public management （750words）3hours
Cissie00
PublicManagementWeek7-1.pptxWeek 7: Public Policy, Evidence and Risk
Public Management
Welcome
1
Outline
Week 6 recap
Public policy
Decision making
Formal economic rationality; “Bounded rationality” – Satisficing; Instrumental rationality; Value-laden rationalities
Evidence in public policy
Risk and risk assessment
Technocratic, decisionist, co-evolutionary models.
Reflections
Week 6 - Recap
Accountability
Another buzzword relates to “Informing about performance” Debating and Judging performance.
Accountability is important
Democratic control; integrity; improve performance; legitimacy
Different types, directions of accountability
transparency, liability, controllability, responsibility, and responsiveness. These can lead to MAD
Difficulties with accountability
Practical issues information willingness; and conceptual issues: gaming, post-truth, partnerships; discretionary power, political acc.
What is Public Policy; What is a Policy Problem?
4
What is public policy?
A course of action produced as a response to a perceived problem, formulated by a specific political process, and adopted, implemented, and enforced by a public body
Policy is more than a decision, it is inherently political
‘Politics’ important in explaining policy, policy change and policy differences across sectors and across countries
Public policy can be seen as a course of action produced as a response to a perceived problem, formulated by a specific political process, and adopted, implemented, and enforced by a public body i.e by public managers.
more than a decision, embodies idea of action focused on specific issue (e.g. air pollution) and the inherent political nature of it
influenced by the institutional structures that characterise a political system
And politics: the political process
Definitional problems suggest that it is difficult to treat it as a very specific phenomenon.
Term can be used to describe a number of very different activities:
Grouping term – all policies within a particular distinctive area: “environmental policy” “defence policy” “economic policy” “Chinese foreign policy”
Grouping term 2 – all policies within a particular sub section of the distinctive area: “climate change policy”
Particular instruments of activity i.e. not the what but the how. And here we look at quotas or targets etc “performance assessment policy” or “risk assessment policies”.
Can refer to time period (e.g. post-cold war policy), ideology (e.g. labour policy) or institutions (e.g. EU policy)
5
Policy areas
Sub-sections
instruments of activity
EU policy
Policy Cycle Model
Not always quite so sequential…
Stages may overlap or be skipped entirely
Useful starting model to think about policy.
Public managers (unlike administrators) are involved in all phases
Common way of looking at policy making is to make a distinction between different stages in the policy making process
Policy cycle model is the standard model for structuring theories and concepts about policy making – see Lasswell 1956
Problem definition and agenda setting
In many cases these stages are interpreted as being sequential and so follow closely the rationalist way of seeing policy. So it starts with identifying a problem and its placement on a government’s agenda, then moves onto various policy options being formulated before one is selected and adopted. The next stage is implementation of that policy and then we end with evaluation. This then leads us back to start again.
Critiqued
Sequential nature of the model has been criticised especially by those that perform empirical work
Empirical reality is that stages may overlap or be skipped entirely
For many scholars, more useful to consider the stages as particular potential analytical lenses in which distinctive concepts and theories are applied. For example if you are looking at adoption the principal thing you are looking at is to explain adoption or non-adoption; if you are looking at implementation, one of the major goal of your work is to analyse and explain the extent to which the policy being implemented deviates from the original goals of the policy.
Nevertheless it’s a good starting model
Bureacrat – public managers are involved in all these phases
public managers sometimes selfless sometimes increasing their budgets but also power can locate themselves at the centre of decison making...
6
Problem definition
Policy Formulation
Policy adoption
Policy implementation
Policy evaluation
Problems
Problem A
Problem B
Problem C
You can’t just go and pick a problem because it inherently exists
Problems are not found in the fields like mushrooms – rather they are social and political constructs: Often people disagree over whether a problem exists; what the best solution is and what the best means of implementation are.
7
Problems
Public sector goals can be multiple and conflicting
Problem and solutions are complex.
