Waking up to some expert on the radio analysing the state of the economy is never a good start to the day. They are mostly negative and don’t tell me what I already could have guessed. During a recent discussion, I was reminded of a government minister’s comment about experts.
In 2016 Michael Gove, the then Justice Minister, was interviewed by Faisal Islam about the case for the UK leaving the EU. During the interview he was misquoted as saying that the British people “have had enough of experts”. The quote spread through the media like wildfire. He later clarified the quote in a follow up interview where he said “… people have had enough of experts from organisations with acronyms that have got things so wrong in the past.” He went on to discuss how the consensus on an issue should be challenged and tested and that things should not be taken simply on trust because of someone’s position.
Experts are important. They study a subject over a long period of time and with experience they can solve complex problems. There are many examples ranging from doctors and surgeons to plumbers and electricians. Without these experts life would be very difficult if not painful. But there is another type of expert that pops up in the media who adds very little to improving our lives. A good example is in economics. They never give any insight into how an economy works or better still how it could be improved. They can hide behind technical terms that require Google, or ChatGPT, to translate. I have yet to find a clear definition of ‘productivity’ never mind any ideas of how it affects everyday living or how it can be improved. I have lost count of the number of times I have contacted an expert in economics asking for more information about their subject and been met by silence ( yes I have checked my spam folder ). I can only conclude that silence means that they have no time for the general public which is ironic because they are usually pronouncing something that may affect our lives.
Michael Groves is correct in that experts should be challenged. But more specifically they should be challenged about how they improve peoples lives. In the case of doctors, surgeons and plumbers the effectiveness of their impact is obvious: we recover from an illness or the toilet has stopped leaking. But when the we question the insights of an expert in economics we are usually dismissed as not knowing enough to understand the complex issue. However, when a person in a position of power asks a question then they are forced to give an answer. One of the most effective challenges to expertise was made by Queen Elizabeth II. When she was touring The Bank of England, during the Financial Crisis, she asked: why did nobody see it coming? which received a lot of shuffling and looking at the floor. The Queen was asking a question that we all wanted an answer to. It took over four years for the Bank of England to come up with an attempt at an answer!.
I would propose the following criteria for any expert: how do you know that your expertise is understood by the wider public so that it can be challenged? and how has the application of your expertise improved peoples lives? If the government followed this criteria when distributing tax payers money to developing expertise in a subject then we may start to get value for money, and I would get a better start to the day.