Archives: Reg Murphy Pubs

We are living in an unprecedented moment in our history: COVID-19, racial tensions and a push for restructuring an anti-racist society, social isolation and distancing, economic gaps and inequities. Well, if not unprecedented, at the very least we are seeing a stunning confluence of events and tensions in our political, societal, and economic systems that leaves us thinking about really big questions.

Academics would call many of these issues wicked problems – social or cultural problems that are difficult or impossible to solve because we either have: 1) incomplete or contradictory knowledge, 2) too many conflicting people or opinions involved, 3) a large economic burden, or 4) highly interconnected problems. My colleague Don Mathews touched on this in the June 17^th, 2020 column in his discussion of race and poverty from an economic perspective. Race and poverty are linked to other issues like access to education, nutrition, healthcare access, and so on. There is no definitive formula for figuring out these questions and the solutions are centered on improvement rather than an end state.

The good news is that history and research can provide guidance to reach a state of improvement. I recently read a study by Jason Coburn et al. (Health in All Urban Policy: City Services through the Prism of Health, 2014) that examined inequality factors and health; another wicked problem. It sought to explain some of the determinants of health and social equity. It also highlighted a policy strategy called “Health in All Policies (HiAP)” that ensures that policy making outside the health sector addresses the determinants of health and social equity. There is an explicit focus on equity and participation by government, experts, and communities.

The Coburn article made me think about the COVID-19 pandemic and the disproportionate impact on people of color. The same determinants explained in the article and by the World Health Organization – economic policies and systems, development agendas, social norms, social policies and political systems – are creating conditions that lead to disproportionately higher death rates in people of color due to COVID-19.

Pre-pandemic realities that limit access to health and wealth for people of color are also leading to higher death rates during the pandemic. For instance, higher rates of underlying conditions (related to less access to quality healthcare), lower access to transportation, and disproportionate representation in occupations that are now frontline jobs, have all led to this unequal share of deaths due to the pandemic.

This wicked problem is a systemic issue. As a result, solutions have to be tailored to address the system. For example, because predominantly African American communities in New Orleans had lower access to personal transportation, Louisiana changed their testing strategy from drive-through testing sites to targeted testing within these communities. This is but one of a set of structural issues related to the pandemic, but it illustrates ways that our public health organizations and states can improve outcomes for racial and socioeconomic groups that are being impacted in unimaginable ways by simply meeting basic needs.

When you can’t access food, private spaces to self-isolate, transportation, quality healthcare, or outdoor spaces away from others, your prospects for successful recovery from COVID-19 shrink significantly. As we grapple right now with ways to combat systemic racism, we should also be considering ways that the system can be changed to generate better outcomes for those communities that are most vulnerable during this ongoing pandemic. The HiAP strategy provides one such option by “integrat[ing] community knowledge and health equity considerations into the agendas of policymakers who have not previously considered health as their responsibility or view the value of such an approach” (Coburn et al. 2014). Tackling these wicked problems is going to require new thinking, but fortunately we have some tested strategies and ideas to guide us along the way.

Dr. Heather Farley is a professor of Public Management in the School of Business and Public Management at College of Coastal Georgia and Chair of the Department of Criminal Justice, Public Policy & Management. She is an associate of the College’s Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies. 

This column has been full of COVID-19 analysis over the last couple of months. As academics, it is sort of in our nature to want to analyze something from every possible angle, so forgive us this preoccupation. But, as I promised in an earlier column of mine, I wanted to start thinking about this year’s Presidential election and the electoral politics surrounding it – some perspectives on the history, data, and political machinations taking place.

Presently, we are facing a very uncertain autumn and an unusual election season. Many people are turning to previous pandemics for guidance or lessons learned. While the details of those pandemics, like any historical event, have gotten a bit muddled, ultimately, they can offer some insights as to how we might approach our own lives right now. This week, I want to look at the 1918 midterm elections and how the United States pulled it off in the midst of one of the deadliest pandemics in history.

