Lesson Report:
## Title
**Policy Memo Presentation Workshop: Social, Environmental, Health, and Education Policy Proposals**
This class was devoted to student policy memo presentations, with each presenter given three minutes to summarize a policy problem, principal objective, recommended solution, feasibility, and implementation considerations, followed by peer and instructor questioning. The session emphasized practical policy analysis skills: clarifying the scale of a problem, defending why a proposed intervention would work, estimating costs, identifying stakeholders, and explaining bureaucratic or political feasibility.
—
## Attendance
– **Students explicitly mentioned absent:** None.
– **Total number of absences mentioned:** 0.
– **Attendance notes:**
– No formal attendance roll call occurred in the transcript.
– Several students participated actively through presentations and questions.
– At least one student arrived near the end of class, but the name was not clearly identifiable from the transcript.
—
## Topics Covered
### 1. Opening Logistics: Presentation File Submission and Format Requirements
– The instructor began by organizing student presentation files and clarified that presentations needed to be submitted through **eCourse** rather than shared as Canva links.
– The instructor explained that Canva links were not acceptable because switching between accounts would take too much time during class.
– Students were instructed to submit presentations in a downloadable format:
– Initially PDF was mentioned, but the instructor corrected this and requested **PPT/PPTX format**.
– PPTX and PPT were both confirmed as acceptable.
– There were some technical delays due to internet/computer issues while downloading or opening files.
– The instructor noted that the class was starting “slightly delayed.”
### 2. Presentation Format and Participation Expectations
– The instructor reminded students of the structure for the day:
– **3 minutes** for each student presentation.
– **3–5 minutes** for questions.
– Students were asked to pay attention and prepare questions.
– The instructor specifically reminded students that they should ask **at least two questions across all presentations**.
– Later in the class, the instructor emphasized that participation credit for the day depended partly on asking questions, and encouraged students who had not yet asked anything to participate.
—
### 3. Presentation 1 — Erkhan Shamyrbekov: Reducing Household Debt from Wedding Loans in Kazakhstan
**Presenter:** Erkhan Shamyrbekov
**Policy area:** Consumer lending, household debt, wedding expenses, financial regulation
**Country focus:** Kazakhstan
#### Main problem presented
– Erkhan presented on the issue of households in Kazakhstan taking out large bank loans to finance weddings.
– He argued that many households borrow more than they can safely repay, with some wedding-related loans exceeding **40% of annual household income**.
– He framed this as a risk for both:
– Household financial stability.
– Broader economic stability if excessive consumer debt grows.
– He cited:
– World Bank reporting on increasing household debt.
– National Bank of Kazakhstan data showing that consumer loans make up a large portion of retail lending.
– He stated that annual interest rates on loans can be very high, around **20–30%**, and that wedding costs may range from **$10,000 to $50,000 or more**.
#### Principal objective
– Erkhan’s stated objective was to reduce risky borrowing for weddings and lower the risk of loan default.
– The key goal was to decrease the number of high-risk wedding loans that exceed safe income levels.
#### Recommended policy
– Erkhan proposed a **Loan-to-Income Act** for wedding-related borrowing.
– The law would limit wedding-related loans to no more than **40% of the borrower’s annual income**.
– Banks would be required to verify borrower income before approval.
– The **National Bank of Kazakhstan** would monitor compliance and check for violations.
– He described the cost as low to moderate because the policy would primarily involve implementing a regulation rather than building new infrastructure.
#### Justification and comparison
– Erkhan argued that the policy would directly restrict risky borrowing and prevent people from taking loans they are unlikely to repay.
– He cited the United Kingdom’s loan-to-income limits as an international example, saying that the UK introduced similar limits and reduced risky lending.
– He identified key stakeholders:
– **Borrowers:** protected from excessive debt, but with reduced access to very large loans.
– **Banks:** may lose short-term profits but benefit from fewer defaults in the long term.
– **Government:** benefits from financial stability.
– He argued that Kazakhstan has digital monitoring systems that could help enforce the rule.
#### Peer and instructor questions
– **Student question, uncertain speaker:** A student asked Erkhan what motivated him to choose this topic.
– Erkhan answered that he had seen a video about lavish weddings in Kazakhstan involving bloggers and influencers.
– He described how some people expect guests’ monetary gifts to help repay the cost of the wedding, but in practice some borrowers are still unable to repay their loans.
– He said the same kind of social pressure exists in Kyrgyzstan and neighboring countries.
– **Student question, likely Muqaddas Mamadboqirova but uncertain:** A student asked about the social and cultural side of lavish weddings, noting that in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and other Central Asian societies weddings are deeply rooted customs and often socially competitive.
– Erkhan responded that if banks cannot lend beyond 40% of annual income, many lavish weddings would simply become impossible for families who lack the money.
– He said the policy does not ban lavish weddings for people who can afford them, but it would reduce debt-financed ceremonies.
– He argued that reducing the number of lavish weddings could reduce social pressure over time.
– **Khadija Yousufzai** asked whether wedding loans are genuinely connected to broader financial risk or banking instability.
– Erkhan argued that risky consumer lending can become dangerous for banks if many borrowers default.
– He compared the issue to the 2008 financial crisis in the United States, where loans were given without enough attention to borrowers’ financial situations.
