Mismanaging fees

In an ideal world, policies should succeed based exclusively upon their merits, which would be plain to see and as widely beneficial as possible. Most often, however, policy outcomes are uncertain and impose different costs and benefits upon the various parts of society. The resulting calculations and therefore the policy justification are, at the same time, more complicated and more critical.
A new policy, likely to affect a lot of people in significant ways, needs to be clearly defensible – for example, in terms of a valid social cost-benefit assessment. So, departments and officials involved should strive for a broad awareness and acceptance of the changes. That is more likely if they are seen as legitimate, and government demonstrates an appropriate grasp of the various interests at stake.
Also, the authorities should put forward the arguments for change with due antecedence and comprehensively. Changes that are well understood are easier to accept and comply with by those affected, even if they harbour some reservations. Thus, the way policy is introduced is not a minor issue. The smooth implementation of a policy hinges at times more on that process than on the policy’s intrinsic worth.
That said, the recent fees increase for the removal of illegally parked cars – in itself a minor subject – seems an exercise on how not to do things. To start with, the arguments put forward could be stronger. The primary justification invoked was that these fees had not been raised for a long time. That’s a plausible argument but not a sufficiently compelling one. The main beneficiaries are the parking operators. The fairness of the specific price adjustment cannot be seen in separation from their concession’s overall package of duties and privileges. So, the argument is partial, incomplete.
While the legality of the changes has not been questioned, the way they were introduced, almost by stealth and as a fait accompli, nearly suggests that those in charge had qualms about their fairness and, ultimately, their legitimacy.
And then, we have the absence of proper promotion of public awareness – it was virtually non-existent. If any effort was made, at any moment, it was so discreet that it caught everyone by surprise. (Should we ready ourselves for more surprises?) That shows carelessness, at least.
Worse, it will breed the suspicion that the impact of policies on people is not a matter of concern for the public services.