Analysis and Advocacy
I subscribe to the short analysis series “Critical Questions” from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), described as follows: “Prepared by CSIS experts, ‘Critical Questions’ are a quick and easy read designed to go to the heart of the matter on today’s ‘of the moment’ issues.”
I just received one of these on the licensing of a new nuclear power plant in the US. I was irritated when I read the final paragraph:
Given the current economic climate, which challenges broader new nuclear plant development, policymakers should recognize the broad set of benefits provided by a viable commercial nuclear program. A sustained lack of new nuclear construction will jeopardize U.S. global leadership in regulation, operations, emergency response standards, and nonproliferation efforts. Additionally, nuclear energy can play an important role in efforts to meet global carbon emissions targets. The maintenance of a robust domestic industry is absolutely critical in our continued role in setting global standards in all of these areas.
I was irritated not by the particular conclusion, but by the fact that these e-mails are characterized as “analysis” while this conclusion is unambiguous advocacy. The ideal think tank, as I see it, would give objective analysis without advocacy, and this CSIS purported “analysis” was actually an instance of advocacy, thus falling far short of the ideal.
I have myself often taken a personal pride in the fact that many people with whom I talk have no idea whatsoever what my personal opinions are on any particular issue, and this strikes me as the appropriate approach to strategic analysis. However, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that analysis cannot remain mere analysis, and in considering only a few options among countless possibilities analysis always shades over into advocacy.
Nevertheless, there are forms of advocacy for which I have more or less tolerance. After my second thoughts about this CSIS piece, I continued to be irritated, and I think this was due to the lack of objectivity in both analysis and advocacy. And I do believe that it is possible to be an objective advocate, however rare that may be.
First of all, no mention is made the of the government-guaranteed nuclear exemption from liability, which skews the market strongly toward nuclear power. Also, nothing was said of an 80 percent government loan guarantee for a project estimated to cost 14.5 billion dollars (cf. Obama’s Southern Company Play: How Much Nuclear Plant for $14.5 Billion, 80% Federally Guaranteed?).
The problem with advocacy coupled with analysis is not that the advocacy can be wrong; the real problem is that the advocacy skews the analysis. One gets the feeling from the CSIS piece that it was in fact the position that came first, and that reasons were found to support this position of advocacy ex post facto.Thus the analysis is not an analysis, sensu stricto, but a rationalization and a justification.
Analysis that follows from advocacy is very nearly worthless, and usually only muddies the waters and confuses the issue. Advocacy that follows from analysis has a certain feeling of honesty about it, and can actually help to clarify the issue.
Of course, people will always say that their advocacy follows from a thorough analysis, and it is left to us to try to discover if this claim is honest. For this purpose, I have only the “smell” test: if it smells wrong, it probably is.
