This is a topic that we have not yet discussed, but it is one that I have been interested in as of late. The interest in largely in response to two specific cases: the recent MTA fare increases and the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program, commonly known as the bank bailout bill) legislation. Neither of these policies are popular among the public, but at the same time the public does not have a very thorough understand of their necessity or their outcome.
The very nature of a “public” organization is that they are public. They exist to serve the needs of the public, which makes them very reactive to the voice of the public, but what how should an organization react when the public is ignorant to the situation and effects of an organizations decisions?
Let’s first briefly look at the TARP Legislation. The legislation caused a massive negative reaction throughout the public, and for largely good reason, but ask someone about the effects of the legislation and they are likely to have their facts wrong. The bill will not cost anywhere near the $700 billion figure that is thrown around, and may in in fact, yield a profit the national government. And most importantly, there is a near consensus that the bill prevented a complete financial meltdown and likely prevented a “depression.” So, the bill was effective, but unpopular and a similar bill is likely to never happen again. So my question is how does a public organization react to a situation where the public is upset when they have effective policy?
Next, I want to mention the recent MTA fare hikes. The MTA is far from a perfectly run organization, and they share a large amount of responsibility for their current budget woes, but what the public does not understand is the MTA’s relationship with Albany. Year after year Albany reallocates dedicated funds from the MTA to other projects to fill a budget gap. This loss of hundreds of millions of revenue from the State plays a massive role in the budget gap at MTA, but very few straphangers grasp this notion and lay blame completely at the feet of the MTA.
When pressed with these facts, people feel a certain level of cognitive dissonance resulting in them clinging more firmly to their incorrect beliefs. How can a public organization, serve the public when the public doesn’t want to understand the facts?
Below are a few links discussing the woes of TARP and the MTA
http://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/10/08/the-know-nothingness-of-new-yorkers/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/10/foreclosures
The very nature of a “public” organization is that they are public. They exist to serve the needs of the public, which makes them very reactive to the voice of the public, but what how should an organization react when the public is ignorant to the situation and effects of an organizations decisions?
Let’s first briefly look at the TARP Legislation. The legislation caused a massive negative reaction throughout the public, and for largely good reason, but ask someone about the effects of the legislation and they are likely to have their facts wrong. The bill will not cost anywhere near the $700 billion figure that is thrown around, and may in in fact, yield a profit the national government. And most importantly, there is a near consensus that the bill prevented a complete financial meltdown and likely prevented a “depression.” So, the bill was effective, but unpopular and a similar bill is likely to never happen again. So my question is how does a public organization react to a situation where the public is upset when they have effective policy?
Next, I want to mention the recent MTA fare hikes. The MTA is far from a perfectly run organization, and they share a large amount of responsibility for their current budget woes, but what the public does not understand is the MTA’s relationship with Albany. Year after year Albany reallocates dedicated funds from the MTA to other projects to fill a budget gap. This loss of hundreds of millions of revenue from the State plays a massive role in the budget gap at MTA, but very few straphangers grasp this notion and lay blame completely at the feet of the MTA.
When pressed with these facts, people feel a certain level of cognitive dissonance resulting in them clinging more firmly to their incorrect beliefs. How can a public organization, serve the public when the public doesn’t want to understand the facts?
Below are a few links discussing the woes of TARP and the MTA
http://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/10/08/the-know-nothingness-of-new-yorkers/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/10/foreclosures
For both questions, I think one of the most important responsibilities of a public organization is to keep the public well informed about outcomes (TARP) and reasons (MTA) that explain situations.
ReplyDeleteFor the second question, if the public doesn't want to understand the facts, a public organization might have to be very creative depending on the situation.
Regards,
Carmen
Related to this is the survey released over the weekend that finds that the public generally doesn't like/respect government... but wants government services. See the report at:
ReplyDeletehttp://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/10/government_rates_poorly_in_new.html
John