IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/ecnphi/v35y2019i01p49-78_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trade-Offs Between Epistemic And Moral Values In Evidence-Based Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Khosrowi, Donal

Abstract

Proponents of evidence-based policy (EBP) call for public policy to be informed by high-quality evidence from randomized controlled trials. This methodological preference aims to promote several epistemic values, e.g. rigour, unbiasedness, precision, and the ability to obtain causal conclusions. I argue that there is a trade-off between these epistemic values and several non-epistemic, moral and political values. This is because the evidence afforded by standard EBP methods is differentially useful for pursuing different moral and political values. I expand on how this challenges ideals of value-freedom and -neutrality in EBP, and offer suggestions for how EBP methodology might be revised.

Suggested Citation

  • Khosrowi, Donal, 2019. "Trade-Offs Between Epistemic And Moral Values In Evidence-Based Policy," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(1), pages 49-78, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:ecnphi:v:35:y:2019:i:01:p:49-78_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0266267118000159/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Harvard, Stephanie & Werker, Gregory R. & Silva, Diego S., 2020. "Social, ethical, and other value judgments in health economics modelling," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 253(C).
    2. Harvard, Stephanie & Winsberg, Eric & Symons, John & Adibi, Amin, 2021. "Value judgments in a COVID-19 vaccination model: A case study in the need for public involvement in health-oriented modelling," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 286(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:ecnphi:v:35:y:2019:i:01:p:49-78_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/eap .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.