The main goal of Values Added is to demonstrate that all policy analysts should consider values in their work, regardless of subject matter. The public’s view of government policies, whether related to controversial topics or not, is going to be coloured by their moral compasses. Policies deemed righteous can expect to receive significant public backing, while those viewed as immoral will lack popular support. This dynamic can make or break a policy; the implementation of unpopular policies is likely to be resisted and the public will vote for parties who pledge to change the government’s direction. Without moral support for their chosen solutions, governments struggle to solve pressing issues.
With this in mind, values analysis is best viewed as a general tool that should be applied to a range of different issues. To demonstrate, I have developed a list of policy problems with important moral considerations. This will serve as a table of contents for past Values Added articles and a roadmap for future subjects of exploration. I hope all readers will find something relevant to their work in this list.
Agriculture
Agricultural Price Support Programs and Subsidies: In many countries, agricultural producers receive various subsidies, special programs, and other hand-outs, which can raise food prices (like under the supply management system) or taxes (with direct subsidies to agricultural producers). These financial supports are sometimes provided for political and pragmatic reasons, but they are also driven by our moral intuitions. Farmers are often portrayed as sympathetic figures who deserve support when times are tough. Perhaps more importantly, farmers can be viewed as keepers of a traditional way of life that is intertwined with national identity. As a consequence, altering support programs for farmers is usually morally fraught.
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs): The science is clear that genetically modified crops present no danger to human health and can significantly improve yields and the nutritional value of food. So why are they banned in so many countries? Even the European Union, otherwise a technocratic organization, has effectively forbidden the cultivation of these crops. Fundamentally, much of the opposition is driven by moral reactions against interfering with natural processes (such as evolution). Splicing the DNA of plants violates moral intuitions about the sanctity of nature, even if the resulting crop is visibly and genetically indistinguishable from a natural specimen.
Culture
Language Rights: Language rights are constantly in the news in Canada. These debates tend to take on a strong moral dimension, as issues of national identity, egalitarianism, equal treatment, and the protection of minorities tend to rise to the top. Anyone who wishes to legislate in this space should have a detailed understanding of the values that are operational, or else.
Secularism: In a similar vein, questions about the separation of religion and public life remain controversial in many countries. Some nations take a hard line on the issue, banning the display of religious symbols in certain public settings. Other nations are more laissez-faire about their interpretation of secularism, and the display of religious images is viewed as a personal right. These debates can become acrimonious, but central to the disagreement are concepts of national identity, equal treatment before the law, and simple racism – all issues related to some extent in values.
Education
Gifted Education: Separating high-achieving students into their own classes or schools tends to provoke loud debates, even though there is little evidence that such practices affect students’ educational or career outcomes. However, these programs expose a rift between two different conceptions of fairness: equity, where everyone is treated the same, or proportionality, where people get what they deserve. Values analysis cannot tell us which conception of fairness should be favoured, but it can help tailor policies to reduce the outrage of parents and students who disagree with the chosen policy direction.
Economics and Finance
Bailouts: Following the 2008 Financial Crisis, the American government came to the rescue of its financial sector by delivering hundreds of billions of dollars of support to ailing banks, an effort that many people saw as unfair. Even though the bailout was probably economically necessary, it raised an important moral question: why did the same people who caused the crisis get a lifeline, while regular people lost their jobs and homes? Keen observers have drawn a line between the 2008 Financial Crisis and the rise of populism less than a decade later, in part due to the moral outrage that followed the bailouts. Policymakers beware.
Inflation: Everyone hates inflation in a way that can baffle economists, whose clean models rarely (if ever) account for the thoughts and feelings of the public. To most people, inflation is considered unfair, as it makes hard-earned money less valuable. In addition, it hurts many groups worthy of sympathy: poorer people, seniors, and the financially responsible. Rising prices is more than just an economic issue; it’s also a moral one.
Environment
Climate Change: No serious person doubts that climate change will be one of the largest policy challenges of the 21st century, but well-meaning people can disagree about what should be done. To what extent do rich countries have a responsibility to cut emissions faster than the rest of the world? Do smaller countries have an obligation to act when the biggest emitters are dragging their feet? How should governments manage the labour displacement of the clean energy transition? These are all tough questions that values analysis can help explore.
Deep Ecology: To many people, the natural world is a resource to be exploited to improve the lives of humans. Sustainability is only important in so far as future generations can continue to derive benefits from a clean and healthy environment. However, other people see the natural world as a sacred place that should be more strictly protected than simple conservationism would demand. If policymakers don’t account for these views, such people can push back against major resource and energy development projects and put billions of dollars of at risk.
Health Care
Medical Assistance in Dying: Although public opinion has swung in favour of medically assisted dying in Canada, a shrinking but vocal subset of the population strongly opposes the procedure. On one hand, it seems morally correct to reduce the suffering of people who are approaching slow and certain deaths. On the other hand, many people see something perverse about doctors “putting down” the sick, especially given the thorny issue of consent. Both views align with aspects of our morality, as values analysis can show.