The first relatively mild wave of the flu swept in during the spring of 1918 followed by a second stronger wave that emerged in September. In the month of October, 195,000 Americans perished from the flu. But, what was going on other than the pandemic at the time? Politically, Woodrow Wilson was in an unenviable position. He and his fellow Democrats were attempting to keep control of Congress in the thick of World War I. In at least eight states, alcohol prohibition was on the ballot and suffragists were trying to build on the momentum of the first twelve states they had won to date. The stakes were high not only for national candidates, but also for state politics. So, how do you implement the Constitutional duty of holding elections during such rough waters for the nation?

Just like the 2020 election season, campaigning had to be planned with strict social distancing and quarantine rules in place. This meant there could be no rallies and campaigning had to take place via alternative communication methods like newspapers and campaign literature. Today, of course, we have widespread television and internet media, which offers rapid distribution of information and tremendous opportunity for both diverse opinions and the spread of misinformation. While plenty of conspiracy theories have popped up during COVID-19, even then some candidates suggested that public health officials were conspiring to limit election turnout calling it a “Republican quarantine against Democratic campaign speeches” (see New York Times Oct. 22, 1918).

Voting, of course, is another issue. Under the purview of local and state governments, the 1918 midterms looked quite different depending on where you lived in the US. Voting ranged from closed polls to strict social distancing guidelines to mandatory mask-wearing. There was no discussion of postponing the election. The result of these measures was a significant drop in voter turnout. One analyst in the Election Law Journal suggested that when controlling for loss of potential voters due to WWI deaths, the flu accounted for a 10% drop in voting with approximately 40% total voter turnout. Six days after the election, the armistice ended WWI, people took to the streets to celebrate, and a new surge if flu cases was reported across the country.

A democracy is only as strong as its participation. That is the definition of democracy: by the people. The job of our state election boards, therefore, will be to ensure that turnout does not suffer in the same way it did during the 1918 pandemic.

One way to allow people to stay home and still vote is mail-in ballots. Interestingly, while I was doing research for this article, I came across no evidence of mail-in voting in 1918. It seems this practice did not emerge until the 1980s. This is currently a political hot-topic, so I wanted to address it here. Statistically, voter fraud in the case of mail-in ballots is quite low and participation is high. I know you’ve heard otherwise, but the data simply do not support the idea that mail-in ballots will lead to rampant voter fraud. There are five states that currently do all mail-in voting and there is no evidence in these states of statistically significant fraud. This is likely due to their best practices: voter signature, signature matching, laws limiting ballot harvesting, and ballot tracking via bar code. Additionally, a 1996-2018 study by Stanford’s Institute for Economic Policy Research found that the partisan effect (ie. does mail-in voting help one party or another) was neutral but that overall average turnout rate increased modestly.

If COVID 19 threatens a possible 10% drop in turnout as it did during the 1918 pandemic, I would argue that even a modest increase in participation would be worth pursuing. Mail-in voting is one option, but election officials will have to consider a range of options to ensure the process is open and accessible to all eligible voters while maintaining public health and safety.

Dr. Heather Farley is a professor of Public Management in the School of Business and Public Management at College of Coastal Georgia and Chair of the Department of Criminal Justice, Public Policy & Management. She is an associate of the College’s Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies.

In the formulation and implementation of policy, words matter. This is particularly true of environmental policy. How the government regulates environmental issues depends largely on how the components of the policy have been classified. Presently, this is playing out in the Georgia Legislature where House Bill 756 is being considered.

Introduced in mid-January, HB 756 attempts to reclassify coal ash – the solid byproduct of burning coal for electricity. Though coal ash contains heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, and mercury, it is not classified as hazardous waste by the EPA. There is no regulation requiring coal ash ponds to be lined in order to prevent contact with groundwater.

Compare this with regulations surrounding household trash. Trash from our homes must be disposed of in municipal solid waste landfills that are required to have not only liners, but also collection systems to avoid slurry contamination into water systems. Our household trash is more stringently handled, from an environmental protection perspective, than the heavy metals in coal ash.

Georgia is a top coal-ash generating state with 11 coal plants producing more than 6 million tons of ash annually. HB 756 came about in response to Georgia Power’s current coal ash pond closure wave. Twenty-nine ponds are in the process of closing in response to a 2015 Federal rule requiring ash ponds and landfills to be excavated or closed in place. Rather than excavating all of the unlined ponds and transferring them to lined ponds, present plans are in place to excavate 19 and close 10 in place. By putting coal ash in the same category as household garbage, the bill ensures that liners and collection systems will be required.

