Tagarchief: Science

Creating Public Value

Posted on by

Strategic management in government

Mark H. Moore | 1995

Public Value is a theory for public management advanced by Professor Mark Moore of the Harvard Kennedy School. Over the previous two decades, staff and students at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, where Moore taught, engaged in conversations about producing excellence in public management.

“Public value refers to the value created by the government through laws, regulations, services and any other action. In a democratic society, this value is defined by the public themselves. Value is determined by citizens preferences expressed in a variety of ways and thus it provides a rough yard stick against which to gauge the public institutions and government policies.”

A seminal figure in the field of public management, Mark Moore presents his summation of 15 years of research, observation, and teaching on what public-sector executives should do to improve the performance of public enterprises.

Lees verder →

Prospect Theory

Posted on by

An analysis of decision under risk

Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky | 1979

This paper presents a critique of expected utility theory as a descriptive model of decision making under risk, and develops an alternative model, called prospect theory.

Choices among risky prospects exhibit several pervasive effects that are inconsistent with the basic tenets of utility theory. In particular, people underweight outcomes that are merely probable in comparison with outcomes that are obtained with certainty. This tendency, called the certainty effect, contributes to risk aversion in choices involving sure gains and to risk seeking in choices involving sure losses.

In addition, people generally discard components that are shared by all prospects under consideration. This tendency, called the isolation effect, leads to inconsistent preferences when the same choice is presented in different forms.

An alternative theory of choice is developed, in which value is assigned to gains and losses rather than to final assets and in which probabilities are replaced by decision weights.

The value function is normally concave for gains, commonly convex for losses, and is generally steeper for losses than for gains.

Decision weights are generally lower than the corresponding probabilities, except in the range of low probabilities. Overweighting of low probabilities may contribute to the attractiveness of both insurance and gambling.

Bibliography

Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979) ‘Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk’. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.

Download essay.

Maatschappelijke bestuurskunde

Posted on by

Hoe verbindende bestuurskundigen (kunnen) inspelen op maatschappelijke vraagstukken

Tom Overmans, Marlies Honingh & Mirko Noordegraaf  (red.) | Boombestuurskunde.

Het vakgebied bestuurskunde heeft zich de afgelopen jaren bewezen. Via opleidings- en onderzoeksprogramma’s, academische netwerken, internationale verbanden, publicaties, symposia en prijzen wordt gewerkt aan de versterking van het openbaar bestuur. Door de jaren heen is het bereik van bestuurskundigen gegroeid. De bestuurskunde draait niet enkel om de overheid, maar richt zich tevens op maatschappelijke dienstverlening, publiek-private samenwerking, coproductie van beleid en diensten en publieke waardecreatie. De laatste tijd werken bestuurskundigen bovendien aan maatschappelijke impact.

Deze bundel gaat een stap verder. De auteurs laten zien dat het tijd is voor een meer ‘maatschappelijke’ bestuurskunde, die zich nadrukkelijker en zichtbaarder richt op de analyse en aanpak van maatschappelijke vraagstukken. Dat is meer dan ‘maatschappelijke impact maken’. Dat is je verbinden aan andere academische disciplines en maatschappelijke velden, waarin de aanpak van concrete issues centraal staat. Denk aan klimaatadaptatie, duurzame landbouw, energietransitie, migratie, wonen, kansengelijkheid, georganiseerde misdaad, houdbare zorg en digitalisering.

Lees verder →

Myopic Voters and Natural Disaster Policy

Posted on by

Andrew Healy, Loyola Marymount University, and Neil Malhotra, Stanford University | 2009

In our democratic system, citizens vote for their representative politicians, elected councils, public leaders, governors, and governing councils. But what about citizens’ perceptions of how risks are handled by their leaders, and what about citizens’ appreciation of proactive thinking by councillors related to public risks when it comes to voting?

Quote: “Do voters effectively hold elected officials accountable for policy decisions? Using data on natural disasters, government spending, and election returns, we show that voters reward the incumbent presidential party for delivering disaster relief spending, not investing in disaster preparedness spending. These inconsistencies distort the incentives of public officials, leading the government to underinvest in disaster preparedness, thereby causing substantial public welfare losses.”

“We estimate that $1 spent on preparedness is worth about $15 in terms of the future damage it mitigates.”

“By estimating both the determinants of policy decisions and the consequences of those policies, we provide more complete evidence about citizen competence and government accountability.”

