There are arguments on both sides

It's always useful to have something credible to say at meetings when you've dozed off and wake up to find everyone staring at you expectantly, waiting for you to speak. Over the years I have found that 'it's not black or white, it's a continuum' can be helpful, while 'I think we should be looking at this holistically', has also become a reliable standby. Even more helpful is 'there are arguments on both sides'.

In an increasingly complex world, the links between a policy and its effect are ever more obscure. There are sufficient data to back up any hypothesis. Compelling evidence can usually be found in support of either side of a policy argument. Is the climate changing, and if so, why? Are genetically engineered foods good or bad for the environment? Does gun control mean fewer or more gun crimes? Will more military spending mean more security? On these and many more issues, thinking people are inundated with information, much of it contradictory. We rarely go through all the available argumentation and come to a reasoned conclusion. There simply isn't time. Very often, we select the information that suits our preconceived ideas. We might give more weight whatever side of an argument we hear first. Or we might believe proponents who are more charismatic.

A handy way of short-circuiting thorough analysis is to have an ideology. With a static set of preconceptions we don't need fully to engage with the issues, which would be time-consuming and probably inconclusive. Much easier to dismiss gun control because it interferes with our liberties. Or to believe that we ought to ban GM foods because of the precautionary principle. and if ideology doesn't supply a ready-made answer, very often the lobbying power of interested parties fills the gap.

Making policy like this is unscientific, inherently divisive and prone to corruption and manipulation. Yet there is a genuine problem, in that the world is complex, and in almost every case, there are valid arguments on both sides. Should we disbelieve evidence because it doesn't fit our prejudices, or because supporting research was funded by vested interests?

The temptation is to abdicate responsibility; to disengage from the political process, comforted by a vague feeling that crucial issues are up to the politicians to decide.

There is an alternative, and that is for policymakers to target outcomes, rather than activities. Rather than decide on how many police to employ, they should reward people for cutting crime however they do so. Rather than cut anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, they should reward the stabilising of the climate. Instead of subsidising arms manufacturers and selling lethal weaponry to whoever will pay for them, they should reward the achievement of peace.

Outcomes, in short, are a better driver for policy than ideology. Social Policy Bonds not only subordinate all policy to outcomes, but inject market incentives into the achievement of our social and environmental goals. And because there is wider consensus over outcomes than over the means of achieving them, they will draw more people and more expertise into the policymaking process.