Lesson Report:
## 1) Title
**Equity as a Measurable Concept: Stone’s “Who/What/How� Framework Applied to Scarcity and Policy Design**
This session revisited the course’s efficiency–equity balance and pushed further into *how* “fairness� (equity) can be analyzed in a more objective, measurable way. Using escalating scarcity scenarios (pizza allocation → kidney allocation) and then applying Deborah Stone’s framework, students practiced identifying how different definitions of “who gets what, and how� reshape what counts as “fair� in public policy.
—
## 2) Attendance
– **Absent students explicitly mentioned:** 0
– **Notes impacting participation/attendance:**
– **Hadeja** arrived late / re-joined after being disconnected (“kicked into the waiting roomâ€�), and also raised an administrative question about returning to campus and how to take the midterm if unable to return.
—
## 3) Topics Covered (Chronological, Detailed)
### A. Opening & Course Continuity: Efficiency, Equity, and Market Failure (Review from Tuesday)
– Instructor re-centered the course stance for policy analysis:
– **Markets fail**; **governments intervene when markets fail**.
– Historic ideological extremes were contrasted:
– *Minimal/no government involvement* (pure market allocation) → tends to generate serious social problems.
– *Total government allocation/redistribution* → tends to be ineffective and vulnerable to corruption/poor implementation.
– The modern public policy/econ consensus presented:
– **Let markets operate “for the most part,â€�** but **intervene when markets fail**, and intervene in a way attentive to **equity**.
– Key transition: the class ended Tuesday with the unresolved issue:
– Policies should be “fair/equitable,â€� but **what does “fairâ€� actually mean**, and **how can we measure it** if it’s political/opinion-based?
—
### B. Warm-up Scenario: “8 Slices, 15 Students� — Competing Definitions of Fairness
**Activity prompt:** Students wrote brief notes proposing the *fairest* way to distribute an 8-slice pizza among ~15 people.
**Fairness principles that emerged (with instructor elaboration):**
– **Equality / equal shares:**
– “Everyone gets an equal sliceâ€� (i.e., splitting into 15 pieces).
– Instructor problematized this: equal division may produce **tiny, unsatisfying portions** → equal is not necessarily “goodâ€� or “satisfying.â€�
– Policy analogy: “Just get more money/pizzaâ€� is often suggested but **not always feasible** in real-world constraints.
– **Need-based distribution (hunger/vulnerability):**
– Survey who ate most recently; hungriest people get larger pieces.
– Highlights *need* as the fairness metric.
– **Random allocation (lottery / chance):**
– Lottery, dice, or chance-based distribution framed as “fairâ€� because it is impartial.
– **Merit-based distribution:**
– Allocate based on best attendance / highest scores.
– Instructor linked this to broader societal “deservingnessâ€� narratives.
– **Rank/authority/hierarchy-based distribution:**
– Instructor guided toward recognizing **hierarchy** as a common social organizing principle: age, status, institutional authority (e.g., professor decides / professor gets more).
– Instructor meta-point: students **predictably disagree** about fairness because fairness depends on underlying values and assumptions.
– Referenced Stone (and a student’s prior recall): analysts cannot assume perfect prediction/control; the goal is understanding competing fairness logics and comparing them critically.
—
### C. Escalation Scenario: Kidney Allocation Under Life-or-Death Scarcity
To raise stakes beyond a low-consequence classroom resource, instructor reframed allocation as a **committee deciding who receives a kidney** (one kidney; multiple candidates; delay means all die).
**Candidates described (as given in transcript):**
1. **Famous scientist**
– Past discoveries saved many lives; currently working on projects that might save more.
2. **Billionaire**
– Extremely wealthy businessperson; later detail added: **already donated $1B to the hospital** (important fairness-relevant information).
3. **Child (10 years old)**
– “Regular family,â€� high vulnerability, many potential years of life remaining.
*(Transcript indicates 5 total candidates, but only 3 were fully described in the captured text.)*
**Class vote & reasoning discussion (captured):**
– Majority supported **the child**; instructor tallied **8 votes for the child**.
– Reasoning centered on vulnerability and “years of life saved,â€� plus uncertainty about future outcomes of other candidates.
– **Scientist** received limited support (at least **1 vote** recorded).
– Articulated argument: already trained, already saving lives, continuing projects could yield larger societal benefit; scientist’s survival could indirectly save additional lives.
