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 Polling There has been a “big and meaningful shift” in attitudes towards Miliband, poll finds

    There has been a “big and meaningful shift” in attitudes towards Miliband, poll finds

    At the weekend we reported that there could be some kind of post-debate bounce for Labour because YouGov gave the party a four point lead on Sunday. However, the polls quickly levelled out again to put the parties on more-or-less equal footing. But YouGov polling for The Times Red Box has found that since his successful appearance on Thursday, attitudes towards Miliband have shifted. YouGov asked respondents four questions that they also asked seven weeks ago and compared the results. Over […]

    Read more →
  • News Almost two-thirds of people want some form of public ownership of the railways, polls finds

    Almost two-thirds of people want some form of public ownership of the railways, polls finds

    More people want the railways to be brought into public ownership than want them to stay privatised, a new poll has found. The poll by Survation for campaigning group We Own It  found that only 17% of people asked wanted the railways to remain in private hands. Meanwhile, 40% want the entire rail network brought back into public ownership and 23% said they’d like some franchises back in the public sector. That means 63% of people – just under two-thirds […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Miliband’s carefully calibrated balancing act

    Miliband’s carefully calibrated balancing act

    The next few weeks could see a lot happen – in 2010 we had Cleggmania and the Lib Dems bouncing from 3rd to 1st and back to 3rd, whilst Labour polled as low as 23% and as high as 33%, all in the short campaign. And when the dust settles after 7th May Ed Miliband will either be written off as another in the list of Labour leaders who didn’t win a General Election (he would be in good company […]

    Read more →
  • News Balls pledges Business rate cut for 1.5 million small businesses in first budget

    Balls pledges Business rate cut for 1.5 million small businesses in first budget

    Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls will say today that Labour’s first Budget will cut business rates for 1.5 million small business properties – and then freeze them the following year – as part of the party’s “Better Plan for Small Businesses”. Labour claims that will save the average business around £400, and will be funded by scrapping another cut in corporation tax for large firms. Unveiling the pledge tomorrow, Balls will say: “Every large business started off as a small business and […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Europe Steering TTIP in the right direction: Labour’s plan in the European Parliament put into action

    Steering TTIP in the right direction: Labour’s plan in the European Parliament put into action

    While EU Trade Chiefs acknowledged that negotiations for the massive EU-US trade deal would take longer than anticipated, Labour Members of the European Parliament have put their plan into motion to ensure that no deal will be concluded unless public concerns are properly addressed. TTIP, as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is know, would be the largest ever bilateral trade deal. It could affect not only traditional international trade instruments, such as tariffs and quotas, but also domestic rules […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit