Monday, December 21, 2020

A Balancing Act

Traditionally, politicians have framed issues as binary choices. Don Lenihan and Andrew Balfour write that "the binary approach frames issues as a choice between two mutually exclusive options (either/or) and then picks a side."

But the pandemic and climate change are issues that defy binary framing. They require a balancing approach: "The balancing approach requires a leader to sort through both sides of an issue in search of middle ground."

And finding a middle ground can be difficult. Moreover, it is fraught with potential mistakes:

Policy analysts describe issues like the pandemic or climate change as complex, which means that each one is really a dynamic constellation of issues, rather than single and isolated.

The pandemic has led Doug Ford to make mistakes:

We see this in the strategies that Ford and other premiers are using to contain the virus, while protecting the economy. Sometimes they get the balance right, and sometimes they get it wrong. In hindsight, Ford’s decision to broaden the colour-coded categories turns out to have been a bad one.

Balancing requires that we follow the evidence -- and listen to the experts. But this is harder than it sounds:

Experts can provide real insight into the risks associated with different options, but it is not their job to tell the public how to weigh these risks against one another. Weighing risks involves value judgements and people with different values weigh them differently.

In the end, it falls to the premier to decide where the “right” balance lies. And that’s a tough call. If Ford got this one wrong, it is not because he is unconcerned about people’s health or indifferent to the risks. It is because first ministers are under enormous pressure both to protect public health AND save the economy.

Lenihan and Balfour conclude that there are two important lessons to be drawn about framing issues as a balancing act:

1. There is no “perfect” balance between these goals. People will always have differences. But there are better and worse choices and finding them would be much easier if everyone understood how complex issues work, why balancing is the right way to manage them, and how it differs from the binary approach.

2. Balancing is a learning process that involves trial and error, and the public needs to see the process working this way. Transparency is essential. To help realize this, critics should focus less on whether premiers like Ford get it right the first time, and more on whether they are learning the right lessons as they go.

Something to think about as we enter the new year.

Image: theatredirct.ca


10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Saving public health AND saving the economy is not a balancing act. As both public health experts and economists agree, you can't save the economy without first safeguarding public health. Attempts at balance lead to the half measures that have killed some 4,000 Ontarians to date. Screw balance, the crisis calls for a full-court press on public health.

Cap

Owen Gray said...

It's a question of sequencing, Cap. Sometimes, to achieve balance, you have to get the steps right.

Anonymous said...

A good article - balanced, less concerned with politics, more about objective truth. It's easy to conclude that New Brunswick's Conservative premier (Higgs) got it right while Ontario's got it wrong. There are many variables at work which created differences in how the virus spread in each province. I do think, however, that Premier Ford waited too long in resorting to stronger measures. I hope the new restrictions are enforced as the March restrictions were not. If they're not, they'll be more straws in the wind with hell to pay for all of us.



CD

Owen Gray said...

It's tempting to think that balancing means half measures, CD. The authors are saying that balancing means juggling all the variables. Juggling is a difficult exercise.

the salamander said...

.. Anyone thinking
'the Economy will solve COVID-19' is dreamland fantasy..
Curtailing COVID-19 'may rescusitate the Economy' however

That is down the road.. and we really don't know that road

Owen Gray said...

The truth is we're experimenting as we go, sal. And we don't know how this will end.

Anonymous said...

So on the subject of balancing, DoFo once again gets it wrong. Yesterday, it was announced that Ontario was planning a province-wide lockdown starting Xmas Eve. Today, Dougie announced that lockdown will begin on Boxing Day. When asked about the delay, he said he wanted to give businesses ample time to prepare.

What crap! Most businesses are closed Xmas and part of Xmas Eve! If he was serious about preventing disease spread, Ford would have begun the lockdown on the 24th. Instead, people just got the green light to gather in churches and private homes to celebrate. Good grief, we'll be lucky if hospitals can cope!

That's what happens when you balance business interests with public health. As you said, Owen, the key is sequencing. We should be locking down as long as it takes to get to zero cases. Then we can reopen with appropriate tracking and tracing. Anything less is killing people.

Cap

Owen Gray said...

I agree, Cap. It's all about getting priorities straight. And it's clear where Ford's priorities are -- and always have been.

Anonymous said...

The only reason Ford is waiting until Boxing Day is so that churches can have their Christmas plays. So, yes, let's wait another 2 days when this should have been done 3 weeks ago.

And, such a shut down does not have to mean "non essential" businesses need to close. There's no reason that, depending on floor space, they can't remain open while enforcing safe virus-related protocols. All the big chains can remain open, but the mom & pop shops need to close! What utter bullshit!

UU

Owen Gray said...

The big money is doing fine during this pandemic, UU.