– **Billionaire** argument surfaced as a **rank/merit/utility** logic:
– Can fund/hire scientists, build hospitals, and support institutions; and notably had **already given a $1B donation** (presented as strengthening the “save billionaireâ€� argument).
– Instructor’s framing pivot:
– The point was **not** to reach a single correct answer but to show how the chosen recipient changes what the “kidneyâ€� *means* as a distributable good:
– For the child: kidney = **years of life saved**, vulnerability reduction, opportunity to live a full life.
– For the scientist: kidney = **future lives saved** via continued work (social benefit).
– For the billionaire: kidney = **capacity to mobilize resources**, finance institutions, etc.
– Equity judgments are therefore tied to **how we define the good** being distributed.
—
### D. Stone’s Core Framework: “Fairness� = Three Embedded Questions
Instructor introduced and emphasized Stone’s decomposition of “What’s fair?� into three analytical questions:
1. **Who gets it?**
2. **What is being distributed?**
3. **How is the distribution carried out?**
**Key instructional claim:** each of these contains conflicts that explain why one group’s fairness is another group’s unfairness.
—
### E. Applying Stone Back to Pizza: Eligibility, Boundaries, Value, and Distribution Procedures
The class returned to pizza to anchor Stone’s concepts in an easier context.
#### 1) **WHO gets it?** (Membership/Eligibility as the first gate)
– Before deciding the rule (equal, need, merit), we must define **who is eligible** at all.
– Instructor examples of excluded stakeholders:
– Students on the course **waiting list** (3 people mentioned) could see exclusion as unfair.
– **Azamat**, who attended briefly to “check outâ€� the class (quasi-auditing), could also perceive exclusion as unfair.
– Takeaway: equity analysis begins by asking who is included/excluded from consideration.
#### 2) **WHAT is it?** (Redefining boundaries and value of the good)
Instructor introduced two key ways of redefining “what is being distributed�:
– **Change the boundaries of the item** (pizza slice → full meal)
– Example: smaller pizza slice could be compensated with **extra soda/cookie** so fairness applies to *the whole meal*, not the slice.
– **Change the measure of value within the item**
– Example: topping distribution (chicken) varies by slice.
– Fairness can be pursued by giving **smaller slices with more chicken** so “valueâ€� is equalized even if size is not.
#### 3) **HOW is it distributed?** (Process mechanisms)
Multiple procedures were cataloged and compared:
– **First-come, first-served** (arrive earlier → get pizza).
– **Lottery / chance mechanisms** (dice, random draw; rock-paper-scissors as quasi-chance).
– **Competition** (e.g., pop quiz; top scorers get slices).
– **Democratic election/voting** (class votes on recipients; “democracy is fairâ€� as a claim to be interrogated).
—
### F. Transition to Real Policy: Defining “Policy� and Practicing Equity Analysis on Actual Policies
To ground the framework in public policy practice, instructor shifted from hypotheticals to students selecting real policies.
#### 1) Defining “policy�
Students proposed candidate forms: mechanism/model/system, rule, action, law, resolution, plan, contract, reform.
Instructor consolidated definition:
– **Policy = government action to solve a grievance.**
– Clarification: a **plan alone** is not a policy unless it is tied to **action/implementation** with observable real-world consequences.
– Additional example of policy beyond laws:
– **Educational campaigns** (e.g., posters about domestic violence hotline/police contact) count as policy because the government acts.
#### 2) Individual writing task (short)
Students were instructed to choose *any* policy and write 1–2 sentences explaining:
– What the policy is (government action)
– Evidence it is government-driven/implemented
#### 3) Follow-up prompts (policy dissection)
Students then identified:
– The **grievance** the policy is designed to solve
– **What is being distributed** (tangible or intangible: resources, justice, clean air, etc.)
#### 4) Partner activity + forced “fairness argument�
Students paired up, shared their policy/grievance/distributed good, then selected one policy to focus on and wrote 1–2 sentences arguing:
– Why the policy is fair **using Stone’s questions** (who/what/how)
– Important constraint: even if they personally think it is unfair, they had to **argue it is fair** (practice in constructing stakeholder-relevant arguments).
#### 5) Group share-outs (sample policies discussed)
– **Population control / “one-childâ€� style policy** (as framed by the student)
– Fairness argument presented via **societal redistribution of scarce resources**, improving societal welfare through resource allocation.
– Instructor noted framing matters: describing it as “only one kid allowedâ€� sounds harsh; describing it as resource redistribution makes it appear more equitable.