– **Instructor question:** The instructor noted that policies limiting wedding spending or excessive ceremonies have been tried before, including in the Soviet period, and asked why Erkhan’s policy would succeed where earlier efforts failed.
– Erkhan answered that his policy targets the financing mechanism rather than directly banning weddings.
– He argued that because many weddings are financed by bank loans, restricting the amount banks can lend would make excessive weddings less feasible.
– He also suggested that younger generations may already be less interested in large weddings.
– **Follow-up discussion involving a student, likely Khadija Yousufzai or another student but uncertain:** A student argued that in centralized political systems, if a president strongly supports such a rule, social resistance may not translate into governmental opposition.
– The student referenced Kazakhstan’s centralized power structure and state-run banks.
– Erkhan connected this to examples of public messaging against excessive weddings.
– **Instructor follow-up:** The instructor asked whether Erkhan agreed that the problem is generational and might solve itself.
– Erkhan said he did not fully agree, because traditions are passed through families and do not simply disappear in 10–20 years.
– **Student counterexample, likely Khadija Yousufzai or another student but uncertain:** A student brought up Tajikistan, where formal restrictions on wedding size exist but families still organize large unofficial ceremonies at home.
– The student argued that official law does not always change practice.
– Erkhan responded by emphasizing the importance of monitoring and enforcement through the National Bank and digital systems.
#### Instructor feedback emphasis
– The instructor pushed Erkhan to defend the implementation mechanism and explain why this particular policy would succeed despite strong social traditions.
– A major analytical point was the distinction between:
– Directly banning lavish weddings.
– Restricting access to debt financing for weddings.
—
### 4. Presentation 2 — Bereke Kadyralieva: Reducing Air Pollution in Japan Through Rail Expansion
**Presenter:** Bereke Kadyralieva
**Policy area:** Air pollution, transportation policy, public transit infrastructure
**Country focus:** Japan
#### Main problem presented
– Bereke presented on air pollution in Japan and its health consequences.
– She identified **PM2.5** exposure as a leading risk factor for death and linked long-term exposure to:
– Lung cancer.
– Stroke.
– Other diseases.
– She stated that Japan has strong transport systems in cities but weaker systems in suburbs.
– She argued that declining regional rail lines and closures increase car ownership and emissions.
– The problem was framed as one of **suburban transport dependence on cars**.
#### Principal objective
– Bereke’s goal was to reduce transport-related pollution by targeting the main source: car dependency.
– Specific objectives included:
– Achieving a **0.7% transport emissions reduction by 2030**.
– Reducing PM2.5 and ozone levels.
– Reducing car dependency rather than only improving emissions per car.
#### Alternatives and recommendation
– **Alternative 0: Do nothing**
– Bereke argued that doing nothing would allow pollution to continue exceeding safe PM2.5 levels.
– She stated that the global cost of air pollution reaches around **$8 trillion annually**.
– Japan would fail to meet emissions targets without new action.
– **Recommended alternative: Rail expansion**
– She proposed rebuilding public transport access by converting declining railways into light rail systems and integrating rail with buses and regional transport.
– She cited **Toyama City** as a successful example.
– In Toyama, she stated that rail conversion doubled weekday ridership and tripled weekend ridership.
– She also mentioned a 32% increase in walking in the city center.
– Other alternatives mentioned:
– **Industrial regulation:** addresses factory emissions such as NOx and SOx but does not reduce transport emissions and may face political resistance.
– **Electric vehicles:** limited by low adoption and the fact that Japan’s electricity remains heavily fossil-fuel based; also does not reduce traffic congestion.
#### Peer and instructor questions
– **Khadija Yousufzai** asked which option Bereke considered most effective.
– Bereke answered that rail expansion was her recommendation.
– **Khadija Yousufzai** also asked about air quality and operational feasibility.
– Bereke answered that the policy could be implemented through city institutions and had already worked in Toyama.
– She said it changed how people used cars and increased walking.
– **Darina Kurstanbekova** asked whether the government would have to invest significantly in cities to reduce car use.
– Bereke said yes, but argued that Japan had already begun such processes and it would be easier to continue them.
– **Instructor question:** The instructor asked for evidence that cars are the main contributor to the air pollution problem Bereke identified.
– Bereke said she found evidence from Japanese/provincial websites that track pollution by city.
– The instructor clarified whether this was government-recorded data, and Bereke indicated it was from an official or professional site.
– **Instructor question:** The instructor asked how much the rail expansion would cost.
– Bereke said it would be expensive but less costly than doing nothing.
– She referenced a figure around one trillion dollars, though the exact number was uncertain.
– The instructor asked for clarification on the $8 trillion “cost of doing nothing,” and Bereke connected it to health and pollution damages, though the explanation remained unclear.
– **Darina Kurstanbekova** asked why Bereke chose Japan.
– Bereke explained that Japan has significant air pollution, and she wanted to focus on a country with that problem.
#### Instructor feedback emphasis
– The instructor emphasized the need to:
– Clearly prove that the stated cause of the problem is actually the main cause.
– Explain cost estimates precisely.
– Clarify what large aggregate figures such as “$8 trillion” represent and how they apply to the specific country/policy.
