"Effective governance" has many dimensions, but one way to define it is as follows: a good fit exists between the demands of the people and what their institutions deliver; decision makers understand their constituents' needs and respond responsibly to them; and representatives grasp the dimensions of pressing problems or unanticipated events and devise fair, responsible, and timely solutions that make economic sense. Is California "effectively" governed? Considering the definition provided here, devise a short list of criteria for evaluating what "effective governance" means, and construct an argument about how well California state government measures up.

What will be an ideal response?

Varies. Respondents should capture the idea that government representatives and institutions are both responsive and responsible and devise a set of criteria for evaluating whether those are in evidence today. Individuals often measure government's effectiveness by how well their own values are reflected in official decisions or policies (for example, a pro-business citizen might believe that government is "ineffective" when it passes laws that make it harder for businesses to operate), but this question asks respondents to consider whether state government is hitting or missing the marks on several operational measures, rather than fulfilling certain policy preferences or values. On the "plus" side, California lawmakers and the governor been able to balance the budget and pass it on time for several years running, and it has been paying down some of its long-term debts and creating a "rainy day" fund to provide funds in case of emergency. However, others would argue that state government is ineffective at planning for long-term obligations (such as liabilities in the form of pensions owed to state employees or infrastructure expansion or repairs, as evidenced by the Oroville Dam failure) or extended events such as drought or heavy winter rains (as in 2017). In terms of responsiveness, some might argue that the state pays too much attention to some "special interests" than others, disfavoring some at the expense of others (these claims would need to be evaluated on the merits). Effectiveness might also be evaluated in terms of the scope of issues government covers or ignores: effective governance means remedying injustices through addressing problems, taking care of issues that negatively affect the rights and well-being of people, especially the powerless, and addressing those problems that could lead to multiple problems in the future. Thus, respondents could weigh what problems officials have addressed and what issues remain, and there are pluses and minuses that can be found in a long list of issues (see Chapter 11). These could include education (achievement gaps, higher education tuition costs); immigration (balancing benefits for "stateless" or undocumented populations with those of citizens; providing "sanctuary" for those who lack documentation; providing assistance to undocumented persons to avoid deportation); erratic weather or climate change, especially as seen in recent, devastating wildfires; emergency response to unforeseen events (such as earthquakes); justice, imprisonment, and rehabilitation systems; unemployment and business-climate; infrastructure. Note there is no "correct" answer; there are only better argued responses.
Difficulty Level: Hard