Bibliography

Healy, A. and Malhotra, N. (2009) Myopic Voters and Natural Disaster Policy. American Political Science Review: Vol. 103, No. 3 August

Download the scientific article

Thinking in Systems

Posted on by

Donella Meadows, Diana Wright (ed.) | 2008

In the years following her role as the lead author of the International bestseller Limits to Growth – the first book to show the consequences of unchecked growth on a finite planet – Donella Meadows remained a pioneer of environmental and social analysis until her untimely death in 2001.

"So, what is a system? A system is a set of things—people, cells, molecules, or whatever—interconnected in such a way that they produce their own pattern of behavior over time. The system may be buffeted, constricted, triggered, or driven by outside forces. But the system’s response to these forces is characteristic of itself, and that response is seldom simple in the real world."

- Donella Meadows (2008)

Thinking in Systems is a concise and crucial book offering insight into problem-solving from personal to global scales. Edited by the Sustainability Institutes Diana Wright, this essential primer brings systems thinking out of the realm of computers and equations and into the tangible world, showing readers how to develop the systems-thinking skills that thought leaders across the globe consider critical for 21st-century life.

Some of the biggest problems facing the world, including war, hunger, poverty, and environmental degradation, are system failures. They cannot be solved by fixing one piece in isolation from the others because even seemingly minor details have enormous power to undermine the best efforts of too-narrow thinking. While readers will learn the conceptual tools and systems thinking methods, the book’s heart is grander than the methodology.

"Managers are not confronted with problems that are independent of each other, but with dynamic situations that consist of complex systems of changing problems that interact with each other. I call such situations messes. . . . Managers do not solve problems, they manage messes."

- Russel L. Ackoff (1979)

Donella Meadows was known as much for nurturing positive outcomes as she was for delving into the science behind global dilemmas. She reminds readers to pay attention to what is important, not just what is quantifiable, to stay humble, and to stay a learner. In a world growing ever more complicated, crowded, and interdependent, Thinking in Systems helps readers avoid confusion and helplessness, the first step toward finding proactive and effective solutions.

Bibliography

Ackoff, R. (1979) ‘The Future of Operational Research Is Past’. Journal of the Operational Research Society 30, no. 2: 93–104.

Meadows, D. (Wright, D. ed) (2008) Thinking in Systems. Vermont, US: Chelsea Green Publishing Co.

Systems Thinking for Curious Managers

Posted on by

With 40 new Management f-LAWS 

Russell L. Ackoff | 2009

This gem of a book introduces the extraordinary world of systems thinking and its ‘Dean’, Russell L. Ackoff, to curious and enquiring managers, teachers, business people – anyone, anywhere who works in an organisation.

Finished just before Professor Ackoff’s death late in 2009, “Systems Thinking for Curious Managers” opens the door to a joined-up way of thinking about things that have profoundly influenced thinkers and doers in the fields of business, politics, economics, biology, and psychology.

Lees verder →

Comparative risk analysis of technological hazards (a review)

Posted on by

Robert W. Kates and Jeanne X. Kasperson | 1983

Hazards are threats to people and what they value, and risks are measures of hazards. Comparative analyses of the risks and hazards of technology can be traced to Starr (1969) but are rooted in recent trends in technological evolution, hazard identification, risk perception, and societal activities.

These trends have spawned an interdisciplinary quasi-profession with new terminology, methodology, and literature. A review of 54 English-language monographs and book-length collections published between 1970 and 1983 identified seven recurring themes:

i. Overviews of the field of risk assessment.

ii. Efforts to estimate and quantify risk.

iii. Discussions of risk acceptability.

iv. Perception.

v. Analyses of regulation.

vi. Case studies of specific technological hazards.

vii. Agenda for research.

Within this field, science occupies a unique niche, for many technological hazards transcend the realm of ordinary experience and require expert study. Scientists can make unique contributions to each area of hazard management, but their primary contribution is in the practice of basic science.

Hazards are threats to people, and what they value, and risks are measures of hazards.

Beyond that, science needs to further risk assessment by understanding the more subtle processes of hazard creation, establishing conventions for estimating risk and presenting and handling uncertainty.

Scientists can inform the discussion of tolerable risk by placing risks in comparative contexts, studying the evaluation process, and participating as knowledgeable individuals, but they cannot decide the issue. Science can inform the hazard management process by broadening the range of alternative control actions and modes of implementation and devising methods to evaluate their effectiveness.

Bibliography

Kates, R. W., & Kasperson, J. X. (1983). Comparative risk analysis of technological hazards (a review). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 80(22), 7027-7038.https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.80.22.7027

Starr, C. (1969). Social benefit versus technological risk: what is our society willing to pay for safety?. Science, 165(3899), 1232-1238.