives, are citizens more likely to intervene if
they witness sexual harassment occurring in a public space?
|
Women
and Girls, Men and Boys
|
Stratified
random sampling of public
|
Survey,
Open-ended questionnaire, Interviews, Video Footage
|
- Would
you intervene if you saw someone being sexually harassed?
|
Have
the multimedia methods effectively shaped public perception of these issues?
|
Local
Media Outlets, Women and Girls, Men and Boys
|
Stratified
random sampling of public, Purposive sampling of local media
|
Survey,
Open-ended questionnaire, Interviews
|
- What
is sexual harassment?
- Have
you seen the local media campaign? Do these issues apply to you?
|
Were
there any unanticipated outcomes from the Safe Cities program?
|
Community
directors, Women and girls
|
Purposive
sampling of community directors, public
|
Open-ended
questionnaire, Interviews
|
- What
was the most successful aspect of this program?
- What
did you gain from this program?
|
How
well did the Safe Cities program implement its core strategies?
|
Community
directors
|
Purposive
Sampling of program and community directors
|
Survey,
Open-ended questionnaire, Interviews
|
Ask
questions about success of the core outcomes
|
What
were the main challenges to effective implementation of this program, and how
were they overcome?
|
Community
directors
|
Purposive
Sampling of program administrators, community directors
|
Open-ended
questionnaire, Interviews
|
- What
was the biggest challenge in implementing this program?
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)