The coal ash case is an excellent demonstration of a core environmental and public health policy challenge: risk analysis. While it seems odd, at best, that we would control the storage and disposal of household trash more stringently that the heavy metals found in coal ash, a few innate characteristics of risk assessment make environmental policy development difficult.

Acceptable levels of pollution (and the associated risks to human health) are a cornerstone of the environmental policy-making process. In the policy arena, tradeoffs between different interests are constantly being weighed and debated, and human health happens to be one of those interests. Even carcinogenic exposure is not banned though no safe threshold of exposure can be determined. Thus, we tend to rely upon risk analysis to determine acceptability. Unfortunately, the result is that we focus our attention on “acceptable” levels of risk rather than alternatives to that risk.

Now, in the case of the existing coal ash ponds, it’s too late to find an alternative. The byproduct exists in ponds already and must be disposed of, heavy metals and all. However, it certainly raises the question as to whether the byproduct of burning coal, also called an externality of the process, is worth it. Is the increased cost to human and environmental health worth the benefit of the relatively cheap energy? I think your response to that question largely depends on how coal impacts you, whether directly or indirectly. If you are living next to Plant Scherer in Juliette, just north of Macon, that “acceptable” level of risk may be decidedly unacceptable.

Dr. Heather Farley is a professor of Public Management in the School of Business and Public Management at College of Coastal Georgia. She is an associate of the College’s Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies. 

We’ve made it, folks: 2020. And for this political science nerd, that means election season.

It’s going to be quite an election year which, for many, is an unbearable thought as images of mudslinging, endless campaign ads, and overwhelming robocalls fill their heads. As an academic, however, it means plenty of data to analyze.

Specifically, this week I want to look at national voter turnout from a comparative perspective as a sort of next step in a series of articles you’ve seen here. I’ve written before about the 2020 census and its importance vis a vis policy. Last week, my respected colleague wrote in this column about the perception that apathy and cynicism are endangering American Democracy. His conclusion was that our democracy can handle the levels of apathy, cynicism, and political polarization we are seeing today. We’ve fared worse, and come out on the other side.

This sparked my interest, however, in examining the measures of apathy among voters. How can we tell that apathy exists and to what degree? This is an important question if we want to understand where our democratic system stands.

The Pew Research Center conducted a survey to understand voter turnout in the U.S. during the 2018 midterm elections. Midterms occur two years into a Presidential term and determine Congressional seats. During the 2018 midterms, we saw higher voter turnout than we had in the last 20 years with 55% of eligible voters participating in the election. This can be considered a surge with voting going from 36.4% in the 2014 midterms to 55% in the 2018 midterms.

Now, to put it in perspective, in a Presidential election year we have had historical averages hovering around 60% of our voter population showing up to cast a vote. In midterms, like the one described above, the number drops to about 40%. In a local election that is not tied to a bigger national election, this number will on average be around 20%. This jump in participation, therefore, is pretty significant and certainly does not indicate apathy among voters but rather indicates a surge in interest. The districts where there were highly contested races drove this jump in numbers.

Comparing these numbers internationally tells a somewhat different story of participation. Compared to other developed countries, even this surge in numbers ranks us on the low end of things. Countries like Spain (61%), Canada (62.1%), the UK (63.2%), New Zealand (75.7%), and Sweden (82.6%) far outpace us when it comes to voters showing up to the polls.

What does this indicate about the 2020 election, voter apathy, and turnout? What will matter is how contentious races impact turnout. As dissatisfaction rises, apathy decreases. And though we are lagging compared to other democratic systems in developed nations, it appears that apathy is not a problem when people are fired-up enough to participate.

So, whether you are fired-up to keep our incumbent President and members of Congress in office, or fired-up to make a change, I hope you will. Then we can all summarily put the apathy debate to rest.

