Imagine that you are a consultant with the World Bank. You are dispatched to Botswana to advise their national government on the best courses of action concerning how to spend a recently funded loan to the government. This money, in our hypothetical situation, was designated to be spent solely on the Ju/’hoansi inhabited regions of northwest Botswana. The amount is US$500,000 and as a condition of keeping the loan, the government has been advised to follow your recommendations.
How do you think funds would be best spent in this region? You do not need to provide any specific monetary allocations ($250,000 for funding X and $250,000 for funding Y), but at least indicate on what projects you would spend the money and if each constitutes most or only a small portion of the loan. Providing percentages (25% on X, 75% on Y) is fine.
Your writing should begin with an overview of your opinion and summary of data supporting it and rely on evidence from this week’s readings and any other pertinent course materials (e.g. lecture video) from this week, stated in a clear and organized manner. The writing should be approximately the equivalent of one page double-spaced with citations of our relevant sources to provide evidence for your argument.
As the PAT regards that conflict occurs due to information asymmetry and a disjuncture of policy objectives and impacts leading to non-compliance, the theory is very heavily individualistic and does not accurately explain collective discretion and its implications on the wider scope of policy legitimacy, democratic legitimacy, and policy change. Partly due to the rigid institutional design already in place that limits administrative capabilities, agents would tend to partake in ‘creative compliance’ to enable them to better and more strategically allocate and prioritize resources for the tasks the principal does not give enough attention to. Broadening the individualistic approach the PAT adopts, Rutz, Epstein & O’Halloran, Tummers & Bekkers, Hupe & Buffat, and Gofen discuss the implications of collective discretion on the overarching organization, and policy implications it may bring regarding policy legitimacy and policy change through democratic legitimacy in allowing for collective discretion. Where the PAT merely views divergence as an individual agent’s coping mechanism in facing the increasing pressures the job entails , the following section aims to increase macro-level contextual analyses on collective discretion. With the increasing need for discretionary allowance and the importance of discretion in the principal-agent relationship, the PAT’s understanding of the policy implementation process does not discuss the broader debate about collective discretionary rooms and ‘discretionary floors’ within a typical agency. The PAT does not account for the degrees of discretion (and non-compliance) that vary across circumstance and sectors, where higher policy stakes often equates to a greater possibility and potential of ‘creative compliance’ – in the form of ‘discretion-as-perceived’ by the respected agents. Epstein & O’Halloran (1994) discuss the need for increased agent discretion, giv>GET ANSWER