IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v52y2019i1d10.1007_s11077-018-9344-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Yes, but what about the authority of policy analysts? A commentary and discussion of Perl et al., ‘Policy-making and truthiness: Can existing models cope with politicized evidence and willful ignorance in a post-fact world?’

Author

Listed:
  • Adam Fforde

    (Victoria University)

Abstract

The paper discusses issues raised in Perl et al. (Policy Sci, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-018-9334-4 ), specifically the tensions between policy sciences’ search for ways reliably to link results to inputs and activities and the evidence they present for their conclusions that the three main approaches to analysis of policy processes do not focus upon this aspect of policy-making and are so well placed to cope with the ‘post-fact’ political era. The paper disagrees, arguing that this argument rather suggests that a main prop of modern political legitimacy—that policy can be reasonable and rational, and so not necessarily partisan—is under serious challenge, threatening a retreat to a politics of force and manipulation. The paper argues that this is best understood by appreciating that any empirical foundations of policy logics are not and never have been derived through a search for predictive power, no matter what is believed and taught, and told to those who pay for policy work, but are rather evidentially founded metaphors: theories. Correspondingly, in the norms of mainstream policy science, we cannot find any attempt to establish for a given empirical field whether there is or not adequate regularity to support assertions of (albeit with uncertainty) known outcomes. Given this, recent major failures of policy science’s expectations to bear fruit, despite assertions that evidentially based policy is reliably predictive, suggest that (amplified by academic interest in subjective aspects of knowledge construction) populist and popular shifts to reckless treatment of ‘facts’ appear as a not unreasonable reaction to ‘bad situations that policy-makers said would not happen’. The apparent success, reported by Perl et al. of the three main approaches to analysis of policy processes, then appear as somewhat irrelevant to those who pay for policy advice, if policy science is seen, not as a predictive science, but as one amongst many sources of political authority and so political order. The wise response by policy workers is then to reduce the ‘over-sell’ so as to restore their authority, in part by arguing that predictive power may be impossible (or would spend too much of the limited budget), so the mode of engagement should be non-instrumental action, and/or place far greater emphasis upon ensuring that those who are the objects of policy work are given adequate voice (lest they vote for Trump or Brexit). In that these options would imply less inconsistency, it would increase the authority of policy analysts, ceteris paribus.

Suggested Citation

  • Adam Fforde, 2019. "Yes, but what about the authority of policy analysts? A commentary and discussion of Perl et al., ‘Policy-making and truthiness: Can existing models cope with politicized evidence and willful ignoranc," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(1), pages 153-169, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:52:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s11077-018-9344-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-018-9344-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-018-9344-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-018-9344-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kenny, Charles & Williams, David, 2001. "What Do We Know About Economic Growth? Or, Why Don't We Know Very Much?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 1-22, January.
    2. Levine, Ross & Zervos, Sara J, 1993. "What We Have Learned about Policy and Growth from Cross-Country Regressions?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(2), pages 426-430, May.
    3. Adam Fforde, 2005. "Persuasion: Reflections on economics, data, and the 'homogeneity assumption'," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 63-91.
    4. Anthony Perl & Michael Howlett & M. Ramesh, 2018. "Policy-making and truthiness: Can existing policy models cope with politicized evidence and willful ignorance in a “post-fact” world?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(4), pages 581-600, December.
    5. Leamer, Edward E & Leonard, Herman B, 1983. "Reporting the Fragility of Regression Estimates," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 65(2), pages 306-317, May.
    6. Leamer, Edward E, 1985. "Sensitivity Analyses Would Help," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 308-313, June.
    7. Rodgers, Yana Van der Meulen & Cooley, Jane C., 1999. "Outstanding Female Economists in the Analysis and Practice of Development Economics," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 1397-1411, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Adam FFORDE, 2020. "Towards a theory of ignorance," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 13(2), pages 137-161, November.
    2. Steffen Eckhard & Vytautas Jankauskas, 2020. "Explaining the political use of evaluation in international organizations," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(4), pages 667-695, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Adam FFORDE, 2020. "Towards a theory of ignorance," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 13(2), pages 137-161, November.
    2. Adam Fforde, 2017. "Confirmation bias: methodological causes and a palliative response," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(5), pages 2319-2335, September.
    3. Adam Fforde, 2021. "Engineering, economics, Heidegger … and Mariotti: a note," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 48(4), pages 589-600, December.
    4. Derek Headey, 2008. "The Principal Components of Growth in the Less Developed Countries," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(4), pages 568-598, November.
    5. Heijungs, Reinout & Groot, Henri L. F. de & Florax, Raymond J.G.M., 2001. "Metagrowth 1.0, a computer program for robustness analysis," Serie Research Memoranda 0031, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    6. Oasis Kodila-Tedika & Simplice Asongu & Florentin Azia-Dimbu, 2016. "The Sensitive Nature of Social Trust to Intelligence," Working Papers of the African Governance and Development Institute. 16/005, African Governance and Development Institute..
    7. Leroi RAPUTSOANE, 2016. "Financial Stress Indicator Variables and Monetary Policy in South Africa," Journal of Economics Bibliography, KSP Journals, vol. 3(2), pages 203-214, June.
    8. Holderness, Clifford G., 2017. "Culture and the ownership concentration of public corporations around the world," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 469-486.
    9. Muhammad Zubair Mumtaz & Zachary Alexander Smith, 2021. "Analyzing the duration of IPOs from offering to listing using the Cox proportional hazards model," Portuguese Economic Journal, Springer;Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestao, vol. 20(1), pages 5-43, January.
    10. Oberdabernig, Doris A., 2013. "Revisiting the Effects of IMF Programs on Poverty and Inequality," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 113-142.
    11. Michael Waibel, 2011. "Review: Adam Fforde: Coping with Facts: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Problem of Development," Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, Institute of Asian Studies, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies, Hamburg, vol. 30(1), pages 125-128.
    12. Danila Serra, 2006. "Empirical determinants of corruption: A sensitivity analysis," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 126(1), pages 225-256, January.
    13. Abel Brodeur & Mathias Lé & Marc Sangnier & Yanos Zylberberg, 2016. "Star Wars: The Empirics Strike Back," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 1-32, January.
    14. Neil R. Ericsson, 2008. "The Fragility of Sensitivity Analysis: An Encompassing Perspective," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 70(s1), pages 895-914, December.
    15. Samantas, Ioannis, 2013. "Bank competition and financial (in)stability in Europe: A sensitivity analysis," MPRA Paper 51621, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Gazi Mainul Hassan & Joao Ricardo Faria, 2013. "Are Remittances Conflict-Abating in Recipient Countries?," Working Papers in Economics 13/11, University of Waikato.
    17. Zhang, Dayong & Cao, Hong & Wei, Yi-Ming, 2016. "Identifying the determinants of energy intensity in China: A Bayesian averaging approach," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 672-682.
    18. Cristina Blanco-Perez & Abel Brodeur, 2020. "Publication Bias and Editorial Statement on Negative Findings," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(629), pages 1226-1247.
    19. Ghosh, Sucharita & Yamarik, Steven, 2004. "Are regional trading arrangements trade creating?: An application of extreme bounds analysis," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 369-395, July.
    20. Guillaume Coqueret, 2023. "Forking paths in financial economics," Papers 2401.08606, arXiv.org.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:52:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s11077-018-9344-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.