Extraordinary circumstances and Dick Cheney’s ’stuff happens’ March 29, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Attribution, Outcomes theory & politics, Evaluation debates, Outcomes theory, Accountability, Outcomes theory & the news , trackbackIn my last blog posting I commented on Jon Stewart’s critique of ex-Vice President Dick Cheney’s claim that the Bush administration should not be held accountable for the U.S. economic melt-down because a number of things happened during their term which affected the economy. The Vice President summarized this by saying that ’stuff happens’ and this ’stuff’ unexpectedly blew their budget. The ’stuff’ included the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Hurricane Katrina. In technical outcomes theory terms, the Vice-President was mounting an ‘extraordinary factors’ argument to reduce his administration’s accountability for the economic melt-down.
The definition of extraordinary factors within outcomes theory is that they are factors that are internal or external to a program or intervention which reduce the program’s accountability for improving outcomes. In an idea world, such factors would be identified prior to a ‘contract’ being set up between a funder and program provider. Obviously in the case of a political administration, there is not a formal process under which a ‘contract’ is set up between the public and the administration that clearly sets out accountabilities and identifies when the administration will, and will not, be able to use the extraordinary factors argument to reduce its accountability.
The inclusion of an ‘acts of god’ clause in some types of contracts is a recognition that there will sometimes be circumstances where parties cannot meet their contractual obligations because of extraordinary factors. Ideally what will constitute extraordinary factors should always be specified in any type of contract relating to outcomes. This would avoid what often happens in situations where such factors eventuate, and is happening in the case of Jon Stewart’s comment on the ex-Vice President’s claim; in such cases there is often endless dispute about whether or not those who are trying to reduce their accountability are justified in doing so in the light of particular extraordinary circumstances.
Paul Duignan, PhD
Comments»
no comments yet - be the first?