Policy judgements comprise reality judgements, value judgements and instrumental judgements' [Geoffrey Vickers]. Elucidate.

Reality Judgements

Reality judgements concern the accurate perception and understanding of the external world. They involve assessing the facts, identifying causal relationships, and predicting the consequences of actions. These judgements are often based on empirical evidence, scientific research, and expert opinion. However, even ‘objective’ reality is subject to interpretation and can be influenced by biases and limitations in data collection.

• Example: Assessing the impact of climate change requires reality judgements about the scientific evidence, the rate of global warming, and the potential consequences for different regions. Disagreements on these factual assessments can lead to different policy responses.
• Challenge: Reality judgements are often incomplete or uncertain. The COVID-19 pandemic initially presented significant challenges in accurately assessing the virus’s transmission rate and severity, impacting early policy responses.

Value Judgements

Value judgements reflect the ethical principles, beliefs, and priorities that guide policy choices. They determine what goals are considered desirable and how different outcomes are weighed against each other. Value judgements are inherently subjective and often involve trade-offs between competing interests.

• Example: Debates surrounding abortion policy are fundamentally rooted in value judgements about the sanctity of life, individual autonomy, and women’s rights.
• Impact: Different political ideologies prioritize different values. For instance, a liberal government might prioritize social justice and equality, while a conservative government might emphasize individual responsibility and economic freedom.

Instrumental Judgements

Instrumental judgements focus on the practical feasibility and effectiveness of different policy instruments. They involve assessing the costs, benefits, and risks associated with various options, and selecting the most efficient and effective means to achieve desired goals.

• Example: Choosing between a carbon tax and a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions requires instrumental judgements about their respective administrative costs, political acceptability, and environmental effectiveness.
• Considerations: Instrumental judgements often involve complex modelling and forecasting, and are subject to uncertainty and unintended consequences. The implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) in India (2017) involved instrumental judgements about its potential to simplify the tax system and boost economic growth, but also faced challenges related to implementation and compliance.

The Interplay of Judgements

These three types of judgements are not isolated but are deeply intertwined. Reality judgements inform value judgements by providing information about the consequences of different choices. Value judgements, in turn, shape how reality is perceived and what aspects are considered most important. Instrumental judgements then translate values and perceptions of reality into concrete policy actions.

Judgement Type	Focus	Example
Reality	Objective facts & causal relationships	Assessing poverty levels to design welfare programs
Value	Ethical principles & priorities	Deciding whether to prioritize economic growth or environmental protection
Instrumental	Feasibility & effectiveness of policy tools	Choosing between direct cash transfers and in-kind benefits for poverty alleviation

A policy decision, such as implementing a universal basic income (UBI), requires all three. A reality judgement assesses the economic feasibility, a value judgement determines the desirability of reducing inequality, and an instrumental judgement evaluates the best delivery mechanism.