Lesson Report:
# Title
**Evaluating Policy Alternatives: Criteria, Principal Objectives, and Early Critique**
This session moved the class from simply generating policy alternatives to learning how to evaluate them. Using air pollution in Bishkek as the central worked example, the instructor introduced evaluation criteria, distinguished effective but unacceptable policies from genuinely viable ones, and showed students how to define a **principal objective** before judging alternatives. The class then applied these ideas to their group policy topics and ended with a critique-prep exercise for the next meeting.
—
# Attendance
– **Students explicitly marked absent:** **0**
– **Names mentioned absent:** None
– Note: The transcript does not include a full roll call, so only absences explicitly stated in class can be reported.
—
# Topics Covered
## 1) Recap of last class: what counts as an “alternative” in policy analysis
– The instructor opened by reviewing the previous lesson’s main concept: **alternatives**.
– Students were asked to recall what an alternative means in a policy context.
– **Uncertain student (“Tamina,” not confidently matched to roster)** described it philosophically as a way not to endure a problem.
– **Kurstanbekova Darina Kurstanbekovna** contributed the clearer policy framing: an alternative is **what can be done instead of doing nothing**.
– The instructor refined the definition:
– In public policy, an **alternative** is essentially a **solution**.
– It is called an “alternative” because every policy proposal is being compared against the default option: **do nothing**.
– Analysts therefore must explain **why a proposed action is better than non-intervention**.
## 2) Worked example: turning data into a policy problem
– The instructor wrote a sample statement on the board:
**“Air pollution levels in Bishkek regularly exceed 300% recommended WHO AQI levels during the winter months.”**
– The class identified the sentence as:
– **data**
– data used to support an **argument**
– specifically, a **problem statement**
– The instructor linked this back to the midterm, reminding students that the first step in policy analysis is to craft a **problem statement**.
– Students were then asked what public policy analysts ultimately do with a problem statement.
– The class answered that the goal is to **solve the problem**.
## 3) Distinguishing a policy problem from a societal condition
– The instructor asked whether the Bishkek air-pollution example should be treated as:
– a **policy problem**, or
– merely a **societal condition**.
– Discussion focused on whether government has responsibility here or whether private market solutions are enough.
– The instructor deliberately challenged the class with market-style responses:
– buy an air purifier
– buy N95 masks
– let private companies solve the issue
– Students pushed back by arguing that:
– the issue affects **public health**
– masks are only a **temporary, individual fix**
– people need to buy them repeatedly
– not everyone can afford them
– The instructor synthesized the discussion into a policy argument:
– if protection from severe air pollution depends on individual purchasing power,
– then public health becomes a **“pay-to-play” system**
– and that creates a strong argument for **government responsibility**.
## 4) Extreme policy thought experiment: a solution can be effective and still fail
– The instructor proposed an intentionally extreme alternative:
– ban all gasoline and coal use immediately
– no cars, no buses using fuel, no home coal burning
– enforce the ban with armed police
– Students were asked first whether the policy would be **effective** if perfectly enforced.
– The class agreed that, in a narrow sense, it would improve air quality.
– **Beishenova Akylai Samatovna** is likely the student referred to in the transcript as “Akali/Akylai”; her contribution helped establish the point that even if AQI improves, the policy creates other serious problems.
– The instructor used this to introduce the central lesson:
– **effectiveness is only one criterion**
– a policy can “work” technically and still be unacceptable or unworkable overall
## 5) Why the extreme air-pollution alternative would fail
– Students were given brief notebook time to explain why the total coal/gasoline ban would fail.
– Follow-up discussion produced several categories of failure:
### 5a) Transportation and economic disruption
– **Yousufzai Khadija** raised the issue of dependence on gasoline.
– The instructor pushed her reasoning further by asking:
– why do people need gasoline?
– can everyone just take electric buses?
– The class recognized that:
– Bishkek does not have enough bus capacity for everyone
– goods are also moved by fuel-based transport
– trucks and sprinters are essential to supply chains
– The instructor summarized the consequence:
– reduced movement of people and goods
– disruption of work access and commerce
– possible **economic collapse**
### 5b) Home heating, cooking, and unequal harm
– The class turned to coal use in homes.
– Students noted that coal is used for:
– **heating**
– **cooking**
– **Kurstanbekova Darina Kurstanbekovna** helped push the discussion toward the real-life consequences of removing coal without a replacement.