—
### 5. Presentation 3 — Syndat Ashimova: Rural Doctor Shortages in Kazakhstan
**Presenter:** Syndat Ashimova
**Policy area:** Health workforce retention, rural healthcare, public sector incentives
**Country focus:** Kazakhstan
#### Main problem presented
– Syndat presented on Kazakhstan’s shortage of medical professionals, especially in rural areas.
– She stated that Kazakhstan has around **9,000 hospital vacancies**, including:
– Approximately 4,000 doctor vacancies.
– Approximately 5,000 medical staff vacancies.
– She said rural areas are most affected.
– She also stated that in 2025, around **2,500 doctors emigrated** in search of higher salaries.
#### Principal objective
– Syndat’s goal was to improve financial incentives and wages for healthcare workers.
– She aimed to:
– Increase the number of practicing doctors.
– Improve retention, especially in rural areas.
– Reduce emigration of doctors.
#### Recommended policy
– Syndat recommended increasing national incentives for doctors and providing **rural bonuses**.
– She discussed previous government efforts:
– In 2024, 254 students who received government financial support were assigned to work in rural areas.
– In 2025, the number doubled to 500 students.
– Approximately 45 doctors received financial support totaling about **450 million tenge**.
– She argued that earlier policies partially failed because they relied too heavily on **one-time payments**.
– Her proposal was to provide:
– Rural bonuses.
– Longer-term retention payments.
– Ongoing support for doctors working in underserved regions.
– She identified northern Kazakhstan as a region especially affected by doctor shortages.
#### Peer and instructor questions
– **Khadija Yousufzai** asked about the budget and whether the government could realistically provide the proposed incentives.
– Syndat answered that similar policies had already been implemented and that the previous budget was around 450 million tenge.
– She proposed increasing wages by **30–50%**.
– **Khadija Yousufzai** followed up by asking where the money would come from, including whether it would come from the budget or taxpayers.
– Syndat indicated that it would come from the budget.
– **Student question, uncertain speaker:** A student asked why the problem had not already been solved if Kazakhstan had previously provided financial incentives.
– Syndat answered that the previous approach was only a partial solution because it offered short-term or one-time payments rather than long-term retention incentives.
– **Khadija Yousufzai** compared the issue to Kyrgyzstan, where medical students studying on government grants may be required to work in rural areas.
– She noted that rural areas may lack the equipment and technology doctors were trained to use.
– Syndat responded that infrastructure and technical development in rural areas would also need investment, not only in major cities such as Almaty and Astana.
– **Ali Juya** asked about the doctors or students who received financial support and whether they stayed in the country or left.
– Syndat said she did not know the exact data but noted that the Ministry of Health also offered social support, including housing and compensation for utilities.
– **Student question, likely unidentified:** A student asked whether non-financial benefits such as free housing might be effective.
– Syndat agreed that social support would be useful but argued that free housing might be less realistic because of budget limitations.
– **Instructor clarification:** The instructor asked whether the 450 million tenge was given to each doctor or spread across 45 doctors.
– Syndat clarified that it was spread across 45 doctors.
– **Instructor cost question:** The instructor asked how much the proposal would cost overall.
– Syndat mentioned a possible figure of one to two billion tenge.
– The instructor pushed further, asking how many doctors are actually missing in rural areas.
– Syndat stated that around **800 doctors** and more than **700 mid-level medical staff** are missing.
– The instructor suggested that if the government is directly paying retention incentives, the real cost may be closer to **20–40 billion tenge** or more.
– **Instructor follow-up:** The instructor asked what share of Kazakhstan’s tax revenue such a program might represent and whether it could be justified.
– Syndat suggested that investment could also help support the policy.
– The instructor asked for more detail on how investment would be attracted and routed into doctor salaries.
#### Instructor feedback emphasis
– The instructor emphasized that cost estimates must be scaled to the actual number of workers needed.
– Key policy-analysis questions raised:
– How much will the program cost?
– Who pays?
– Why did previous incentive programs not solve the problem?
– What is different about the new proposal?
– How would investment be converted into salary or retention payments?
—
### 6. Presentation 4 — Muqaddas Mamadboqirova: Community Water Utility Scaling for Rural Drinking Water in Kyrgyzstan
**Presenter:** Muqaddas Mamadboqirova
**Policy area:** Water access, rural infrastructure, anti-corruption, community governance
**Country focus:** Kyrgyzstan
#### Main problem presented
– Muqaddas presented on Kyrgyzstan’s rural drinking water deficit.
– She emphasized that Kyrgyzstan is water-rich overall, but many villages still lack access to safe drinking water.
– She stated that around **2 million people** in approximately **1,800 villages** lack safe drinking water.
– She framed the issue as a problem of:
– Governance failure.
– Infrastructure failure.
– Not simply water scarcity.
– She noted that about **33% of villages** with existing water infrastructure still have failing or inadequate systems.
– She linked poor water access to health consequences, citing an annual increase in intestinal disease cases and a figure of around **16,000+ intestinal disease cases** in 2025.
