Lesson Report:
# Title
**From Incrementalism to Street-Level Bureaucracy: Final Project Framing and Feasibility Analysis**
This session served two purposes: first, to wrap up the concept of incrementalism by contrasting gradual and radical policy change, and second, to introduce street-level bureaucracy as a key lens for evaluating whether policies can actually be implemented. The instructor also clarified the structure of the final individual policy memo and oral defense, emphasizing feasibility, implementation, and presentation quality as central course objectives for the remaining weeks.
—
# Attendance
– **Absences explicitly mentioned:** 0
– **Students specifically acknowledged as present in the transcript:**
– **Konokbaeva Makhabat Zhamshidovna**
– **Note:** The transcript does not contain a full roll call, so only explicitly mentioned attendance can be recorded confidently.
—
# Topics Covered
## 1) Opening agenda and final project clarification
– The instructor opened by explaining that the day would cover **two major items**:
1. A final review and closure of **incrementalism**
2. Introduction to **street-level bureaucracy**
– The instructor also previewed the plan for the following week: the class would **shift heavily toward policy memo preparation**, with special attention to making the final projects ready for submission and presentation.
### Final assignment structure
– The instructor asked students what they already knew about the final and confirmed that it has **two parts**.
– The final project was described as an **individual assignment** with:
– a **written policy memo**
– an **oral defense/presentation**
– The memo was framed as the completion of the full **policy analysis cycle** studied in class:
– identify one **issue/grievance**
– define it as a **policy problem**
– explain **why it is a policy problem**
– provide background on **why the problem matters**
– identify the **market failure** behind it
– propose **at least two policy alternatives**
– conduct a **feasibility analysis**
– The instructor paused to review the meaning of feasibility and asked the class what it means.
### Student contribution
– **Shamyrbekov Erkhan Shamyrbekovich** answered that **feasibility means whether something is realistic**, which the instructor confirmed and used to frame the final analytic component of the memo.
### Weighting and rationale for the oral defense
– The instructor explained that the **written memo would count for a relatively smaller portion** of the final project grade than the presentation.
– The reason given was concern about the ease with which short written assignments can be generated using AI tools; therefore, the oral defense is intended to:
– verify that students understand their own analysis
– confirm that the memo reflects their own thinking and research
– assess their ability to explain and defend their ideas in real time
– The presentation will be approximately **2–3 minutes** and should focus primarily on:
– the policy problem
– the student’s **best or preferred policy alternative**
– After presenting, students will be expected to answer questions, especially on:
– whether the issue is **truly a policy problem**
– whether the proposed solution is **feasible**
### Presentation expectations and etiquette
– The instructor stressed that students should **not rely on reading paragraphs from slides or phones**.
– Instead, they should demonstrate:
– actual understanding
– clear real-time explanation
– strong public speaking habits
– Students were advised to:
– review their own notes
– watch **TED Talks** as models for effective speaking
– The instructor noted that **public speaking and presentation etiquette** will form part of the evaluation.
### Student contribution
– **Konokbaeva Makhabat Zhamshidovna** was directly addressed in relation to an earlier presentation-etiquette unit, and she responded that **etiquette refers to the rules/expected behavior that should be followed**.
### Scheduling questions about the final
– **Kurmanbek kyzy Zhibek** asked about the timing of the presentations.
– The instructor replied that the class would likely split presentations across **two days during the final week**, identified as:
– **28th**
– **30th**
– The instructor also said the memo should be submitted **before** the presentation so he can review it in advance, and suggested a likely due date of **Saturday the 25th**.
– He noted that the next two weeks would be used to strengthen the memos in class.
—
## 2) Final review of incrementalism
– The instructor then formally returned to the day’s conceptual content, beginning with **incrementalism**.
### Definition and contrast with radical change
– Students were asked to define incrementalism.
– A student answered **“gradual change,”** and the instructor used that response to restate the core contrast:
– **incremental** = gradual, limited change
– **radical** = large-scale, deep, system-level change
– The instructor revisited the previously used **tree metaphor**:
– **roots** = underlying causes of a policy problem
– **branches** = surface-level manifestations or less fundamental symptoms
– He emphasized that policy analysts often want to target the root because it feels more intellectually satisfying and more comprehensive.
– However, politicians and policymakers frequently avoid root-level change because:
– the consequences of major change are difficult to predict
– radical reforms can create **political and economic risks**
– large systemic change is often much more expensive
### Example: air pollution in Bishkek
– The class used **Bishkek air pollution** as the main example of root causes versus feasible intervention.
