In his 2018 book “Expert Failure,” Roger Koppl delves into the impact of “big players” on expert opinion, highlighting how entities with significant influence can sway individual behavior. This concept of a “Big Player” is exemplified by institutions like the IPCC and the US intelligence system, where their mere presence can shape expert opinions.
In the realm of policy, we are currently witnessing the power of big players in shaping expert opinion. Both major Presidential candidates in the previous election were prominent “buyers” of expert opinion, pushing forward unconventional economic policies despite widespread opposition from professionals. This trend underscores how the presence of big players can distort the market for expert opinions.
However, this phenomenon raises a critical issue with “science-guided policy.” While science should ideally inform policy decisions for the greater good, there is a risk of policies being formulated first, with scientific justifications sought retroactively. This approach can lead to a cycle of shifting justifications, hindering meaningful policy discussions as the goalposts constantly move.
An example of this dynamic was evident during the Harris campaign, which proposed a federal price-gouging ban on groceries. Despite the lack of consensus among economists on the efficacy of such a policy, experts were influenced to lend credibility to Harris’ proposal. This scenario illustrates how expert opinions can be manipulated to justify preconceived policies, rather than objectively addressing a given issue.
Moreover, the influence of big players can extend to experts recanting their previous arguments under pressure. An instance of this is University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers, who initially discussed anti-price gouging legislation as a form of price control in his textbook but later denied this correlation in a media interview.
Similarly, the Trump campaign’s justifications for tariffs have varied widely, from national security concerns to job protection, showcasing how policies drive justifications rather than the other way around. This approach makes policy discussions challenging, as the lack of a clear problem statement allows for malleable justifications that lend credibility to questionable schemes.
In essence, the interplay between big players, expert opinions, and policy formulation highlights the need for a more transparent and evidence-based approach to decision-making. By prioritizing objective analysis and problem-solving over political agendas, we can ensure that policies are grounded in sound reasoning and aimed at addressing real-world challenges.
