The Tyranny of Certainty

10th January, 2013 11:14 am

There is too much certainty in politics. How often do you hear that policy X will definitely do Y? In political debate you hear very strong opinions on most policies. This, of course, is what you should hear in a vigorous democracy. But there is often something missing in this debate – an admission that there are limits to our knowledge. This is understandable. If a party has to sell a policy the case needs to be made as strong as possible. Admitting that there may be some uncertainty is often too big a chink in the armour. Some recent research sheds light on the sorts of things that influence policy outcomes that have little to do with the policies implemented by governments. They’re useful examples of what can happen when policy makers aren’t looking, can’t see or are wilfully ignorant.

When Tony Blair talked about cutting crime and cutting the causes of crime did he ever mention the role lead poisoning could play in crime rates? Not that I can remember, or at least find on Google. Crime has been dropping throughout the Western world since the 1980s which suggests there may be a common cause given that most countries followed different policies. It has become fashionable since Freakonomics for the drop in crime to be attributed to legalisation of abortions. However, another, more plausible explanation is being out forward. Exposure to lead has been associated with violent behaviour in people. The main way the mass of people got exposed to lead in the postwar period was through petrol and paint. Lead started to be banned from petrol and paint across the world in the 1980s and appears to have been followed by a drop in crime. At the time this wasn’t put forward as a suggestion and was not predicted, so it would be unfair to blame politicians for not taking it into account. Nevertheless, if we had known there was going to be drop in crime how would the law and order policies of Tory and Labour governments been different?

Another interesting bit of research connects the stock market boom of 1982-99 to the demographic spike of the baby boomers. There have been many explanations for the bull market of that time. The usual explanation given is that degregulated markets, rising productivity and globalisation were the main drivers behind this, bringing double digit returns for stock market investors. The reality seems to be somewhat different. There was a huge demographic bulge of baby boomers reaching the height of their earning potential and investing lots of money in stocks and shares. This cohort was at the stage in life where they were investing in relatively risky, but high growth, stocks. Worryingly for us now it looks like we’re going reap the whirlwind over the coming decades as the baby boom generation’s investment decisions change to less risky bonds. According to Michael Gavin, managing director and economist at Barclay’s Capital, the 1980s and 1990s should be seen as an anomaly rather than the norm. Looking back, if this had put forward as the main cause of the stock market boom would the Labour government in 1997 have been as gung-ho about catering to the City’s every need and whim? Would the success of the City have been seen more as riding the crest of a fortuitous demographic wave rather than the result policy decisions in the favour of banks?

The problem is that this is all very difficult to predict. John Kay is right to point out that only fools claim to know the future. What later seems like an undeniable trend may only be predicted by some slightly potty sounding academics. The early advocates of human made global warming faced such criticism. There are also many competing ideas at any given time. There were a number of different factors at work in the two examples above, including government policy. In the end once a party decides on its policies the machine to defend them whirls into action and the hatches are closed. That’s how it has to work. A party announces a policy and releases a minion of ‘28 Days Later’-esque rabid zombies infected with a certainty virus. Nonetheless, every now and again it’s worth sitting back to take in a wider view and remembering that policies are built on the shifting sands of change.

We can’t always know where they will take us, but we still need to make a decision about where to go.

John Clarke blogs at johnmichaelclarke.wordpress.com

  • aracataca

    A very apposite and of course completely correct piece. I also believe that uncertainty chimes with a Socialist outlook on the world. The fact is that however much capitalism and the Tory Party tell us that this is the ways things HAVE TO BE the reality is that they don’t have to be that way at all. Societies change, economies change, people change and ideas change. There is no inevitability whatsoever about the eternal triumph of capitalism and the statement that ‘There is no alternative’ was, is and always will be a great big fat lie.

