“We Need a Law” Is Usually the Wrong Place to Start
The Question Policymakers Should Ask First
---an article by Michael Infanzon
Spend enough time around legislatures, policy advocates, or political debates and you will hear a phrase repeated constantly.
“We need a law.”
Something happens in society. A story makes the news. An incident spreads across social media. A statistic appears in a report.
Within hours someone says it.
We need a law.
The phrase sounds responsible. It signals action. It suggests leadership.
The problem is that the statement usually comes before anyone has asked the right question.
What is the problem we are actually trying to solve?
That question rarely comes first in modern policy debates. Instead, many people begin with the assumption that a new statute must be the answer.
This reflex explains why so many public policies fail to deliver real results. Laws are written to address symptoms rather than causes. Legislators pass bills that generate headlines but do little to solve the issue that triggered the debate in the first place.
There is a better approach to policy work. It follows a simple sequence:
Define the problem.
Reveal the solution.
Execute the solution.
The first step is the one that gets skipped most often.
ASK THE RIGHT QUESTION!
The Problem With “We Need a Law”
When people say “we need a law,” they are jumping straight to a solution before identifying the problem.
Legislation is a tool. It is not the starting point.
The starting point is always the same question:
What is actually happening?
Public policy discussions frequently skip this step. People react to events instead of analyzing them.
An incident occurs. A news story circulates. Commentators frame the issue in emotional terms. Advocacy groups propose legislation within days.
That sequence produces weak policy.
If the underlying problem has not been defined clearly, lawmakers have no way of knowing whether legislation is even the appropriate response.
Sometimes the issue is caused by poor enforcement of existing laws.
Sometimes it is the result of regulatory misinterpretation.
Sometimes it arises from administrative procedures that can be fixed without new legislation.
Sometimes the problem exists because different agencies are working at cross purposes.
In those situations, writing another statute does not solve the problem. It may actually make the situation worse.
This is why serious policy work begins with analysis rather than legislation. I spend hours upon hours on analysis each year working on policy solutions.
The Question That Should Come First
Before proposing a law, policymakers should ask several questions.
Who is actually affected?
What barrier or failure exists?
What law, regulation, or administrative practice contributes to the problem?
What measurable harm results?
If those questions cannot be answered, the policy discussion is not ready for solutions yet.
This is the stage where many debates break down.
People are comfortable arguing about solutions. They are less comfortable defining problems precisely.
Precision forces discipline.
A vague concern cannot support serious policy work. A clearly defined problem can.
Consider the difference between two statements on a policy issue I’ve recently worked on.
Statement one:
Veterans struggle while attending college.
Statement two:
Veteran students using federal education benefits experience housing allowance gaps when academic calendars do not align with federal payment schedules.
Those two statements sound similar at first glance.
They are not.
The first statement invites political rhetoric.
The second statement invites policy solutions.
When the problem becomes specific, the path forward begins to appear.
Why Problem Definition Matters
Defining the problem is the most important step in policy development.
Engineering and scientific fields have recognized this principle for generations. The inventor and engineering executive Charles F. Kettering once observed that a problem clearly stated is halfway solved. The philosopher John Dewey structured his theory of inquiry around identifying the problem before proposing solutions. Even Albert Einstein argued that most intellectual effort should be spent framing the problem rather than rushing to answer it.
Policy work operates under the same logic.
When the wrong problem is defined, the best policy in the world will still fail.
When the problem is precise, the number of workable solutions becomes smaller and easier to evaluate.
This is why the first stage of serious policy work is not drafting legislation. It is diagnosing the issue.
When the Solution Starts to Appear
Once the problem is defined clearly, something interesting happens.
The range of possible solutions shrinks.
When policymakers understand the actual cause of an issue, the appropriate policy tools begin to reveal themselves.
This is the second stage of the framework:
Reveal the solution.
Notice the difference between this stage and the reflexive call for legislation.
People who begin by saying “we need a law” are guessing at solutions.
People who define the problem first are discovering which solutions actually address it.
Sometimes the solution does involve legislation.
Other times it does not.
The solution might involve:
- clarifying statutory language
- adjusting agency procedures
- improving enforcement of existing laws
- revising administrative regulations
- aligning funding structures
- improving coordination between agencies
Each of these options addresses problems differently.
Choosing the correct tool requires understanding the problem first.
The Legal Framework Cannot Be Ignored
Another reason problem definition matters is that public policy exists within a legal framework.
Legislatures cannot simply pass any law they wish. Courts review legislation for compliance with constitutional standards.
In recent years, courts have clarified several areas of constitutional doctrine that affect policy development.
For example, modern Second Amendment jurisprudence requires governments to demonstrate historical traditions supporting firearms regulations. This framework emerged in cases such as District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Legislators who ignore this framework risk writing laws that courts will invalidate.
The same principle applies across policy domains.
Employment laws must comply with federal statutes.
Veterans programs interact with federal benefit systems.
Education policies operate within federal funding structures.
Understanding these legal realities is part of defining the problem.
The Step That Turns Policy Into Reality
After the problem is defined and the solution becomes clear, policymakers reach the final stage.
Execute the solution.
This stage involves turning ideas into operational reality.
Execution requires drafting legislation when necessary. It requires negotiating with stakeholders. It requires navigating committee hearings and legislative votes. It requires securing funding and establishing administrative procedures.
This stage is where many policy ideas stall.
Passing a bill is only the beginning. Agencies must interpret the statute and develop procedures for implementing it. Programs must be funded and staffed. Oversight mechanisms must be established.
Without careful execution, even well-designed policy solutions fail to produce results.
Execution requires discipline.
Every amendment, compromise, or procedural change should be evaluated against the original problem definition.
Does this change still solve the problem we identified at the beginning?
If the answer is no, the policy has drifted away from its purpose.
Why the “We Need a Law” Mindset Persists
If starting with problem definition is so important, why do so many debates begin with calls for legislation?
Several forces encourage this pattern.
First, political systems reward visible action. Introducing a bill demonstrates activity even if the legislation does not address the underlying issue.
Second, media coverage favors dramatic proposals over technical analysis.
Third, advocacy organizations often focus on policy tools they already support rather than diagnosing the issue objectively.
These dynamics encourage quick solutions instead of disciplined analysis.
The result is policy churn. Laws are passed, amended, repealed, and replaced without addressing the structural issues that produced the problem in the first place.
A Better Rule for Policy Work
Whenever someone says “we need a law,” the appropriate response is simple.
Ask the question that should have come first.
What problem are we trying to solve?
Do not accept vague answers.
Demand precision.
Identify the cause of the issue. Identify the legal and administrative structures involved. Identify the measurable harm that results.
Only then should policymakers consider solutions.
Once the problem is defined clearly, the correct response becomes much easier to identify.
Define the problem.
Reveal the solution.
Execute the solution.
Legislation may still be part of that process.
It just should not be the starting point.
Read Michael's work by clicking here.
Images used here are courtesy of Sam Burns