#### Problem diagnosis
– Muqaddas identified three core issues:
1. Lack of major investment in water pipe infrastructure since the 1990s.
2. Infrastructure decay without accountability.
3. Previous programs failed because of corruption.
– She discussed the **Taza Suu** program, which received about **$69.5 million** and reached approximately 500 villages but was undermined by corruption and poor quality infrastructure.
#### Principal objective
– Her objective was to provide safe piped water to underserved villages by 2030.
– She connected the goal to:
– **SDG 6**.
– Kyrgyzstan’s state program targets.
#### Recommended policy
– Muqaddas proposed scaling up **Community Drinking Water User Unions** in the regions most affected:
– Batken.
– Osh.
– Jalal-Abad.
– Naryn.
– Her policy package included:
– Identifying priority zones.
– Providing rehabilitation grants to villages.
– Co-financing with the World Bank or other development partners.
– Conditional accountability requirements.
– Performance reports every six months.
– Audits and monitoring.
– Estimated cost: approximately **$40–68 million**.
#### Peer and instructor questions
– **Khadija Yousufzai** asked whether the government had already done anything to address the problem.
– Muqaddas responded that the government had previously sought resources through programs such as Taza Suu, financed by the Asian Development Bank and World Bank, but corruption prevented full success.
– She also mentioned another World Bank-supported project involving major funding in some of the affected regions.
– **Ali Juya** asked what “Community Drinking Water User Unions” actually are.
– Muqaddas explained that they are community-level organizations formed in villages to address local water problems.
– These unions would be trained by the government for about three months.
– They would learn how to manage water systems, hire workers, handle grants, develop plans, and repair pipes.
– Households would contribute small monthly payments, approximately **50–100 som**, which would help pay salaries and support sustainability.
– **Student question, uncertain speaker:** A student asked whether Talas also had a water problem.
– Muqaddas responded that her research focused on villages lacking safe drinking water, and the most affected regions she identified were Batken, Naryn, Jalal-Abad, and Osh.
– **Student question, uncertain speaker:** A student asked about awareness and why the issue receives little attention despite its importance.
– Muqaddas answered that people often do not care about a problem until they directly experience it.
– She compared this to the way people may ignore distant geopolitical issues unless they personally affect daily life.
– **Makhabat Konokbaeva** asked why Muqaddas chose water access specifically, especially compared with environmental topics such as air pollution.
– Muqaddas explained that environmental activism and environmental problems had been important in the course context.
– She said that while she knew a lot about air pollution in Kyrgyzstan, she became interested in water scarcity and sanitation because Kyrgyzstan has abundant water resources yet still faces serious access problems.
– **Instructor question:** The instructor asked Muqaddas to explain why her proposed grants would succeed when earlier grant programs failed due to corruption.
– Muqaddas answered that previous programs gave money without enough control.
– Her proposal would use conditional grants, mandatory six-month performance reports, and annual audits.
– She also emphasized that independent experts would visit sites to verify actual implementation.
– **Instructor follow-up:** The instructor asked who would review these reports.
– Muqaddas identified **Gosstroy**, the State Agency for Architecture, Construction, Housing and Communal Services of Kyrgyzstan.
– She said Gosstroy has regional municipal centers and could send personnel to inspect projects.
– **Instructor concern:** The instructor raised the risk that the same local elites who misused previous funds could capture leadership positions in the new community unions.
– Muqaddas said her main safeguard would be mandatory reporting, audits, independent expert checks, and population surveys.
#### Instructor feedback emphasis
– The instructor focused on implementation and anti-corruption design.
– Key analytical issue:
– If corruption caused past failure, the new policy must clearly explain how accountability mechanisms prevent the same actors from misusing funds again.
– The class discussed the tension between:
– Decentralized community ownership.
– Centralized oversight and audit authority.
—
### 7. Presentation 5 — Adilia Kambarova: Banning Child Marriage in the United States
**Presenter:** Adilia Kambarova
**Policy area:** Child protection, marriage law, education rights, gender equality
**Country focus:** United States
#### Main problem presented
– Adilia presented on child marriage in the United States.
– She stated that as of August 2025, only **16 U.S. states** had adopted laws banning child marriage by setting the legal marriage age at 18 with no exceptions.
– She cited Unchained At Last and other organizations.
– She stated that between 2000 and 2021, more than **300,000 minors** were legally married in the U.S., with some as young as 10 years old.
#### Why child marriage is a policy problem
– Adilia identified several harms:
– It undermines education.
– It damages physical and mental health.
– It increases risks of sexual and physical violence.
– It can make acts legal within marriage that would otherwise be treated as sex crimes.
– She cited a report stating that **9 out of 10 married minor girls lack access to education**.
– She argued that the government has a responsibility to protect children’s rights, education, and bodily autonomy.
#### Principal objective
– Her objective was to reduce and eventually eliminate child marriage cases in the United States.
#### Recommended policy
– Adilia recommended establishing a federal minimum marriage age of **18 with no exceptions**.
– The policy would remove:
– Parental permission exceptions.
– Judicial permission exceptions.
– She explained the legislative path:
– The House of Representatives introduces a bill.
– The bill is debated and voted on.
– If approved by Congress, it goes to the president.
– The president may approve or veto it.
– She argued that the cost would be in the millions, which she considered affordable compared with the social and economic consequences of child marriage.
