Governments cutting hundreds of millions of euros in pandemic funding, just a few years after a pandemic. Billions spent on compensation after a flood, rather than on prevention beforehand. Governments find it difficult to deal effectively with major, but not acute, risks. Why is this such a challenge? This was researched by Bas Heerma van Voss, who will be defending his PhD thesis at Radboud University on 13 April.
It's better to prevent than to cure; rationally speaking, we all know that. But due to predictable cognitive biases, political systems and international dynamics, governments often find themselves playing catch-up, as Heerma van Voss points out. He investigated the behaviour of states when it comes to major but non-acute risks, such as nuclear disasters, climate change, and pandemics.
Confirmation bias even among experts
To this end, he looked, among other things, at the behaviour of risk analysts – experts who advise the government on threats to society. "Just like everyone else, this group proved susceptible to, for example, confirmation bias, the tendency to seek out information that primarily confirms one's own judgement." The experts were (slightly) less susceptible to this than a 'regular' group of students whom Heerma van Voss also studied, but these professionals were still prone to systematic cognitive biases.
Something can be done about this: through so-called 'debiasing' training, experts can learn to recognise their own biases more quickly and avoid them. But in practice, such training is hardly ever implemented systematically. "Everyone considers themselves just a little less biased than others, and experts find it uncomfortable to hear that their judgement may also be skewed. As a result, a simple solution has remained underutilised to date."
Prevention cycle
Heerma van Voss also looked at how governments spend money in the wake of major disasters and observed a cyclical pattern. "After an incident, such as a pandemic or a flood, spending on prevention in that area shoots up. But a few years later, it drops again for a long time, until a new disaster strikes and the "prevention cycle" starts all over again."
"That is remarkable, because the average euro spent on prevention yields much more than a euro spent on recovery." Why does this happen? "The risk does not change, but the perception does. The impact of a crisis remains just as great, but politicians, policymakers and voters alike quickly lose sight of the urgency."
Because a crisis often affects not just a single country but has global implications, Heerma van Voss also examined the dynamics within international organisations based on the budgets they received, such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). "After a crisis, countries scale back their own contributions to these organisations. Whilst they do not give less money overall, that money is more often earmarked. The pledged funds must then be spent by the organisation on very specific projects and programmes. This gives a country more control over the money spent, but as a result, the organisation has very little room for manoeuvre, whereas that flexibility is desperately needed for prevention."
Acting pragmatically and more rationally
According to the economist, there is much to be gained by tackling these problems more seriously. "This can already be achieved through relatively small, quickly implementable measures, such as tailored training for risk analysts. But it is also worth looking at larger, institutional changes. Where possible, decouple prevention from day-to-day politics, so that you are less at the mercy of the dynamics of the media and parliament."
"We're already doing this successfully in the Netherlands with our water policy, for example, and we are taking steps in this direction with our climate policy. We have a climate council of scientists that helps make well-considered, future-proof choices, but also experiments with citizens' assemblies for democratic legitimacy. We must ensure that we approach prevention just as rationally; the stakes are high enough to warrant it."
