The Tyranny of Certainty

January 10, 2013 11:14 am

Author:

Share this Article

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 Deliver on devolution, say LabourList readers

    Deliver on devolution, say LabourList readers

    Given that there are a multitude of different issues facing local authorities, particularly in the midst of significant cuts to local budgets, we asked LabourList leaders what they they would like to see the next Government prioritise in their area. We asked people to rank what they thought was most important. In terms of average rankings, most people thought that creating more and better jobs was the most important priority for Government. This is, perhaps, unsurprising – although the number […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Change starts now

    Change starts now

    The outcome of the Scottish referendum answers decisively the question on independence. But the issues unleashed and feelings exposed in the campaign will mean further important action for Labour, action to address the economic disaffection and political alienation which was laid bare on the doorsteps in Glasgow just as they are in towns across England. While we campaigned for a No vote, too many of the poorest, most deprived, who we are in politics to empower and to represent, voted […]

    Read more →
  • Featured Miliband calls for UK Constitutional Convention – and the whole country will have a say, not just politicians

    Miliband calls for UK Constitutional Convention – and the whole country will have a say, not just politicians

    This morning David Cameron called for a rushed through, Westminster-based, top-down, politician-led approach to solving the questions around UK-wide devolution. I wasn’t impressed. I said that: This is an unprecedented chance to extend similar powers down from the centre to the whole of the UK. The Labour Party – in every corner of this land – has an important role to play in the renewal of our society and democracy that must take place. We must end top down Westminster […]

    Read more →
  • News Make this Conference about the NHS, LabourList readers tell Miliband

    Make this Conference about the NHS, LabourList readers tell Miliband

      Ed Miliband should make the NHS the focus of his Labour Conference speech, say LabourList readers. 52% said that setting out Labour’s offer on the health service should be the central offer of Miliband’s address to delegates on Tuesday. It has been rumoured that Labour will attempt to make the NHS the defining issue of the 2015 election, and a poll earlier this week suggested it was the only “big” issue that we hold a lead on, beating the […]

    Read more →
  • News Video “Our country only works for a tiny elite few at the top, and this Labour Party knows that must change” – Miliband responds to the referendum result

    “Our country only works for a tiny elite few at the top, and this Labour Party knows that must change” – Miliband responds to the referendum result

    This morning, Ed Miliband gave a speech, following on from Johann Lamont and Alistair Darling, in which he responded to the results of the referendum. He clearly emphasised that although Scotland voted to remain part of the UK, this was the beginning of massive change across the country: “this was a vote for change. change doesn’t end today. Change begins today…devolution is not just a good idea for Scotland and Wales, it is a good idea for England and indeed Northern […]

    Read more →