– Students identified multiple root causes:
– **old cars** lacking modern filtration systems
– **coal-burning power plants (TETS)**
– **coal burning in private households / the private sector**
– **Bishkek’s bowl-like geography**, which traps pollution, especially in winter
– The instructor referenced a study from AUCA and affirmed that the class had correctly identified major sources.
### Policy logic discussed
– If the class truly wanted to target the roots of air pollution, the most direct solutions would include:
– replacing coal use at **TETS** with cleaner fuel such as natural gas
– ending coal use in private households
– forcing technological upgrades or restrictions on old vehicles
– The instructor emphasized that these are **likely effective** if implemented, but also **possibly infeasible** because they would require:
– expensive infrastructure changes
– significant state investment
– new industrial/technical capacity
– broad political will
– He contrasted these root-targeting reforms with more common incremental policies such as:
– increasing taxes on coal/fossil fuels
– offering incentives or tax credits for electric vehicles
– The core conclusion was that policy work requires a **balance** between:
– solving the real problem deeply
– proposing something politically and practically possible
—
## 3) Introduction to street-level bureaucracy
– The instructor then pivoted to the new concept of the day: **street-level bureaucracy**, presented as a crucial component of **feasibility**.
### Speed-limit example: law on paper vs policy in practice
– The class discussed **speed limits in Bishkek**, especially the standard **60 km/h** limit on main roads.
– Students were asked what happens if someone exceeds the limit:
– it is dangerous
– they may receive a **ticket/fine**
– The instructor then complicated the example by asking whether someone driving **62 km/h** is likely to be punished in practice.
– The discussion established that punishment does not happen automatically; a violation must first be **detected** through:
– road cameras
– police enforcement
– The instructor highlighted the gap between:
– the **legal rule on paper**: above 60 km/h is punishable
– the **experienced reality**: in practice, punishment may not occur unless someone is going noticeably faster (e.g., above 70 km/h)
### Key analytical question
– The instructor asked: **Who actually decides how the law is enforced in practice?**
– The answer developed through discussion was that the practical meaning of the law is shaped by:
– police officers on the road
– administrators and programmers managing traffic-camera systems
– This was introduced as the essence of **street-level bureaucracy**: the people who convert policy text into lived reality.
### Defining bureaucracy
– Students were asked what **bureaucracy** means.
– Responses included:
– an **administrative process**
– **a lot of paperwork**
– the system by which laws and rules are actually followed and carried out
– The instructor developed these responses into a class definition:
– bureaucracy is the process of **operationalizing law**
– laws are abstract and general
– bureaucratic systems provide the practical details of implementation
– He emphasized that the law may simply state a rule, but it does not specify every practical detail of execution; those details are handled through bureaucratic processes and actors.
### Main lesson about implementation
– The instructor stressed that policies are only “beautiful words” until someone on the ground actually enforces them.
– In other words:
– what citizens truly experience is often not the abstract law itself
– but the discretion and behavior of the **frontline implementers**
– This set up the class’s next activity on evaluating policy alternatives through the lens of implementation.
—
## 4) Group activity: identifying the most radical alternative
– Students were asked to return to their established policy groups.
– Each group was instructed to identify the **most radical policy alternative** they had discussed so far in relation to their topic.
– A representative from each group then came to the board to write:
– the **policy issue**
– the **radical solution** in brief form
### Group topics and radical alternatives presented
1. **Gender-based violence / bride kidnapping in Kyrgyzstan**
– The group presented data that in **early 2023, 25 abductions of girls for marriage were registered**, and **2 victims were killed by kidnappers**.
– Their radical policy alternative was **castration of kidnappers**.
– **Orolova Altynai Sharshenalyevna** appears to have served as the presenter/writer for this group.
2. **Internet access in rural areas**
– The group’s radical solution was to **nationalize all internet providers**, consolidating them under a single government-controlled provider that would prioritize rural expansion.
– The instructor paused here to explain what **nationalize** means:
– a previously private sector becomes **state-owned / government-run**
3. **Bribery in Afghanistan**
– The group identified widespread bribery in access to public services.
– Their radical solution was to **digitize all public services**, thereby reducing or eliminating person-to-person contact where bribery can occur.
4. **Deforestation in Brazil**
– The group proposed **deporting/removing all cattle farmers** as a radical means of reducing deforestation.
– The instructor acknowledged the deliberately abstract phrasing and indicated that the implementation question would be the real focus.
—
## 5) Cross-group feasibility analysis: root causes and implementers
– After the radical alternatives were written, each group was asked to select **another group’s topic** and analyze it.