– She identified stakeholders:
– Minor girls, who would benefit from protection.
– Adults, including those who may currently use exceptions.
– Congress and the president, who hold legislative authority.
– Marriage license clerks, judges, and police officers as enforcement actors.
#### Peer and instructor questions
– **Hawton Kyle “Abu Bakr” Jarred** asked how the policy would work in a decentralized U.S. federal system, especially in states where constitutional changes may require ballot referenda.
– Adilia proposed using a **conditional funding mechanism**.
– She suggested tying existing federal funds or grants to states’ adoption of anti-child-marriage laws.
– She also said civil society could create public pressure and political costs for refusal.
– **Bereke Kadyralieva** asked whether Adilia found reasons why child marriage remains legal in some parts of the U.S., such as religious reasons.
– Adilia answered that religion is one factor, especially in more religious states.
– She also emphasized the structure of U.S. federalism: every state has its own laws, making one uniform rule difficult.
– **Instructor question:** The instructor asked Adilia to explain the estimated cost of “about a million dollars.”
– Adilia said she researched past implementation costs but did not find exact figures because the policy is not infrastructural.
– She said costs would be related to legislation and implementation.
– **Instructor follow-up:** The instructor asked what exactly the money is being spent on, since passing a law itself should not necessarily require a million dollars per state.
– Adilia suggested that one million dollars might be the cost for one state.
– The instructor clarified that if 34 states still lacked the policy, a million dollars each would imply a much larger total cost.
– **Makhabat Konokbaeva** asked how child marriage affects girls’ equal access to education and future opportunities.
– Adilia answered that married girls often lack access to education, which prevents them from pursuing work, jobs, and other opportunities.
#### Instructor feedback emphasis
– The instructor emphasized the need to distinguish:
– Cost of passing a law.
– Cost of enforcing a law.
– Economic benefits or savings generated by the law.
– The instructor also pushed Adilia to clarify the relationship between state-level legal change and federal incentives.
—
### 8. Presentation 6 — Hawton Kyle “Abu Bakr” Jarred: Water Pollution and Sanitation Reform in Indonesia
**Presenter:** Hawton Kyle “Abu Bakr” Jarred
**Policy area:** Water pollution, sanitation, industrial regulation, infrastructure
**Country focus:** Indonesia
#### Main problem presented
– Abu Bakr presented on water pollution in Indonesia.
– He stated that:
– **70% of waterways** in Indonesia are heavily polluted.
– **89% of water sources** are contaminated by some form of fecal bacteria.
– Fewer than 300 out of every 1,000 Indonesians suffer from some form of waterborne disease annually, according to his wording in the presentation.
– Indonesia produces approximately **60 million tons of waste annually**, projected to reach **82 million tons by 2045**.
– Around **25 million people** still practice open defecation because of lack of basic sanitation.
– Waterborne diseases cause **12.1 deaths per 100,000 people**.
– He cited Business Indonesia and Universitas Gadjah Mada as sources.
#### Recommended policy package
Abu Bakr proposed a single integrated six-step policy package costing approximately **$84.675 billion over 12–13 years**.
The six components were:
1. **Expand sewage and wastewater treatment infrastructure**
– Build **43 large wastewater treatment plants** in the 10 most populated urban and peri-urban metropolitan areas.
– Connect 90% of people to expanded sewage networks.
– He noted that currently only about 2% of people are connected.
2. **Mandate industrial connection to sewage systems**
– Require industrial areas and businesses, such as textile factories, to connect to sewage systems.
– Ban industries from directly dumping pollutants into rivers and waterways.
3. **Strengthen enforcement against pollution**
– Increase fines for pollution.
– Introduce criminal penalties, including jail time, for severe violations.
4. **Dredge major rivers**
– Dredge the full lengths of the four most polluted or populated rivers:
– Ciliwung/Sayegh, as transcribed uncertainly.
– Citarum.
– Bengawan Solo.
– Brantas.
– He estimated this would take around 12 years.
5. **Develop large-scale waste collection and disposal facilities**
– Divert waste from households, agriculture, and small manufacturers away from rivers.
– Route waste to recycling plants and treatment facilities.
– Treat approximately **30 million tons of waste annually**.
6. **Build basic sewage and sanitation systems in rural areas**
– Replace open defecation and direct discharge into waterways.
– Focus especially on the 25 million people still practicing open defecation.
#### Peer and instructor questions
– **Kurmanbek kyzy Zhibek** asked whether the Indonesian government had taken previous action, since the problem has existed for decades.
– Abu Bakr answered that there had been some mild action through the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, but the budget had been low.
– He argued that the current Indonesian president, Prabowo Subianto, is investing heavily in large infrastructure projects, making this type of proposal more feasible now.
– He calculated that the annual cost would be around **$6.45 billion per year**, compared with Indonesia’s annual budget of about **$232 billion**.
– **Ali Juya** asked about culture and whether people’s behavior contributes to pollution.
– Abu Bakr answered that open defecation is more a result of necessity than culture.
– He said most people are Muslim or Christian, and open defecation is not culturally prescribed.
– He argued that most pollution is industrial or economic, with companies dumping waste to cut costs.
– He described a penalty system in his memo with minor, moderate, and severe pollution categories.
