Working Paper: NBER ID: w16207
Authors: Charles F. Manski
Abstract: Analyses 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.
Keywords: No keywords provided
JEL Codes: C53; H43; H68
Edges that are evidenced by causal inference methods are in orange, and the rest are in light blue.
| Cause | Effect |
|---|---|
| Assumptions (C51) | Conclusions (Y50) |
| Conventional analytical practices (C91) | Incredible certitude (D81) |
| Strong assumptions (C51) | Strong conclusions (G40) |
| Strong conclusions (G40) | Diminished credibility (D83) |
| Dueling certitudes (D81) | Conflicting conclusions (D74) |