Problems are socially constructed. People:
Choose the appropriate words to express the ‘problem’
Choose the appropriate evidence/ statistics/ cases
Mobilise support for your understanding of the ‘problem’
Link ‘problem’ to a solution
Problems need to be constructed in particular ways, so that there is a wider consensus that they are indeed problems – so there is a process of framing this involves
Choose the appropriate words to express the ‘problem’
Choose the appropriate evidence/ statistics/ cases
Mobilise support for your understanding of the ‘problem’
Link ‘problem’ to a solution
The environment where public organisations operate is usually highly political, with many stakeholders and intense public scrutiny.
The ultimate goal of private organisations is profit-seeking, Private organisations are meant to be able to make rational decisions based on the ultimate goal of maximisation of profits
However, public organisations often have multiple and conflicting goals triple bottom line. e.g. Improve education, whilst reducing budgets; Improve health, whilst maximising the utility out of precious resources, such as doctors; Make an impact ‘on the ground’, whilst maintaining efficient operations; Many problems and solutions are complicated
8
Problem Definition
Problem definition sets the stage for other components of the decision making process
the way that a problem is defined to a certain extent determines the range of feasible policy responses through which the problem can be resolved
Can think of problem definition as a causal story in which problems are “social constructed”
The way a social problem is defined sets the stage for other components of the decision-making process because to a certain extent how it is defined determines the range of feasible policy responses through which the problem can be resolved. E.g makes a big difference whether unemployment is conceived of in terms of a lack of education, an economic recession or a person being unwilling or too lazy to look for a job.
Depending on how the problem is defined, solutions will vary considerably from improving public funding of the education system to cutting unemployment benefits in order to motivate individuals to look for a job. We can think of taking a social problem and defining it as a policy problem as a causal story that
identifies harm
describes causes of harm
assigns blame to those causing harm
claims that the government is responsible for stopping them.
What this illustrates is that there is no ‘obvious’ conception of a social problem. Different actors can have different perceptions of the same phenomena so you could say that problem definition is socially constructed. The problem definition process may also explain why it is that we find highly different policy approaches across countries to problems with very similar characteristics.
9
identifies harm
describes causes of harm
assigns blame to those causing harm
claims that the government is responsible for stopping them
‘Expanders’ and ‘Containers’
Problems receive attention based on how they are defined by those who participate in the policy process.
Can categorise the actors into ‘expanders’ and ‘containers’
Both present the problem according to their perspective.
Framing - the selective use of knowledge and information and causal relationships surrounding it to give it a particular meaning and indeed make it manageable
Rather these problems receive attention based on how they are defined by those who participate in the policy process.
Expanders want action to be taken on the social problem and so will politicise the issue to gain support.
Containers don’t want the issue to become a political problem and so responded to by public policy perhaps because they would be adversely affected.
Both of these actors therefore present the issue according to their perspective.
They do this both for the public as well as for the political elite because policy makers are sensitive to public perception for a number of reasons: including needing to be seen to be doing something, and needing to be re-elected.
So the contest has as much, if not more, to do with how the problem is presented to both groups than the problem itself.
This presentation of a problem is what we commonly refer to as ‘framing’: the selective use of knowledge and information and causal relationships surrounding it to give it a particular meaning and indeed make it manageable. And it is something that is strategic and can be used to increase and decrease policy maker and public attention
Think again about our unemployment example and how amongst the plethora of ways this social problem is conceived, there includes lack of education, or general economic difficulties or a person being unwilling or too lazy to look for a job.
10
Expanders
want action to be taken
Containers
don’t want the issue to become a political problem
Framing Problems (Rochefort & Cobb)
Rochefort and Cobb (1995) offer seven useful framing categorisations:
Causality: which factors have caused the problem? Blame is very powerful – history littered with examples of where blame has been skilfully used to create a desired end – but its also, under normal circumstances, a highly contested space
Severity: how serious is the issue and consequences perceived to be. The more it can be framed as severe and serious the more it captures the minds of policy makers and mass media. Severity though isn’t necessarily objective different actors can have different views.
Incidence: the actual prevalence of the problem. How many will be potentially affected? A huge number a small number? If it is a problem that has existed for a long time and will continue to do so then however serious the perception of prevalence will change over time.
Novelty: labelling something as new is important so as to grab media attention.