Harm Reduction for Drug Users: There can no longer be any reasonable doubt that many forms of harm reduction, such as safe consumption sites, reduce deaths. Even so, they remain controversial. Many people feel a moral intuition against drugs because they ‘pollute’ the body, which elicits a reaction of disgust. If you feel this impulse, you’re unlikely to support safe injection sites, even if they save lives. You’d believe it to be morally perverse for the government to help addicts taint their bodies with drugs. Period. Supporters of safe injection sites must address these concerns head-on to build social license for such a policy.
Vaccination Incentives: In the drive to jab the world against COVID-19, a wide range of approaches were used to increase vaccination rates, including financial incentives, lotteries, and vaccine passports. Each policy featured a unique profile of moral implications: some aimed to maximize personal choice, while others prioritised fairness. Values analysis can help outline the moral trade-offs involved when selecting the best vaccination policy.
Justice
Gun Control: Restricting access to firearms almost certainly saves lives, which is a strong case for gun control measures. However, stricter gun control is not a slam-dunk, as it also constrains personal freedom and unfairly punishes responsible gun owners. No wonder that it remains controversial, especially south of the border.
Housing
NIMBYism: No one wants unexpected neighbours, noise, or new developments blocking their views. But some people will go to remarkable lengths to block the construction of housing or other important infrastructure. Although NIMBYs can seem selfish, they are often driven by ideas about fairness. Realtors always say that picking the right house is all about location, so why is it fair that developers can go over the heads of locals and forever alter the character of a neighbourhood? With housing prices reaching the moon, responding to these views has never been more important, as local opposition can add significant costs to any new development.
Gentrification: Hated by many on the left, gentrification can raise rents in poorer areas and push out locals who have lived there for years. They’re often replaced by richer (and sometimes whiter) residents, many of whom may have only recently moved to the city. Those opposed to gentrification call it an example of social injustice. Those in favour call it progress. Concerns about harm, fairness, and societal responsibility permeate the debate, and values analysis can shed light on the underlying discord.
Immigration and Border Control
Treatment of Refugees: Not all refugees are treated equally, as evidenced by the public reaction in many European countries to the 2015 and 2022 waves of asylum seekers. Although racism no doubt affects how refugees from different countries are treated, values analysis shows that a wide range of values are at play, including considerations of harm, fairness, and loyalty. Without understanding this, policymakers risk bungling their response to refugee crises, by either letting in too many asylum seekers or too few of them.
Vaccination and Tourism: The pandemic led many governments to implement rules that required all travellers to be vaccinated against COVID-19. People who broke these rules invited public opprobrium that seemed to far outweigh the actual public health impacts of their transgressions. This only makes sense in the context of values, where intuitions about safety, fairness, and nationalism can become intertwined. Foreigners who break the rules are often singled out for especially harsh treatment, while locals who engage in the same behaviour attract little attention. It’s only natural.
International Affairs
Afghan Refugees: No serious person argues that the situation in Afghanistan isn’t a humanitarian catastrophe. But a healthy debate exists over the West’s moral responsibilities regarding the country. After a decades-long occupation, do Western countries owe Afghans large amounts of aid and high resettlement quotas? Or have Western countries fulfilled their obligations to the country already?
Russian Draft Dodgers: When Vladimir Putin declared a partial draft in mid-2022, hundreds of thousands of Russians headed for the exits. Most of them ended up in neighbouring countries, and Western countries were unsure how to react. Pursuing an open-door policy seemed morally correct to some, but many disagreed and felt little sympathy for Russians fleeing conscription. The difference between these two groups is one of values.
Understanding World Leaders: Analysts often speculate about the mix of factors that influence world leaders’ decisions, but certainty is never achievable. Even so, values analysis could improve the assessment of leaders’ psychology, which in turn would help develop effective negotiation strategies and predict world leaders’ next moves.
Social Media
Content Moderation: What content should be purged from social media? Should moderation be light to cultivate an environment of free expression, or should social media networks take a harder line? Perhaps more importantly, who should set the rules: the government or the companies that manage social networks? These questions go beyond technocratic tinkering. Significant questions about values are raised.
Misinformation: The increasing availability and influence of fake news is a top-tier policy problem in the 21st century. Misinformation is so powerful in part because it is emotionally charged. Consciously or not, creators of fake news have mastered the art of targeting people’s values to create as much moral outrage as possible. Understanding this dynamic is critical to developing methods of combatting misinformation and improving public discourse.
Society
Anti-lockdown Protests: As the COVID-19 pandemic wore on, a tipping point was reached, and people were no longer willing to put up with the cycles of lockdowns and reopenings that came to exemplify most government responses to increasing cases. This attitude peaked in the Freedom Convoy, which descended on Ottawa and shut down critical border crossings with the U.S. The massive costs associated with these disruptions illustrate why accounting for moral reactions to policy is critical.