– The instructor highlighted that:
– poorer households would be hit hardest
– some people would be unable to heat homes or cook food
– people might burn even dirtier materials such as tires or fabric scraps
– This led to the conclusion that the policy would create a serious **equity problem**:
– low-income households would suffer more
– some people could literally **freeze**
### 5c) Public backlash, unrest, and low feasibility
– An unnamed student suggested that people would likely turn to a **black market**.
– The instructor agreed but argued that before organized black markets, there would likely be:
– protests
– then potentially **riots**
– The difference between protest and riot was clarified as the presence of **violence**.
– The instructor used this to show that even an effective policy can fail if the public will not tolerate it.
## 6) Formal evaluation criteria introduced
– The instructor then named the evaluation dimensions the class had already been using intuitively.
– Drawing on **Bardach**, the class identified four key criteria for evaluating alternatives:
– **Effectiveness** — will it work?
– **Cost** — what economic or implementation costs will it create?
– **Equity** — who benefits and who bears the burden?
– **Political feasibility** — will people and institutions tolerate it?
– A student defined **equity** as something like **equality based on needs**, which the instructor accepted and built on.
– The instructor described these criteria as the analyst’s more formal version of an internal **scorecard**.
## 7) New concept: defining the principal objective before evaluating alternatives
– The instructor argued that students cannot judge alternatives properly until they first define what it means to **solve the problem**.
– This outcome-focused statement was introduced as the **principal objective**.
– Key explanation:
– a problem statement tells us **what is wrong**
– a principal objective tells us **what success looks like**
– The instructor stressed that principal objectives should be framed in a way similar to problem statements:
– neutral
– as measurable as possible
– tied to the actual problem rather than to vague intentions
## 8) Building a principal objective from the air-pollution example
– The class used the air-pollution case to practice.
– Students first gave intuitive answers such as:
– “fresh air”
– “clean air”
– **Joro Danek** pushed the discussion toward quantification by suggesting something like moving from **300 to 100**.
– The instructor used this to show why “clean air” alone is too subjective.
– The class then reviewed Bardach’s distinction between policy problems of:
– **excess** — too much of something
– **deficit** — too little of something
– Students correctly classified the Bishkek air-pollution case as a problem of **excess**.
– The instructor then gave the general rule:
– for an **excess**, the principal objective is usually to **minimize**
– for a **deficit**, the principal objective is usually to **maximize**
– The class therefore arrived at the principal objective:
– **minimize AQI / minimize air pollution levels in Bishkek during the winter months**
## 9) Group activity: return to prior problem statements and alternatives
– Students re-formed the same groups they had worked in previously.
– The instructor reminded them that on the earlier class they had already produced menus of alternatives, including:
– **two human-generated alternatives**
– **two AI-generated alternatives**
– New instructions:
– revisit the group’s **problem statement**
– determine whether it is a problem of **excess** or **deficit**
– write a **principal objective** using minimize/maximize language
## 10) Group report-outs and instructor correction
### 10a) Social policy / women’s kidnapping and killings
– **Yousufzai Khadija**’s group presented a problem statement about women being kidnapped and, in some cases, killed.
– The instructor interpreted it as a problem of **excess**:
– too many women are being kidnapped
– too many women are being killed
– The tentative principal objective became:
– **minimize the number of women kidnapped**
– and/or **minimize the number of women killed**
– **Juya Ali** raised an important methodological objection:
– saying “minimize the number” is still vague
– perhaps the deeper issue is a **deficit of public knowledge / cultural awareness / education**
– The instructor praised the point but clarified:
– this is an issue of **operationalization**, not a reason to abandon the direct objective
– “increase education” may be related, but it is not the same as the direct policy outcome the group wants
– The instructor previewed that **operationalization** would be the next class topic:
– turning broad goals into something concrete, measurable, and actionable
### 10b) Rural healthcare workforce shortage
– An unnamed student presented a problem statement about a shortage of healthcare workers in rural areas (the location sounded like **Kazakhstan** in the transcript).
– The group initially proposed ideas such as:
– expand medical training
– offer incentives
– use technology to improve efficiency
– The instructor corrected the distinction:
– those are **alternatives**, not the **principal objective**
– The proper principal objective was reframed as:
– **maximize the number of medical professionals** in the affected area
### 10c) Rural internet access / digital divide
– Another unnamed student presented a separate problem statement:
– limited internet access in rural areas creates a digital divide that restricts education and opportunity
– The student initially phrased the objective as **expanding rural internet access**.
– The instructor accepted the substance but encouraged use of the more explicit transitional wording:
– **maximize internet access** in rural communities
– He noted that students would not need to keep the exact “maximize/minimize” wording in final polished work, but it was useful for training at this stage.