– **Samira Imomdodova** asked which of the six steps would be most urgent or important.
– Abu Bakr clarified that he was presenting one combined alternative, not six separate alternatives.
– He said the most pressing step would be building the 43 wastewater treatment plants, because without them there is nowhere for wastewater to go.
– Cleaning rivers would come after establishing treatment capacity.
– **Instructor question:** The instructor challenged the idea that the six steps are one policy rather than six alternatives or separate projects.
– The instructor noted that each step may involve different stakeholders, ministries, resistance points, implementation paths, and feasibility challenges.
– The instructor warned that requiring all six megaprojects to succeed may make the policy very difficult to defend.
– **Abu Bakr’s response:** He explained that the proposal would be passed as part of an annual budget package, with money distributed to different ministries.
– The Ministry of Public Works and Housing would build sewage and wastewater infrastructure.
– The Ministry of Environment and Forestry and civil servant investigators would enforce standards and monitor violations.
– He argued that political feasibility is relatively strong because both the ruling coalition and the left-wing opposition are supportive of infrastructure or environmental spending.
– **Instructor follow-up:** The instructor asked whether the proposal was an existing policy or something Abu Bakr created.
– Abu Bakr said he created the package himself and explained in the memo how he calculated costs, such as multiplying the number of people practicing open defecation by estimated per-person sanitation costs.
#### Additional note
– Abu Bakr brought snacks from Indonesia and offered them to classmates, warning that they contained nuts.
#### Instructor feedback emphasis
– The instructor emphasized that bundling many large infrastructure projects together complicates:
– Stakeholder analysis.
– Bureaucratic implementation.
– Feasibility.
– Risk of partial failure.
– The main policy-analysis lesson was that a policy package must still be broken down clearly enough to show who implements each component and how success is measured.
—
### 9. Mid-Class Administrative Note: Final Class Pizza and Soda Planning
– The instructor reminded students that the next class, Thursday, would be the final class.
– The instructor had promised pizza and soda.
– The instructor asked for help ordering pizza and coordinating with the delivery person.
– A student volunteered to help, though the name was not clearly identifiable in the transcript.
– The instructor said he would provide the money around 2:00 p.m. Thursday and would ask for about **100 som per person** during class.
– Students briefly discussed bringing plates, cups, and related materials.
– The instructor said the next class would need to start right at **35 minutes past the hour** because two additional presentations would be added to Thursday.
—
### 10. Presentation 7 — Makhabat Konokbaeva: Community-Based Education for Afghan Girls
**Presenter:** Makhabat Konokbaeva
**Policy area:** Girls’ education, humanitarian programming, Taliban restrictions, NGO implementation
**Country focus:** Afghanistan
#### Main problem presented
– Makhabat presented on Afghan girls being excluded from secondary education.
– She stated that after the Taliban returned to power in 2021, between **1.1 and 2.2 million girls** were excluded from formal schooling.
– She cited a UNESCO report from 2023.
– She argued that this creates:
– A severe education access deficit.
– Long-term losses in talent, leadership, and workforce participation.
#### Principal objective
– Her objective was to restore access to secondary education for Afghan girls.
– She aimed to reach at least several hundred thousand girls through alternative education pathways in the next implementation cycle.
#### Alternatives and recommendation
– Makhabat mentioned three alternatives in her memo:
1. Do nothing.
2. Intervention by political actors.
3. Expansion of community-based education by major international organizations.
– Her recommended policy was to expand **UNICEF community-based education programs**.
– She argued this option is preferable because:
– It is more immediately implementable.
– It does not depend fully on Taliban policy reversal.
– It is cheaper than rebuilding a formal school infrastructure system.
– It can operate at the community level and reduce direct confrontation with the de facto government.
– She identified implementing actors:
– UNICEF.
– Local NGOs.
– Female educators.
– Local communities.
#### Peer and instructor questions
– **Samira Imomdodova** asked how the proposal would be implemented and who would be involved.
– Makhabat said implementation would rely heavily on international organizations such as UNICEF.
– She described the program as informal because if it is openly recognized as violating Taliban restrictions, it risks being shut down.
– She identified local female students, trained female educators, local NGOs, and UNICEF as key actors.
– **Student question, uncertain speaker:** A student asked why education is still limited in Afghanistan.
– Makhabat explained that after the Taliban returned to power in 2021, girls above grade 6 or 7 were banned from formal education.
– She said girls in grades 7–12 face the most restrictions, while younger girls may still have some access.
– **Erkhan Shamyrbekov** asked how the policy can avoid dependence on government approval if the Taliban controls education.
– Makhabat answered that community-based education has existed in Afghanistan before with lower visibility.
– She said local communities have historically supported such education.
– She acknowledged uncertainty about feasibility but suggested that local community support and possible protest or collective action could matter.
– **Syndat Ashimova** asked what would happen if the Taliban discovered the program and tried to shut it down.
– Makhabat acknowledged that this is a major challenge.
– She said negotiation with Taliban representatives may be necessary if the program is exposed.
– She also noted that UNICEF and NGOs might need to manage conflict or misunderstanding with Taliban authorities.
– **Darina Kurstanbekova** asked who would be responsible for managing or leading the program.
