Demystifying Evidence-Based Policy Analysis by Revealing Hidden Value-Laden Constraints

Area of Science:

• Social Policy Analysis
• Economics
• Decision Science

Background:

• Policy decisions often rely on evidence presented as objective.
• Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is frequently used for technology regulation decisions.
• The objectivity of evidence in policy-making is questioned.

Purpose of the Study:

• To assert that value-neutral evidence in policy analysis is a misconception.
• To identify and analyze hidden value judgments within cost-benefit analysis (CBA).
• To advocate for transparency in the value judgments underpinning policy evidence.

Main Methods:

• Systematic identification of approximately sixty-five routine value judgments in CBA.
• Analysis of the origin and concealment of these value judgments.
• Proposal of alternative value judgments to demonstrate analytical flexibility.

Main Results:

• Evidence presented in CBA is invariably infused with hidden value judgments.
• Conventional CBA employs numerous value judgments that are not explicitly stated.
• Alternative value judgments reveal a wide spectrum of potential policy conclusions.

Conclusions:

• Transparency regarding value judgments is crucial for equitable policy discussions.
• Revealing hidden judgments allows for a more level playing field in policy debates.
• Acknowledging value judgments enables the exploration of alternative policy interpretations and actions.