The four most used criteria used for policy evaluation are:
Effectiveness: Does the policy target its objective specifically? Does the policy have a large scope of influence?
Importance / Necessity
Is the policy a must for the objective that it cannot be solved without?
Side-effect
Is the side-effect so serious that it makes that policy not worthwhile?
Feasibility
Does the policy take require many support resources?
Is the policy a fair policy? E.g. Does it cost the low-income more than the rich?
Does the policy have the support of the public?
Is the policy morally or ethically acceptable?
(Others: Urgency / priority)
Effectiveness:
(+) The levy is levied on domestic or commercial users and is based on quantity, so that it can target the source of waste and is in line with the "polluter pays" principle.
(-) 40% of domestic waste is food waste, so the amount of waste that can be reduced is limited
Importance / Necessity:
(+) MSW accounts for 66% of all waste in Hong Kong. This is an important part of the waste management framework and is a long term solution.
Side-effect:
(+) Waste separation and recycling are encouraged
(-) Illegal fly-tipping
Feasibility:
(+) The levy of $40 per month is a deterrent and at a reasonable level
(-) Increase the burden on low-income households
Effectiveness
Highly effective as it is targeted at the host carrying the H7N9 virus so that the chance of human getting in touch with the virus is minimized.
Necessity / importance
H7N9 is contagious, lethal, with the possibility to transmit from human-to-human.
Feasibility
Killing 20,000 chickens at a centralized market under the power of government is something that can be managed.
Urgency
Culling cannot wait as the fatality rate has been 75% this year. H.K. is more crowded than anywhere else in China.
Effectiveness:
(-) (Moral obligation) The elderly require spiritual care rather than material provision from their children. However, the law cannot deal with this.
(-) Filial piety is better promoted by education and propaganda not imposing mandatory ethical behaviour.
Importance / Necessity:
(+) The law safeguards elderly people’s material life.
(+) (Moral obligation) This law ensures that the children fulfil their filial duty to care for their parents.
(+) The law reduces the government's financial pressure on providing elderly care.
(+) The law sets the bottom line for morality
(-) (Moral obligation) Enforcing a filial act by law goes against the nature that filial piety has to start from the heart.
(-) Social changes mean it is now the society that takes care of the elderly people, not the children.
Side-effect:
(-) Those children who are financially limited may be forced to violate the law.
Feasibility:
(-) The amount enough for elderly care is hard to define, which makes the law difficult to enforce.
(-) A low birthrate per family means that the financial burden on each child is high, which makes it hard for some young people to observe the law.
(-) The elderly parents will not report their only children.
Urgency:
There is an urgency for legislation due to rapid ageing.