Consecuencias alternativas: la importancia de su conocimiento en la implementación de políticas

AUTOR(ES)
FONTE

Trans/Form/Ação

DATA DE PUBLICAÇÃO

15/07/2019

RESUMO

Abstract: The present paper examines the different kinds of knowledge required for correct policy implementation. Cartwright and Hardie (2012) have criticized the evidence-based policy approach for being grounded on inductive inferences. They propose an alternative approach where, on the one hand, the causal principle or policy variable is abstracted as much as possible in order to overcome external validity problems, and, on the other hand, this principle is complemented with a set of supporting factors which refer to very specific aspects of a target system. While this approach provides a good basis for formulating a policy, it omits a central issue: the alternative consequences that derive from a policy. More precisely, Cartwright and Hardie’s approach aims to collect information in order to assemble a policy that works here. However, it says nothing about the cases where a policy deviates from its desired path. The problem arises when such deviations lead to transcendentally negative consequences. It will be argued that knowledge of a policy’s alternative consequences are just as important as the knowledge of central and support factors. A policy-maker’s decision will then depend not only on a policy’s chances of success, but also on the asymmetry of its results (Taleb, 2012).

Documentos Relacionados