Strategy Survival Guide

Counterfactual analysis
In Practice 1: SU Waste Project
In choosing between options the impact of a "do nothing" option (i.e. what happens if current policies
continue, or the counterfactual) must be considered. The waste team undertook such a counter factual
analysis as part of their work.
To do this assumptions were made about future waste growth and waste composition (provided by a
waste analysis expert working with the SU team). The team considered current waste funding and
looked at the rate of progress over the last 5 years in recycling and incineration based on this funding.
This showed that the recycling rate had been increasing at 1% per year and only one new incinerator
had been built in the last 7 years. At this rate of progress, and without kerbside recycling or more bring
sites, recycling was likely to remain below 25% of the waste stream even by 2015, notwithstanding the
fact that this target was originally set for 2005. It was assumed that current levels of opposition to
incinerators would continue and only those currently approved would get built.
This analysis established the amount of waste that would end up in landfill sites on unchanged policies
and could be compared with EU Landfill Directive targets to which the UK was bound. It showed that, on
unchanged policies, many more landfill sites would be needed, resulting in the UK falling further and
further from meeting the Landfill Directive.
The chart below shows the results of the counter factual analysis, and the increasing gap between the
Landfill Directive targets and the volume of municipal waste likely to be sent to landfill sites in England
in future.
Estimated biodegradable waste for landfill in England versus
the EU Landfill Directive targets (million tonnes)
Counterfactual analysis
In Practice 2: Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) interview
Random assignment was used to evaluate the introduction of a Restart interview for Jobseekers in
1989/90. Those claiming benefit for six months were invited to an interview to encourage return to work.
8,000 people were randomly assigned to receive an interview (intervention group), while 500 people
were randomly assigned to the control group that was not interviewed. The trial measured the average
time it took both groups to get a job. Those receiving a Restart interview spent 5% less time claiming
benefit.
Strategy Survival Guide – Strategy Skills
Page 167