Read on Twitter
I don't think it works for experts to just "explain the function from actions to outcomes":
1) Normative analysis requires understanding of positive models that often only experts have
2) Experts have normative expertise from considering a wide range of analogous policies https://twitter.com/ShengwuLi/status/1344359157953163266
1) Normative analysis requires understanding of positive models that often only experts have
2) Experts have normative expertise from considering a wide range of analogous policies https://twitter.com/ShengwuLi/status/1344359157953163266
Consider a question like: how much (if at all) should we tax sugary drinks? Here are some potentially relevant positive facts:
1) Taxing sugary drinks will save X lives
2) Taxing sugary drinks will reduce obesity by Y
3) Consumers will substitute
4) Poorer people consume sugary drinks
5) People are time inconsistent
6) Consumers are misinformed about nutrition
6) Sugary drink firms have market power
2) Taxing sugary drinks will reduce obesity by Y
3) Consumers will substitute
4) Poorer people consume sugary drinks
5) People are time inconsistent
6) Consumers are misinformed about nutrition
6) Sugary drink firms have market power
How could a lay person be expected to synthesize these facts in a coherent way? How should we weigh the fact that people like the taste of sugary drinks against the fact that taxing sugary drinks makes them healthier?
If consumers substitute towards other unhealthy foods, how should we quantify the impact of this substitution on our analysis? Does it matter if the tax is regressive? How much? Does it matter if obese people are on Medicare? If obese people would like to lose weight?
To analyze this issue in a coherent way, a lay person would have to re-invent 150 years of progress in normative public economics. And progress is the right term! Without the concepts we have developed, thinking about this issue would be hopelessly muddled and incoherent.
The current framework is imperfect in many ways, but far better than intuition for this and many other questions. There are 1st order issues we do very badly in most cost-benefit analyses, like understanding the true incidence of public spending in a given political environment.
What are the consequences of this? Sometimes, experts need to do the normative analysis and say what they've concluded. There is always an important challenge of how to make one's reasoning legible to lay people. This is hard to do but worth investments of money and time.
Experts are also subject to group think or systematic errors. It would be helpful to isolate the impact of expertise from the type of people who become experts: https://twitter.com/Jabaluck/status/1330656185859584003
Experts can be fundamentally misguided. I think many theologians believe they have a form of expertise but are simply mistaken. The case for normative deference to experts rests on outperforming smart lay people at positive tests: https://twitter.com/Jabaluck/status/1261329428543651840
Finally, it would be a huge and catastrophic error to conclude from all of this that non-experts should not have a voice in formulating public policy.
Normative deference means that non-experts should be modest in their pronouncements, not that they should be silent. https://twitter.com/Jabaluck/status/1340720972412928010
There is a real dilemma arising from the fact that modesty can be seen to signal uncertainty, undermining the strength of a message. Sometimes non-experts need to publicly and loudly advocate for the right position, or be drowned out by more ignorant voices.
Modesty does not always require publicly qualifying positions. What it requires is reining in public advocacy if it turns out that most or all of the experts disagree even after giving the view careful consideration.