New things can invoke dread risks more than old, familiar things. Covid-19
Proximity: in some ways related to severity because it’s about whether your audience (policy makers and public) are directly or indirectly affected. The more people you can draw into being affected by a problem the more chance there is for political mobilisation
Crises: linked to the above is the idea of ATTENTION SPANS and THRESHOLDS. Up to a certain point the public isn’t interested but once it is then they demand policy and policy makers will likely respond.
Problem populations and the images of them. Those who want action (the expanders) will use words like ‘helpless’ ‘victim’ to portray problem populations in a positive light – suggesting it’s not their fault. Those who don’t want action (containers) want to portray them in negative light ‘feckless’ ‘manipulative’ ‘taking advantage’
Can the problem be linked with a clear solution?
What this offers us is an insight into how issues are framed and certainly demonstrates that it is not an objective process, subjective and public managers are often drawn into these discussions or indeed have to try and navigate these challenges.
11
Causality
Severity
Incidence
Novelty
Proximity
Problem populations
Solutions
Which factors have caused the problem?
How serious is the issue
How frequent is this problem?
Is it new?
Is the audience directly affected?
‘Helpless Victims’ V ‘feckless’ exploiters’.
Can the problem be linked with a clear solution.
Stakeholders
Who do you think are some of the most powerful actors in shaping policy problems?
Media is extremely powerful in the agenda setting role because for the vast majority of the public this is where they get their information from. They can therefore be thought of as an influencer
Mentioned refugees in the seminar a couple of weeks ago and the role of the media in framing a problem is clearly significant.
The role and influence of the media is changing with social media.
McCombs and Shaw (1972) were the first to demonstrate a relationship between what the public felt were the most important issues and the coverage of these issues were receiving in primary media sources.
Whether the media really affects public opinion is less relevant than the fact that political actors believe that it does.
The ability of experts and interest groups to place an issue on an agenda relates to them generating awareness for an issue and in the latter’s case gaining public support.
There are various ways in which an interest group can affect the policy agenda process:
Inside advocacy: info supplied to those involved in the policy making process e.g. informal meetings, sitting on advisory committees
Outside advocacy: info communicated to actors outside of policy making process e.g. media
Grassroots advocacy: mobilisation of the masses usually via the media
Public managers also play a role in this
Power lies in a monopoly on information and in-depth knowledge of the process
Have an impact at the formulation and the development stages of policy making
At the formulation stage: they can shape the agenda and have an important role in drafting
Can act as ‘stand in agenda setters in situations where the politicians don’t have the time and/or technical knowledge to set agendas.
12
Political parties
Citizens
Financial community
Future generations
Interest groups
Taxpayers
Service recipients
Unions
Employees
Media
Competitors
Suppliers
Over governments
Governing bodies
Public managers
Decision Making
13
Decision making
Size & weight
Hard drive
Network connections
Memory
Graphics processing units
Price
RAM,
Clock speed
Is it shiny and awesome?
Some of you will have already thought about buying computers. Based on what criterion do you make a decision?
Size? Hard drive, Network connections, Memory, Graphics processing units, Price, RAM, Clock speed?
You could go through and make a list in which you rationally analyse each of these criteria and work out what best met your budget and needs. This would be a rational process.
But this requires a degree of knowledge and understanding of what these terms mean and how they fit with your needs.
So, alternatively, you go with your gut instincts, ask a couple of mates and look at whether something is shiny and awesome and go for it.
After all it takes time to rigorously cover all the possible spec and make sense of all the data in a meaningful way and even then you may be drawn to a particular model based on reputation.
Similarly with buying a house. How do you decide? What do you need to think about?
Money, budget loans mortgage different types fixed rate other variable. Need to think about income, location. A few variables have to think about how going to play out:
Locations need to like it but should be nice neighbourhood for investment.
Start to think about schools if you are looking to have kids.
Mortgage fixed or variable depending on the economy do you think rate rise so you should get fixed, or may stay the same so variable rate.
Income and stability of income to look at how much you can afford.
SO you could make a list of factors and rank these in priority and perform a sort of analysis. But often decisions are informed by less-tangible methods, there is a degree of gut instinct and you often have to trust your intuition.