Pew Research studies:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/24/voter-turnout-always-drops-off-for-midterm-elections-but-why/

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/03/turnout-in-this-years-u-s-house-primaries-rose-sharply-especially-on-the-democratic-side/

Dr. Heather Farley is a professor of Public Management in the School of Business and Public Management at College of Coastal Georgia. She is an associate of the College’s Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies. 

This is Thanksgiving week. A time when we traditionally gather, catch up with one another, interact and connect; sometimes willingly and sometimes less so depending on your family dynamics. This time also represents the calm before the inevitable Presidential election storm that looms ahead in 2020. And so, it felt timely to look at where we stand as a state in terms of our civic health – “the degree to which citizens participate in their communities, from local and state governance to interactions with friends or family” (2019 Georgia Civic Health Index).

The Georgia Family Connection Partnership, the Georgia Municipal Association, and the National Conference on Citizenship released the second Georgia Civic Health Index following the first report produced in 2013. The report seeks to compare our state with the rest of nation on indicators of civic health – namely social connectedness, community involvement, and political action. Spoiler alert: we aren’t thriving as a civic body.

In general, our state lags in many areas of civic health compared to national averages. Compared to all 50 states and the District of Columbia, Georgia ranks 49^th in both “group participation” and “contacted/visited a public official.” We are 50^th in “frequently hear from or spend time with family or friends” and “frequently talk with or spend time with neighbors.”

I found this shocking. I grew up in Marietta Georgia and have lived in the Golden Isles for the last eight years. In the south, and in Georgia specifically, we pride ourselves on southern hospitality. We view ourselves as very socially engaged, polite, and connected. As it turns out, we are much more isolated from one another than we might expect.

As with any data, the story changes when we break down these numbers. For instance, when looking at frequency of contact with family and friends, just 77.3% of males reported spending time frequently with family and friends compared to 84.5% of females. When comparing rural and urban communities, 85.3% of rural Georgians were frequently connected versus 76.1% in urban areas. This may be because we tend to have less geographic mobility in rural areas, which often means we live in closer proximity to family and friends. This rural/urban divide is confirmed when looking at the county level where frequency is higher in rural areas.

The report also shows that Georgia declined in several areas as well compared to the 2013 data. Voting in local elections dropped from 29th to 40th; volunteering dropped from 34th to 44th; contacting a public official dropped from 34th to 49th; group membership or participation dropped from 28th to 49th; and donating to charitable or religious organizations dropped from 40th to 47th.

But why does it matter? How does civic health correlate with other indicators of societal strength? It turns out there are correlations between civic health and improved public health, stronger workforce development, employment, improved child-hood development and adolescent well-being, improved mental health, lower violent crime rates and delinquency, and reduced mortality. Wow. Now, to be clear, correlation is not causation. These variables are not caused by strong civic health. Rather, there are links between all of these factors. So, presumably one strengthens the other.

My hope for you this Thanksgiving is that you attempt to personally build on your own civic health. Spend this holiday connecting, sharing, and even civilly discussing politics (gasp). As a nation we have become so polarized that talk of government and politics is taboo, even dangerous. But maybe, no matter your family dynamic nor your political ideology, we can remind ourselves as we enter this season that we are all Americans, all Georgians, and ultimately, we all care about the health and well-being of our community and neighbors. Call me an idealist, but I think this could go a long way in bolstering what appears to be a pretty anemic civic health score.

2019 Georgia Civic Health Index:

https://www.ncoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/2019-Georgia-Civic-Health-Index.pdf

Dr. Heather Farley is a professor of Public Management in the School of Business and Public Management at College of Coastal Georgia. She is an associate of the College’s Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies. 

Last week, I attended the Green Scene of Coastal Georgia’s monthly Eco-Lecture featuring OCEARCH Founder and Expedition Leader, Chris Fischer. Beyond being an extraordinarily passionate and inspiring speaker, Fischer has a special gift of seeing the “big picture,” creating solutions around that picture, and communicating that picture in an accessible way to others. The picture he was laying out for his packed audience last Wednesday was that of the environmental policy paradox.