– Makhabat said that in her policy memo she addressed the recommendation to the UNICEF country director or the UNICEF official responsible for Afghanistan programming.
– **Instructor question:** The instructor raised a fundamental issue: if the program is NGO-led and avoids reliance on the Taliban government, how is it public policy?
– The instructor noted that the Taliban is the de facto government responsible for education policy in Afghanistan.
– Makhabat responded that because the issue is sensitive and the Taliban opposes girls’ education, the solution may need negotiations with Taliban representatives plus support from NGOs.
– The instructor accepted this as a stopping point due to time.
#### Instructor feedback emphasis
– The instructor pushed Makhabat on the boundary between:
– Public policy conducted by a government.
– NGO or humanitarian programming.
– The main analytical challenge was whether a policy memo can recommend action to UNICEF instead of a state actor and still count as public policy.
—
### 11. Closing Instructions and Follow-Up on Remaining Presentations
– The instructor thanked students for staying and participating.
– Because time ran out, the instructor said two more presentations would be added to Thursday’s class.
– Thursday was described as the final class and would include pizza and soda.
– The instructor said class would need to begin promptly.
—
### 12. After-Class Individual Feedback on Policy Memo Draft
– After the formal class ended, a student stayed to ask about the final policy memo.
– The student asked whether reducing the introduction would bring the paper down to the required page count.
– The instructor said adding more content was acceptable if needed.
– The student asked the instructor to check whether the memo was on the right track.
– The instructor said he could do this only to a limited extent because the deadline had already passed.
– The instructor noted several draft issues:
– A discrepancy between vacancy numbers: one section said **8,000–9,000**, while another said **4,000–5,000**.
– The implementation and feasibility section appeared to address only one alternative.
– The instructor said implementation and feasibility should be discussed for **all alternatives**.
– The instructor emphasized a recurring policy memo question:
– If the solution is simple, such as raising wages, why has the government not already done it?
– The instructor also summarized a pattern in his presentation questions:
– How much will it cost?
– Who is paying?
– Why has the policy not already been implemented?
– This feedback appeared to relate to the rural doctor shortage memo, likely Syndat Ashimova’s, but the transcript does not explicitly identify the student at this point.
—
## Student Tracker
– **Erkhan Shamyrbekov**
– Presented a policy proposal to reduce wedding-related household debt in Kazakhstan by limiting wedding loans to 40% of annual income and defended the policy against questions about culture, enforcement, and previous failed attempts.
– **Bereke Kadyralieva**
– Presented on reducing air pollution in Japan through rail expansion and answered questions about evidence, cost, Toyama City, and why Japan was selected.
– **Syndat Ashimova**
– Presented on rural doctor shortages in Kazakhstan and proposed long-term rural bonuses and retention payments; discussed prior incentive programs, budget questions, and rural infrastructure limitations.
– **Muqaddas Mamadboqirova**
– Presented on Kyrgyzstan’s rural drinking water deficit and proposed scaling up community water user unions with conditional grants, audits, and household contributions; explained anti-corruption mechanisms and community governance.
– **Adilia Kambarova**
– Presented on banning child marriage in the United States through a federal minimum marriage age of 18 with no exceptions; answered questions about U.S. federalism, state incentives, religion, costs, and education impacts.
– **Hawton Kyle “Abu Bakr” Jarred**
– Presented a large-scale six-part water pollution and sanitation reform package for Indonesia; responded to questions about government action, culture, infrastructure sequencing, cost calculations, and feasibility of bundling multiple megaprojects.
– **Makhabat Konokbaeva**
– Presented on expanding UNICEF community-based education for Afghan girls excluded from secondary school; answered questions about Taliban restrictions, implementation through NGOs, local educators, government dependence, and whether the proposal qualifies as public policy.
– **Khadija Yousufzai**
– Asked multiple substantive questions across presentations, including questions about wedding-loan financial risk, air pollution policy effectiveness, rural doctor incentive budgeting, and previous government water projects.
– **Darina Kurstanbekova**
– Asked questions about Japan’s rail investment feasibility and why Japan was chosen; later asked about responsibility for managing the Afghan girls’ education program.
– **Ali Juya**
– Asked about the structure and meaning of Community Drinking Water User Unions in Kyrgyzstan and asked about cultural versus economic causes of water pollution in Indonesia.
– **Kurmanbek kyzy Zhibek**
– Asked whether Indonesia’s government had previously taken action on water pollution and sanitation.
– **Samira Imomdodova**
– Asked which component of Abu Bakr’s Indonesia water pollution package was most urgent and asked Makhabat how the Afghan girls’ education proposal would be implemented.
– **Kambarova Adilia Sagynbekovna**
– Same as Adilia Kambarova above; participated as presenter.
– **Konokbaeva Makhabat Zhamshidovna**
– Same as Makhabat Konokbaeva above; participated as presenter and also asked Muqaddas about why she chose water access as a policy topic.
– **Uncertain student(s)**
– Several questions were asked by speakers whose names were not clearly captured in the transcript, including questions about lavish wedding traditions, Talas water issues, public awareness of rural water problems, and alternative support such as housing for doctors.
—
## Actionable Items
### Urgent / Before Thursday’s Class
– **Presentation scheduling**
– Add the remaining two student presentations to Thursday’s class.