14
Formal economic rationality
“Bounded rationality” - Satisficing
Instrumental rationality
Value-laden rationalities
Formal economic rationality
Identification of all alternatives
Determine all consequences deriving from each alternative
select the option with the greatest benefit
Assumes perfect information; and
unlimited processing capacity
Dominant approach is the economic one and specifically Formal economic rationality:
Economic theory most frequently used way of decision making and says man is economic so meant to function to optimising utility to maximise the benefits from a decision
SO in this case decision making is based on the identification of all alternatives, then determine all consequences deriving from each alternative, then select the option with the greatest benefit
Assumes perfect information, and unlimited processing capacity
Rational model of decision-making often does not seem to apply in practice
Ready-made solutions seem to be looking for problems
Politicians want to appear decisive
There is sometimes ambiguity as to what the problem is (or if it exists)
Public mood/change of government seems to dictate change of policy
External actors can play a role here lobbying etc
15
‘Bounded rationality’ - satisficing
Recognises its difficult to see all alternatives and foresee all consequences
assume we can isolate a problem and focus on a limited number of variables
seek something that is “good enough” i.e. it will “satisfy” and “suffice”
“muddling through”
An alternative is “satisficing”, a combination of two words: “satisfy” and “suffice”
Simon maintained that individuals do not seek to maximise their benefit from a particular course of action (since they cannot assimilate and digest all the information that would be needed to do such a thing).
Not only can they not get access to all the information required, but even if they could, their minds would be unable to process it properly. The human mind necessarily restricts itself. It is, as Simon put it, bounded by “cognitive limits”.
Hence people, in many different situations, seek something that is “good enough”, something that is satisfactory. Humans, for example, when in shopping mode, aspire to something that they find acceptable, although that may not necessarily be optimal. They look through things in sequence and when they come across an item that meets their aspiration level, they go for it. This real-world behaviour is what Simon called satisficing.
We are unlikely to be able to identify all alternatives, or to determine and foresee all consequences to all alternatives.
Boundaries to rational decision-making require some coping mechanisms, or practical functioning:
We assume we can isolate a problem from the myriad influences of the world and we consider a limited number of variable and consequences as important for this problem
Authority and organisational membership help us cope
Similarities here with the idea of muddling through put forward by Lindblom
16
Instrumental rationality
Choose the means that help them obtain the ends they like most
I want to do this
Instrumental rationality: seeking to maximise one’s power (in political science)
instrumental rationality and is another way of saying that actors are able to relate means to ends, and they choose the means that help them obtain the ends they like most.
If suicide terrorists believe that they will go to heaven (or that their families would be amply rewarded), then blowing themselves up becomes rational.
That is, their acts, however incomprehensible to us, in fact do relate means to ends in a purposeful way.
17
Value-laden rationality
the ends (goals) make sense in terms of a specific ethical stance
Equality
Impartiality
Democracy
Human rights
Value-laden rationalities: the ends (goals) make sense in terms of a specific ethical stance, e.g. equality, impartiality, democracy
both public and non-profit organisations need to take into account the ethics of their decisions
Not mutually exclusive you could start by thinking about possible options
Lock out external actors’ part of parliamentary process. Can’t change the point of view as option has been chosen but can positively shape general environment.
18
Evidence in Policy Making
19
Why does evidence matter?
“effective governance of complex social systems requires opportunities for social and organizational learning, which in turn rely on systems for gathering and using evidence”
Boaz & Nutley
(Ch. 22 in Public Management and Governance)
Boaz and Nutley - https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9780203634219/chapters/10.4324/9780203884096-35
Evidence to improve accountability - information about the performance of government.
In policy making evidence can be really important in designing and developing policy, assessing the impact of a policy action or intervention. Improving implementation and identifying tomorrows issues.
20
Evidence to improve accountability
information about the performance of government
Evidence to promote improvement
knowledge that enables the design and delivery of more effective policies and programs…
Evidence in policy making…
to design and develop public policy
to assess the impact of policy interventions
to improve policy implementation
to identify risks and issues
To design and develop…
“It can help to identify the issues to be addressed and whether there are interventions that are likely to be effective in tackling recognised problems”
Takes time
Results are not always useful.