Coined by Zachary Smith in his book of the same title, the environmental policy paradox is the idea that “we often understand what the best short- and long-term solutions to environmental problems are, yet the task of implementing these solutions is either left undone or completed too late” (Smith 2018, xiv). In Fischer’s case, he saw that there was a disconnect between research and policy implementation exacerbated by unreasonably long timelines. Specifically, ocean abundance and health were declining and the solutions to addressing these myriad issues were taking far too long. Researchers were conducting individual expeditions to study marine life and coveting the data over long timeframes to remain competitive in the grant-writing process. They were falling prey to a system of “publish or perish” and not making the conversion from science to policy in an efficient way.

Fischer’s solution through OCEARCH was to create a business of research expeditions that include many researchers working on separate projects around a single species; typically, white sharks, but other large marine animals that significantly impact their ecosystem as well. By making previously unattainable data from large, top-of-the-food-chain species accessible, the OCEARCH team can work toward solving issues of ocean health and abundance. The process works like this: when the OCEARCH team detains an animal, they can quickly (in about 15 minutes) gather 12 or more samples from the animal, share much of these data in real time, and contribute data to 18 or so different research projects at once through both initial samples and tracking devices. In one 15-minute interaction, the team can gather information about a white shark’s reproductive condition, reproductive cycle, genetic status, diet, gestation period, inorganic and organic contaminant loads, fecundity, parasite species presence, abundance, and infection sites. This drastically reduces the time and data deficit that has long existed for large marine animals in the field of research and directly addresses the environmental policy paradox for ocean ecology. To date, OCEARCH has completed 34 expeditions, worked with 174 researchers, 90 institutions, and contributed to 22 published papers.

OCEARCH’s approach completely transforms the research and policy process by making data collection and distribution collaborative, inclusive and open-sourced. What is most exciting to me as an environmental policy scholar, however, is the applicability of such a model within other ecosystems. The model essentially connects researchers working within the same species category or ecosystem, creates a more efficient data collection process, and then shares the data not only within the scientific community, but publicly. It gets the policy-makers and public involved in the natural world around them in real time. I can see how this model could be applied much more widely and could have transformative impacts on ecosystem health and sustainability.

https://www.ocearch.org/about/

Dr. Heather Farley is a professor of Public Management in the School of Business and Public Management at College of Coastal Georgia. She is an associate of the College’s Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies. 

I recently came across an article in a Savannah newspaper about an exotic lizard that seems to be thriving in south Georgia. The black and white Tegu lizard (Salvator merianae) is native to South America, but apparently makes a great pet for some North Americans who enjoy the reptile’s high intelligence, calm disposition, and apparent interest in humans. This large lizard grows up to about 4 feet in length, lives to about 20 years, and has a hearty appetite for things like fruits, vegetables, eggs (of all sorts), pet food, and small animals. Unfortunately, these pet owners do not always properly care for these animals and some have been released into south Georgia’s Toombs and Tattnall counties – just a few counties over from our own.

Why the big headline in the Savannah paper? Tegus stand to wreak havoc in south Georgia (as they have in Florida) as an invasive species. The Tegu reproduces quickly, lives a relatively long life, and has a diet that could pose a threat to native wildlife like gopher tortoises and ground-nesting birds (recall the Tegus’ penchant for eggs). While I am not a wildlife biologist, I do have a background in biology and my expertise is in environmental policy. So, here is one thing I can extract from this story; stemming the population of an invasive species is not only important from an environmental perspective, but from an economic one as well.

Georgia has no shortage of economic stories associated with invasive species. Perhaps the most famous example throughout Georgia is kudzu brought over from Asia. Kudzu has earned the nickname “the vine that ate the south” and controlling this alarmingly fast-spreading invasive species has been a labor intensive and economically costly task since at least the early 20^th century. The US Department of Agriculture estimates that it spreads at a rate of approximately 150,000 acres annually at a cost of $6 billion in herbicide controls each year. According to the Georgia Forestry Commission, other plant species like the Asian privet and Japanese climbing fern are causing similar challenges. Invasive species outcompete native species meaning there is less food up and down the food chain and the ecosystem can become compromised. In Georgia, our pine forests are a particularly important recreational and economic (industry) driver; when they are compromised, we see the effects on our biological and economic systems.

