Each of the 4 chapters on the Contending Perspectives of Political Economy include a section on the “Principles of …” and Respective Political Economic Theory “Today” For your assignment and for each of the four chapters, you will expand on one of the theoretical approaches discussed under “Today”. You did the annotated bibliography so you have the sources. For each of the four approaches, discuss the theory in detail and how it fits and/or deviates from the “Principles” of the respective political economic theory. It should also discuss policies from one or two areas that are advocated by this contemporary approach to the respective political economic theory. Use the same policy areas for all 4 perspectives. You should not discuss the history, context, or biographies of any of the people involved. If you feel the need to do so, it should go in a footnote (or three). So, as should be evident, the assignment will include 4 main sections, which you did your annotated bibliographies for, along with a brief introduction and conclusion. The introduction should include a thesis or research question relevant to the 4 political economic theories and to the analysis (see below). It is also important that the assignment not just read as four separate sections, so it is necessary to make sure there are good transitions throughout each section but also from section to section. After the 4 perspectives you will include a detailed analysis section where you will compare and contrast the four approaches-not just concerning the assumptions but most importantly about the reform proposals/policies that you discussed for each perspective and the possibility of people of these perspectives being able to work together in the policy arena. You will highlight where is there agreement among/between the approaches (be specific) and where is there disagreement? The thesis should be related to whether (in the political and policy arenas) compromise and cooperation is possible (across and between perspectives) given the items of disagreement/agreement? What areas might compromise be more likely? Less Likely? Why or why not? The last section is a conclusion to the assignment.
The assignment will include a title page and a reference page
(Important: the average length of the assignment in previous classes has been 8-10 pages)
11
Program analysis using different perspectives
Student’s Name
Institution
Course
Professor
Date
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………
Program Description/ Analysis of a Classical Liberal perspective…………………………
Program Description/ Analysis of a Radical perspective……………………………………
Program Description/ Analysis of a Conservative perspective……………………………..
Program Description/ Analysis of a Mordern Liberal perspective…………………………
Comparisons of four perspectives……………………………………………………………
Assessment and modifications of the perspectives………………………………………….
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………..
Introduction
Program analysis using different perspectives
In a political economy, policies and programs are essential tools that assist in understanding the ongoing struggle for equality and social justice. Although both have an underlying difference, they serve an almost similar purpose. Essentially, understanding the goal of any program or policy can be achieved by analyzing the contending perspectives (Harvey, 2020). This involves the intentional bringing of different perspectives in contrast. They help examine core economic problems or concepts from an orthodox perspective, and others criticize it from a heterodox perspective. The perspectives are essential since both the heterodox and orthodox positions can be examined and reach a consensus.
In the United States, there has been a rise in spending on prescription drugs, which has led to the introduction of a Build Better Program. One proposal is driving down the cost of prescription drugs by allowing Medicare to negotiate with drugmakers over price; starting in 2025-ten drugs (plus insulin) would be on the table the first year, growing to 20 by 2028 (The White House, 2021). Although members of Congress have accepted the proposal, there is a need to analyze it using the different contending perspectives. This paper explores the proposal using the Classical Liberal, The radical, the Conservative Perspective, and the Modern Liberal Perspective. Individuals have the right to pursue their happiness, and proponents of the different political economy perspectives should work hand-in-hand to promote human development within society.
Analysis by Perspective
The Classical Liberal
The political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism emphasize securing citizens’ freedom by limiting government power. Today, the proponents hold various thoughts and Perspectives, one being Neo-Austrian economics (Clark, 2016). Essentially, the program’s main aim is to reduce the overall cost of prescription drugs. From the Perspective of Neo-Austrians, humans are self-interested. They can act autonomously by utilizing their capacity to discover an efficient means of satisfying their desires and basic needs (Harvey, 2020). Also, the government is created by the people to protect their natural rights. At the same time, justice requires safeguarding the people’s rights established by the constitution, where a heavy punishment follows for those who violate other people’s rights.
The ideal program has different elements, which the Classical Liberal proponents would have different views. For instance, allowing the government to negotiate the drug prices with the manufacturers, requiring inflation rebates to limit the increase in drug prices, and capping out-of-pocket spending for the enrollees would be highly supported. People created the government to protect themselves from one another. The elements address the underlying problems and do not require any modification since it tends to cover all the principles of the Perspective (Hao, 2017). Thus, negotiating with the drug manufacturers would be a way of protecting individuals from one another.
The Radical Perspective
From the principles of radicalism, humans have needs and a reasoning capacity, despite their behavior and consciousness being affected by their natural and social environments. Also, society precedes the individuals, and a good one encourages personal development and social relations based on mutual respect (Prasetyo et al., 2020). The government represents citizens’ interests and thus permits citizens to do tasks that they cannot necessarily accomplish as individuals (Clark, 2016). For efficiency, social resources have to be used to maximize society’s goals, including justice, prosperity, and human development.