Can be done with:
Stakeholder consultations.
Pilot studies
Evidence of effectiveness…
It is important to evaluate the impact of projects as they proceed.
randomised controlled trials (RCTs)?
Stakeholder evaluations?
Difficult to measure the outcomes of many social interventions
Improving policy implementation…
Lessons learned in policy implementation can help improve implementation in the future.
Identifying tomorrow’s issues…
A role for evidence in looking at problems and risks in the future.
Risk and Risk Assessment
Public managers and elected officials are responsible for the provision of public goods including things such as:
Defence and security
Financial stability?
Safety
They also intervene to deal with externalities and spillovers i.e. accidents.
Public managers are increasingly expected to understand, prevent or respond to risks to security, safety, stability and…
…expected to protect citizens, industry and the nation from risks.
26
Risk
Risk Assessment Surprises
Fukushima
911
Financial Crisis
Risk
Many scholars differ between the conditions of:
“Risk” in which there is an adequate scientific understanding to assign probabilities for specific outcomes.
“Uncertainty” in which there is insufficient basis for assigning probabilities.
Also useful to keep in mind that we can never know all possible hazards – and to argue otherwise is foolish.
29
Traffic accidents
Well known disease
Familiar systems
Controlled conditions
Engineering failure
Flood (under normal conditions)
Complex, nonlinear, open systems
Human element in causal models
Specific effects beyond boundaries
Flood under climate change
Unassessed carcinogens
New variant human pathogens
Technocratic Model
Experts
Policy decision
Scientific facts
Policy is based on unitary and unequivocal “sound science”
USA from the 1950s to the late 1960s, and in much of Europe until the late 1990s, the dominant official narrative was a technocratic approach – still quite powerful and prevalent.
In the technocratic models Erik puts forward there is this thing called scientific facts which all agree with each other – no disagreements
Experts use these facts and just these facts to generate policy recommendations.
Policy makers typically follow the advice of technical experts and claim that Policy is based on unitary and unequivocal “sound science”
Blair used to talk about decisions “based on proper scientific evidence”
It’s based only on ‘sound science’
This is called the technocratic model because its based on technocrats or experts.
What do people think?
Rather weakened in the US in 1970 first when Congressional legislation acknowledged scientific uncertainties and also under the weight of FOIA which allowed greater scrutiny.
30
Policy based on “sound science”
If you had to develop an evidence based illegal drug policy what could you do?
Assess the “harm” of various drugs based on historical data:
Physical harm
Dependence
Social
Then somehow rank these by ‘harm caused’.
And use this to classify drugs and legislation?
Nutt, D et al ‘Development of a Rational Scale to Assess the Harm of Drugs of Potential Misuse’. Lancet, 2007.
Physical - Assessment of the propensity of a drug to cause physical harm—ie, damage to organs or systems
Dependence - This dimension of harm involves interdependent elements—the pleasurable effects of the drug and its propensity to produce dependent behavior
Social - Drugs harm society in several ways—e.g., through the various effects of intoxication, through damaging family and social life, and through the costs to systems of health care, social care, and police
One of the issues is that different forms of harm might lead to conflicting results – if cannabis has less physical harm that LSD, should it be classified as more harmful?
This is a controversial assessment by David Nutt and colleagues from Kings college.
They ranked harm caused by drugs, and compared these to classification: what do you think came first heroin, cocaine barbiturates street meth and number 5?
31
Mean independent group scores in each of the three categories of harm
Physical Heroin Cocaine Barbituates Street Meth Amphetamine Cannabis LSD 2.78 2.33 2.23 1.86 1.81 0.99 1.1299999999999999 Dependence Heroin Cocaine Barbituates Street Meth Amphetamine Cannabis LSD 3 2.39 2.0099999999999998 2.08 1.67 1.51 1.23 Social Heroin Cocaine Barbituates Street Meth Amphetamine Cannabis LSD 2.54 2.17 2 1.87 1.5 1.5 1.32
Nutts!
Mean harm scores for 20 substances
Classification under the Misuse of Drugs Act, where appropriate.
This was controversial (Nutt was sacked)
Scientific evidence is often contestable.