While the Department of Agriculture, the UGA Center for Invasive Species, the Georgia Forestry Commission, and the Department of Natural Resources are all working hard to monitor and control these species through action plans and management programs, they also rely on the public to help. In short, they need the public to educate themselves on species that are not native to Georgia and report areas where these species are spreading. While kudzu has a stronghold in the state that has led to a huge price tag, mitigating the spread of a species like the Tegu early on could help to avoid such costs entirely.

The mantra here is “if you see something, report it.” Here are some resources that can help:

From the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division:

Report tegu sightings in the wild to DNR. This helps biologists document occurrences and determine the best response. Note the location, take a photo and report the sighting:

• Online: www.gainvasives.org/tegus
• Phone: (478) 994-1438
• Email: gainvasives@dnr.ga.gov

Toombs and Tattnall County residents are advised to keep pet food inside, cover outdoor openings and clear their yards of debris that can provide cover for tegus.

Be a responsible pet owner: Georgians should do their research before buying an exotic pet, and don’t let it loose.

University of Georgia Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health: https://www.bugwood.org/

Georgia Invasive Species Task Force: https://www.gainvasives.org/tegus/

Dr. Heather Farley is a professor of Public Management in the School of Business and Public Management at College of Coastal Georgia. She is an associate of the College’s Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies. 

The recent attention to the fires in the Amazon rainforest has given way to discussion, namely on social media, about the extent of the problem and what can be done about it.

Data from Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research show that fire incidents in the Amazon are indeed 80% higher from 2018 to 2019, but in fact the number is just 7% higher than the average over the last 10 years. That is not to say that these fires are not troubling, detrimental, and newsworthy. Rather, I am attempting to frame this issue as an ongoing one rather than a sudden crisis. Increasing fires in the Amazon have not resulted from sudden impacts of climate change nor a singular political policy, but rather from a more systemic set of economic and political conditions.

Brazil is considered a developing nation. Though it is the largest economy in South or Central America, and the 9^th largest in the world, its low GDP per person, high inequality rates, low standards of living, and high infant mortality rates keep it from being considered developed. As such, economic growth is a central concern of both citizens and the government. In the last 50 years, much of this growth has been seen in the area of agribusiness. Through pro-development government policies – subsidies, government provided equipment, lax enforcement of laws – plenty of incentives have spurred production in the cattle, citrus, and soybean industries in Brazil.

In fact, Brazil is the world’s leading exporter of soybeans and the world’s top cattle and veal producer according to the USDA. 60% of the Amazon rainforest is within Brazil and this is where a great deal of deforestation and fire-setting in exchange for economic growth (i.e. agribusiness) is taking place. What is happening in the Amazon is a perfect example of the Tragedy of the Commons.

In 1968, philosopher Garrett Hardin wrote a piece called “The Tragedy of the Commons” which described a game theory problem. When a natural resource is shared by many individuals, in this case the Amazon, and is unregulated, there is an incentive on the part of individuals to exploit that resource for their own benefit. The result, in Hardin’s view, is a spoiled, exploited resource.

Essentially, this is what we are seeing in the Amazon. This common resource is being exploited for the economic benefit of farmers – who, by the way can’t be blamed for wanting to find an economically feasible means of subsistence – at the expense of the resource. The government has laxed regulation around deforestation and has incentivized these farming practices and we are witnessing the results.

Hardin’s conclusion was that only top-down governmental solutions or free-market solutions could help alleviate this tragedy. Nobel prize winner, Elinor Ostrom, later demonstrated that a collapse of the commons is not a foregone conclusion if those sharing the resource work together to govern the commons. In other words, the tragedy is removed if a nested system involving the community, the government, and the market can be agreed upon.

It isn’t a neat and simple solution, but then the problem is complex and requires a complex solution. The farming community would need an alternative means of subsistence and economic viability, the government would have to follow through on regulations, and we as global consumers would have to remove the demand for the cattle products. It isn’t as easy as donating to Leonardo Dicaprio’s Earth Alliance, but it is what empirical evidence suggests might just work.

Dr. Heather Farley is a professor of Public Management in the School of Business and Public Management at College of Coastal Georgia. She is an associate of the College’s Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies.