Policymakers have a tough job.
They are tasked with making decisions. Those decisions are taken based on a lot of assumptions. And those assumptions come from what is presumed to be correct data and information.
If the data is wrong, there is a high chance of serious negative unintended consequences, and the policy goals will likely fail.
So, you’d think that policymakers would check the data and the core assumptions, And politicians tasked with scrutinising any proposals would treble check.
Professor Hannah Fry and the Excel Error that led to Austerity
Professor Fry’s explanation of the Excel error that led to governments embracing austerity is worth watching.
@fryrsquared Just after the financial crisis, an influential paper called “Growth in a time of debt” was published, in which two Harvard profs used data to show that high levels of debt hurt a nations economic growth. The paper was cited at the G20, referenced by George Osborne and Paul Ryan and used as a justification for the global austerity movement. Except.. the conclusions were based on a pretty important spreadsheet error. #data #austerity #politics #excel #hannahfry ♬ original sound – fryrsquared
Years ago, I was asked to find evidence to support a proposal. All the evidence I could find spoke against the pre-written conclusions. So, it is not new that weak data is used to support a policy decision.
Proposals continue to get agreed with question marks on the data and evidence. When the evidence mentioned in a footnote to an Impact Assessment provides no page number to the supporting evidence, or the study mentioned is silent on the evidence it is meant to speak to, one should be concerned.
In all cases, those scrutinising public policy decisions and checking the assumptions and evidence underpinning the proposals – governments, politicians, think tanks, and journalists – did not pick up the gaps.
The purpose of good law-making is not to agree to as many proposals as fast as possible just because a Commissioner wants them agreed to before they move back home. It is to check the assumptions behind the proposal and make sure that whatever lands up on the Statute book will deliver on the goals it seeks to achieve.
If the case for action is not there, it should be rejected.
What Can Be Done
Evidence used for public policy decisions in proposals should be rigorously reviewed before it is used.
The Health Effects Institute provides a good model for what I call ‘peer review from hell’ for data and studies used for air pollution regulation.
Politicians passing laws should do the dull work and check the data and evidence. It is not exciting. The two MEPs I worked for insisted on it. It is the difference between good and effective laws being implemented and poor laws making no positive changes.
Finally, those who spot the errors should present the evidence clearly and early in the process so that any mistakes are not taken up in the final law.