反思循证政策

IF 1.2 Q3 ECONOMICS
Adrian Pabst
{"title":"反思循证政策","authors":"Adrian Pabst","doi":"10.1017/nie.2021.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Much of public policy-making has in recent decades been driven by the idea of evidence-based policy – policy rooted in the principles of social science and, more specifically, empirical validation based on social and behavioural science. This article argues that evidence-based policy, while helping to improve the design of policies aimed at changing individual behaviour, lacks a recognition that individual and group choices are embedded in social relationships and institutions. There is a risk of over-relying not only on probabilistic models that under-state our condition of ‘radical uncertainty’ but also on data and metrics that are disconnected from the everyday experience of workers and citizens whose needs and interests cannot always be measured or managed. Since uncertainty is a fundamental reality of both the economy and social life, policy-making needs robust conceptual narratives to make sense of numbers and provide a sound basis on which to make decisions allied to ethical judgements.","PeriodicalId":45594,"journal":{"name":"National Institute Economic Review","volume":"255 1","pages":"85 - 91"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/nie.2021.2","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"RETHINKING EVIDENCE-BASED POLICY\",\"authors\":\"Adrian Pabst\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/nie.2021.2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Much of public policy-making has in recent decades been driven by the idea of evidence-based policy – policy rooted in the principles of social science and, more specifically, empirical validation based on social and behavioural science. This article argues that evidence-based policy, while helping to improve the design of policies aimed at changing individual behaviour, lacks a recognition that individual and group choices are embedded in social relationships and institutions. There is a risk of over-relying not only on probabilistic models that under-state our condition of ‘radical uncertainty’ but also on data and metrics that are disconnected from the everyday experience of workers and citizens whose needs and interests cannot always be measured or managed. Since uncertainty is a fundamental reality of both the economy and social life, policy-making needs robust conceptual narratives to make sense of numbers and provide a sound basis on which to make decisions allied to ethical judgements.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45594,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"National Institute Economic Review\",\"volume\":\"255 1\",\"pages\":\"85 - 91\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/nie.2021.2\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"National Institute Economic Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/nie.2021.2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"National Institute Economic Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/nie.2021.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

近几十年来,大部分公共政策制定都是由循证政策的理念推动的,这种政策植根于社会科学的原则,更具体地说,是基于社会和行为科学的实证验证。本文认为,循证政策虽然有助于改进旨在改变个人行为的政策设计,但缺乏对个人和群体选择嵌入社会关系和制度的认识。不仅存在过度依赖概率模型的风险,在我们处于“根本不确定性”的情况下,还存在过度依赖与工人和公民的日常经验脱节的数据和指标的风险,因为他们的需求和利益无法始终得到衡量或管理。由于不确定性是经济和社会生活的基本现实,决策需要强有力的概念叙事来理解数字,并为做出与道德判断相结合的决策提供坚实的基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
RETHINKING EVIDENCE-BASED POLICY
Much of public policy-making has in recent decades been driven by the idea of evidence-based policy – policy rooted in the principles of social science and, more specifically, empirical validation based on social and behavioural science. This article argues that evidence-based policy, while helping to improve the design of policies aimed at changing individual behaviour, lacks a recognition that individual and group choices are embedded in social relationships and institutions. There is a risk of over-relying not only on probabilistic models that under-state our condition of ‘radical uncertainty’ but also on data and metrics that are disconnected from the everyday experience of workers and citizens whose needs and interests cannot always be measured or managed. Since uncertainty is a fundamental reality of both the economy and social life, policy-making needs robust conceptual narratives to make sense of numbers and provide a sound basis on which to make decisions allied to ethical judgements.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
9.50%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: The National Institute Economic Review is the quarterly publication of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, one of Britain"s oldest and most prestigious independent research organisations. The Institutes objective is to promote, through quantitative research, a deeper understanding of the interaction of economic and social forces that affect peoples" lives so that they may be improved. It has no political affiliation, and receives no core funding from government. Its research programme is organised under the headings of Economic Modelling and Analysis; Productivity; Education and Training and the International Economy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信