10.3.2 The challenge of objective measurement
Some of the mechanisms described in this chapter raise legitimate questions about the objectivity of policy- and decision-making. For example, mechanisms such as public lobbying and campaigning (or even, to some extent, consultation and political representation) run the risk of policy- and decision-making by who-shouts-loudest. Economic valuation can seek to mitigate this risk by treating values assigned by different individuals as having equal weight. Effective participatory and deliberative methods are also designed to manage this risk.
35 Cf the way in which rule utilitarianism argues for the adoption of rules based on generalised calculations of
utility, as opposed to calculations of utility for every single decision
36 See for example §1.1 of https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/defra-single-departmental-plan-2015-to- 2020/single-departmental-plan-2015-to-2020; accessed on 28/05/2016
However, there are other concerns about objectivity which these methods cannot set aside so easily. These relate to the idea that it should be possible, at least in principle, to develop
objective measures of how much people value things – measures which can then be used as the basis for objective policy- and decision-making. For example, it should be possible to find methods which create an opportunity for social and cultural values to be used without prompting the use of those values, and therefore biasing the results.
Some of the mechanisms considered in this chapter are clearly questionable in this respect. Public campaigns, for example, are often described by those who dislike their direction of travel as “orchestrated”, a word which deliberately implies that the values being expressed are in some sense manufactured, and can therefore be discounted. While the use of this term is itself often “orchestrated”, concern about the objectivity of public campaigns remains legitimate.
Unfortunately, similar concerns also arise for more formal research methods. Consider again, for example, the quotation discussed in §10.2.1, in which a participant describes thoughts that are “relatively new, but they’ve always been there”. Has this participant been provided with an opportunity to express something he really values, or has he been prompted to express views that he would not have done spontaneously?
Some discussions of participatory and deliberative methods attempt to side-step this question by asserting that these methods uncover values that are, in some sense, deeper:
Shared values resulting from deliberative, group-based valuation are different from individual values. Case study evidence suggests that they are more informed,
considered, confident and reflective of participants’ deeper-held, transcendental values. (Kenter et al., 2014)
The problem is that we lack an independent way of establishing “participants’ deeper-held, transcendental values” against which the outputs of a deliberative, group-based valuation can be assessed. Indeed, if such an independent way existed, we would not need the participatory and deliberative methods in the first place. The fact that expressions of value in deliberative groups are “more informed, considered, confident” is therefore equally consistent with participants having simply changed their minds about the topics under discussion. Similar concerns arise with regard to simpler methods such as willingness-to-pay. Such methods have to specify what a respondent is being asked to pay for: the question necessarily frames the object of value in a particular capacity, from a particular perspective, and therefore prompts the use of one kind of social and cultural value rather than another. Indeed, just by framing the topic in terms of payment, such questions will exclude some perspectives and prompt others.
As such, even market behaviour is not as objective as it might appear. It could be argued that, as market behaviour is not prompted by any researcher or question, it is therefore more objective. However, markets are themselves social and cultural phenomena, contexts which require from their participants a particular way of understanding and valuing the world around them. By participating in a market, we take on a particular social and cultural perspective, and view things in their capacity as objects of possible exchange, shorn of personal significance: one does not expect others to pay for the memories one attaches to one’s house, or the personal meanings one attaches to one’s wedding ring. To the extent that a society or culture fosters or promotes participation in markets, therefore, so too the adoption of this particular
perspective, and the use of these social and cultural values, will become more widespread (and vice-versa in societies or cultures that discourage market behaviour). Market behaviour is as
121
much a product of policy and decisions as it is, through mechanisms such as economic valuation, a determinant.
As noted in Chapter 1, the value assigned by an agent to an object on a specific occasion reflects a wide range of situational factors; and one very important situational factor is the perspective adopted by that individual on that occasion, and the capacity in which s/he therefore understands that object. The idea of objective measurement of value rests on the fantasy of asking a question or finding a social context which prompts no perspective at all. This leaves policy- and decision-makers with a tricky question. In §10.3.1, for example, we asked whether the fact that pollinating insects are not on the agenda prevents the social and cultural values of these insects from being properly taken into account, or accurately reflects the fact that, by and large, the public do not care much about them? We must now consider a third possibility: that this fact reflects a deficit, in our society and culture, of questions and contexts in which concerns about pollinating insects would come to the fore. The tricky question facing policy- and decision makers is whether that deficit is acceptable, or whether it needs to be addressed through mechanisms such as consultation and research.