Evidence-based policy?

 As a scientist I am pro-evidence. More broadly I am pro-objective reality. I believe that, fundamentally reality is founded on three axioms; Existence, Identity and Consciousness.

Existence; because something exists. Identity because something exists as something. Consciousness because something exists perceiving those things.

These are the axioms which, explicitly or implicitly, guide all rational people.

I admit this isn’t exactly a comfortable lexicon to use for someone into behavioural science, unfortunately behavioural theory hasn’t quite extended itself yet properly to metaphysics and so there isn’t a clear way to describe these concepts.

Yet, nonetheless I believe them to be true. Existence, Identity and Consciousness; the triumvirate of science. From this point of view we know that reality is knowable. That is to say, it’s lawful (now we’re back in behaviourist territory), and so – understandable and predictable. Contra Immanuel Kant knowledge is contextual. Not subjective, but based on the context of the individual thinking it.

Epistemology aside, I want to focus on one particular application of this knowledge. If reality is knowable – and above all predictable – then so are humans, and so is human consciousness. Our awareness – call it a complex verbal repertoire a la Skinner, or an extended behavioural pattern through temporal dimensions a la Rachlin – is nonetheless knowable and predictable.

So where am I going with this extended diatribe? If human behaviour is knowable and predictable – that is to say a function of reality not some mystical higher quality alluded to by theologians and amateur Platonists of millennia past, then it stands to reason that we should do something with this knowledge to improve our condition here on Earth.

This, then, is where evidence based policy comes into being. Evidence-based policy ostensibly began with the Blair government and is – ostensibly – being continued by the Coalition. Both governments agreed – formally – to put aside ideology for the sake of ideology and instead agreed to obey the evidence – meaning obey reality.

Yet this is where it gets sticky. As I’ve already mentioned knowledge is contextual. We aren’t omniscient. So we have a problem. A fact is a fact. Yet it stands in the context of all the other knowledge. For example we may know that when two atoms collide – they release a heck of a lot of energy, but this doesn’t automatically tell us that the energy can be used to switch on the lights and blow a city into the ground. The application – and the subsequent effects of that application – are not knowable until those facts are discovered, it’s not a package deal.

Take for instance what we know about people’s behaviour. People are susceptible to superstitious behaviour, we use heuristics – rules of thumb – to get through the day, and we are fallible. Yes we are capable of rationality, yes we are capable of discovering facts but the flip side of having that kind of behavioural repertoire is that we can get it wrong. Know this is used to justify things like Nudges.

Now for a disclaimer, I support nudges. Support them all the way to the bank. If all governments adopted that kind of attitude the world would be happier place. Yet herein lays the problem I’ve been alluding to. It often comes up as a snarky criticism from opponents of Nudges; the claim is that if the Nudgers believe that people are fallible then isn’t there a chance that they are wrong about the Nudges? The biggest mistake people make in response to these criticisms is to pass them off as futile attempts from right wingers to criticise the uncriticisable.

Instead, let’s look at if they have a point. What is a nudge? The manipulation of environmental variables that create a condition under which a chosen behaviour is more likely to be emitted – whilst still preserving the freedom of choice. That means that if I want to smoke –I should be able to, but not smoking could potentially be promoted in one way or another.

Now policy analysts and writers have been practically frothing at the mouth trying to apply this idea to every single policy applicable; from taxes, to health promotion, to energy usage. It can literally be applied to all levels of government. Yet, a question still lingers, a question unanswered; should it?

Evidence-based policy has been most wholly accepted by the progressive end of the spectrum. Now not to paint with too broad a brush here but progressive thinkers in general promote a more activist form of government.

So a smart way to more efficiently run a government appeals to them – and so it should! But, as I mentioned at the start of this article, knowledge is contextual, and so we need to look at the actions of a government using Nudges in the broader context of government actions.

Nudging applies equally to our personal, private lives and private associations as much as it does to government actions. Nudges can help us; it can help private businesses (I wouldknow). It doesn’t have to come from a government. So we shouldn’t act like it should.

A full political breakdown is perhaps beyond the scope of this article. Yet I want to point to a general theme. Just because we can do something, doesn’t mean we should do something. The jury is still out on whether an evidence based approach to everything from a top-down approach is necessarily in our long-term best interests.

It is perhaps wise then, to heed the criticisms of the nudge approach. Let us be wary of our potential bias in this matter. We should be ready to say that a nudge could be better served from a private point of view, in a contractual sense. Certainly there are areas where a government should act and act decisively. This is not in dispute. But let’s apply evidence to the evidence based approach and look at whether we are doing more harm than good. Science requires no less.