3 things about Gove's very interesting speech that I find puzzling.
1) Can more 'deep expertise' in policymaking be a solution if 'elites with different social and political values' are the cause of Whitehall's alienation from the 52%?
1) Can more 'deep expertise' in policymaking be a solution if 'elites with different social and political values' are the cause of Whitehall's alienation from the 52%?
2) If you want to so more policy evaluation, why would you want 'less reliance on social science and more on physical science'? This is, er, what social scientists do...?
3) Does it work simultaneously to argue that civil servants are unaccountable and that they don't take risks? Wouldn't your advice become more risk averse if your job was on the line?
Isn't the real reason they're risk averse that they don't want to embarrass the minister?
Isn't the real reason they're risk averse that they don't want to embarrass the minister?
In the spirit of the argument, it should be backed up with some quantitative analysis of the proposals' costs/benefits. Can we see a Bayesian Monte Carlo simulation of the payoffs from hiring more risk-loving physicists to do labour market evaluations from north Wales maybe?
