Andrew Ducker (andrewducker) wrote,
Andrew Ducker
andrewducker

I need to know what you think about errors and welfare

No system is without error. No system perfectly captures the real world. This means that any bureaucracy you encounter, whether computerised or manual, is going to sometimes unfairly reward the undeserving or penalise the purely unfortunate.

With that in mind, you can design a system so that it's lenient - allowing more people to pass through it, including those that shouldn't - or so that it's strict - preventing anyone who has even the slightest whiff of dodginess from achieving success.

How would you design yours?

I would rather have a welfare system that

Gave 0% extra money, 5% get less than they should
0(0.0%)
Gave 1% extra money, 4% get less than they should
0(0.0%)
Gave 2% extra money, 3% get less than they should
0(0.0%)
Gave 3% extra money, 2% get less than they should
2(2.7%)
Gave 4% extra money, 1% get less than they should
6(8.0%)
Gave 5% extra money, 0% get less than they should
67(89.3%)


(In real life, of course, getting down to an "extra payouts of 0%" probably means that more than 5% wouldn't get their money. And vice versa. The closer to "perfection" you get, the harder it becomes to move that extra step.)

Context: Thinking about this comment.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

  • 44 comments