### 10d) Poverty in Gaza / South Africa and policy jurisdiction
– A group initially tried to discuss poverty across **more than one location**.
– The instructor stopped the group and clarified a major public-policy rule:
– a public policy proposal must match a **specific governing authority**
– students should not build one paper around multiple unrelated governments unless the assignment explicitly calls for that
– The instructor advised the group to narrow the topic to **one place**.
– He also encouraged them to move from broad abstractions like “poverty” toward measurable downstream indicators such as:
– inability to afford three meals a day
– rising malnourishment
– **Joro Danek** asked whether actors like the **United States** or **UN** could count as policymakers for Gaza.
– This led to an important distinction:
– **public policy** = internal policy for a government’s own population/jurisdiction
– **foreign policy** = policy decisions one country makes that affect another country
### 10e) Amazon rainforest deforestation
– Another group presented a problem statement about the Brazilian Amazon, including data about large-scale rainforest loss since 1980.
– Students debated whether the problem should be framed as:
– a **deficit** of trees/rainforest, or
– an **excess** of tree-cutting/deforestation
– The instructor explained that both are possible, but they are **not the same problem statement**.
– He emphasized that the group had to choose one framing because:
– different problem statements lead to
– different principal objectives and
– different alternatives
– The class settled on the logic that if the statement focuses on cutting, the principal objective should be:
– **minimize the number of trees being cut down** in the Amazon rainforest
## 11) Exit activity: choose a favorite alternative and attack it
– In the final activity, students were instructed to:
– look back at the four alternatives their group created
– choose their personal **favorite**
– Then they were told to:
– pass that favorite alternative to another group member
– receive someone else’s favorite in return
– Final written task for preparation:
– explain **why the partner’s preferred alternative will fail**
– be as **cynical** as possible
– use the criteria of:
– effectiveness
– cost
– equity
– political feasibility
– The instructor said the next class would begin with these critiques and then move into **operationalization**.
## 12) Post-class administrative discussion
– After dismissal, several students stayed to ask about grading and course assessment.
– The instructor clarified that:
– the **final project** includes a **policy memo** written outside class
– students will then do an **oral defense/presentation in class**
– the oral defense is a major portion of the final project grade
– Midterm follow-up included:
– **Kurmanbek kyzy Zhibek** asking about feedback timing; the instructor said her grade would be posted by the end of the week
– **Juya Ali** noting that his grade had not yet been submitted; the instructor confirmed it had been missed and said it would be entered
– **Kurstanbekova Darina Kurstanbekovna** asking why she received **90/100**
– In Darina’s feedback conversation, the instructor explained that:
– she had correctly argued **collective responsibility**
– she had good evidence for **market failure**
– but she misused the term **bounded rationality**
– her evidence fit better with **information asymmetry** and company **profit-seeking**
– Darina referenced discussing the concept with **Kyle**; this appeared in conversation but Kyle did not make a direct class contribution in the transcript.
—
# Student Tracker
– **Beishenova Akylai Samatovna** *(likely the student referred to as “Akali/Akylai”)* — Helped show that a policy can be effective on paper while still creating serious secondary problems.
– **Kurstanbekova Darina Kurstanbekovna** — Helped define alternatives as action instead of “doing nothing,” contributed to the coal/heating equity discussion, and later reviewed detailed midterm feedback.
– **Yousufzai Khadija** — Raised transportation and fuel-dependence concerns in the gasoline-ban example and presented her group’s women’s kidnapping/killing policy topic.
– **Joro Danek** — Pushed the class toward quantifiable objectives, recalled excess/deficit logic, and asked clarifying questions about Gaza, the UN/US role, and public vs foreign policy.
– **Juya Ali** — Challenged vague principal objectives, suggested education/culture as underlying causes in the kidnapping case, and asked follow-up questions about the final and missing grade entry.
– **Kurmanbek kyzy Zhibek** — Asked about the timing of her midterm feedback/grade release.
– **Uncertain student (“Tamina,” not matched confidently to roster)** — Offered an early philosophical definition of an alternative as a way not to endure a problem.
– **Uncertain student (healthcare group speaker)** — Presented the rural healthcare shortage case, prompting clarification between objectives and alternatives.
– **Uncertain student (rural internet speaker)** — Presented the digital-divide problem and proposed expanding/maximizing rural internet access.
– **Uncertain student (economy/policy-jurisdiction group speaker)** — Presented the Gaza/South Africa poverty case that led to discussion of jurisdiction and measurable policy problems.