The institutional economics theory does not entirely fit in this Perspective. According to institutionalism, there lacks proper balance between the government and the market, although they still emphasize community and equality as the Perspective does (Acs et al., 2018). Also, they go against the neoclassical assumptions of perfect competition and rational consumers- they disguise the inefficiency and power relations of real-world capitalism.
The government is a representation of the citizens. Therefore, the program fits in the Perspective since it proposes the government negotiate the costs of prescription drugs (Valentinov, 2021). The program also seeks to control out-of-pocket spending, proving that individuals come before a society-it ensures a good society and thus encourages human development.
The Conservative Perspective
Proponents of the conservative Perspective believe that human beings are driven by strong passions directed toward good or evil. Thus, some people have more extraordinary powers than others. Also, they believe that society is an organic structure with its own quality, which determines the behaviors and interests of the individuals (Harvey, 2020). The government’s role is to maintain the order of the society and have a role of nurturing institutions such as hospitals, churches, neighborhoods to ensure a social context for individuals’ development.
Moreover, authority is legal when it resides with people who play essential roles in knowledge and are wise of virtue and truth. Under this Perspective, the social conservatism theory fits in. For instance, it points towards greater decentralization, equality, power accountability, and human development priority over profit (Harnish et al., 2018). Recent studies show a close link between ideological attitudes such as moral foundations, social dominance, and religious dominance and various conservatism such as economic, social, and foreign policy conservatism. Since society encourages personal development, parenthood assists in influencing the motivation, morals, and social conservatism of an individual (Kerry et al., 2018). Similarly, social conservatism tends to be strong when linked with intuitive thinking, especially in weird societies. This fit that the society precedes the individuals.
The proponents of the Perspective would agree with some elements of the program. Since the main aim of the program is to ensure a reduction in the cost of the prescription drugs, they would agree that the government, through Medicare, should have a conversation with the drug manufacturers to ensure reduced cost since they serve as a representation of the citizens- it is their duty to negotiate the price reduction since individual citizens would not necessarily do on their own (Yilmaz et al., 2019). Although they would agree that the program serves the right purpose, there are some elements that they would consider unfit. For instance, eliminating cot sharing would undermine human development since it would increase net costs to Medicare. This would later lead to an increase in government expenditures to cover out-of-pocket costs. Also, it would lead to additional costs due to a rise in vaccine uptake. Therefore, attempts to eliminate cost-sharing would lead to a reduction in efficiency caused by heavy use of health services, encouraging cost-effective or cheaper cost of care services (The White House, 2021). For the program to fit in the principles of the liberal Perspective, ensuring cost-sharing would be the best strategy-it would assist in eliminating any discrimination in the society, thereby enhancing equity and efficiency.
The Modern Liberal Perspective
The proponents of this Perspective believe that the overall national prosperity requires the government to manage the macroeconomic to lower the level of unemployment and inflation and keep growth high (Clark, 2016). Also, the government’s role is to remove all obstacles that may lead to blockage of individuals’ freedom. According to the proponents, humans have rational choices, although the social environment shapes their goals. Also, the society is individuals’ aggregation, who have collective and private interests (Harvey, 2020). People hold subjective and relative values, while authority only exists when power is exercised in the interests of the public members. Similarly, equality under the law and equality of opportunity are essential components of ensuring social equality. However, both equality is constantly jeopardized by income and wealth inequality.
The behavioral economics theory fits with the Perspective. For instance, individuals do not carefully calculate the benefits and costs associated with making a given decision. This may make some of them have conflicting desires or lack self-control, and make unconnected choices with long-term goals (Grayot, 2020). As a result, it proves that human beings hold rational decisions that are determined by the environmental shape.
The proponents would support the program since it would solve the problem of inflation. One of the elements of the program is requiring inflation rebates to limit the increase in drug prices per year in both private and Medicare insurance, which they would highly support (Leeson, 2019). Also, negotiating the prices of the highly-sold drugs would assist in ensuring equality and improving the standard of living in society. Moreover, the negotiation to lower prices would be a way of exercising authority in the public interests.
Comparison of Perspectives
Proponents of the various perspectives hold different beliefs related to the market economy. From each perspective’s analysis on how they would treat the proposed program, there are multiple instances where some proponents match. However, there are instances where there lies a significant difference for the four categories regarding views on the program. Essentially, perspectives are roadmaps and cannot be termed specific directions (Harvey, 2020). In most cases, people in the same Perspective do not always agree, since the same belief may be applied in different ways, resulting in different positions or answers. Similarly, people from different perspectives do not disagree all the time. It is possible to have different assumptions that lead to the same policy or answer, despite having various reasons.
Similarities
All perspectives support the need to have a good society that supports human development. For instance, they all propose the government’s need to negotiate with the responsible bodies to ensure the lowered cost of prescription drugs. With regard to the program, the various perspectives have similarities in terms of the rate of increase of prices and the solution toward solving the problem. For instance, they all seem to support the proposal since it seeks to limit the increase in drug prices per year in private and Medicare insurance by inflation rebating.