– **Tariffs as policy (extended example)**
– Student defined tariffs as government action addressing trade imbalances/unfair trade practices, protecting domestic industry, addressing dumping.
– “What is distributedâ€�:
– A tax burden placed on imports;
– A “level playing fieldâ€� for domestic producers;
– Government revenue potentially redistributed as services/institutions.
– Instructor clarified tariff definition in English: a **specific import tax** (often increased above baseline import taxes on certain goods).
– Concrete Kyrgyzstan example: tariffing **Chinese cars** to allow a Kyrgyz car industry to compete.
– “Who benefits / who is excludedâ€�: domestic producers/workers and domestic industry benefit; Chinese producers and importers (and possibly consumers via higher prices) may be disadvantaged—an explicit link to stakeholder impacts.
– **No-smoking-in-public-places policy** (Kyrgyzstan; applied to university and public venues)
– Student identified grievance: public health harms from smoking/secondhand smoke.
– “What is distributedâ€�: health / smoke-free spaces / right to clean air.
– “Howâ€�: warnings, enforcement by police, fines.
– Student began critiquing fairness (administrative waste/freedom), but instructor redirected: practice arguing fairness first.
– Instructor provided fairness framing: non-smokers/families gain entitlement to smoke-free environments (e.g., restaurants).
—
### G. Closing Synthesis: Fairness is Plural, Political, and Stakeholder-Dependent
– Instructor emphasized:
– There is **no single universally accepted answer** to “fair.â€�
– The analytic task is to identify **different ways of quantifying fairness** and recognize that choosing among them is inherently **political**.
– The way we define the “goodâ€� being distributed (years of life saved, lives saved, merit, market fairness, clean air) shapes what seems fair.
– Preview: next course unit will address **stakeholders**.
– Working definition introduced: stakeholders = those who **participate, benefit, or suffer** from a policy.
– Equity analysis matters because stakeholders disagree on fairness.
—
### H. Midterm Exam Announcement (Logistics + Study Guidance)
– **Date:** **Thursday, March 6** (two weeks from the class session date).
– **Format:** closed-book, in-class, handwritten exam
– No electronics, no notes.
– **Exam structure (three tasks):**
1. **Define the policy problem** given a policy dossier; distinguish **conditions vs. problems** and justify why it is a problem.
2. **Diagnose root cause** (market failure/government failure; where failure occurs in policy cycle), citing evidence from dossier.
3. **Assess feasibility** of fixing/succeeding in the future; upcoming tool: **Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework** to analyze feasibility.
– **Study guidance:** focus on first four weeks:
– Policy problem vs. condition
– Grievance
– Market failures
– Related foundational concepts (government failure/policy cycle elements referenced)
—
## 4) Actionable Items (Short Bullets, Organized by Urgency)
### Urgent / Time-Sensitive (Next 2 Weeks)
– **Prepare students for Midterm (Mar 6):**
– Reinforce “problem vs. condition,â€� grievances, market failures, government failure, and policy cycle failure points.
– Communicate/remind that exam is **closed book, handwritten, no electronics/notes**.
– **Student access issue (Hadeja):**
– Follow up with **Dr. Ratzinger/department** about whether remote/alternative midterm arrangements are possible if the student cannot return to campus before Mar 6.
– Update the student once a department decision is confirmed.
### Near-Term (Next Week / Next Unit)
– **Transition into Stakeholder Analysis:**
– Build directly from Stone’s “who gets what/howâ€� into identifying stakeholders who benefit/suffer/participate.
– Consider revisiting the kidney scenario with explicit stakeholder mapping as a bridge activity.
### Administrative / Communication
– **Share requested materials:**
– A student asked the instructor to “drop the photo of the reportâ€� in the group chat (context suggests a class photo/handout/board notes). Ensure this is posted when convenient.
– **Clarify the kidney scenario candidates (optional clean-up):**
– Transcript referenced 5 candidates but only captured details for 3. If the original lesson plan included 5, consider restating the full list next class to avoid confusion when students review notes.
Homework Instructions:
NO HOMEWORK — The transcript contains only in-class activities (e.g., “take two or three minutes… jot down a few thoughts,� “take like two minutes… write like one or two sentences down,� and partner discussion/writing) and midterm study/exam information (“we have a midterm in two weeks… what should you study?�), but no explicit take-home assignment to complete and submit outside of class.