Example collocations logo

Policy in sentence

15322 examples of Policy in a sentence

Bill Clinton, elected in 1992 against George Bush (whom Clinton accused of being solely interested in foreign policy) is tending more and more to become personally involved in foreign affairs, a habit of all second term US presidents, with one eye cast on the history books.
It is the result of bad economic policy and even worse social policy, which waste the country’s most valuable resource – its human talent – and cause immense suffering for affected individuals and their families.
To be sure, though America’s policy toward Cuba has been one of the Cold War’s last vestiges, Obama’s move will not be a game changer in America’s competition with China and Russia to shape the new world order.
Vertical industrial policy, horizontal industrial policy, investment in education – all have been tried in the last ten years.
But here, too, policy blunders could torpedo hopes for improvement.
Massive migration to urban areas, high unemployment, low incomes, poor housing and sanitation, inadequate infrastructure, and social deprivation are shared symptoms of economic hubs where population growth has not been reconciled with cohesive approaches to public-health policy.
As an organ of the EU, the EIB should be pursuing an ethical investment policy.
Such a policy would stop trade between Iran and the EU in its tracks, and Ahmadinejad knows it.
While some positive steps have lately been taken, the Trump administration, with its incoherent policy approach, may yet squander this opportunity.
Let’s suspend our disbelief, then, and try to imagine what Europe could and should be doing to tackle some of the most far-reaching and obstinate policy challenges that will determine whether the next 50 years are as constructive as the last.
These points are far from a blanket criticism of the EU’s efforts to create a common foreign and security policy.
But they are intended to underline what many people in Europe know very well, which is that the speed with which problems concerning international development and conflict are growing easily outpaces the EU’s policy responses so far.
Europe also must at last grasp the nettle of immigration policy – something that has persistently eluded generations of political leaders.
The best structural-adjustment programs are those in which the debtor country’s government proposes the policy changes, and the IMF helps design a bespoke program and provides the political cover for its implementation.
Recently, opponents of structural reform have put forward more exotic objections – most notably the problem caused by deflation when policy interest rates are at zero.
But a similar critique could be made of any other change in policy: if it is poorly designed, it will be counter-productive.
If the core problem is inadequate global demand, only monetary or fiscal policy can solve it.
But central bankers are right to stress the limits of what monetary policy alone can achieve.
This means that nominal demand will rise only if governments deploy fiscal policy to reduce taxes or increase public expenditure – thereby, in Milton Friedman’s phrase, putting new demand directly “into the income stream.”
But if our problem is inadequate nominal demand, there is one policy that will always work.
Somewhere in the middle there is an optimal policy – a common-sense proposition that is often missing from the debate.
But, judging from experience in North Africa, where education improved greatly under the old regimes, but failed to boost growth performance and create job opportunities for educated youth, the validity of such an approach as a fundamental model for development policy is dubious.
The key is to have the right policy framework in place to facilitate private-sector alignment with the country’s comparative advantages, and to benefit from latecomer advantages in the process of structural change.
Indeed, John Taylor of Stanford University attributes the recent financial crisis to excessively stimulatory monetary policy towards the end of Alan Greenspan’s tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve.
Why is US policy so accommodating?
In theory, this is what democracy is all about – policy responding to the needs of the people.
In practice, though, public pressure to do something quickly enables politicians to run roughshod over the usual checks and balances on government policy making.
If the Fed were to accept the responsibilities of its de facto role as the world’s central banker, it would have to admit that its policy rates are not conducive to stable world growth.
Policy would still be accommodative if the Fed maintained low interest rates rather than the zero level that was appropriate for a panic.
Emerging studies on the risk-taking and asset-price inflation engendered by ultra-low policy rates will eventually convince Fed policymakers to change their stance.
BackNext