– The class was instructed to answer two core questions:
1. **How does this alternative address the root of the problem?**
2. **Why might this alternative be too radical to be feasible?**
– Students were also specifically asked to identify:
– **who would actually implement the policy**
– why those implementers might be **unwilling or unable** to execute it
### Instructor modeling: “remove all farmers”
– The instructor used the deforestation example to model what implementation analysis looks like.
– He unpacked “remove all farmers” into concrete operational questions:
– Who sends the order?
– Who enforces compliance if people refuse?
– Is it the minister personally? No.
– More likely: police officers, judges, or security forces
– He then asked what might affect those actors’ willingness to carry out such a policy.
– The point was that an alternative may look decisive at the abstract level, but become obviously unrealistic when translated into **street-level action**.
### Instructor modeling: extra paperwork for police
– The instructor returned to the speed-limit example and asked students to imagine a new bureaucratic rule in which every traffic stop required **an extra 45 minutes of paperwork**.
– Students correctly concluded that police would then be likely to stop **fewer** violators.
– This served as a direct illustration of how frontline administrative burdens shape implementation outcomes.
—
## 6) Group reporting and discussion of why radical alternatives fail
### Nationalizing internet providers
– One group discussed the nationalization proposal for rural internet access.
– Their analysis emphasized that while nationalization might address the root problem of uneven service provision, it also creates serious feasibility concerns:
– too much **state control**
– potential surveillance and concentration of power
– loss of **competition**
– reduced innovation or incentives for providers
– high fiscal burden on the government
– The instructor extended the analysis by asking who would actually carry this out, suggesting that responsibility would likely fall to:
– existing ministries
– current state internet infrastructure bodies
– a government provider such as an existing public company being scaled up dramatically
– He highlighted the implementation challenge of suddenly expecting one state entity to handle **all internet traffic and infrastructure in the country**.
### Student contribution
– **Yousufzai Khadija** was directly addressed during this exchange and contributed to the discussion around the feasibility problems of nationalizing internet provision.
### Removing/deporting cattle farmers in Brazil
– Another group analyzed the “remove all cattle farmers” proposal.
– **Imomdodova Samira Khairullaevna** reported that the group saw the proposal as potentially effective at reducing deforestation because it directly removes a major driver of land clearing.
– However, the group judged it too radical because it would likely create:
– major **economic disruption**
– food supply problems
– implementation resistance
– The instructor added that implementers may be personally unwilling to execute such a policy, especially if:
– they know affected families
– they see farmers as ordinary citizens rather than criminals
– This reinforced the core lesson that implementation depends on the incentives, burdens, and beliefs of street-level actors.
—
## 7) Introducing evaluation criteria for policy alternatives
– In the final segment, the instructor moved from discussion to a more structured analytic framework.
– He explained that in their memos, students will need to defend alternatives not just by saying an idea is “good,” but by evaluating it against shared criteria.
### The four policy criteria introduced
1. **Effectiveness**
– Does the policy actually accomplish the **principal objective**?
– The instructor and class framed this as whether the solution truly works.
2. **Equity**
– Is the policy **fair**?
– Does it distribute burdens and benefits in a just way?
3. **Political feasibility**
– What are the **political costs** of implementing the policy?
– Examples discussed included:
– public backlash
– riots
– diplomatic problems
– loss of electoral support
– budget costs as political liabilities
4. **Administrative robustness**
– Can the policy be carried out by the people who must implement it?
– Will frontline actors actually do the work required?
– This criterion was directly linked to the day’s discussion of **street-level bureaucracy**
### Homework assignment
– Students were instructed to take the **other group’s problem/alternative** they analyzed in class and rate it on a **1–5 scale** for each of the four criteria:
– effectiveness
– equity
– political feasibility
– administrative robustness
– The instructor clarified that this did **not** need to be highly scientific; an informed judgment “based on vibes” was acceptable at this stage, as long as students also explained **why**.
### Submission clarification
– A student asked whether the assignment should be submitted on **e-course** before Tuesday.
– The instructor confirmed **yes**.
—
# Student Tracker
– **Shamyrbekov Erkhan Shamyrbekovich** — Defined feasibility as whether a policy is realistic, helping frame the memo’s feasibility-analysis requirement.
– **Konokbaeva Makhabat Zhamshidovna** — Participated in the discussion of presentation etiquette and was acknowledged by the instructor as present.
– **Kurmanbek kyzy Zhibek** — Asked about the schedule for final presentations, prompting clarification of likely presentation dates and memo timing.
– **Orolova Altynai Sharshenalyevna** — Presented/wrote her group’s topic on gender-based violence/bride kidnapping in Kyrgyzstan and the radical proposal of castration for kidnappers.
