Which Methods Are Useful to Justify Public Policies? An Analysis of Cost–Benefit Analysis, Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, and Non-Aggregate Indicator Systems
| Autor: | Gertrude Hirsch Hadorn |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2021 |
| Předmět: |
Philosophy of science
Cost–benefit analysis Computer science Aggregate (data warehouse) Non-aggregate indicator systems General Social Sciences Public policy Multiple values Multiple-criteria decision analysis Rational choice Cost–beneft analysis Multi-criteria decision analysis Policy justifcation Philosophy History and Philosophy of Science Risk analysis (engineering) |
| Zdroj: | Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 53 (2) |
| ISSN: | 1572-8587 0925-4560 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s10838-021-09580-4 |
| Popis: | Science-based methods for assessing the practical rationality of a proposed public policy typically represent assumed future outcomes of policies and values attributed to these outcomes in an idealized, that is, intentionally distorted way and abstracted from aspects that are deemed irrelevant. Different types of methods do so in different ways. As a consequence, they instantiate the properties that result from abstraction and idealization such as conceptual simplicity versus complexity, or comprehensiveness versus selectivity of the values under consideration to different degrees. I hold that none of these methods is best in general. Instead, I opt for the valuation method that is useful for the policy issue in question both in terms of its relevance and in terms of its practicability. Relevance requires that the method can represent and account for what is at stake in the policy issue. Practicability refers to aspects such as easy versus difficult handling of the method. To argue for the claim, I evaluate three types of valuation methods: (1) cost–benefit analysis that rests on unidimensional measurement and ranking, (2) multi-criteria decision analysis that applies multi-dimensional measurement but unidimensional ranking, and (3) non-aggregate indicator systems that operate with multi-dimensional measurement and sometimes also multi-dimensional ranking. Second-order justification indicating whether and how the valuation method chosen is capable of accounting for the substantive value considerations that constitute the real-world policy issue in question renders the conditions on which the results of a proposed policy evaluation rest transparent. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 53 (2) ISSN:0925-4560 ISSN:1572-8587 |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full text from SpringerLink