Differences
Although all proponents seem to support the proposal, modification creates some differences. This follows the idea that not all want a modification, while others perceive equality differently. Also, the various perspectives do not agree on the need to limit the cost-sharing for the insurance and Medicare enrollees-some proponents agree that cost-sharing would be the best. In contrast, others perceive it as a way of widespread health care inequalities and, therefore, the need to eliminate it.
Analysis of Possibility for Consensus
Consensus refers to a creative and dynamic way of reaching an agreement between or among various groups. Instead of voting, a sense of peace would be the best method to finding solutions that every proponent would support and live with. Undoubtedly, reaching a consensus would mean reaching a decision that does not go against the will of some individuals or the minority group involved (Harvey, 2020). From the Perspective of passing the proposal, reaching a consensus would be the best to avoid blocking and preventing it from going ahead. Thus, the overall group of four members has to work hard at finding solutions that address the concern of everyone without overruling or ignoring the opinions of the minority group.
From the analysis, it is possible to have a consensus between the proponents of the various perspectives. Most of them agree on the idea of the government playing its role of making orders in charge of citizens. Therefore, all members would reach a consensus and propose on government, through Medicare, to have a conversation with the drug manufacturers and lower the overall cost of prescription drugs. In efforts to make the proposal perfect and fit in all categories, it would be advisable to modify the element, “the policy seeks to limit insulin cost-sharing for private and Medicare users, eliminating cost-sharing for an adult vaccine.” By encouraging cost-sharing, it would perpetuate health inequalities.
Conclusion
There is a need for all proponents to reach a consensus and work together towards voting for proposals and programs that support human development. Contending perspectives in the political economy plays an essential role by assisting a more straightforward analysis of a policy or a program before voting for it. The program under review is the need of the government to negotiate with the prescription drugs manufacturers to lower the costs. From the various perspectives, the classical liberal proponents would agree with the proposal and emphasize the need to secure citizens’ freedom by reducing the cost and limiting the government power. Also, it would be a way of protecting individuals from one another. From the Perspective of radicalism, the government is a representation of citizens’ interests and should therefore accomplish tasks that individuals cannot do on their own. They would support the policy since it fights for citizens’ demands from this perspective. Similarly, the conservative perspective proponents would agree with the proposal’s elements since they support the government’s The Modern Liberal Perspective proponents would partly support the proposal, but their perspectives would disagree with it. For instance, they oppose cost-sharing since it is challenging to attain equality when people have unequal incomes and wealth. Essentially, members of the various perspectives would easily reach a consensus since they all support the role of the government as acting as citizens’ representatives and making orders that favor every person, including the minority group. However, some elements of the program would need modification, such as cost-sharing. The existing inequality cannot favor this element and would require a modification that supports the passing of the proposal while ensuring equality to all members.
References
Acs, Z. J., Estrin, S., Mickiewicz, T., & Szerb, L. (2018). Entrepreneurship, institutional economics, and economic growth: an ecosystem perspective. Small Business Economics, 51(2), 501-514.
Build back better. (2021, May 4). The White House.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/build-back-better/
Clark, B. (2016). Political Economy: A Comparative Approach: A Comparative Approach. ABC-CLIO.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/reader/books/9781440843266/pageid/47
Farmer, K., & Conway, L. (2021). Neo-Austrian Views of the Global Financial Crisis and Its Pre-Corona Aftermath. Modern Economy, 12(04), 712.
Grayot, J. D. (2020). Dual-process theories in behavioral economics and neuroeconomics: a critical review. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 11(1), 105-136.
Hao, M. (2017). The methodology of Neo-Austrian economics and its effect on behavioral finance.
Harnish, R. J., Bridges, K. R., & Gump, J. T. (2018). Predicting economic, social, and foreign policy conservatism: The role of right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, moral foundations orientation, and religious fundamentalism. Current Psychology, 37(3), 668-679.
Harvey, J. T. (2020). Contending perspectives in economics: A guide to contemporary schools of thought. Edward Elgar Publishing.
https://books.google.co.ke/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Fr72DwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=contending+perspectives+&ots=cnCme938RV&sig=8kqo36snrnDjQxBAMnqOikLp8Rg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=contending%20perspectives&f=false
Kerry, N., & Murray, D. R. (2018). Conservative parenting: Investigating the relationships between parenthood, moral judgment, and social conservatism. Personality and Individual Differences, 134, 88-96.
Leeson, P. T. (2019). Do we need behavioral economics to explain law?. European journal of law and economics, 48(1), 29-42.
Meacci, F., & Ferlito, C. (2018). The classical roots of the Austrian theory of capital and entrepreneurship. The Review of Austrian Economics, 31(3), 315-339.
Oliver, A. (2019). Towards a new political economy of behavioral public policy. Public Administration Review, 79(6), 917-924.
Prasetyo, P. E., & Kistanti, N. R. (2020). Human capital, institutional economics, and entrepreneurship as a driver for quality & sustainable economic growth: entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 7(4), 2575.
Valentinov, V. (2021). Sustainability in classical institutional economics: A systems theory view. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 28, 1500-1507.
Yilmaz, O., & Alper, S. (2019). The link between intuitive thinking and social conservatism is more robust in WEIRD societies.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