– **Yousufzai Khadija** — Contributed to the discussion of internet nationalization and the practical/feasibility concerns surrounding state control and implementation.
– **Imomdodova Samira Khairullaevna** — Reported her group’s analysis of the deforestation proposal, noting both its directness and its severe economic and implementation problems.
—
# Actionable Items
## Immediate / Before Next Class
– Students should **submit on e-course before Tuesday** a **1–5 evaluation** of the alternative discussed in class under:
– effectiveness
– equity
– political feasibility
– administrative robustness
– Students should include a **brief justification** for each score.
## Upcoming / Next Week
– Dedicate class time to **policy memo development** and strengthening students’ final projects.
– Revisit **presentation etiquette** and expectations for oral defense.
– Reinforce that students should avoid **reading from dense slides or notes** during presentations.
## Final Project Logistics to Confirm
– **Confirm final due dates in writing** on the course site/syllabus:
– likely memo due **Saturday the 25th**
– likely presentations on **the 28th and 30th**
– **Confirm the exact grading weights** for the memo vs. oral defense, since the instructor referenced the syllabus but did not state the percentages precisely in class.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Rate a Policy Alternative Using the Four Criteria
You will evaluate the policy problem and alternative that your group discussed in class today that was not your own group’s topic. This assignment helps you practice the feasibility analysis skills we began in class by applying the four criteria we discussed—effectiveness, equity, political feasibility, and administrative robustness—to a proposed policy solution.
Instructions:
1. Identify the policy problem and policy alternative that your group examined during class discussion today.
– Do not use your own group’s original policy topic.
– Use the other group’s topic that your group was assigned to discuss.
– This should be the same problem/solution pair your group analyzed when considering whether the alternative addressed the root of the problem and whether it was too radical to be feasible.
2. Write the name of the policy problem clearly at the top of your submission.
– Also write the proposed policy alternative you are evaluating.
– Keep this short and specific so it is clear what you are rating.
3. Briefly summarize the alternative in 2–4 sentences.
– Explain what the policy is trying to do.
– Explain how it is supposed to address the root of the problem, as we discussed in class.
– You may refer to the class examples, such as nationalizing internet service, digitizing public services, punishing kidnappers through castration, or removing cattle farmers in order to reduce deforestation, if that helps clarify your assigned topic.
4. Evaluate the alternative using the four criteria from class.
– For each criterion, give the policy a score from 1 to 5.
– Use this scale:
– 1 = very weak / not likely to work
– 5 = very strong / highly likely to work
– The four criteria are:
1. Effectiveness
2. Equity
3. Political Feasibility
4. Administrative Robustness
5. For the effectiveness rating, explain whether the policy would actually accomplish the principal objective.
– Ask yourself: Would this solution really solve, reduce, or meaningfully address the policy problem?
– Base your judgment on the logic of the policy, not just whether the idea sounds good.
6. For the equity rating, explain whether the policy is fair.
– Ask yourself: Who benefits, who is burdened, and are people being treated fairly?
– Consider whether the policy affects groups equally or whether it unfairly targets or excludes certain people.
7. For the political feasibility rating, explain whether the policy is realistic in political terms.
– Ask yourself: Would this policy create major political resistance, public backlash, riots, diplomatic conflict, or other political costs?
– Consider the discussion from class about whether a solution is too radical to be feasible.
8. For the administrative robustness rating, explain whether the policy could actually be carried out on the ground.
– Use the street-level bureaucracy concept from class.
– Ask yourself: Who would really have to implement this policy in practice?
– Consider whether the people responsible for carrying it out—such as police officers, judges, public officials, administrators, or technical workers—would be able and willing to do it.
9. Include a short justification for each score.
– Do not only list numbers.
– For each of the four criteria, write 2–4 sentences explaining why you gave that score.
– Your explanation can be based on your class discussion and your own judgment; the professor said this does not need to be “scientific” yet and can be based on your reasoned impressions.
10. Organize your submission clearly.
– A simple format is:
– Policy problem:
– Policy alternative:
– Short summary:
– Effectiveness: __/5 + explanation
– Equity: __/5 + explanation
– Political Feasibility: __/5 + explanation
– Administrative Robustness: __/5 + explanation
11. Review your work before submitting.
– Make sure you used the correct topic—the one your group discussed today, not your own.
– Make sure all four criteria are included.
– Make sure each criterion has both a numerical rating and a short explanation.
12. Submit your completed work before class on Tuesday.
– Upload it to eCourse, as stated in class.