The Actors in the Process I: Researchers and Policy Makers

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the role of policy makers and researchers in the policy formulation process and the exchange between them. It reflects on researchers’ freedom to decide their research topics and on policy makers’ freedom to decide policies. In addressing freedom, the chapter follows Sen’s (Desarrollo y Libertad. Bogotá, Planeta, 2000) capability approach, which considers that freedom should focus on people’s possibility to be creative actors and agents of their own development. The chapter also describes the possibilities of policy makers to decide and design public policies. Finally, it analyses the features of the relationship between researchers and policy makers. The chapter includes two cases: the granting of research funds and the case when universities social research reports sleep on shelves.

Cases

4.1.1 Case 1: The Granting of Research Funds by Christopher Wrathall

About the possibility of researchers to decide the research, we need to consider first whether such freedom might be considered appropriate. Given that much pre-commercial research in the UK and elsewhere is funded with public money, there is a strong argument for ensuring that decisions affecting research topics and directions should at least be justifiable in the extent to which they promote the public good. Some might argue further that the taxpayer should have the right to intervene, by means of the elected government, in the choices of research streams. Personally, and as a taxpayer, I am fervently opposed to government intervention in these choices.

In 2017 an attempt by a UK government whip to obtain the names of university lecturers involved in teaching European affairs with particular reference to Brexit was roundly condemned by the universities and disowned by the UK government itself.¹ Four years later, the threat to research from the UK government is less targeted but more radical, as the prospect of cuts to research grants suggests that whole swathes of research sectors will be deprived of further funding.² In the UK, the universities and research institutions have hither to a large extent been able to determine for themselves the themes and the topics of research. A combination of available public money, support from interested private investors and involvement in international research programs has helped to keep the UK at the forefront of research and development. While the researchers themselves, as the principal experts in their respective fields, have been relatively free to determine the direction of their research, there have always been checks and balances from the stakeholders to which researchers have had to adhere and to justify funding and investment.

An excellent overview of the balance that must be achieved among researchers and research stakeholders can be found in Sir Paul Nurse’s report, Ensuring a successful UK research endeavor.³ Nurse refers to the ‘Haldane Principle’, according to which “decisions about the allocation of research funding are best taken by those who have the expertise and experience to know where it will be best spent”.⁴ He extends that principle by differentiating between “scientists that are close to the research under consideration” and “scientific research leaders, who may be distant from the specific work being assessed”, stressing that the latter “should focus on high level priorities”. Overall, a healthy scenario is depicted in the report where a balance is struck that enables researchers to choose their research and carry it out freely in accordance with their own specialized understanding of the research area. The report was written prior to the Brexit referendum in 2016 and the balance it advocates is now, in my view, under threat from the proposed cutting of UK government grants, the prospect of a global recession following the COVID-19 pandemic and the UK’s withdrawal from EU research programs, in accordance with declared Brexit principles.

4.1.2 Case 2: The Relationship Between Research and the Courts in the Field of Housing by María Laura Zulaica

The experience under analysis here consisted of a research study on the habitability conditions of an urban housing complex, with a particular focus on the construction and building aspects following the verification and detection of defects, pathological processes, deficiencies and damages. The research study took the form of an Expedited Diagnosis, drafted with the aim of giving expert evidence in a court case and providing elements for decision making. The study was carried out by the National Scientific and Technical Research Council at the request of Argentina’s Public Prosecutor’s Office.

In this respect, the findings of the research were submitted by the Public Prosecutor’s Office to Argentina’s Supreme Court in order to avoid the closure of the case in which the expert evidence was submitted. The case was brought in order to look into the existence of construction flaws or deficiencies in the facilities and housing units, as reported by the awardee residents that were relocated in the housing complex. The request for the closure of the case was based on the argument that the construction flaws and defects had already been remedied. The Diagnosis shows that this is not true and that therefore, the closure of the case adversely affects the residents’ right to housing, which warrants that court supervision should remain open.

The Complex comprises 780 housing units with conflicts over housing, safety and environmental deficiencies. It is composed of 13 modules, each containing three buildings attached together in the shape of a strip. Each module has a uniform height of 5 stories and contains 20 housing units, some of which are still unfinished. Work on modules 1, 12 and 13–which are still unoccupied–is at various degrees of progress. The building system used for walls and slabs is an industrialized one. The building work was initially undertaken by work cooperatives formed by residents of informal neighborhoods. Subsequently, following the commencement of a lawsuit, a construction company took over the execution of the pending works.

Residents began to move into the Complex in 2010, before the works were finished, and the definition of the housing recipients has varied over time. The city district where the Complex is located is one of the most overlooked ones in terms of economic and social development, and the one with the lowest added value, accounting for only 2% of the total. As to accessibility, the district is the farthest away from a subway station and a commercial area, as well as from hospitals and police stations.

In accordance with official sources, 9.6% of the total population residing in the district is unemployed, while 8.6% is underemployed; in turn, 45.3% of the salaried households cannot afford the Total Consumption Basket. It is the district with the largest population residing in shanty towns and slums (61,600 people) and it is in turn the district with the largest amount of housing complexes which are home to thousands of families with serious structural and maintenance problems and deprivation of access to public services. From the point of view of housing, it is worth noting that 4% of the households live in deficit habitat typologies, coupled with a lack of connectivity with the rest of the city. As to the ownership regime, many of the housing units are held under irregular conditions and were acquired through self-production processes. This is also the district with the most critical levels of overcrowding.

The complaints reveal a violation of constitutional rights. The habitability conditions analyzed in the Diagnosis are directly linked to constitutional rights. The right to worthy housing is explicitly set forth in Argentina’s Constitution as a basic human right, in line with the notion of the right to an adequate standard of living embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966. Along the same lines, the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man of 1948 provides in Chapter One that “[e]very person has the right to the preservation of his health through sanitary and social measures relating to food, clothing, housing (…)”. In addition, the right is expressly set out in the American Convention on Human Rights. The Diagnosis also looks at the right to health, which is recognized within the framework of the Constitution and consumer protection law, and which can be safeguarded by means of an action for the protection of constitutional rights, known as “amparo” proceedings”, in the event of its violation. The above-mentioned provisions are supplemented by Article 75(22) of Argentina’s Constitution, which grants international human rights treaties constitutional standing. In addition, Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognizes everyone’s right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and requires States Parties to adopt measures to assure medical attention in the event of sickness. Similarly, Argentina’s Constitution provides that all inhabitants “are entitled to a healthy balanced environment fit for human development and for productive activities to satisfy present needs without compromising those of future generations; and shall have the duty to preserve it”. In addition, the National Law on minimum standards for environmental protection is aimed, among other things, at promoting the improvement of the quality of life of present and future generations on a priority basis and fostering social participation in decision-making processes. It should be noted that in the case under examination there has been a violation of the population’s right to participate in decision-making processes, as the manner in which residents were relocated in the Complex has not guaranteed a democratic management.

This is a complex case involving different actors. Such multiplicity of actors, with their different viewpoints and approaches on how to take action, makes the analysis even more complex, not so much in terms of the preparation of the Diagnosis, but in terms of the attempts to find alternatives and strategies for intervention.

The Diagnosis was prepared by an interdisciplinary team involving researchers and specialists in defects and construction pathologies. In other words, the research team worked in coordination with professional specialists in order to respond to the requirements of the Diagnosis. The Diagnosis comprised a survey of construction aspects (the building envelope, facilities and interventions), safety aspects (street lighting, fire extinguishers, signposting, handrails for children, etc.), and environmental aspects (green spaces, accumulation of material and/or waste, storage of waste and health conditions in common areas). In addition, the work involved key referents of the community.

From the methodological point of view, because of the approach chosen and the magnitude of the complex, the Diagnosis focused on the analysis of secondary and documentary information and on field work based on a detailed survey, albeit limited in scope. The survey included an eye inspection of the exteriors and outdoor common areas. Additionally, semi-structured interviews were conducted with referents in order to look at habitability conditions from a broader perspective.

The challenges posed by the experience can be divided into two main aspects: a methodological one and another linked to the research proper. The former is concerned with the conduct of field work within the framework of the Mandatory Preventive Social Isolation and Distancing measures adopted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, while the latter involves the definition of the scope of the Diagnosis.

