Multiplication of Negative Scenarios: the Approach Public Administrations Could Use at Drafting General Rules
This paper addresses problems that emerge when draft laws are created without due regard for the calculus of probability. Although the latter should be sine qua non for future legislation, legislators usually do not use it despite the legislation’s pro future orientation. The paper, based on Hume’s...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
University of Ljubljana Press (Založba Univerze v Ljubljani)
2019-04-01
|
| Series: | Central European Public Administration Review |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://journals.uni-lj.si/CEPAR/article/view/20507 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832591557282234368 |
|---|---|
| author | Mirko Pečarič |
| author_facet | Mirko Pečarič |
| author_sort | Mirko Pečarič |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description |
This paper addresses problems that emerge when draft laws are created without due regard for the calculus of probability. Although the latter should be sine qua non for future legislation, legislators usually do not use it despite the legislation’s pro future orientation. The paper, based on Hume’s old “is-ought” problem (the impossibility to move from descriptive statements to prescriptive ones) and with the awareness that probability will not be used soon, offers a solution for the future legislation in the multiplication of (negative) scenarios, applied to different life questions. Despite the more and more “popular use” of regulatory impact assessments, smart regulation, probability and risk, public administrations as the major drafters of general legal rules usually do not even use the (much simpler) negative approach to gain better insight into problems, although it is per se the natural way of our thinking. A new view on probability through signs that fit into (unwanted, but known in advance) scenarios can also provide new answers regarding causality. The latter is based on signs, which is what evidence per se really means.
|
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-f7ef98cf6b0f4190805b6051a8cbf1b5 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2591-2240 2591-2259 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2019-04-01 |
| publisher | University of Ljubljana Press (Založba Univerze v Ljubljani) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Central European Public Administration Review |
| spelling | doaj-art-f7ef98cf6b0f4190805b6051a8cbf1b52025-01-22T10:51:41ZengUniversity of Ljubljana Press (Založba Univerze v Ljubljani)Central European Public Administration Review2591-22402591-22592019-04-0117110.17573/cepar.2019.1.08Multiplication of Negative Scenarios: the Approach Public Administrations Could Use at Drafting General RulesMirko Pečarič0https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0551-5682University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Public Administration This paper addresses problems that emerge when draft laws are created without due regard for the calculus of probability. Although the latter should be sine qua non for future legislation, legislators usually do not use it despite the legislation’s pro future orientation. The paper, based on Hume’s old “is-ought” problem (the impossibility to move from descriptive statements to prescriptive ones) and with the awareness that probability will not be used soon, offers a solution for the future legislation in the multiplication of (negative) scenarios, applied to different life questions. Despite the more and more “popular use” of regulatory impact assessments, smart regulation, probability and risk, public administrations as the major drafters of general legal rules usually do not even use the (much simpler) negative approach to gain better insight into problems, although it is per se the natural way of our thinking. A new view on probability through signs that fit into (unwanted, but known in advance) scenarios can also provide new answers regarding causality. The latter is based on signs, which is what evidence per se really means. https://journals.uni-lj.si/CEPAR/article/view/20507apophatic (negative) decision-making, draft legislation and regulation, probability |
| spellingShingle | Mirko Pečarič Multiplication of Negative Scenarios: the Approach Public Administrations Could Use at Drafting General Rules Central European Public Administration Review apophatic (negative) decision-making, draft legislation and regulation, probability |
| title | Multiplication of Negative Scenarios: the Approach Public Administrations Could Use at Drafting General Rules |
| title_full | Multiplication of Negative Scenarios: the Approach Public Administrations Could Use at Drafting General Rules |
| title_fullStr | Multiplication of Negative Scenarios: the Approach Public Administrations Could Use at Drafting General Rules |
| title_full_unstemmed | Multiplication of Negative Scenarios: the Approach Public Administrations Could Use at Drafting General Rules |
| title_short | Multiplication of Negative Scenarios: the Approach Public Administrations Could Use at Drafting General Rules |
| title_sort | multiplication of negative scenarios the approach public administrations could use at drafting general rules |
| topic | apophatic (negative) decision-making, draft legislation and regulation, probability |
| url | https://journals.uni-lj.si/CEPAR/article/view/20507 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT mirkopecaric multiplicationofnegativescenariostheapproachpublicadministrationscoulduseatdraftinggeneralrules |