  • MrSauce

    What a remarkable load of sense.
    Thanks for posting – this has made my day.
    It would be great to see some evidence-based policy in the future, not just statistics hijacked to justify a prejudiced policy decision. Maybe I’m hoping for too much.
    Not so sure about lead in paint finding its way into peoples brains any more than the lead in the batteries of electric cars does (or that on the church roof, even), but the TEL in petrol certainly had a way in.

    • johnmclarke

      Thanks MrSauce, glad it made your day. The Government’s “Nudge Unit” is working with Ben Goldacre on randomised controlled trials for policy. These could be useful but don’t really work for big issues such as what interest rate to set.
      http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/test-learn-adapt-developing-public-policy-randomised-controlled-trials

      • MrSauce

        Odd as it may seem, agricultural research in the 1920s could help here…
        It was realised that full control of variables was not possible when running trials outdoors where the weather changes it whether you like it or not. Fisher’s treatment of data to derive useful conclusions under difficult conditions seems appropriate to policy trials where outside influences are unavoidable. I don’t think it will make it onto any PPE courses, though.

        • johnmclarke

          That’s interesting stuff. I’ll have to look into it.

          There’s a lot that doesn’t make it onto PPE courses, possibly common sense included. Yet the tyranny of PPE looks set to continue.

  • Pingback: The Tyranny of Certainty « John Clarke()

Latest

  • News Weekly survey: deputy leader and London Mayor

    Weekly survey: deputy leader and London Mayor

      Next Friday ballots will go out for the leadership and deputy leadership contests. Since we recently asked who you’re backing for leader, we want to know who you’re planning on voting for to be deputy leader. There are six people in the running, who will get your first preference?  Let us know what you think. But these aren’t the only two contests going on at the moment. For Labour members, affiliates and supporters in London there’s also an election to […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Full 2015 CLP leadership nominations list – and what’s changed from 2010?

    Full 2015 CLP leadership nominations list – and what’s changed from 2010?

    The deadline for Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs) to make a nomination in the leadership and deputy leadership contests closed on Friday (July 31st). 387 CLPs decided to support a candidate for leader, slightly down on the 396 who did so in 2010. The final results were: Jeremy Corbyn: 152 Andy Burnham: 111 Yvette Cooper: 106 Liz Kendall: 18 Below, we have compared 2015 CLP endorsements with those from 2010 (a full list of 2010 nominations is here). There are plenty […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Euroscepticism starts at Calais

    Euroscepticism starts at Calais

    Another “Europe means chaos” story means the current crisis over migrants at the Channel appears to be manna to British Eurosceptics. In their prejudiced minds, we know who they really think ‘starts at Calais’. But as I’ve debated with them on local radio in my own East of England constituency over the past few days, not only have I been shocked by their callous disregard for the humanitarian consequences of the current crisis but also by the cynicism with which every […]

    Read more →
  • News Shadow Chancellor Chris Leslie slams “Corbynomics”

    Shadow Chancellor Chris Leslie slams “Corbynomics”

    Labour’s Shadow Chancellor Chris Leslie has warned against the economic proposals of leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn, describing them in The Independent as “starry-eyed, hard left” policies. Leslie’s criticism appears to be around the announcements Corbyn made in a speech last month – specifically his support for “people’s quantitative easing”. Leslie, who is supporting Yvette Cooper in the leadership contest, said: “Printing money and ending Bank of England independence would push up inflation, lending rates, squeeze out money for schools and […]

    Read more →
  • News Scottish Labour leadership candidate calls for replacing the House of Lords with an elected second chamber based in Glasgow

    Scottish Labour leadership candidate calls for replacing the House of Lords with an elected second chamber based in Glasgow

    Kezia Dugdale has called for the abolishing the House of Lords and replacing it with an elected second chamber. Dugdale is running against Ken Macintosh to be Scottish Labour leader. In an article for the Guardian, she has said should would like “shake up the UK” by replacing House of Lords with an elected second chamber, which she would campaign to have based in Glasgow. She argues that “people are looking for signs that politicians get it” and that this means  institutions […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit