Happiness, Wellbeing and the Role of Government: the case of the UK Ian Bache, Professor of Politics, University of Sheffield (paper with Louise Reardon, University of Sheffield and Paul Anand, Open University) i.bache@sheffield.ac.uk ESRC Seminar Series on The Politics of Wellbeing http://politicsofwellbeing.group.shef.ac.uk/
Introduction Concerned with issues around the elevation of wellbeing as an explicit goal of government policy Reflects on UK developments specifically.* There are a number of arguments about the appropriate role for government, coming from a range of perspectives. Difficult to steer a course through these arguments This presentation asks whether the literature on wicked (and tame) problems offers any useful insights** I consider two issues relating to WP: - To what extent should the challenge of wellbeing be understood as a wicked problem? - How does understanding wellbeing as a WP illuminate arguments on the appropriate role for government seeking to promote wellbeing?
Overview 1. What is happening in the UK in relation to the elevation of wellbeing as an explicit goal of government policy? 2. What are the key dilemmas raised in relation to this agenda? 3. What is the notion of wicked / tame problems? 4. To what extent should the challenge of wellbeing be understood as a wicked problem? 5. How might understanding the challenge of wellbeing as a wicked problem help us to understand the appropriate role for government in this area? 6. Conclusions / possible ways forward
UK developments November 2010 ONS launched its Measuring National Wellbeing Programme - to develop and publish an accepted and trusted set of National Statistics which help people understand and monitor well-being (ONS, 2012b, 1).* A key part of the ONS programme is four experimental selfreport subjective wellbeing questions being added to the Annual Population Survey (from April 2011).** This aspect of the programme has proved most controversial But the programme is much wider 41 measures across 10 domains (e.g., health, relationships, job satisfaction, economic security, education, environmental conditions)*** ONS (2012a, 37) highlights three potential uses for the data: - overall monitoring of national wellbeing; - use in the policy making process; - international comparisons. ****
UK developments (2) It is the second of the potential uses for wellbeing data that is generally where most controversy lays.* In relation to the ONS SWB data, the government stresses that these are; - experimental statistics and still in development, and as such we should not expect at this stage to have examples of major decisions that have been heavily influenced by wellbeing research. This is very much a long-term process (HM Government, 2013, para. 4). However, some developments or foundations, as they are described, for instilling a wellbeing approach can be identified (HM Government, 2013, para. 4). (Social Impacts Task Force established in Whitehall, change in guidance to departments on policy appraisal, new surveys on wellbeing in government departments) **
Key debates and dilemmas* Four dilemmas relating to government s role in elevating wellbeing as an explicit public policy goal: Reliability that wellbeing cannot be adequately measured and should therefore not be relied upon for public policy purposes Responsibility that the state is not the most effective vehicle for promoting wellbeing (individuals, markets etc.) Distrust that politicians are inclined to manipulate data and as such cannot be trusted with wellbeing data Distraction that the pursuit of wellbeing by governments will lead to other important concerns being neglected (freedom, equality etc.) Will return to these dilemmas later.
Wicked and tame problems Rittel and Webber s (1973) seminal contribution argued that the search for scientific answers to many public policy problems is bound to fail because some of these problems are wicked problems, which are by their nature difficult to define and for which there are no definitive and objective answers. The contrast is made with tame problems, which science and its related practices are capable of dealing with. With tame problems there is a clear mission and it is also clear when the problem has been solved. Importantly, they speak of re-solution rather than solution of such wicked problems. Such problems are never solved. At best they are only re-solved over and over again (p160).
Wicked and tame problems (2) The concept has been widely used* and refined both the nature of the problem and the preferred solution are strongly contested (Head 2008, 101) WP are those where both the definition and the solution to the problem are uncertain and controversial (Durant and Legge 2006, 310) there is no definitive statement of The Problem since there is no definitive The Problem, there is also no definitive The Solution (Conklin 2005, 7) Wicked problems are generally seen as associated with social pluralism, institutional complexity, and scientific uncertainty (Head and Alford 2013, 6) WP policy space comprises multiple, overlapping, interconnected subsets of problems that cut across multiple policy domains and levels of government (Weber and Khademian 2008)
Wicked and tame problems (3) Not all public policies are wicked. A tame problem (Conklin 2005, 9) has: - a well-defined and stable problem statement - has a definite stopping point, i.e. when the solution is reached - has a solution which can be objectively evaluated as right or wrong it may be convenient to describe a problem as wicked or tame, but it s not binary (Conklin 2005, 9) there are degrees of wickedness, which can be understood by reference to multiple dimensions (Head and Alford, 2013, 2)
To what extent should the challenge of wellbeing be understood as a wicked problem? By any definition the challenge of wellbeing should be understood as a wicked problem no shared definition of The Problem or The Solution*. For example, some concerned with happiness/unhappiness, others with social, environmental or economic dimensions So how might this understanding help us in relation to assessing the appropriate role for government? We return to the four dilemmas
How might understanding wellbeing as a WP illuminate debate on the appropriate role for governments? Reliability (WB cannot be adequately measured and should therefore not be relied upon for public policy purposes) - WP approach would caution against emphasis on science important, but statistics should be used that are good enough in the way that they currently used to address other wicked problems (not least, economic growth). Responsibility (that state is not the most effective vehicle for addressing wellbeing) - WP perspective would not prescribe the size of the state s role but would suggest that the existing range and depth of government activity means that government activities are to some degree part of the problem and thus part of the solution.
How might understanding wellbeing as a WP illuminate debate on the appropriate role for governments? (2) Distrust (that politicians are inclined to manipulate data and as such cannot be trusted with wellbeing data) - A WP approach infers that politicians are important actors in the problem definition and solution. This issue does raise the issue of legitimacy, which is seen by many as central to addressing wicked problems (below). Distraction (that the pursuit of wellbeing by governments will lead to other important concerns being neglected) - This emerges as a criticism of a particular narrative of wellbeing that relates most to concerns with happiness/individual wellbeing. A WP approach views wellbeing as an issue of multiple dimensions, multiple stakeholders and multiple interpretations of the problem (as in the UK) points to the need for dialogue/collaboration.
Conclusions Understand wellbeing as a WP does not, by any means, address all of the dilemmas, but does offer wider understanding of possibilities and strategies available: - The first step in coping with a wicked problem is to recognize its nature (Conklin (2005, 9) - accepting the need for a long-term focus There are no quick fixes more knowledge, even if well targeted, is never sufficient (Head 2008, 109) - Conklin 2005, 7 Solutions to wicked problems are not right or wrong. They are simply better, worse, good enough, or not good enough. * - So while conclusive solutions are very rare, it is possible to frame partial, provisional courses of action against wicked problems (Head and Alford 2013, 2)
Conclusions (2) And the WP literature suggests some ways forward: - In some cases the key challenge is to unpack and discuss entrenched differences. The pathway most commonly adopted in this instance is mediated dialogue * (Head 2008), - requires a high degree of flexibility, reflexivity, learning, and meaningful stakeholder involvement in the deliberations of public agencies (Durant and Legge 2006, 310) - deliberative models of administrative theory appear better suited to dealing with WP** (Durant and Legge 2006, 311) - the only way multiattribute problems can be addressed effectively is through building a sense among all stakeholders that the decisions ultimately made are legitimate. (D&L 2006), - You don t so much solve a WP as you help stakeholders negotiate shared understanding and shared meaning about the problem and its possible solutions. The objective of the work is coherent action, not final solution (Conklin 2007, 5). This is a challenge of multi-level governance.