Page 362 - Invited Paper Session (IPS) - Volume 1

IPS169 Markku L.
viewed by many as untrustworthy, there appears to be something almost
insulting or arrogant about them. Reducing social and economic issues to
numerical aggregates and averages seems to violate some people’s sense of
political decency” (Davies 2017). Ultimately, Davies (2017) argues, the
declining trust in quantitative expertise would be unlikely to improve
democracy, as the critics would like to claim, but to “an unleashing of tabloid
editors and demagogues to provide their own ‘truth’ of what is going on
across society.”
The virtues of trust are numerous and incontestable. Research has shown
its value for a wide range of economic and social processes: interpersonal
relations and economic exchange (Dasgupta 1988), financial investments
(Kalkbrenner & Roosen 2016, 62), the legitimacy of political power (Tait 2011),
societal and economic development and growth (Gallucio 2018), innovation,
education, rule of law, good governance, reduction of corruption and violence,
subjective well-being (Zak & Knack 2001; Laurent 2009, 14; Volland 2017),
environmental performance and the propensity to adopt strict environmental
policies (e.g. Owen & Videras 2008; Tjernström & Tietenberg 2008; Carattini
et al. 2015), and successful cohabitation of peoples in multinational
democracies (Karmis & Rocher 2018).
However, the dim views of Davies concerning the loss of trust merit
nuancing. Firstly, Desrosières (2015) traces the origins of the crisis of trust back
to the “feedback” of indicators and quantitative information on their users and
producers, and the tensions this generates for the identity of statisticians. The
very identity of statisticians rests on their role as custodians of objective,
incontestable data in defence of democracy and the underprivileged, yet such
quantified forms of information have performative effects (e.g. Merry 2016;
Ràfols 2019), that is, they “change the world through their very existence, their
circulation and their rhetorical usage in science, politics or journalism”
(Desrosières 2015, 334). Through institutionalisation – a largely invisible
process whereby indicators become objectified, as the quantification and
encoding procedures become routine (ibid.) - indicators become a lingua
franca that allows smooth communication amongst actors (ibid.). Making
these processes explicit may be highly desirable for the sake of democracy
and openness, yet it also risks weakening the argumentative effectiveness of
indicators: the underlying conventions and assumptions would be opened up
to contestation, and would probably require lengthy discussions and
demonstrations (Desrosières 2015, 341).
Secondly, a distinction should be made between the main clients of
statistical offices, the ‘users’ of indicators and statistics, who usually share the
mental frameworks and objectives of statisticians. These users usually hold
strong trust in official statistics, and have experience-based reasons for doing
so. The argument put forward by Davies concerns primarily the vast majority

351 | I S I W S C 2 0 1 9