Aging Populations, Public Policy & Uncertainty
Growing Meta #19
Salam everyone!
In this issue I tackle Futures Studies in a bit more depth.
We wish everything was theory/established facts, but the truth is we’re epistemically crippled. We need empirical data — hard evidence we can rely on. That’s why we love case studies and examples. (at the very least, I do!)
Below is a case study from the Netherlands. The aging population was a big issue economically according to several futures studies. It became a card in any politician’s agenda in the past three decades. But the problem was, they didn’t consider uncertainties, like a change in social norms (e.g. more women value career focused lives over having more children).
Researchers who craft futures studies, policy makers who consume these studies, and politicians who act upon them, must all invest more in their thinking about uncertainties.
Futures studies and uncertainty in public policy: A case study on the aging population in the Netherlands (2013)
Sietske A. Veenman
The author was curious to know: how did public policy and politicians deal with uncertainty about the long term?
Veenman took a case study and explored it, mainly through longitudinal reconstruction. He read the age forecasting reports and investigated interviews with involved policy makers and statisticians, then reconstructed a timeline and analyzed how everyone thought about uncertainty.
Before we dive into the case. Let’s get some definitions in place.
Three main categories of futures studies:
Forecasting: we sketch the future as a logical extension of the past
Foresight: we describe possibilities/scenarios about the future
Normative: we study the future from one point of view. Example methods:
Backcasting: we imagine one amazing future, and then analyze what we need to get there
Critical futures studies: we recognize desires, values, cultural and global views when studying the future.
Image source.
There are 2 main types of uncertainties in futures studies:
Cognitive Uncertainty: When we don’t know because the phenomena is too variant.
Normative Uncertainty: When we don’t know what will govern the actors. (e.g. their norms might change, therefore their behavior might change)
When we don’t consider uncertainties, we fall into certainification.
Certainification is when speculations “are interpreted as facts by public policy makers and politicians while ignoring that futures studies deal with assumptions and uncertainties.”
Also, the author considered three aspects of public policy making and politics:
Political Agenda: what are the priorities of the political leader?
Policy Agenda: what is the plan of attack on these priorities? (i.e. solutions to problems)
Decision Agenda: what policies to implement/decisions to make?
The Case: Netherlands & Forecast of an Aging Population
Summary. In the 1980s, Dutch statisticians & social scientists made a forecast on the country’s age composition in 10, 20, 30 and 50 years. Slowly, policy makers and politicians gave the matter gradual attention. BUT, everyone marginalized uncertainty over the decades. That’s a problem because wrongly giving one future all of our attention and resources can cost us a lot if we’re mistaken. At the very least, we’d look like fools.
Here’s the gist of the story broken by three agendas (Policy | Political | Decision):
Policy Agenda
In the 70s, The Netherlands Institute for Social Research forecasted demographic composition. They made a study on trends of death rate, birth rate, marriage and migration (initial alarm on aging population).
After that, another report was made in 1985 which took to media as well. It led to parliamentary concern. The report didn’t consider change in values and social norms
The parliament established a committee (Drees), who published a report in 1987 called Mirrored in Time. They said aging was going to heavily impact financing of state pensions. They also didn’t consider change in social values.
Going into the 90s, some labor policies were introduced like Unemployment insurance law and Statutory disability payment.
Also, pension policy was heavily revised (e.g. replacement of early retirement (collectively paid for) by pre-retirement (at your own expense)).
The 1990s witnessed even more futures studies, most of them forecasting.
Finally, the Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis published several forecasting studies that had the same results and message.
The author emphasizes that discussions about uncertainty were absent in every report.
Political Agenda
By 1998, aging became an important topic in political debates. This is the place where normative discussion ‘should’ be held. But in this case, future norms and values were not considered.
They were not considered because the political parties also shared the same perspective on aging. Also, they relied mainly on forecasting methods, and these always probe discussion on cognitive uncertainty, not normative.
Decision Agenda
After the many alarms, the aging issue went on the decision agenda. Because the issue was labelled as dangerous to the economy, the prime minister ‘rejected in 2003 all uncertainties’. 'He opted for one ‘certain’ future that he labelled ‘the truth’.’
Either way, “the decisive agenda is about legitimizing decisions, not about discussion.”
So what’s the problem with these futures studies?
They only used forecasting. Forecasting is narrow. It doesn’t consider normative uncertainty. Example: that didn’t even consider the positive effects of an aging population.
All studies were the same. Same tools, same outcomes. That stifled discussions. (Availability bias narrowed policy makers thinking about normative uncertainty )
They were not discussed thoroughly. According to the author, some of the actors of change only had appetite for a single number and not for a lucid discussion. (Single numbers are like fries, loved everywhere..)
Key Takeaways:
When everyone forecasts the same thing, we get certainification. Everyone becomes certain of that singular future that they don’t even consider uncertainties.
We need to heavily include normative futures studies when studying the future.
Normative studies give us alternative views on the future
Normative studies will stimulate a social debate that will make a basis for a common future.
Normative studies gives us choices.
‘the fundamental importance of futures studies is precisely about choice, about laying out the options available to a society at a given time, explaining their roots and causes, highlighting their consequences’ - Andersson 2010
Isolated Note:
Everyone has a different definition for what’s long term. It could be 25 or 100 years. It’s sad how dependent everyone is on the heuristics of a few.
[1] S.A. Veenman, Futures (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2013.08.008