Even if the science is seen as correct, political, social and economic factors also matter.
Nutt, D et al ‘Development of a Rational Scale to Assess the Harm of Drugs of Potential Misuse’. Lancet, 2007.
So Nutt and colleagues went off and did this – Nutt was sacked from his position as the UK governments Chief drug advisor after publishing this paper which suggested that the system was not evidence based.
Two things:
UK classification of psychoactive drugs into three categories of harm (A, B, and C) is only modestly correlated with expert ratings of the harms caused. Can they really reclassify alcohol – how would English men talk express feelings. And Populism favours tough policies towards illicit drugs such as cannabis.
Other analysis could result in other suggestions. For example, this model failed to assess the evidence of drugs being taken in combination.
Single drug use in isolation is the exception rather than the norm for many users so this could have changed the science.
Other definitions of drug related deaths could result in different information.
32
Other technocratic issues
One can select the ‘right experts’
Works when there is a degree of secrecy.
Still goes on:
“no choice but to accept the advice of experts”
“Based on sound science”
“Professor, I want you to realise that I will never hesitate to use you as my shield”
Assumes that all the relevant information is objective, politically neutral available and sufficient to make decisions.
Other technocratic issues…
‘Decisionist’ or Red Book Model
Risk Assessment
Risk Management
Scientific considerations
Technical, economic, political, social and ethical considerations
Risk Communication
Technical, economic, political, social and ethical considerations
Science first, policy making second
Next most is the decisionist or red book model.
‘Decisionist’ because it acknowledges that science on its own will not settle risk management policy issues, and that policy-makers need to take decisions, albeit in the light of expert advice
Model thinks about science first with experts mulling over science and again feed advice to risk managers and risk managers politicians make decisions not only on scientific but other consideration.
Taken a step further forward based on the NAS report in 1983 on risk which had a red cover – hence red book.
When they make that advice an important part of the process is to communicate it.
Different approaches to risk communication.
Here it explicitly recognises scientific evidence but requires policy people to defend decisions on the basis of extra scientific or non-scientific claims.
Importantly divided science from the decision making which takes on board technical, economic, political, social and ethical considerations
Recognised explicitly that these things played a role particularly in situations of uncertainty so when there was no clear direction.
35
Limitations
These models portray scientific representation of risk as if they were free from social, political, or economic influences.
But that is not always the case.
Non scientific assumptions about
what is counted as a risk and what is discounted
which evidence to use and which not to use
how much evidence is needed
influence the selection and interpretation of judgements
Framing
People see things differently depending on the assumptions they make.
A scientist may see a discovery or a solution, someone in security services may see a threat and a entrepreneur and opportunity.
End up talking cross purposes because of different framing considerations
37
Framing assumptions
Questions, such as “how safe is it?”, can be answered differently on assumptions…
How safe for whom or what?
Compared/relative to what?
Simple way of asking questions about food regulation
Is it safe for the environment, what we know is that agriculture can be bad for you and everything if we eat too much of it can be bad for us
So is it safe? Can give you different answers if you are comparing it to with different baselines
Back to GM crops and safety assessments
Austrian farms were organic farms so Austrian scientists compared GM Maize with organic maize
in the US, most farms used high amounts of insecticides so they compared the impact of maize to that baseline.
One thing Erik's work points to is to add in a step before risk assessment in which you try to make explicit and reach some form of agreement around framing assumptions.
38
Animals
Humans
Brits
Northerners
Rich, white men in the South.
Carrots
Northerners
Organic Maize
Non Organic Maize
Co-evolutionary model
Framing assumptions (risk assessment policy)
Expert risk assessment
Socio-economic and political considerations
Mostly scientific considerations
Policy decision making (risk management)
Technical, economic, ethical and political considerations
Reciprocal communication
Third model of millstone is what he calls the co-evolutionary model and this is a response to criticisms about the decisionist model that relate to what was discussed before.
First science doesn’t speak with one voice. Different interpretations of evidence rather than one unequivocal version of sound science.
But also a lot of different interpretations depending on the question asked of the risk assessors.
So it starts by looking at framing assumptions and risk assessment policies.
