4: The ‘Trident’ Decision. Evidence-based policy making or policy-based evidence making?
The ‘Trident’ Decision. Evidence-based policy making or policy-based evidence making?
Dr James M Acton, CS3 (Centre for Science and Security Studies),
Department of War Studies, King’s College London
Evidenced-based policy making is very much in vogue, both in the UK and around the world. Few would dispute the principle that high quality technical analysis should play a central role in the policy making process. Nonetheless, what constitutes ‘high quality technical analysis’ is rarely indisputable. Most policy debates involve interested parties analysing and disputing one another’s evidence extensively. An important exception is procurement decisions about military technologies. Here, the evidence (about whether a new system is needed or whether it will prove value for money, say) is often classified, all but eliminating the opportunity for meaningful scrutiny. As a result it can be impossible to know whether policy is indeed based on evidence, or whether evidence has been constructed to support a pre-determined policy.
The recent debate in the United Kingdom about the future of its nuclear deterrent provides a useful case study. This paper analyses one aspect of that debate—the question of whether to build a new class of nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed submarines (SSBNs) or extend the service lives of the existing ones—and asks whether the eventual decision was evidence-based policy or policy-based evidence. It then suggests how the UK could increase confidence in the policy making process where classified technologies are concerned. Finally, it argues that the emphasis placed on technical issues in the debate was at the exclusion of a more fundamental political question.
Comments
No comments have been made on this article.
Please login to leave a comment.