Responses to the Study Guide Questions for

Session A-6, Slide #10

Question 1

Does the ROCCIPI agenda, broadly construed, seem to suggest all the possible explanations for the problematic behaviors of the primary role occupants whom you have identified? Can you think of other kinds of explanations that do not fit into any of these categories?

Marlyn: The ROCCIPI agenda offers the following to explain the problematic behaviours of the primary role of the occupants i.e.

I think the ROCCIPI Agenda offers a starting point for establishing possible causes of primary role occupants problematic .behaviours.  It is therefore not an exhaustive listing of possible causes.  There are other causes of problematic behaviours, which would relate to non-legal constraints such as social, cultural, moral and religious and political factors.

I wish to say that the inclusion of these subjective categories into the ROCCIPI  agenda require greater or more in-depth treatment in respect of each cause.  I am of the view that these subjective categories together with those of “Interest” and “Ideology” are having a greater impact on how role occupants behave in the face of rule of law then the more objective category, even while I recognize that the law can only adequately deal with changing institutionalized behaviours that cause the problem i.e. transforming institutions and that legislative measures aimed at subjective causes of problematic behaviours cannot change the objective institutional factors that encourages these problematic behaviour but are not institutions themselves comprising of actors who have their own subjective preferences in respect of the subjective categories, that can influence the way they operate in the face of the law, which as officials (actors) of the implementing agencies.

I think I would wish to explore these other factors through discussion on the Bulletin Board at a later date as time will not allow their exploration now.

Christopher: My policy on absolutist language is absolute!  I never say “all possible.” So far, the behaviors I have identified arise from the exercise of discretion by those administering the Medicare benefits, specifically the Center for Medicare Services (CMS) and local carriers.  These would seem to fall under Rule and Process.  Under the Rule category, the intransitive structure of the existing law enables the undesired behavior.  Process is involved because the institutionalized proceedings and criteria created by CMS and the local carriers operationalizes the undesired behavior.

Rob: Mono-causal explanations for problematic behaviors are either too narrow in scope to fully explain behaviors, or too broad in scope to provide sufficient specificity to design a practical legislative solution. The seven categories of the ROCCIPI agenda, broadly construed, purport to include all factors that may influence behavior in the face of law. There are two subjective factors (interest and ideology) and five objective factors. Each factor must be considered in relation to the facts available to the drafter to generate hypothesis about why the primary role occupants behave as they do.

Question 2

Why should it prove essential to use the ROCCIPI agenda to formulate separate sets of hypotheses for each separate set of primary role occupants?

Marlyn: It is important to use the ROCCIPI agenda to formulate a separate sec of hypotheses for each separate set of primary role occupancy because each set of role occupant problematic behaviour will be different in respect of the response in the face of a rule of law.  And the drafter needs to clear, not only in respect to whose and what behaviours but he needs to be aware that the proposal measure will impact a particular act of role occupant difficulty as they might respond differently.  No single prescription will fit all and this will also depend on the assigned roles/functions the particular ser is expected to perform to change the behaviour thereby bringing about the solution to the problem.

Christopher: ROCCIPI serves as a useful check list, which helps prevent overlooking one of the categories which may help to classify the primary role occupants’ behaviors, and facilitate hypothesis testing. An effective law will clearly define not only the behaviors which must be changed, but clearly identify the primary role occupants responsible for the behaviors.  By matching specific primary role occupants with specific behaviors, the drafter may craft language that is clear and unambiguous in determining the “who” and “what” of behavioral change.

Rob: Depending on the social problem and the environment in which the problem is situated there may be one set of primary role occupants or more than one set.  When there is more than one set of primary role occupants it is essential to use the ROCCIPI agenda to formulate explanatory hypotheses for each set. In order to change or eliminate the factors which cause role occupants to act as they do all behaviors must be explained and addressed.

Question 3

What significance do you attach to the fact that the hypotheses you formulate for a set of role occupants appear closely interrelated, and often interact?

Marlyn: There are many explanatory causes of a particular difficulty, which may be interrelated.  This interrelatedness of these interrelationships could allow for the formulation of hypotheses, which are also interrelated.  It is therefore reasonable to expect that these causal relationships of a particular difficulty will proffer hypotheses, which will together on the finding of the facts offer the appropriate explanation of the difficulty to the full extent as is possible.

In any of these context as outlined it is clear to seek that in elucidating the social problem in step 1 , the drafter will, if he has a thorough understanding of the problem, will present through his  presentation of preliminary explanations of the difficulty so that the reader would know exactly at the outset the  area (specific difficulty) of the problem the proposed legislative solution will address.  It allows the drafter also to be focused, in his presentation of the relevant information throughout the body of the research report and in guiding his research and analysis for presentation in that report.  Later in Step II, the drafter will present the more detailed explanation of the difficulty in a more focused and articulated manner, which will be informed by the relevant research and analysis.

Christopher: The significance of the fact that hypotheses formulated for one set of role occupants appear closely related and often interact suggests that problematic behaviors:

            a)  May be the result of the actions of more than one primary role occupant, and

           b)  May be the result of several actions working in concert to cause the problematic behavior.

Rob: Problematic behaviors seldom have a single cause. Usually behavior is a response to many interacting causal factors. It is for this reason that the explanatory hypotheses that are generated by the ROCCIPI categories often seem to overlap and interact. Using the example from China of the problem of small farmers’ low productivity (Box 5.5 at page 130 of the Manual) we see that the Agricultural Extension Agents may not have the capacity to assist small farmers because they do not have appropriate training and knowledge of small farm production methods. However this is not the only explanation. If the Agricultural Agency has not informed its Agents about the importance of increasing small farm productivity, Agents will not develop the expertise to help small farmers. This indicates a problem with communication between the Agency and its Agents. Moreover, if there are no clear criteria and procedures for working with small farmers (a lack of process), Agents will remain untrained and uninformed. They will not develop the capacity to assist small farmers.

Question 4

Did you have difficulty finding evidence to falsify your own explanatory hypotheses? What kinds of evidence seem most useful? If you had more time, what steps might you take to gather further relevant evidence?

Marlyn: I do not have difficulty finding evidence to falsify my hypotheses.

Christopher: Yes.  Some of the information needed to falsify an hypothesis is speculative.  For example, do the primary role occupants, CMS and the local carriers, know the intent of the legislators?  Have they ‘read into” the law provisions that do not exist in the statutory language, and were not envisioned by the legislators?  Are they aware of the literature which suggest that preventive services would save money in the long run?  Are they under pressure from the Executive branch of the government to produce short-term cost savings at the expense of incurring greater costs in the future?

Further research could be undertaken in an attempt to determine the causes of the problematic behavior. However, from a practical standpoint, if the legislation removes the discretion which has produced the problematic behavior, the reasons for the individuals behaving as they did become moot.  Their job is to administer the law as it is written, and greater detail and specificity “gets them off the hook” in regards to internal and external pressures that may have been operative when they were required to exercise discretion.

Rob: Participants’ comments on the availability of evidence to falsify explanatory hypotheses.