Since the 1960s, policy professionals have used policy analysis criteria to analyze proposed public policies. Those criteria have evolved over time and there is still not a universally agreed list. Kraft and Furlong provide a fairly typical list of the following eight criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, equity, liberty/freedom, political feasibility, social acceptability, administrative feasibility, and technical feasibility.
It has become increasingly apparent that these criteria, while helpful, are not sufficient to protect us from bad policies. In particular, there is no consensus on which criteria should be used or the weights that should be assigned to them. Therefore, as long as a proposal satisfies at least one criterion, someone can use that criterion to justify its adoption. And even where the policy community agrees that a proposal lacks merit, it can be difficult for them to oppose it effectively.
As an example, consider the 2025 law commonly referred to as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The nonpartisan policy community opposed that law almost without exception. But their message was fragmented, which made it difficult to generate sufficient opposition to defeat the law. And they often seemed hypocritical, as they criticized the law for reasons that also applied to past laws. For example, many analysts criticized the law for increasing budget deficits. But the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act had similar effects and was generally praised by the policy community. Similarly, many analysts criticized the One Big Beautiful Bill Act for lacking public support. But the Affordable Care Act was similarly unpopular and received far less criticism in that regard.
The criteria are still necessary for conversations among professional policy analysts. Among people who are willing to objectively discuss which criteria should apply, how those criteria should be weighed, and how those criteria should be applied to a particular policy proposal, the criteria are important tools. However, for broader conversations with politicians, the media, and the general public, the criteria are often unhelpful. In those situations, a simpler, clearer set of policy principles would be more useful.
We will propose a set of policy principles for proposed public policies. Unlike the criteria, these principles should be universal and mandatory; every policy proposal must satisfy every principle. Any proposal that does not satisfy any principle should be rejected for that failure.