The case focuses on the efforts of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to safeguard the US against terrorist attacks while securing the environment. This agency has developed a number of initiatives that are aimed at enabling it to execute its mandate. The initiatives have had mixed impacts. While they make the nation safer and support environmental conservation efforts, these initiatives present negative impacts for the business community. These initiatives represents government regulation and the impact that it has on the nation. As one reviews the impacts of government regulation, they are forced to pick a side. One can either choose to support the initiatives because they serve public interests or oppose the initiatives given the negative impact that they have on private industry. To determine the side to support, one simply has to examine the overall impacts of government regulation. They should compare the effects of regulation on private industry to its effects on public welfare. If the positive impacts on public wellbeing outweigh the damage that regulation does to private industry, one should support the regulations. On the other hand, one should oppose regulation if it is determined that the negative effects are greater than the positive impacts. This is the essence of utilitarian ethics.
The case presents two perspectives regarding the impacts of government regulation. In the first scenario, focus is given to the efforts of DHS to prevent terrorist attacks. Through the Transportation Security Administration, the DHS has taken a number of steps to ensure that no terrorist attacks take place in the country. One of the measures that TSA has adopted involves screening passengers and their luggage at the airport. This measure has attracted both criticism and praise. Proponents of the measure opine that it promises to make air travel safer. On the other hand, those opposed to the airport screenings argue that this measure is responsible for delays. They add that as a result of the screenings, airlines have seen the costs that they incur register significant increases. Essentially, the proponents and opponents of the TSA measures are divided on the impacts that the airport screenings have. The arguments that both sides raise are valid and reasonable.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The second scenario focuses on the measures that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) introduced in an effort to insulate the environment against damage. This measure has also inspired praise and criticism. Critics point to the increase in the cost of engines and maintenance to support their opposition to the EPA measure. These critics add that the EPA policy has forced companies to charge their customers higher prices. The EPA policy enjoys the support of many. Proponents of this policy argue that it has resulted in the development of cleaner engines which lower the carbon footprint, thereby saving the environment.
The scrutiny of containers entering US ports from foreign countries is the focus of the third scenario. As part of efforts to make the country safer, the US government announced a new policy that would see all containers subjected to searches. The aim of the policy is to prevent the entry of materials that could be used to carry out attacks. This policy has proven controversial. Those in support of the policy hold that when it is enforced, it will lower the risk of terrorist attacks. The opponents of the policy also raise valid arguments. They contend that the policy will compound congestion at American ports and hamper the flow of goods. They add that this policy will cause shippers and carriers to incur higher costs.
Ensuring that Americans are safe is one of the main mandates of the government. However, as the discussion above has revealed, government intervention negatively impacts private industry. For example, as a result of government regulation, businesses have witnessed an increase in costs and difficulty in carrying out their operations. The negative impacts of government regulation highlight the need of private industry to join the government in guaranteeing security and protecting the environment. For government regulation and intervention to be effective, it must enjoy the support of such key actors as the private industry. Through collaboration with the private industry, the government will be able to ensure that its intervention is successful.
The discussion above has recommended that the government and private industry need to consolidate their efforts to ensure security and environmental conservation. One of the key benefits of public-private partnerships is that they allow the parties to exploit each other’s competencies while leveraging each other’s resources (Porket, 2003). When it partners with the private industry, the government will be able to exploit the unique strengths and competencies that industry players possess. For instance, private companies understand the situation on the ground. The government can exploit this understanding to enhance security. On the other hand, the private industry can benefit from government machinery to promote security.
One of the pitfalls of government intervention is non-compliance. There are a number of instances when the US government failed to convince private industry to fully comply with its policies and regulations. For example, the US government sought to tackle alcoholism through prohibition. Instead of enabling the government to achieve its goal, prohibition simply led to the creation of black markets where alcoholic products were traded freely (Porket, 2003). The example of prohibition indicates that without seeking the support of the private industry, government intervention may be counter-productive. Therefore, the government needs to seek the help of the private industry when developing policies aimed at ensuring security and conserving the environment.
Reference
Porket, J. L. (2003). The Pros and Cons of Government Regulation. Retrieved 18 th January 2018 from https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/upldbook341pdf.pdf
