differently. However, this option will not be able to accomplish the goals stated above.
Political Feasibility -
is defined, as weather a proposed policy alternative will be acceptable byrelevant actors such as legislators, governor, and special interest groups. A Low value meansthat there is a high likelihood of meeting resistance from political actors.2.
– is defined as weather the agency responsible has the capacity toimplement the proposed policy in terms of competent staff, necessary skills, and funds toimplement the policy. A High value implies the responsible agency has the necessarycompetency to implement the policy.3.
Cost – Effectiveness
measures weather the input (funding, human resources, and time) to agiving option will be able to produce greater output. A High value indicates that output exceedsthe input.4.
– is defined as whether the desired outcome will enable Colorado to meaningfullyaffect U.S. International Trade Policy in favor of Colorado. A High value indicates that the proposed alternative will achieve its desired outcome. (good)5.
is defined here as the benefits to Colorado versus other actors (federal government,other states, etc.). A High value indicates that the State of Colorado will be the most to benefit.Maintaining the status quo has two low ratings in the Beneficiary and Effectiveness category. This isthe worst alternative compared with the other available options. However, the
status quo option
highon administrative feasibility
because nothing further needs to be done
On Cost-Effectiveness it scoredmedium to high because no additional expenditure of personnel, time, or money is required.The policy option HB07-1015 scored high on four of the five criteria and medium on effectiveness.The high ratings giving to HB07-1015 are in the categories of cost-effectiveness, political feasibility andadministrative feasibility. It scored high on Beneficiary and medium on the Effectiveness criteria. Thehigh rankings being received by HB07-1015 option is recommended because being aware of updatedtrade policies does translate to increased exports for Colorado.The Abroad ITO Offices in foreign markets received a high rating in the beneficiary category only because Colorado will be taking a more direct approach to benefit from international trade. However, itreceived low to medium on effectiveness because ITO will target a predefined geographic area. It didreceive low to medium in political feasibility, and low on the administrative feasibility criterion. Thiscan be attributed to some legislators being opposed to spending Colorado’s money in foreign markets.Current employees at ITO could be reluctant to moving abroad. The ITO Abroad option is therefore nota recommended solution.Contracting out with a firm to help Colorado increase its exports is low on the political feasibility because resistance from responsible agency administrators and from sponsors of ITO in the StateAssembly will be great. The beneficiary criterion is medium because the chance of Colorado expandingits exports will be low. On effectiveness, it is medium because the firms motive at the end of the daywill be getting paid regardless of weather their work increases Colorado’s exports or not.
Passing the proposed HB 07-1015 is the recommended policy option to address the low share of exports compared with the rest of the country. This decision was reached with the aide of five criteriasuch as cost-effectiveness, beneficiary, political feasibility, administrative feasibility, and effectiveness.