A decade of debate?

Is The Economist right to be optimistic about technology?

Every so often, The Economist publishes one of its weighty editorials, designed for maximum influence, and chose the imminent start of the ‘Twenties’ decade to discuss Pessimism v progress. Summarising crudely, its argument goes as follows:-

• There’s a lot of techno-pessimism. “The new technologies that dominated the last decade seem to be making things worse.” This is not new. Back in the 1970s, everyone was gloomy about over-population, environmental damage and nuclear immolation! Even earlier, there had been a backlash against the industrial revolution and all that followed.
• “ …Unrealised hopes and unforeseen consequences!”
• The pessimism is over-done. The solution to technology is often more technology. Re climate change, “…It is hard to imagine any solution that does not depend in part on innovations in clean energy, carbon capture and energy storage…”
• What’s key is how technology is used – the rules/policies that affect it, the required trade-offs and the ways to accommodate behaviour change.
• “Healthy scepticism means that those questions are settled by a broad debate, not by a coterie of technologies.”

And the punchline:

“…the real source of anxiety is not technology itself, but growing doubts about the ability of societies to hold this debate and come up with good answers.”

It concludes that overall, there are grounds for optimism. And we agree, provided these debates actually take place.

There are good reasons to expect that the UK is one of the most likely places where issues of such importance can be considered. We have a long tradition of rigorous academic research. We have a well-developed voluntary and community sector, and a legal regime that encourages political discourse. Additionally, of course, we have a well-developed culture of public consultation, legal rules to ensure that they are conducted fairly and a healthy interest in best practice, maybe, in part, thanks to the Institute and all that we do.

But there may be a BREXIT bonus too. Leaving the European Union gives the UK the occasion to re-examine many policy areas that might not otherwise be open to review. Many of these are at that intersect with technology that so concerns The Economist. Think about the taxation of internet firms that are now even more unpopular than Banks. Think about employment rights in the age of the gig economy. Applying ‘the polluter pays’ principle across more complex political borders. Immigration; citizenship; agricultural support; airspace; fishing; medicines approval…The list is endless.

Some people argue that we have wasted three years during which new ways and means could be found to replace or improve the forty-year modus operandi of being within the EU. But others point out how unviable those debates might have been without more solid pegs in the ground. Now is the hour!

Some of these consultations need to be iterative. High-quality policy-making is a mixture of research, options development, impact assessment, sensitivity analysis and stakeholder dialogues. Consultation broadens the conversation and provides opportunities to hear voices that might otherwise be silent. It imposes the disciplines of the Gunning Principles – the absence of pre-determination and the sufficiency of information to enable and intelligent response. Above all, consultation amounts to effective checks and balances to stop the over-enthusiastic or careless Minister from rushing through with ill-considered or half-considered policies.

A new Parliament should also take a fresh look at the way it handles important consultations. Backbenchers should hold Ministers to account. They should demand oral statements following a consultation – and be prepared to answer questions on the debate. Select Committees should put relevant consultations under the microscope, and ensure that all relevant opinions have been heard. When legislation is in the offing, Standing Committees should insist on comprehensive impact assessment and ensure that new laws take full account of consultee views on what is proposed.

Finally, the media might start taking more notice. Granted, they prefer the big picture and always enjoy the personalities of debate rather than the boring detail. But it’s fine for The Economist and other high-minded journals to wax eloquently about the need for some of these debates. But if their colleagues in the media decline to cover such issues well enough, we may still fail to overcome so many of the fears, prejudices and worries that make the coming decade a source of much anxiety for so many people.

Finding answers to intractable problems is indeed the challenge of the age. Consultation is one of the best tools we have available. Let’s use it well.

TRIGGER POINTS

1. Are you an optimist or a pessimist?
2. How would you characterise your organisation? Is it culturally positive? Or cautious?
3. Are there issues that will require policy consultations by your organisation in 2020?
4. Which of these aspects of a policy consultation do you feel most confident?
5. – Options development?
6. – Impact Assessment?
7. – Stakeholder mapping?
8. – Narrative development?
9. How familiar are you with the Law of Consultation? Should you consider attending the next one-day course or the comprehensive 2-day Masterclass

This is the 355th Tuesday Topic; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement