Hank K on Foreign Policy Expertise

There are at least three fundamental flaws with outcome-based PD in the real world. First, it perverts incentives. Every project is a “win,” because that’s what leadership wants to see and what keeps the money flowing (not to mention what earns awards, promotions, and onward assignments). It’s not that people are dishonest - it’s that they are human. In addition to the tangible benefits of reporting successes, they want to believe that what they do matters. Second, it incentivises short-term, non-durable results over slow, steady, sustainable gains. There is nuance to this point, but for sake of time I’ll move on. Third - and most important - is that outcomes are simply a poor way to assess the quality and replicability of a program. There are too many external factors (and insufficient sample size) to know if the results were due to skill or luck. That’s not to say that we should go back to outputs or ignore the ultimate outcome. But true sustained success in most endeavors comes from consistently making the best possible inputs based on your understanding of the situation. By studiously divorcing outcomes from inputs, you put the emphasis where it belongs - on the quality of decision-making and risk assessment. The alternative is to fall prey to confirmation bias, resulting bias, and more.