– Start Thursday’s class promptly at the scheduled start time because of the added presentations and end-of-course activity.
– **Presentation file submission**
– Students should submit presentations on **eCourse** in **PPT/PPTX format**.
– Students should not submit Canva links.
– **Final class food logistics**
– Instructor will provide money for pizza around 2:00 p.m. Thursday.
– A student volunteer will help order pizza and coordinate with delivery.
– Class may collect approximately **100 som per person**.
– Students should confirm whether plates, cups, and other supplies are needed.
### Policy Memo / Assignment Follow-Up
– **Cost estimates**
– Students should make sure policy proposals clearly answer:
– How much does the policy cost?
– Who pays?
– Over what period?
– How does the cost scale with the size of the problem?
– **Implementation and feasibility**
– Students should include implementation and feasibility analysis for **all alternatives**, not only the preferred recommendation.
– **Problem consistency**
– Students should check that statistics remain consistent across the memo.
– Example from after-class feedback: do not use conflicting figures such as 8,000–9,000 vacancies in one section and 4,000–5,000 in another unless clearly explained.
– **Policy justification**
– Students should address the question: if the proposed solution is straightforward, why has the government or responsible actor not already implemented it?
### Lower Priority / Instructor Notes for Future Review
– **Participation tracking**
– Several students asked repeated questions and participated actively.
– Some questions were from speakers not clearly identifiable in the transcript; consider confirming participation names in class if needed.
– **Common analytical weaknesses to revisit**
– Unclear cost calculations.
– Weak explanation of funding sources.
– Insufficient distinction between policy costs and economic benefits.
– Insufficient evidence connecting the proposed intervention to the main cause of the problem.
– Overly broad policy packages that combine multiple large projects without separate feasibility analysis.
– NGO-led proposals that need clearer justification as public policy.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Submit and Prepare Your Policy Presentation for the Final Presentation Session
You will complete the remaining in-class policy presentations during the next class session. This assignment is connected to the policy memo project: you are presenting your policy problem, your recommended solution, and the reasoning behind your recommendation, including feasibility, cost, stakeholders, and implementation concerns. If you have not yet presented, you must make sure your presentation file is properly submitted and ready to open quickly in class. All students should also be prepared to participate in the Q&A by asking thoughtful questions about classmates’ policy proposals.
Instructions:
1. **Finalize your presentation file.**
– Your presentation should summarize the key parts of your policy memo, including:
1. The policy problem you are addressing.
2. The context or evidence showing why the problem matters.
3. Your principal objective.
4. Your recommended policy solution.
5. Any alternatives you considered, if relevant.
6. Your justification for why your recommendation is preferable.
7. Feasibility considerations, including political feasibility, bureaucratic resilience, stakeholders, implementation, and cost.
– As discussed in class, be ready to answer questions such as:
– How much will your policy cost?
– Who will pay for it?
– Why has this solution not already been implemented?
– Who might support or oppose the policy?
– What makes your policy likely to work where similar efforts may have failed?
2. **Download your presentation in the correct format.**
– Do **not** submit a Canva link.
– If you made your slides in Canva, Google Slides, or another online tool, download/export the file before submitting it.
– The required file format is **PowerPoint format**:
– **.PPTX** is acceptable.
– **.PPT** is also acceptable.
– Do not rely on logging into Canva or switching Google accounts during class, because this takes too much presentation time.
3. **Submit your presentation file on eCourse.**
– Upload the actual PowerPoint file, not a link.
– Make sure the file opens correctly after you upload it.
– Name the file clearly using your name, for example:
**YourName_PolicyPresentation.pptx**
4. **Prepare for the time limit.**
– Each presenter will have **3 minutes** for the presentation.
– Practice your presentation so that you can finish within the time limit.
– Prioritize the most important information. You will not have time to read every detail from your memo.
5. **Prepare for the Q&A portion.**
– After your presentation, there will be approximately **3–5 minutes of questions**.
– Be ready to explain and defend your policy recommendation.
– You should especially be prepared to answer questions about:
1. The evidence supporting your problem statement.
2. The cost of your policy.
3. Whether your policy is realistic.
4. Which institutions or actors would implement it.
5. How your policy deals with possible resistance, corruption, weak enforcement, or other implementation problems.
6. Why your recommendation is better than doing nothing or choosing another alternative.
6. **If you are not presenting, prepare to participate as an audience member.**
– Pay attention to your classmates’ presentations.
– Be ready to ask substantive questions about their policy proposals.
– As reminded in class, everyone should be prepared to ask **at least two questions across the presentations**.
– Good questions may focus on:
– Evidence: “What data shows that this is the main cause of the problem?”
– Cost: “How much would this cost, and where would the money come from?”
– Feasibility: “What political or bureaucratic obstacles might prevent this from working?”
– Implementation: “Which institution would be responsible for carrying this out?”
– Comparison: “Why is this policy better than the other alternatives?”
– Stakeholders: “Who benefits, who loses, and who might resist the policy?”
7. **Be ready at the beginning of the next class.**
– The remaining presentations will be added to Thursday’s class.
– We will need to begin right away, so make sure your file is uploaded and ready before class starts.