If there's one thing that policy-makers like, it's scientific analysis (typically social scientific analysis) which proves the obvious. In the lead-up to this year's election, the two most influential books in policy circles were
Nudge and
The Spirit Level, which respectively set out to prove that people don't always behave rationally and that “equality is better for everyone.” While of course there are more interesting and detailed claims within the works themselves, it is these self-evident but headline-grabbing take-aways that have redirected political discourse. Evidence-for-the-obvious is a key weapon in the political arsenal, not least because it can open an
Overton Window in the range of policies that the public, or a particular constituency, are willing to accept.
It is hard to underestimate the degree to which these books have been employed to this effect, especially by the current Government. Co-authoring
a Guardian article with
Nudge author Richard Thaler gave George Osborne enough political cover to make an otherwise shocking endorsement of paternalism, “We can make you behave.” And
The Spirit Level provided David Cameron with the basis, if not the impetus, to break with
Thatcherite views on inequality. In his Hugo Young lecture, Cameron was able to argue:
Research by Richard Wilkson and Katie Pickett has shown that among the richest countries, it's the more unequal ones that do worse according to almost every quality of life indicator. In "The Spirit Level", they show that per capita GDP is much less significant for a country's life expectancy, crime levels, literacy and health than the size of the gap between the richest and poorest in the population. So the best indicator of a country's rank on these measures of general well-being is not the difference in wealth between them, but the difference in wealth within them.
But what happens when this expedient science is debunked? In a blog post on Poverty, Politics and Brain Size earlier this year, ResPublica's Sandra Gruescu challenged the research basis for Iain Duncan Smith's claims that “Neuroscientists have been able to show us that children brought up in families where there is abuse and neglect, will by the age of three have smaller brains than their equivalent, functional counterparts” (a challenge which was soon after echoed in the Guardian). There were times during this debate when I couldn't stop myself from thinking: “Never mind the neuroscience, he's arguing against abuse and neglect!”
A similar thought went through my mind this week when Policy Exchange published a new report by Prof Peter Saunders, Beware False Prophets, which set out to debunk The Spirit Level's claim “that more unequal countries (and within the USA, more unequal states) suffer from higher crime rates, worse infant mortality, greater obesity, poorer education standards, lower average life expectancy, less social mobility, and much else besides.” The report argues that The Spirit Level's conclusions are not based on general observations that hold broadly true across the 23 countries studied, but depend on outlying countries (or small clusters of like-minded countries) skewing trends. The US is a prime skewing country, home to both obscene inequalities and many of the national vices listed above. The small cluster of Nordic countries and occasionally Japan provide the other end of the spectrum. The report argues that on most indicators, between these two poles, other countries slot in without identifiable pattern. It goes on to speculate rather convincingly that more social equality may just as easily be the effect of a national culture which is less murderous/sexist/ignorant, rather than the cause.
The authors of The Spirit Level, Professor Richard Wilkinson and Professor Kate Pickett, have been quick to respond and the ensuing debate will surely be watched with interest, but these examples (along with Climategate on the political Left) illustrate the danger of depending on science to change or replace values. Treating social equality, proper child care or environmental protection instrumentally ignores their inherent value and risks missing the point altogether.