tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post4049887857040755577..comments2024-03-18T11:12:51.114+00:00Comments on mainly macro: The decline of evidence based policyMainly Macrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09984575852247982901noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-56311434662207393632014-01-08T08:34:32.746+00:002014-01-08T08:34:32.746+00:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-13281175651517325272013-10-24T07:26:20.182+00:002013-10-24T07:26:20.182+00:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Local UK Newshttp://www.iparrotpost.co.uk/local-uk-news/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-32265218471228271412013-10-23T10:54:49.655+00:002013-10-23T10:54:49.655+00:00So let me get this right:
You've published a l...So let me get this right:<br />You've published a list of "supposedly 'evidence-based' policies" such as minimum pricing for alcohol, plain packaging for cigarettes and the smoking ban, and claim they are not based on any evidence at all or are based on "so-called 'evidence'" that you claim is not evidence.<br /><br />However, you are not offering any evidence to support your assertion that these policies are not based on evidence and are merely assertions. <br /><br />If you don't offer evidence to support your assertion that these policies are not evidence-based, how can we ascertain whether they are evidence-based or not?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-59583161452088680062013-10-22T18:01:23.099+00:002013-10-22T18:01:23.099+00:00The Guardian itself has a good discussion: http://...The Guardian itself has a good discussion: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2013/oct/22/health-tourists-costing-nhs-2bnMainly Macrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09984575852247982901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-50117842564125703502013-10-22T11:01:20.473+00:002013-10-22T11:01:20.473+00:00Your blogs are doing a great public service. It is...Your blogs are doing a great public service. It is good for the public and democracy that economist's work is opened up and explained and good for economists that their work gets scrutiny by the public and people working in other areas. I understand your arguments about immigration, but I am not in complete agreement. While I do not think it is the cause of inequality and little progress in tackling low regional and inter-industry mobility and hysteresis in the labour markets, I do think, EVEN IF there has been a real GNP per capita increase in wealth with immigration, the income effects have not outweighed the substitution effects. One of the great tragedies of the Blair years was that we had massive employment growth, yet long term unemployment remained entrenched. We should have got these people working in the hotels, as security guards - any way we can get them in the workforce and earn a decent wage that covers the high costs of living where the jobs are. Instead things like highly elastic labour supply from Eastern Europe and a well-developed apprenticeship system that was left over in Poland from the communist era supplied this labour demand for us on the cheap. I think it is also important not to patronise people with different views. Some people feel a sense of alienation in their own country. Crowding, road and other congestion in Britain is high by any standard - compromising the living standards of the lower and middle income classes who are not part of the cosmopolitan political elite. While this is probably only partly a result of immigration, the views of a large proportion of the population should be listened to. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-74489782694707960952013-10-22T10:00:53.534+00:002013-10-22T10:00:53.534+00:00Excellent article.
