Thanks for the great article! If I understand correctly, the 'Value for Investment' framework uses traditional econometrics and CBA, but only as one perspective. Other perspectives (equity, sustainability, alignment) etc. are also included in the analysis to inform decision making. I wonder how far we can take this, could this all-encompassing framework reduce the power of our policy makers so that they're job is literally to fill out questionnaires for an AI (utilising all the Value for Investment) to spit out answers. Do we not elect our leaders so that their professional judgements overwrite what different evaluations and CBAs tell them? Leaders have the tough job of saying "Yes on paper these two policy options achieve similar benefits to society at similar costs, however we must pick Option A because I know that the business community feels more warmly about it, its benefits are more likely to be spread equitably etc. Keen to hear your thoughts!
Thanks Federico! There are different views (of course) but mine is that the evaluative judgement and the policy decision are separate steps. In a past life I was a policy analyst and we would provide the best evaluation of options we could, based on evidence, sound analysis, and transparent criteria. And then Ministers and Cabinet would decide whatever they would decide. What I hope VfI may contribute to this is evaluation that combines the unique and important insights we can get from CBA with the equally unique and important insights we get from other values-lenses and pieces of evidence. I anticipate AI will assist with this more and more, but engaging with stakeholders and deliberating over evaluative judgements should remain the responsibility of human beings. Hopefully, AI will become an increasingly trustworthy assistant so that evaluators can concentrate on the essentially human parts of the process.
Thanks for the response Julian. Apologies for the incoherent, grammar-less comment, I had to smash out my thoughts as they were fresh in my head from reading the article.
Thanks for the great article! If I understand correctly, the 'Value for Investment' framework uses traditional econometrics and CBA, but only as one perspective. Other perspectives (equity, sustainability, alignment) etc. are also included in the analysis to inform decision making. I wonder how far we can take this, could this all-encompassing framework reduce the power of our policy makers so that they're job is literally to fill out questionnaires for an AI (utilising all the Value for Investment) to spit out answers. Do we not elect our leaders so that their professional judgements overwrite what different evaluations and CBAs tell them? Leaders have the tough job of saying "Yes on paper these two policy options achieve similar benefits to society at similar costs, however we must pick Option A because I know that the business community feels more warmly about it, its benefits are more likely to be spread equitably etc. Keen to hear your thoughts!
Thanks Federico! There are different views (of course) but mine is that the evaluative judgement and the policy decision are separate steps. In a past life I was a policy analyst and we would provide the best evaluation of options we could, based on evidence, sound analysis, and transparent criteria. And then Ministers and Cabinet would decide whatever they would decide. What I hope VfI may contribute to this is evaluation that combines the unique and important insights we can get from CBA with the equally unique and important insights we get from other values-lenses and pieces of evidence. I anticipate AI will assist with this more and more, but engaging with stakeholders and deliberating over evaluative judgements should remain the responsibility of human beings. Hopefully, AI will become an increasingly trustworthy assistant so that evaluators can concentrate on the essentially human parts of the process.
Thanks for the response Julian. Apologies for the incoherent, grammar-less comment, I had to smash out my thoughts as they were fresh in my head from reading the article.