A naïve view of public policy (like mine, for example) might be that a body of public servants gets a set of options from the parliament, studies them and their effects, and then returns a report replete with recommendations about what the outcomes of each of the legislative options might be. A good report would say clearly “If you do this, you get A. If you do that, you get B.” The parliament’s job then is to reflect on this information and decide on the tradeoffs that the nation should accept.
In reality, however, I feel that instead of choosing from a set of options, a lot of public policy seems to be looking at options one at a time, instead of choosing the best one from a set. Suppose the economy is doing badly, and we would need either to get that back on the track, or cut costs from government. An exchange might go like this.
- Parliament: So maybe we can raise taxes?
- Right wing: NO!
- Parliament: So cut benefits to lower costs?
- Left wing: NO!
- Parliament: Reduce work legislation to increase efficiency?
- Unions: NO!
…and so on. Instead of going “OK, we have to do something, and we have options A, B, C and D”, politics employs a method I call piecewise running into a wall: evaluating one option at a time, with each being rejected by some advocacy group.
Since there is an advocacy group for almost anything, presenting options in this piecewise fashion means they will all get rejected. Following the rule “don’t do anything someone might object to” is not good policy-making: it just ensures nothing at all will be done. What is needed is a comparison of options, and then deciding which of them is the best one.
In reality, however, I feel that instead of choosing from a set of options, a lot of public policy seems to be looking at options one at a time, instead of choosing the best one from a set. Suppose the economy is doing badly, and we would need either to get that back on the track, or cut costs from government. An exchange might go like this.
- Parliament: So maybe we can raise taxes?
- Right wing: NO!
- Parliament: So cut benefits to lower costs?
- Left wing: NO!
- Parliament: Reduce work legislation to increase efficiency?
- Unions: NO!
…and so on. Instead of going “OK, we have to do something, and we have options A, B, C and D”, politics employs a method I call piecewise running into a wall: evaluating one option at a time, with each being rejected by some advocacy group.
Since there is an advocacy group for almost anything, presenting options in this piecewise fashion means they will all get rejected. Following the rule “don’t do anything someone might object to” is not good policy-making: it just ensures nothing at all will be done. What is needed is a comparison of options, and then deciding which of them is the best one.
Like I said - there really is an advocacy group for anything!
On the other hand, presenting options as a list and saying we need to choose one of them – well, that’s one of the oldest political tricks in the world. There’s nothing better than creating a false dilemma, asking a voter to pick whether for cutting taxes or reducing prosperity. Or whether he supports corporate rights or human rights. And so on.
Ah, framing the policy options of your opponent.
A crucial question emerging from this is: who generates the options, and how? Letting a small group generate them invites the false dilemma trap. Getting to choose the options means you have a lot of power. Your decision may surprisingly much depend on the options that you are given. However, letting the public generate the options directly is unlikely to work, either. Most people do not know enough about the complexities of law to be able to do that. If you asked me how unemployment benefits should be structured, I would have some kind of opinion, but the opinion is way too vague to be an option directly. That’s why we need public servants and assistants in the parliament: somebody needs to generate the actual legal text.
But one thing seems clear: openness and direct communication about our options would be good for democracy. Lobbying is small in Finland, but likely to increase in the future. The more opaque the process of option generation, the more power is given to the lobbies. If politics would be more transparent, it would be harder for lobbies to slant the option set badly. But not knowing the option set, or pretending there are no other options – that’s no good. Not for us, not for the nation, not for anyone.
But one thing seems clear: openness and direct communication about our options would be good for democracy. Lobbying is small in Finland, but likely to increase in the future. The more opaque the process of option generation, the more power is given to the lobbies. If politics would be more transparent, it would be harder for lobbies to slant the option set badly. But not knowing the option set, or pretending there are no other options – that’s no good. Not for us, not for the nation, not for anyone.
RSS Feed
