The energy model muddle
In: Policy sciences: integrating knowledge and practice to advance human dignity : the journal of the Society of Policy Scientists, Band 16, Heft 3, S. 227-243
ISSN: 1573-0891
8 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Policy sciences: integrating knowledge and practice to advance human dignity : the journal of the Society of Policy Scientists, Band 16, Heft 3, S. 227-243
ISSN: 1573-0891
In: Policy sciences: integrating knowledge and practice to advance human dignity ; the journal of the Society of Policy Scientists, Band 16, S. 227-243
ISSN: 0032-2687
In: Policy sciences: integrating knowledge and practice to advance human dignity ; the journal of the Society of Policy Scientists, Band 16, Heft 3, S. 227-243
ISSN: 0032-2687
It is well-known that modelers & policy analysts gain access to policy-making arenas based on what they know. Therefore, critics of models are quick to employ various types of technical standards when evaluating policy models in order to asses validity & reliability of claims to knowledge. It is argued that, in the effort to make models better, overreliance on technical standards misses the important political & policy reasons to model: models call attention to the modelers & to their advice about important policy problems of the day. In this sense, models are used as symbols, as claims to authority, whether or not the underlying knowledge is technically up to snuff. Drawing on the experience of energy policy models, the problem of models as knowledge vs as symbols is explored & the muddle that conflicts between them produce is examined. 53 References. Modified HA.
In: Wharton Pension Research Council Working Paper No. 2021-19
SSRN
SSRN
Working paper
In: Policy sciences: integrating knowledge and practice to advance human dignity, Band 15, Heft 1, S. 1-2
ISSN: 1573-0891
In: Policy sciences: integrating knowledge and practice to advance human dignity, Band 15, Heft 2, S. 183-194
ISSN: 1573-0891