Discuss Remedies: L2

4-β Universal: Accumulating, organising, and appraising shared values and appreciating their impact in use.

Identifying a failing in institutional functioning is essentially a matter of values, before it is a matter of facts. Many features of an institution that might be regarded as unsatisfactory in one society may well be regarded as acceptable in another. This is because a range of values need to be considered in reaching a conclusion that leads to a complaint or demand for a remedy.

Essence of the Work 

To identify failings and envisage and consider remedies in public fora with a focus on relevant values.

The normal condition is that all institutions are riven with limitations, problems, and difficulties in meeting communal needs and satisfying all members of the public. Some needs seem to be blatantly ignored and some social values seem to be routinely flouted. Identifying specific failings deserving attention and considering how to remedy them while winning broad popular acceptance is the challenge.

Some failings are immediately recognized. Others may be debatable. Remedies are always debatable even if taken as self-evident with a suggestion that implementation could be quick and easy e.g. if there are not enough teachers, employ more teachers; if the regulation is burdensome, remove it; if money is short for a program, increase funding. While it is commonly the case that a variety of recommendations and remedies are envisaged, focus is usually on just one or a few.

The most popular remedies are typically focused, opinionated and seemingly common-sense. Because any remedy will have side-effects or favour some groups over others, they need discussion in public fora. These discussions bring the relevant values to the fore and establish the diversity of relevant beliefs.

Sometimes a remedy could be pursued by relevant willing firms or willing volunteers. Because that willingness is unlikely, remedies often depend on policies, incentives or regulations from government. Effort here does not go into planning and costing a solution because the institutional issues are too complex for that. It goes into bringing attention and pressure to bear on what needs should be met and what values are incorporated in remedies. Given controversy and diversity, discussions are essential.

Not Public Opinion:ClosedTo discuss a potential remedy is to make a unique specific statement. Such an opinion is not equivalent to affirming "public opinion" which commonly derives from polling. This latter sort of "opinion" is an assumed consensus on a sentiment-backed view relevant to political choices by a government. 

ClosedThe Intervention Paradox

It is a common observation that governments are loath to support discussion. Consultations are commonly a sham with predetermined decisions. It is therefore unsurprising that a trumpeted government remedy for a highly publicized failing ends up making the problem worse. For example, politicians think it is obviously helpful (a)  to adjust waiting-list priorities to speed up investigations of potential cancer patients; or (b) to give home-buyer grants to deal with housing unaffordability.

These obvious solutions are typically rationalist, a decision approach that only works for well-understood, well-developed, well-structured situations.

Societal institutions are poorly understood, poorly structured, and usually poorly or unevenly developed. Furthermore, as emphasized earlier, there is no possibility to force outcomes by direct control because an institution is a system with numerous interactions and multiple feedback loops.

In the two government examples above: (a) wait times increased and cancer mortality increased because greater priority incentivized referral on suspicion leading to many more patients for investigation and crowding out those most likely to have cancer; (b) housing becomes even more unaffordable because few get grants and house prices in general rise to match the availability of those grants.

How is the Work Done

Discussion of particular failings and potential remedies requires a public forum of some sort: the press, radio and tv broadcasts, social media, and websites.

Discussion on a forum depends on a sufficient quantity of complaints about failings and some publicizing of possible remedies. There needs to be a sense that the deficiency should be rectified regardless of whether the proposed remedies are practical, controversial, or just common-sense.

Discussions of failings and potential ways to improve matters manifests as opinion-based discussions built around:

a) what the current expectations are for the institution—not in numbers alone but in values supported by numbers as appropriate. The value affected might be fairness, or coverage, or quality standards, or respecting diversity, or emotional support etc.

b) how the current particular situation measures up in relation to the particular value using available data, anecdotes, reports of international comparisons, quotes from in-group members (by a member of the public) or quotes from the relevant public (by in-group members)

c) views of experts from academia, think-tanks or the media about practicality, consequences of choices, and alternatives.

While anyone can dream up a remedy, L2-public discussion demands far more effort and organisation than simple L1-assertions like composing a blog.

Self-serving campaigns may be run by industry bodies to confuse the public and to lobby politicians. These typically reject discussion, oppose potential solutions, and may even deny that there is anything to be concerned about.

Example: ClosedGambling

The Economist puts Australia at the top of the list of the world's biggest gamblers, losing about $1144 per person per year. In NSW, clubs and casino operators enable illegal activities, while regulators look the other way. Despite the harm caused, governments want the tax revenue, and so avoid enforcing the law and avoid changes to protect people. With revenues measured in billions, Clubs NSW lobbies vigorously and campaigns against specific politicians who advocate sensible remedies. Many failures require discussion: the prevalence of advertising, the targeting of youngsters, the prevalence of money laundering, the effects of gambling addiction, the capture of the regulators.

Taking Action

Discussion of remedies may stimulate action that is potentially but not invariably useful, and not always generalized i.e. the value is not embedded and the institution is therefore essentially unchanged despite a small focus of worthwhile activity.

Example: ClosedPatient Support Groups

A person gets a diagnosis of a severe condition and looks for a support group of others with the same condition. If this is not available locally, then the person may either identify the need and work to bring it to the attention of suitable bodies, or decide to set up the group themselves.

Ovacome was founded by Sarah Dickinson in 1996 to support those living with ovarian cancer. Sarah had been diagnosed with the condition and found that there was minimal support or information available. Sarah's 1996 article in Good Housekeeping magazine got a support project going. She sat down round a kitchen table with a group of like-minded people and Ovacome was born.

It is evident that most cancers, indeed most illnesses, have specific features and issues and patients would benefit from a dedicated support group. If belief in the value of support groups grows, then more and more such bodies will be set up and be attended. Over time, it is likely that patient support groups would become a feature of the healthcare institution. Ultimately a time might come when not having access to such a group would be unthinkable.

Plotting the Work

Any discussion of a remedy makes some demand for knowledge of the institution because it requires grappling with the specifics of some deficiency. However, the demand is not high because the failing is in terms of values being flouted and remedies are either implied by the problem, well-known already, or otherwise obvious. So we place discuss remedies in the lower half of the Y-axis, but not at the extreme.

Discussion of remedies is required precisely because of the lack of a significant consensus. However, it is essential that some public support can be obtained for addressing the particular failure or discussions will get no attention. So we place discuss remedies in the lower half of the X-axis, but again not at the extreme.

Discuss remedies therefore lies in the upper right portion of the lower left quadrant as shown in the diagram—the predicted position for t2/L2.

H.L. Mencken famously said that for every complex problem there is always a solution that is neat, simple and wrong.

When discussions of potential remedies get bogged down, it is commonly because any institution is a complicated system. More justifiable and specific recommendations for change can often be generated by in-depth analysis following an investigation of the underlying factors.

Originally posted: 14-Nov-2022. Last updated 30-Jun-2023.