Though I was wondering if you h...Excellent article.<br />Though I was wondering if you have seen the research paper that published these findings: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/22/temporary-migrants-nhs-cost-study and have any comment / critique.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04586114626358484141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-42107726236838526882013-10-22T06:40:18.747+00:002013-10-22T06:40:18.747+00:00Politics is generally based on preferences and not...Politics is generally based on preferences and not on evidence. (And often in that process the evidence that agrees with the the preference is cherrypicked). Riknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-91027420727670018092013-10-22T04:32:34.220+00:002013-10-22T04:32:34.220+00:00I would go so far as to postulate that the entire ...I would go so far as to postulate that the entire conservative political ideology is driven by emotion rather than facts and evidence. Tropes such as the hard-working conservatives versus the lazy welfare-ridden left, the health and welfare systems being overrun by millions of scroungers, or dictatorial lefty eggheads imposing their pie-in-the-sky egalitarian social schemes, have been relentlessly hammered home for the past few decades now. It just seems the modus operandi is to 1) go on a Two Minute Hate rant against the target of the week, 2) push a policy through based on no evidence whatsoever, 3) print a notice of error (if any) six months later in small print on page 52, but of course they make no mention of their viscious propaganda and the legislation remains on the books.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-39124931866173212172013-10-21T13:21:31.724+00:002013-10-21T13:21:31.724+00:00Don't forget the Badger Cull, proposed changes...Don't forget the Badger Cull, proposed changes in educational policy, ongoing attempts to toughen up law enforcement despite the fact that crime is at a record low, so on and so forth. The contempt of the government for reality is absolute.Fangzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17792907911535480701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-15450710405275369542013-10-21T13:21:25.361+00:002013-10-21T13:21:25.361+00:00"So called evidence"
That's pricele..."So called evidence"<br /><br />That's priceless Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-15330185641310243352013-10-21T13:09:47.298+00:002013-10-21T13:09:47.298+00:00Keep up the excellent work exposing and exploring ...Keep up the excellent work exposing and exploring these issues Simon. Recognising what is happening in government and society at large, with help from you, Jonathan Portes, Paul Krugman and others, is inspiring me to try to do something active about it.<br /><br />I do think there is a problem with how well (or badly) the general public is informed on important issues. My own mum will regularly opine on how too many people are coming to Britain for welfare or health reasons, and that there isn't room for them. When I ask her how many people are immigrating for these reasons, she has no clue, but this does nothing to make her question her deep-seated, emotionally-rooted beliefs. She has no desire to seek out the answer to my question. And so it is for society more broadly: reasoned argument may not be sufficient to change people's minds and influence mainstream views. And politicians as well as journalists reflect these mainstream views.<br /><br />Behind it all is the identification with certain groups (e.g. "British", or political/social groups), and the mistrust, fear or even hatred of outsiders. This is a subconscious process for most people, it seems to be part of who we are as humans, evolved over a long time, but is today a hidden taboo. The problem is it can lead to destructive behaviour, including public policies, that harms everyone for no good reason.<br /><br />I feel like joining or starting a campaign against ignorance.Richard Doylenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-44144674979321171542013-10-21T10:56:14.471+00:002013-10-21T10:56:14.471+00:00I would argue that basing policy on models rather ...I would argue that basing policy on models rather than evidence, or taking the evidence to fit the model (rather than the reverse) is also very bad. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-55831697738211866752013-10-21T09:51:32.283+00:002013-10-21T09:51:32.283+00:00dementia caregiving
TheCaregiverSpace.org is a fre...<a href="http://www.thecaregiverspace.org//" rel="nofollow">dementia caregiving<br /></a>TheCaregiverSpace.org is a free social network that care & Support for the Caregivers, eldercare, senior caregiving, senior helpers, aging parent and family caregivers.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03861848697860455420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-7912551553471084212013-10-20T22:35:51.254+00:002013-10-20T22:35:51.254+00:00Political ideology now trumps any evidence based f...Political ideology now trumps any evidence based fact.All you have to do is look at the current immigration debate, Austerity is based on the Conservative need to reduce taxes which inevitable leads to greater inequality and poverty for those who are deemed to be less deserving, Adam Smith is turning.Faux Pashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00766772206952539893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-21423976551969720642013-10-20T14:18:04.677+00:002013-10-20T14:18:04.677+00:00I could add the following as supposedly 'evide...I could add the following as supposedly 'evidence-based' policies that aren't:<br /><br />Minimum pricing for alcohol<br />Plain packaging for cigarettes<br />The smoking ban in pubs<br />Campaigns against salt and saturated fat<br />Proposals for a 'fat tax' and taxes on fizzy drinks<br />New York's ban on smoking in parks<br /><br />Indeed almost the entirety of public health policy development is so steeped in the ideology of choice control that no of them have spotted that it's just not working.