Evidence-based policy
Evidence-based policy (also known as evidence-based governance) is a concept in public policy that advocates for policy decisions to be grounded on, or influenced by, rigorously established objective evidence. This concept presents a stark contrast to policymaking predicated on ideology, 'common sense', anecdotes, or personal intuitions. The methodology employed in evidence-based policy often includes comprehensive research methods such as randomized controlled trials (RCT).[1] Good data, analytical skills, and political support to the use of scientific information are typically seen as the crucial elements of an evidence-based approach.[2]
Not to be confused with Policy-based evidence making, research conducted to support a pre-determined policy, or Evidence-based policing, an approach that utilizes evidence-based methods in police departments.
An individual or organisation is justified in claiming that a specific policy is evidence-based if, and only if, three conditions are met. First, the individual or organisation possesses comparative evidence about the effects of the specific policy in comparison to the effects of at least one alternative policy. Second, the specific policy is supported by this evidence according to at least one of the individual's or organisation's preferences in the given policy area. Third, the individual or organisation can provide a sound account for this support by explaining the evidence and preferences that lay the foundation for the claim.[3]
The effectiveness of evidence-based policy hinges upon the presence of quality data, proficient analytical skills, and political backing for the utilization of scientific information.[2]
While proponents of evidence-based policy have identified certain types of evidence, such as scientifically rigorous evaluation studies like randomized controlled trials, as optimal for policymakers to consider, others argue that not all policy-relevant areas are best served by quantitative research. This discrepancy has sparked debates about the types of evidence that should be utilized. For example, policies concerning human rights, public acceptability, or social justice may necessitate different forms of evidence than what randomized trials provide. Furthermore, evaluating policy often demands moral philosophical reasoning in addition to the assessment of intervention effects, which randomized trials primarily aim to provide.[4]
In response to such complexities, some policy scholars have moved away from using the term evidence-based policy, adopting alternatives like evidence-informed. This semantic shift allows for continued reflection on the need to elevate the rigor and quality of evidence used, while sidestepping some of the limitations or reductionist notions occasionally associated with the term evidence-based. Despite these nuances, the phrase "evidence-based policy" is still widely employed, generally signifying a desire for evidence to be used in a rigorous, high-quality, and unbiased manner, while avoiding its misuse for political ends.[5]
Evidence-based policy employs various methodologies, but they all commonly share the following characteristics:
The methodology used in evidence-based policy aligns with the cost-benefit framework. It is designed to estimate a net payoff if the policy is implemented. Due to the difficulty in quantifying some effects and outcomes of the policy, the focus is primarily on whether benefits will outweigh costs, rather than assigning specific values.[8]
Academics provide input to policy beyond the production of content relating to issues addressed via policy through various channels:
Evidence-based policy initiatives by non-governmental organizations[edit]
Overseas Development Institute[edit]
The Overseas Development Institute (ODI) asserts that research-based evidence can significantly influence policies that have profound impacts on lives. Illustrative examples mentioned in the UK's Department for International Development's (DFID) new research strategy include a 22% reduction in neonatal mortality in Ghana, achieved by encouraging women to initiate breastfeeding within one hour of childbirth, and a 43% decrease in mortality among HIV-positive children due to the use of a widely accessible antibiotic.
Following numerous policy initiatives, the ODI conducted an evaluation of their evidence-based policy efforts. This analysis identified several factors contributing to policy decisions that are only weakly informed by research-based evidence. Policy development processes are complex, seldom linear or logical, thus making the direct application of presented information by policy-makers an unlikely scenario. These factors encompass information gaps, secrecy, the necessity for rapid responses versus slow data availability, political expediency (what is popular), and a lack of interest among policy-makers in making policies more scientifically grounded. When a discrepancy is identified between the scientific process and political process, those seeking to reduce this gap face a choice: either to encourage politicians to adopt more scientific methods or to prompt scientists to employ more political strategies.