The isolation measures made it difficult to access enclosed common areas and housing units in the Complex. The whole survey was carried out from the outside and thus the method used to identify defects and pathologies had to be adjusted to the existing possibilities. This posed a new challenge for the conduct of field work. The residents and referents were interviewed for the survey remotely and/or in the outdoors.

Moreover, it was considered necessary to survey all of the modules in the Complex instead of only the ones involved in the court case. The modules that were to be analyzed in the Diagnosis are numbers 2, 3, 10 and 11, while modules 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 concern other relocation operations and are not related to the expert study. Although particular emphasis was placed on the analysis of the modules involved in the court case, the diagnosis was comprehensive in nature as it took the Complex as a whole. The team considered that it is not possible to distinguish between those residents that are involved in the court case and those that are not when it comes to the analysis of habitability conditions and potentially infringed rights. For this reason, the research was more exhaustive than originally envisaged.

In general terms, the findings of the Diagnosis allow concluding that the minimum habitability conditions, as well as adequate access to infrastructure, equipment and essential services, are not guaranteed in the Complex. The defects and pathological processes detected affect both the outside and the inside of the housing units and the interventions carried out in order to “remedy” them have historically assumed a sectoral approach dealing with specific problems without addressing core issues. While most of the construction and building defects are localized, they deteriorate with the passage of time, and generally carry a progressive risk or a risk for other construction elements.

In addition, many of the defects detected have been caused or compounded by the cultural (in)adequacy of the use of the housing units. In this connection, it is worth highlighting that, when the residents were relocated, their economic and productive activities were not taken into consideration, nor were specific spaces allocated for the development of these activities that arise from the needs of the residents of the Complex. In addition, the building system used does not adjust to the residents’ needs.

The environmental conditions and common areas show signs of deterioration and modalities of occupation that impair habitability. Seventeen abandoned cars and more than thirty points of material and scrap accumulation were identified. Moreover, common areas are the subject of dispute between public use and the private use of the residents that have had to adapt their productive and social needs (including symbolic ones) to areas designed for other purposes.

In terms of safety, certain situations were identified that pose direct risks to the residents’ health and integrity. One of the most critical problems is the impossibility to take action in the event of a fire. The fire protection system cannot be operated as there are no outdoor water tapping points or hoses and accessory equipment. Additionally, there are no signs, evacuation plans or emergency lights.

The research reveals the existence of the legal tools and institutional devices needed to guarantee a comprehensive approach for relocation processes. However, in practice, such complexity has been addressed in a partial and piecemeal manner, giving rise to different obstacles to achieving a comprehensive intervention that contemplates all the dimensions involved.

According to the residents, the Complex is a neighborhood that is “highly intervened by the State” and “an example of everything that one should not do”, as “the improvements come in dribs and drabs”. Added to these interventions are the complexities stemming from the involvement of different state agencies (housing, education, health etc.), with difficulties to articulate actions. This further reveals the lack of a comprehensive approach that can guide the process as a whole. On the basis of the study carried out, specific improvements were requested for the Complex that have an impact on the residents’ safety and health. Along the same lines, following the Diagnosis, the next step that needs to be taken is the adoption of a comprehensive, interdisciplinary and institutional approach. In turn, the research opens new avenues for addressing cases exhibiting similar problems.

The case under analysis concerns a research study prompted by a specific request to contribute to decision making in the political arena. The study evidences the violation of the rights to adequate housing, health, a healthy balanced environment and the participation of the actors concerned in decision making. Against this background, scientific research provided key elements to help find comprehensive solutions that, based on a participative approach, can facilitate the design of agreed-upon and improved proposals guaranteeing suitable habitability conditions for the relocated families.

The transfer of research results on habitability conditions to the territory in question at the request of a state agency contributes to the design and definition of public policies aimed at improving the population’s quality of life. It is citizens that claim for their rights to adequate housing, health, a healthy environment and participation in decision-making. It is inhabitants themselves that refuse to be mere recipients of governmental decisions who bring legal actions to fight for their rights. In the case under study, the research carried out contributed scientific and technical elements that provide a basis for citizens’ claims and help to define actions in the political field, which can be extended to other cases involving similar problems.