IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/hpma8_v1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The usefulness of algorithmic models in policy making

Author

Listed:
  • Kolkman, Daan

Abstract

Governments increasingly use algorithmic models to inform their policy making process. Many suggest that employing such quantifications will lead to more efficient, more effective or otherwise better quality policy making. Yet, it remains unclear to what extent these benefits materialize and if so, how they are brought about. This paper draws on the sociology and policy science literature to study how algorithmic models, a particular type of quantification, are used in policy analysis. It presents the outcomes of 38 unstructured interviews with data scientists, policy analysts, and policy makers that work with algorithmic models in government. Based on an in-depth analysis of these interviews, I conclude that the usefulness of algorithmic models in policy analysis is best understood in terms of the commensurability of these quantifications. However, these broad communicative and organizational benefits can only be brought about if algorithmic models are handled with care. Otherwise, they may propagate bias, exclude particular social groups, and will entrench existing worldviews.

Suggested Citation

  • Kolkman, Daan, 2020. "The usefulness of algorithmic models in policy making," SocArXiv hpma8_v1, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:hpma8_v1
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/hpma8_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5ec2d85cc7d4ab002621c638/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/hpma8_v1?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Franses, Ph.H.B.F. & Kranendonk, H.C. & Lanser, D., 2007. "On the optimality of expert-adjusted forecasts," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI 2007-38, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
    2. Elinor Ostrom, 2010. "Analyzing collective action," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 41(s1), pages 155-166, November.
    3. Mackenzie, Donald, 2006. "Is Economics Performative? Option Theory and the Construction of Derivatives Markets," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(1), pages 29-55, March.
    4. Daniel Antony Kolkman & Paolo Campo & Tina Balke-Visser & Nigel Gilbert, 2016. "How to build models for government: criteria driving model acceptance in policymaking," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 489-504, December.
    5. Bert Enserink & Joop F. M. Koppenjan & Igor S. Mayer, 2013. "A Policy Sciences View on Policy Analysis," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Wil A. H. Thissen & Warren E. Walker (ed.), Public Policy Analysis, edition 127, chapter 0, pages 11-40, Springer.
    6. Måns Nilsson & Andrew Jordan & John Turnpenny & Julia Hertin & Björn Nykvist & Duncan Russel, 2008. "The use and non-use of policy appraisal tools in public policy making: an analysis of three European countries and the European Union," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 41(4), pages 335-355, December.
    7. Linda Botterill & Andrew Hindmoor, 2012. "Turtles all the way down: bounded rationality in an evidence-based age," Policy Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(5), pages 367-379.
    8. den Butter, Frank A. G. & Morgan, Mary S., 1998. "What makes the models-policy interaction successful?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 443-475, July.
    9. Boulanger, Paul-Marie & Brechet, Thierry, 2005. "Models for policy-making in sustainable development: The state of the art and perspectives for research," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 337-350, November.
    10. Todd, Peter M., 2007. "How much information do we need?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1317-1332, March.
    11. Millo, Yuval & MacKenzie, Donald, 2009. "The usefulness of inaccurate models: Towards an understanding of the emergence of financial risk management," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 638-653, July.
    12. Beunza, Daniel & Stark, David, 2012. "From dissonance to resonance: cognitive interdependence in quantitative finance," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 45604, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Laurie A. Schintler & Rajendra Kulkarni, 2014. "Big Data for Policy Analysis: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 31(4), pages 343-348, July.
    14. Wander Jager & Bruce Edmonds, 2015. "Policy Making and Modelling in a Complex World," Public Administration and Information Technology, in: Marijn Janssen & Maria A. Wimmer & Ameneh Deljoo (ed.), Policy Practice and Digital Science, edition 127, chapter 4, pages 57-73, Springer.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Kolkman, Daan, 2020. "The usefulness of algorithmic models in policy making," SocArXiv hpma8, Center for Open Science.
    2. Thomas Wainwright, 2011. "Elite Knowledges: Framing Risk and the Geographies of Credit," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 43(3), pages 650-665, March.
    3. Mitoko, Jeremiah, 2021. "Economics of Microcredit-From current crisis to new possibilities," MPRA Paper 108392, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Mirjat, Nayyar Hussain & Uqaili, Mohammad Aslam & Harijan, Khanji & Valasai, Gordhan Das & Shaikh, Faheemullah & Waris, M., 2017. "A review of energy and power planning and policies of Pakistan," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 110-127.
    5. Reto Cueni & Bruno S. Frey, 2014. "Forecasts and Reactivity," CREMA Working Paper Series 2014-10, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    6. Daniel Antony Kolkman & Paolo Campo & Tina Balke-Visser & Nigel Gilbert, 2016. "How to build models for government: criteria driving model acceptance in policymaking," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 489-504, December.
    7. Jinhua Xie & Gangqiao Yang & Ge Wang & Shuoyan He, 2024. "How does social capital affect farmers’ environment-friendly technology adoption behavior? A case study in Hubei Province, China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(7), pages 18361-18384, July.
    8. Robert Roßner & Dimitrios Zikos, 2018. "The Role of Homogeneity and Heterogeneity Among Resource Users on Water Governance: Lessons Learnt from an Economic Field Experiment on Irrigation in Uzbekistan," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 4(03), pages 1-30, July.
    9. Guiette, Alain & Vandenbempt, Koen, 2017. "Change managerialism and micro-processes of sensemaking during change implementation," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 65-81.
    10. Hall, Matthew, 2010. "Accounting information and managerial work," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 28539, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Figge, Frank & Hahn, Tobias & Barkemeyer, Ralf, 2014. "The If, How and Where of assessing sustainable resource use," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 274-283.
    12. Siyang Zhang & Minjuan Zhao & Qi Ni & Yu Cai, 2021. "Modelling Farmers’ Watershed Ecological Protection Behaviour with the Value-Belief-Norm Theory: A Case Study of the Wei River Basin," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-17, May.
    13. Metin Türkay & Öztürk Saraçoğlu & Mehmet Can Arslan, 2016. "Sustainability in Supply Chain Management: Aggregate Planning from Sustainability Perspective," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-18, January.
    14. Boscow Okumu & Edwin Muchapondwa, 2017. "Determinants of Successful Collective Management of Forest Resources: Evidence from Kenyan Community Forest Associations," Working Papers 698, Economic Research Southern Africa.
    15. Vargas, Andrés & Sarmiento Erazo, Juan Pablo & Diaz, David, 2020. "Has Cost Benefit Analysis Improved Decisions in Colombia? Evidence from the Environmental Licensing Process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    16. Julien Lefevre, 2018. "Modeling the Socioeconomic Impacts of the Adoption of a Carbon Pricing Instrument – Literature review," CIRED Working Papers hal-03128619, HAL.
    17. Sawaneh, Banna, 2022. "Conceptual Clarifications Of Public Service Delivery, Public Policy, Public Administration And Governance In The Gambia," Ilorin Journal of Business and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ilorin, vol. 24(1), pages 38-58, February.
    18. Bear, Laura, 2020. "Speculations on infrastructure: from colonial public works to a postcolonial global asset class on the Indian Railways 1840-2017," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 103445, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Sheila Dow, 2012. "Uncertainty-Denial," Department Discussion Papers 1204, Department of Economics, University of Victoria.
    20. Christof Rissi & Fritz Sager, 2013. "Types of knowledge utilization of regulatory impact assessments: Evidence from Swiss policymaking," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(3), pages 348-364, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:osf:socarx:hpma8_v1. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    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.