Managers make a decision based on science and non-scientific consideration and these are all communicated to the public and at each stage in the chain there is two-way communication and it’s iterative.
So it’s not a decision making but an ongoing process to work towards safer products.
39
Framing and risk assessment policy
Determination of risk assessment policy should be included as a specific component of risk management.
Risk assessment policy should be established by risk managers in advance of risk assessment … This procedure aims at ensuring that the risk assessment is systematic, complete, unbiased and transparent.
The mandate given by risk managers to risk assessors should be as clear as possible.
Millstone (2009)
Also risk assessment policy was outside the mainstream for a long time with people like Erik pushing for decades.
Erik was on the joint advisory committee between FAO and WHO and that advises the Codex Alimentarius Commission and they have actually adopted this approach to scientific advice and suggested that all national governments should include this.
What does this mean - “risk assessment policy should be included as a specific component of risk management.”
Doesn’t mean the scientist doing it, it’s the risk managers doing it and the procedure aims to ensure that risk assessment is “systematic, complete, unbiased and transparent”
So the questions asked are explicitly communicated - those outside the scientific remit – the ethical social considerations are involved in making the mandate of risk assessors as clear as possible.
Other component is that rather than science speaking with one voice, risk assessors should recognise that there are different ways of interpreting the science, especially when you take on board the social context in which regulations are implemented.
Scientist rather than assuming and giving advice to policy makers, are encouraged to give multiple options to policy makers so policy makers on the basis of their knowledge and the science can choose the best decision.
Comments on the model?
40
Risk Assessment Policy
Substantive RAPs are concerned with delineating which potential changes and effects are to be included within the scope of risk assessments and which are outside their scope, and which kinds of evidence are admissible and which are not.
Risks posed by food additives are considered - do they focus solely on toxicological issues or should they be extended also to consider possible impacts on public health nutrition?
Type of harm caused by drugs
Harm of CW – need to know what is/isn’t a chemical and biological weapon.
Procedural RAPs are concerned with the processes by which risk assessments are conducted and reported.
For example, should risk assessment deliberations be conducted in open or closed meetings, and how should risk assessors respond to uncertainties?
Interpretative RAPs are concerned with the ways in which data are interpreted. Data and documents do not interpret themselves; interpretation often involves judgements and assumptions.
For example, are laboratory rodents treated as good or as poor models for the effects of chemicals on humans—and for all types of lesions at all sites, or only for some?
The potential of some influenza GOF viruses can never be assessed because the crucial experiment – infecting humans – is unethical
41
Substantive RAPs
Procedural RAPs
Interpretative RAPs
… are concerned with delineating which potential changes and effects are to be included within the scope of risk assessments and which are outside their scope, and which kinds of evidence are admissible and which are not.
… are concerned with the processes by which risk assessments are conducted and reported.
… are concerned with the ways in which data are interpreted. Data and documents do not interpret themselves; interpretation often involves judgements and assumptions.
Examples: physical drug harm, social drug harm, all drug harm?
Examples: Consensus report or not? Who decides participation?
Examples: Ferrets/lab rats as models?
Reflections
Public policy can be seen as a course of action produced as a response to a perceived problem
Problems are complex and socially constructed or framed, a process that involves many different stakeholders.
There are different approaches to decision making (rational, satisficing, etc.)
Evidence is important in public policy making as is risk assessment.
But be wary of the extent to which expert, “evidence based” assessments of risk are really based on “sound science”.
Week 7 - Recap
Different models of scientific advice
Technocratic expert based; Decisionist experts (science) and then policy makers/public mangers make decision (based on science and other things); co-evolutionary model.
Evidence is useful to public managers
Provides evidence to improve accountability and evidence to promote improvement in policy choices.
Improves
design and develop public policy; impact assessment; implementation; identification of tomorrow’s issues
Risk is determined by probability of an event and consequences of an event
Works when you have lots of information and things are certain. Does not work well when there is uncertainty.
Risk is problem when
Assumptions, Interests, limits of knowledge. Or when things are framed differently.
Public policy
Decision making
Formal economic rationality; “Bounded rationality” – Satisficing; Instrumental rationality; Value-laden rationalities
Lavf57.56.100