– **Uncertain student (environment group speaker)** — Presented the Amazon deforestation case and participated in the excess-vs-deficit framing debate.
– **Uncertain student** — Predicted black-market trading as a likely consequence of an outright gasoline/coal ban.
—
# Actionable Items
## Immediate / Before Next Class
– Students should prepare a short explanation of **why their partner’s preferred alternative will fail**.
– Students should ground that critique in the four criteria:
– effectiveness
– cost
– equity
– political feasibility
– Next lesson is planned to begin with these critiques and then move into **operationalization**.
## Instructor Follow-Up This Week
– Post the remaining **two Bardach chapters** referenced in class.
– Finish entering remaining **midterm grades**.
– Submit **Juya Ali’s** missing midterm grade entry.
– Provide **Kurmanbek kyzy Zhibek’s** midterm feedback/grade by end of week, as stated in class.
## Assessment Clarifications to Reinforce
– Remind class that the **final project** has two parts:
– a **policy memo** written outside class
– an **in-class oral defense/presentation**
– Clarify again that the oral defense is a **major share** of the final project grade.
## Individual Student Follow-Up
– **Kurstanbekova Darina Kurstanbekovna** received feedback that her logic was strong but vocabulary/category use around **bounded rationality** needs correction.
– Students who asked for additional midterm feedback may need brief one-on-one follow-up later in the week.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Evaluate Why Your Partner’s Policy Alternative Could Fail
You will prepare a short but thoughtful critique of the policy alternative you received from your partner in class. This assignment helps you practice evaluating alternatives the way policy analysts do: not just by asking whether a solution sounds good, but by judging whether it is likely to succeed based on the principal objective and key criteria such as effectiveness, cost, equity, and political feasibility.
Instructions:
1. Find the policy alternative that was passed to you in class.
– Use the alternative you received from another member of your group when you rotated your “favorite” solutions.
– If you did not receive one in class, contact your group and get one of your classmate’s alternatives before the next class.
2. Review your group’s problem statement.
– Go back to the problem statement your group developed for your policy issue.
– Make sure you understand exactly what problem the alternative is trying to address.
3. Review your group’s principal objective.
– Use the principal objective you worked on in class today.
– Remember that the principal objective is the ultimate outcome that a successful policy must achieve.
– If your problem statement describes an excess, the objective should minimize that factor.
– If your problem statement describes a deficit, the objective should maximize that factor.
4. Restate the alternative clearly in your own words.
– Write 1–2 sentences explaining what the policy alternative is and what it is trying to do.
– Be specific enough that someone reading your explanation can understand the proposal.
5. Explain why the alternative could fail.
– Your main task is to prepare an explanation of why your partner’s alternative is “doomed to fail,” as the class discussed.
– Be critical and analytical.
– You do not need to prove that the alternative is completely useless; instead, explain the weaknesses that could prevent it from succeeding in the real world.
6. Evaluate the alternative using the criteria discussed in class.
– Organize your explanation around the criteria introduced during the lesson:
– Effectiveness: Will this alternative actually achieve the principal objective?
– Cost: What economic, administrative, or social costs could make this alternative too expensive or damaging?
– Equity: Who benefits and who is burdened? Could the policy unfairly harm certain groups, especially vulnerable or low-income populations?
– Political feasibility: Would the public, political actors, or institutions tolerate this policy? Would it face backlash, protest, resistance, or noncompliance?
7. Connect each criticism to the actual policy problem.
– Do not give generic criticisms.
– Tie your explanation directly to your group’s topic.
– For example, if your issue is rural internet access, healthcare shortages, women’s safety, poverty, or deforestation, explain specifically how the proposed alternative might fail in that context.
8. Use the logic modeled in class.
– Follow the same kind of reasoning the class used when discussing the example of banning coal and gasoline in Bishkek.
– In that example, the class recognized that a policy might be effective in one narrow sense, but still fail because of cost, equity problems, or political infeasibility.
– Apply that same logic to your partner’s alternative.
9. Prepare your explanation in written form.
– Write down your explanation before class so that you are ready to present or discuss it immediately.
– Your response should be clear enough that you can use it at the start of the next class discussion.
10. Make sure your explanation answers this question directly:
– Why will this alternative fail?
– Your answer should be ready to share at the beginning of the next class, since the instructor said class will start with your explanation of why your partner’s alternative will fail before moving into operationalization.
11. Bring your completed explanation to class.
– Have it ready before the next class meeting so you can participate right away.