[정책집행론] 무상급식 제도에 대한 형평성과 효율성 고찰(영문)
![[정책집행론] 무상급식 제도에 대한 형평성과 효율성 고찰(영문)-1](https://images.happyhaksul.com/thumb/489/488223-0001.gif)
![[정책집행론] 무상급식 제도에 대한 형평성과 효율성 고찰(영문)-2](https://images.happyhaksul.com/thumb/489/488223-0002.gif)
![[정책집행론] 무상급식 제도에 대한 형평성과 효율성 고찰(영문)-3](https://images.happyhaksul.com/thumb/489/488223-0003.gif)
분야
docx[2] From the perspective of Robert Nozick, explain whether the program is equitable. If yes, why? If no, why not?
[3] From the perspective of John Rawls, explain whether the program is equitable. If yes, why? If no, why not?
[4] Do you think there is the trade-off between equity and efficiency in implementing the program. If yes, why? If no, why not? Explain your rationale.
[5] In addition, provide your recommendations for the program to be successfully implemented?
The goal of offering free meals to all students is providing immense economic benefits and good health to children in poor families.
What would be performance measures available during the policy implement process?
The satisfaction level of beneficiaries (students and their parents) through survey
The change of height and weight
The decline of rate of disease
[2] From the perspective of Robert Nozick, explain whether the program is equitable. If yes, why? If no, why not?
No. People who hold Nosick’s process view of equity do not favor policies to effect redistribution directly, even when they think a current distribution is inequitable. Nosick argues that a distribution is just if it came about by a voluntary and fair process. However, providing free school meals goes against the simple principles of a free-market democratic society. If the government provision of what individuals eat, wear and where they live are taken as a given, then society will be filled with dependents instead of independent individuals. Worse, the greater the government role, the greater its control will be. We may have to give up our freedom and rights in return for the government’s charity. How can we defend our own freedom and rights if we surrender our duties and rely entirely on the state? We cannot sell our freedom and dignity over a free meal.
Furthermore, we are the ones who are paying - the faithful taxpayers. This process is not fair from Nozick’s point of view. We would have to live with politicians who gloat over a free meal program that comes straight from money in our own pockets.
[3] From the perspective of John Rawls, explain whether the program is equitable. If yes, why? If no, why not?
It will be equitable.
John Rawls suggests that there are two kinds of goods in society. One is natural primary goods and the other is social primary goods. Because of political institution, and social structure, there are severe polarizations about social primary goods in society. So he insists that we should equally distribute the social primary goods about the minimum amount to everyone under the veil of ignorance. Because he emphasizes the Item and Recipients in a Distributional