The ODI suggested that, in the face of limited progress in evidence-based policy, individuals and organizations possessing relevant data should leverage the emotional appeal and narrative power typically associated with politics and advertising to influence decision-makers. Instead of relying solely on tools like cost–benefit analysis and logical frameworks,[27] the ODI recommended identifying key players, crafting compelling narratives, and simplifying complex research data into clear, persuasive stories. Rather than advocating for systemic changes to promote evidence-based policy, the ODI encouraged data holders to actively engage in the political process.
Furthermore, the ODI posited that transforming a person who merely 'finds' data into someone who actively 'uses' data within our current system necessitates a fundamental shift towards policy engagement over academic achievement. This shift implies greater involvement with the policy community, the development of a research agenda centered on policy issues instead of purely academic interests, the acquisition of new skills or the formation of multidisciplinary teams, the establishment of new internal systems and incentives, increased investment in communications, the production of a different range of outputs, and enhanced collaboration within partnerships and networks.
The Future Health Systems consortium, based on research undertaken in six countries across Asia and Africa, has identified several key strategies to enhance the incorporation of evidence into policy-making.[28] These strategies include enhancing the technical capacity of policy-makers; refining the presentation of research findings; leveraging social networks; and establishing forums to facilitate the connection between evidence and policy outcomes.[29][30]
The Pew Charitable Trusts[edit]
The Pew Charitable Trusts is a non-governmental organization dedicated to using data, science, and facts to serve the public good.[31] One of its initiatives, the Results First, collaborates with different US states to promote the use of evidence-based policymaking in the development of their laws.[32] The initiative has created a framework that serves as an example of how to implement evidence-based policy.
Pew's five key components of evidence-based policy are:[31]
Cost-benefit analysis in evidence-based policy[edit]
Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is a method used in evidence-based policy. It is an economic tool used to assess the economic, social, and environmental impacts of policies. The aim is to guide policymakers toward decisions that increase societal welfare.[37]
The use of cost-benefit analysis in policy-making was first mandated by President Ronald Reagan's Executive Order 12291 in 1981. This order stated that administrative decisions should use sufficient information regarding the potential impacts of regulation. Maximizing the net benefits to society was a primary focus among the five general requirements of the order.[38]
Later presidents, including Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, modified but still emphasized the importance of cost-benefit analysis in their executive orders. For example, Clinton's Executive Order 12866 kept the need for cost-benefit analysis but also stressed the importance of flexibility, public involvement, and coordination among agencies.[39]
During Obama's administration, Executive Order 13563 further strengthened the role of cost-benefit analysis in regulatory review. It encouraged agencies to consider values that are hard or impossible to quantify, like equity, human dignity, and fairness.[40]
The use of cost-benefit analysis in these executive orders highlights its importance in evidence-based policy. By comparing the potential impacts of different policy options, cost-benefit analysis aids in making policy decisions that are based on empirical evidence and designed to maximize societal benefits.
Critiques[edit]
Evidence-based policy has faced several critiques. Paul Cairney, a professor of politics and public policy at the University of Stirling in Scotland, contends[41] that proponents of the approach often underestimate the complexity of policy-making and misconstrue how policy decisions are typically made. Nancy Cartwright and Jeremy Hardie[42] question the emphasis on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), arguing that evidence from RCTs is not always sufficient for making decisions. They suggest that applying experimental evidence to a policy context requires an understanding of the conditions present within the experimental setting and an assertion that these conditions also exist in the target environment of the proposed intervention. Additionally, they argue that the prioritization of RCTs could lead to the criticism of evidence-based policy being overly focused on narrowly defined 'interventions', which implies surgical actions on one causal factor to influence its effect.
The concept of intervention within the evidence-based policy movement aligns with James Woodward's interventionist theory of causality.[43] However, policy-making also involves other types of decisions, such as institutional reforms and predictive actions. These other forms of evidence-based decision-making do not necessitate evidence of an invariant causal relationship under intervention. Hence, mechanistic evidence and observational studies are often adequate for implementing institutional reforms and actions that do not alter the causes of a causal claim.[44]
Furthermore, there have been reports[45] of frontline public servants, such as hospital managers, making decisions that detrimentally affect patient care to meet predetermined targets. This argument was presented by Professor Jerry Muller of the Catholic University of America in his book The Tyranny of Metrics.[46]