<br /><br />Oh there's lots of so-called 'evidence' but it's entirely designed and implemented to support the previously determined policy. Simon Cookehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12586896340482296341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-4611016910467154972013-10-20T12:49:18.524+00:002013-10-20T12:49:18.524+00:00I look at my own family in the US (I live in Canad...I look at my own family in the US (I live in Canada, thank God.) Many of them are far poorer, even destitute, in the wake of the 2007-8 financial collapse, or as a result of the job-linked health care system. Two brothers, in particular, lost crucial health care when serious illness lost them their jobs - one was homeless, though not jobless, for three months ( he's the one who lost 11 years retirement savings from his 401k in 2008) The other survived a serious heart attack while he had insurance through his company, but of course there were other, huge costs that insurance didn't cover. He lost the job and his house and vehicle, and only survived by taking a tiny apartment with a friend, and going back to college, at age 60, under the GI Bill.<br /><br />Yet most of my US relatives are deeply skeptical of the ACA or of any government programs set up just for people in their situation. In particular, the younger generation, my brothers children, have bought into a mindset that ensures that they will actively avoid and oppose the very help they so desperately need. Stockholm Syndrome on a grand scale. It is this distortion of the public mind, more than the parasitism of the insurance and financial systems, that most infuriates me. Fraud and extortion you can fight, but if you don't recognize them as such, then what?Noni Mausahttp://tea-analysis.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-78028469066207599172013-10-20T10:45:29.484+00:002013-10-20T10:45:29.484+00:00Politicians need the votes of the public, not expe...Politicians need the votes of the public, not experts. So the thing is that the public need to be swayed by evidence.<br /><br />No doubt they often don't get the evidence - the media isn't always great, as you say.<br /><br />BUT, even if they were better informed, I'd still be pessimistic about evidence based politics. Too much has been found about people's biases - confirmation biases and motivated reasoning. People only give weight to those facts that support their established opinions, and underweight contrary facts. As Simon & Garfunkel sung, "A man only hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest."<br /><br />For example, the Lee Ross and colleagues study from 1979, where supporters and opponents of the death penalty were given facts which gave support to both positions. The people came away more polarised, not less. The evidence hadn't shaken their previous opinions.<br /><br />So I think that human nature ultimately places a limit on rational political discourse (where the issues are often very complex anyway, and cause disagreements among specialists).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-54312918043067812362013-10-20T10:15:00.800+00:002013-10-20T10:15:00.800+00:00“My immediate reaction is to say ‘unless that poli...“My immediate reaction is to say ‘unless that policy involves the macroeconomics of fiscal policy’, but once you see one area where evidence is ignored, you begin to see many more.”<br /><br />Quite. IP policy is a good source of examples (e.g. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/99610a50-7bb2-11da-ab8e-0000779e2340.html#axzz2iFgb0rns ). If people demand irrational policies, as they often do, the policy makers will oblige. phayesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-72414680457255212752013-10-20T08:30:38.621+00:002013-10-20T08:30:38.621+00:00If you had listened to Toby Young on the BBC, you ...If you had listened to Toby Young on the BBC, you would know that the US had a one trillion dollar stimulus, apparently. Not that he was challenged on the figure, which I expect came third-hand from someone who knew someone who knew what Joe Stiglitz had recommended (Krugman went for 1.2 trillion dollar stimulus).<br /><br />I have just read Stefan Collini's third brilliant article in recent years on university funding on the London Review of Books (no subscription required). It finishes like this:<br /><br />"Future historians, pondering changes in British society from the 1980s onwards, will struggle to account for the following curious fact. Although British business enterprises have an extremely mixed record (frequently posting gigantic losses, mostly failing to match overseas competitors, scarcely benefiting the weaker groups in society), and although such arm’s length public institutions as museums and galleries, the BBC and the universities have by and large a very good record (universally acknowledged creativity, streets ahead of most of their international peers, positive forces for human development and social cohesion), nonetheless over the past three decades politicians have repeatedly attempted to force the second set of institutions to change so that they more closely resemble the first. Some of those historians may even wonder why at the time there was so little concerted protest at this deeply implausible programme. But they will at least record that, alongside its many other achievements, the coalition government took the decisive steps in helping to turn some first-rate universities into third-rate companies. If you still think the time for criticism is over, perhaps you’d better think again."<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com