Attention: You are using an outdated browser, device or you do not have the latest version of JavaScript downloaded and so this website may not work as expected. Please download the latest software or switch device to avoid further issues.
24 Nov 2017 | |
Written by Mina Chiang | |
News |
Many citizens (especially in Africa and Asia) have been left behind by the growing global economy and technological innovation. This rising inequality is further advanced by conflict, insecurity and migration.
In the US, UK and Europe - especially following the Brexit vote and the Trump presidency - we have seen the policy space polarised with an increasing suspicion of the objectivity and importance of experts and advisors; and a particular distrust of governments that are supposed to act on behalf of those most disenfranchised by globalisation – whether at home or abroad. Facts, evidence and truth seem under attack.
Watch a specially convened panel of global development experts discuss what role evidence should play in this emerging reality and read IDS Student Mina Chiang's take on the seminar.
Michael Anderson is a member of the board at the Institute of Development Studies and a visiting fellow at the Center for Global Development. Amongst the three biases that he points out – publication bias, publicity bias, and policy made by slogan – publicity bias particularly grabbed me.
After being involved in fundraising for several years, I understand deeply the struggle of telling donors ‘what has failed’. Even though we are prepared to elaborate on the analysis of every success and failure, donors may not have the time and interest to listen. In a world flooded by rapid information (for example, elevator pitches) and massive information, and in a world full of busy and impatient people, what we see is that leaders, governments, NGOs only tell us the bright side of the truth, the fantastic stories, and the beautiful version of everything, leaving out any downsides.
Owen Barder is the Vice President and Director of the Center for Global Development Europe. He is a former civil servant, who worked at No. 10 Downing Street, Her Majesty’s Treasury and the Department for International Development. He presented his arguments with the metaphor of swan, cyclone, and singer. Firstly, while organisations are like swans, appearing to be effortless floating on the water and having busy web underneath, governments are like the upside down swan, with a chaotic appearance but strategic and sensible plan underneath. Second, as no particular cyclone can be affirmed as resulting from climate change, it is never possible to prove that a particular study causes a particular policy. Nevertheless, accumulating evidence can generally influence policies. Thirdly, evidence-based evaluation does have ability to influence government decisions, and without a proper evaluation to prove its efficacy, as happened with the decision of funding an African girl band, policy may be abolished.
Claire Melamed is the Executive Director of the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data, headquartered in Washington, DC. Her arguments are reminiscent of the basic assumptions underlying ‘Post-truth’. Are we implying that there is a golden truth era in the past? Yet, lies and propaganda are all ancient. Moreover, didn’t we enjoy and even encourage challenging establishments and experts previously?
Claire then provided her explanation of why post-truth is particularly problematic: infrastructure has changed. Social media, economic structure, regulations, and business models are different from previously. The images of the Arab Spring and the Turkish Gezi park protest suddenly jumped into my mind. In both movements, social media played a crucial role, serving as a major battlefield of truth and lies. More generally, when information no longer needs to be printed, not only the quality of the information decreases, but it also provides a convenient place for intentional fake news. Indeed, with the new infrastructure, although truth and facts may also be shared, evil and lies also become more systematic, and have the ability to be amplified to a scale never before possible.
In the end, evidence is political. Who defines evidence, which evidence is believed, and how is different evidence weighted? What should we in academia influence policies and help advocate for truth?
We can help to communicate better by speaking to people’s experience, which Hans Rosling – the late renowned statistician and public speaker– did well by graphing basic facts about the world in a compelling and succinct manner. Simple, concise and compelling are key. Moreover, the argument that we should “evaluate more”, even in conflict situations, by using multiple methodologies, is definitely viable. Be patient, work strategically, and be ready to take the opportunity to provide evidence for policy. Take on the challenges and make the evidence heard.
An insight into Robert Chambers seminar on Rigour for Complexity (Oct 31st 2017) More...
Who are the IDS Alumni Advisory Committee? More...
Missing your exclusive IDS Alumni E-Newsletter? More...
“It is not the torch in Jakarta that would make Indonesia bright, but rather the candles throughout its villages.” Repor… More...
Winners of the competition to win a signed copy of Robert Chambers' new book! More...
Nana Sugaya (MADev15) explores the relationship between former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's poverty reduction policies and his 'war on drugs… More...
For globalisation to survive and sustain this nationalism wave, it is time to look within and become more inclusive. More...
Ameeta Motwani (MAGEN35) tells us how evolving themes in Bollywood cinema are challenging traditional norms surrounding gender and sexuality throughou… More...