Policy Analysis with Incredible Certitude
AbstractAnalyses of public policy regularly express certitude about the consequences of alternative policy choices. Yet policy predictions often are fragile, with conclusions resting on critical unsupported assumptions. Then the certitude of policy analysis is not credible. This paper develops a typology of incredible analytical practices and gives illustrative cases. I call these practices conventional certitudes, dueling certitudes, conflating science and advocacy, and wishful extrapolation. I contrast these practices with my vision for credible policy analysis.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc in its series NBER Working Papers with number 16207.
Date of creation: Jul 2010
Date of revision:
Publication status: published as Charles F. Manski, 2011. "Policy Analysis with Incredible Certitude," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 121(554), pages F261-F289, 08.
Note: PE POL
Contact details of provider:
Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.
Web page: http://www.nber.org
More information through EDIRC
Other versions of this item:
- Charles Manski, 2011. "Policy analysis with incredible certitude," CeMMAP working papers, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies CWP04/11, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
- C53 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Forecasting and Prediction Models; Simulation Methods
- H43 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Project Evaluation; Social Discount Rate
- H68 - Public Economics - - National Budget, Deficit, and Debt - - - Forecasts of Budgets, Deficits, and Debt
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Hunt Allcott, 2012. "Site Selection Bias in Program Evaluation," NBER Working Papers 18373, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Pesaran, M. Hashem & Smith, Ron P., 2011.
"Beyond the DSGE Straitjacket,"
IZA Discussion Papers
5661, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- Pesaran, M. H. & Smith, R. P., 2011. "Beyond the DSGE straightjacket," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge 1138, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
- Hashem M. Pesaran & Ron P. Smith, 2011. "Beyond the DSGE Straitjacket," CESifo Working Paper Series 3447, CESifo Group Munich.
- Whittington, Dale & Jeuland, Marc & Barker, Kate & Yuen, Yvonne, 2012. "Setting Priorities, Targeting Subsidies among Water, Sanitation, and Preventive Health Interventions in Developing Countries," World Development, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1546-1568.
- Muller, Sean, 2014. "Randomised trials for policy: a review of the external validity of treatment effects," SALDRU Working Papers, Southern Africa Labour and Development Research Unit, University of Cape Town 127, Southern Africa Labour and Development Research Unit, University of Cape Town.
- Charles F. Manski, 2014. "Communicating Uncertainty in Official Economic Statistics," NBER Working Papers 20098, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.