I
The policy narratives of interest to me are those that accept, rather than deny, the complexity and unpredictability of the immediate task environment. In this view, when a complex or unpredictable issue comes to be viewed as intractable, the challenge is to recast that issue more tractably without simplifying it. Does the recast but still complex narrative stick better? More formally, does the recast narrative–as if seen for the first time or afresh–open up options more tractable to policy analysis and management?
This means I am deeply sympathetic with approaches that take (1) complexity and its cognates seriously, (2) differentiate these in ways that do not deny their complexities, uncertainties and conflicts, but then go on to (3) reconfigure them as different policy narratives more amenable to conventional analysis and management (no guarantees!). The litmus test for a recast narrative is: Does it fit together this way as well?
II
An example is a recent article that, in order to get a better handle on public ignorance, parses it out into three components: radical uncertainty (including unknown unknowns), radical dissonance (disagreement and polarized conflict), and asymmetric knowledge (including power relations). I quote:
. . . political systems are complex systems inevitably exhibiting incomplete, imperfect and asymmetric information that is dynamically generated in society from actors with diverse life experiences, antagonistic interests and often profoundly dissonant views and values, generating radical uncertainty among political elites over the consequences of their decisions. Radical uncertainty, radical dissonance and power asymmetry are inescapable properties of politics. Good performance significantly depends on how political elites navigate through radical uncertainty to handle radical dissonance.
For the authors, this task environment endorses an equally complex policy narrative. They “recast the problem of ignorance” by linking it to democratic performance: “The real problem of a democratic system is not about aggregating and measuring preferences with a view to a correct outcome, but it is about how democracies handle this dissonance, which always leaves some, if not most, preferences, ideas, values and norms unfulfilled at any given time”.
III
The question I have is, Does this democratic narrative stick? While the authors mention a case (a drinking water fiasco in Flint Michigan), the efficacy criterion of “Does it stick?” requires a review of multiple cases of this narrative and variation across cases.
“Does it stick when fitted together this way?” is an empirical question. It is also an eminently sensible one to ask of a planet of 8+ billion people providing opportunities for empirical generalizations based in large numbers.
WHEN COMPLEX IS AS SIMPLE AS IT GETS 