ANALYSIS OF CALIFORNIA PLASTIC BAN POLICY 2

Analysis of California Plastic Ban Policy

California banned all single-user plastic bags in 2014. The ban was overwhelmingly
voted for in a referendum two years later. With the ban, California became the first state in the
US to have such a ban.
How the policy to ban plastic bags was formulated
The policy to ban plastic bags in California went through the normal processes that public
policies go through. Environmental groups had for long campaigned to have plastic bags banned
in California. When statewide ban was not forthcoming, individual cities and other local
governments supportive of the policy such as San Francisco banned plastic bags in their
jurisdictions (Mantz et al., 2017). As other local governments adopted the policy, the
government of the State of California also came to consider making a statewide ban thanks in
part to pressure from environmental groups (Mantz et al., 2017). The policy formulation stage
was characterized by intense debate on the issue with those in support for and against the policy
making their arguments. The final policy that went through the legislative process was a
compromise of those who wanted complete ban of plastic and paper bags in favor of reusable
bags only and those who wanted the status quo to remain.
After a compromise policy was agreed upon by the majority of state legislators, it was
taken through the legislative process to make it legal. Thereafter, it was put to a referendum
where a large majority of California residents voted in its favor.
Responsibility of various stakeholders in policy formulation

ANALYSIS OF CALIFORNIA PLASTIC BAN POLICY 3
In formulating the policy to ban plastic bags in California, various stakeholders played
different roles. Proponents and opponents of the policy carried out extensive research to back or
oppose the recommendations of the policy and convince legislators and the public at large why
the policy was appropriate or inappropriate. Politicians and government officials led efforts of
coming up with a bill that met the interests of various groups involved in the debate as well as
public opinion. Legal officials in the state’s government had to make sure that the proposed did
not violate any other law either at the federal or state level.
The policy’s winners and losers
The state’s plastic bag ban had different implications for different groups. The policy was
considered a major victory for environmental campaigners and organizations supporting
environmental causes. The campaigners had for long sought to have the state ban plastic bags
because of their devastating impact on marine life and wildlife once they get into water bodies
such as lakes, rivers, and oceans and in forests (Mantz et al., 2017). For these environment
campaigners, the ban was a major step towards environmental conservation.
As for direct beneficiaries of the ban, manufacturers of paper and reusable bags are likely
to benefit the most from the law. With plastic bags banned, consumers will now have to use
paper and reusable bags for shopping purposes. Manufacturers of these items will, therefore,
experience a significant increase in their sales and profits.
The policy will cause the most problems to manufacturers of plastic bags. With the use of
their products banned, they will experience a sharp drop in sales, at least from California. Given
the likely negative effects of the ban on their businesses, it is no wonder that plastic bags
manufacturers spent a lot of money trying to lobby against the ban.

ANALYSIS OF CALIFORNIA PLASTIC BAN POLICY 4
California’s plastic policy ban shows that public policies are often compromises of
various interest groups. Rarely do they give one group all that it needs. Additionally, the policies
usually involve input of multiple stakeholders.

ANALYSIS OF CALIFORNIA PLASTIC BAN POLICY 5

References

Mantz, K., Mantz, T., & Gavriletea, M. (2017). Paper, Plastic or Reusable? It‟ sa Mixed Bag–A
Case Study of Plastic Bag Legislation in America. Journal of Academy of Business and
Economics, 17(1), 41-46.