This article is written by Brian Head, Director of the Centre for Policy Futures at the University of Queensland.

The advantages of using good evidence to develop and implement public policy are widely recognised.

Government leaders, senior civil servants, and international organisations have often endorsed evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM). However, in modern policy-making, evidence-informed approaches often come up against the complexity and intractability of many policy issues.

The supporters of evidence-informed approaches have claimed that building a solid and diverse evidence base is essential for better decision-making and performance management. This perspective developed considerable momentum within the OECD countries over the last four decades. Specialised units dedicated to gathering and analysing economic, social and scientific information were widely established at national and international levels. It was agreed that rigorous program evaluation should be more widely deployed. Processes were also developed to ensure that information about complex topics was better shared and coordinated, so policy advice could draw upon the best available evidence.

What are the conditions required to build and protect EIPM in democratic systems of governance?

Progress was very uneven, of course, but there was widespread optimism that a rational and technocratic view of science-driven policymaking could demonstrate its value for improving outcomes.

The uneven progress was attributed to several obstacles, identified below, which were variously linked to inadequacies in knowledge, funding and communication — matters that could be addressed and improved. These obstacles included:

  1. Knowledge gaps: Rigorous research findings were not (yet) available in many areas to inform policy decisions and knowledge about the underlying problem might not be matched by knowledge about feasible solutions and implementation requirements.
  2. Low uptake of research evidence: Research utilisation has been patchy. Research “supply” was greater than “demand” by potential users in government. Ministers and policy managers focus on building external support (from stakeholders and partner organisations) alongside their interest in the quality of the evidence base.
  3. Expert knowledge was not well-targeted and communicated: Suppliers of expert knowledge (e.g. scientific reports) were not adept at packaging and communicating their findings, and did not understand the current practical needs of policy and program managers.
  4. Diversity of relevant knowledge and experience: There are many forms of policy-relevant knowledge, ranging from rigorous experimental science and systematic evaluation, through to the professional judgements of managers and service providers, and the experiences of stakeholders and clients. Knowledge is fragmented. Choosing the best evidence, or the best “mix” of knowledge, is inherently difficult.
  5. Judging which evidence is seen as reliable or trustworthy: Policy decisions are made in situations where knowledge and experience are available from diverse sources. Decisions cannot wait until evaluation research generates a high level of scientific certainty. Hence, the credibility of the source is crucial, especially under conditions of uncertainty and contestation. Credibility is sometimes linked to scientific expertise, but sometimes it is also linked to other criteria such as political alignment.

The champions of evidence-informed policy see these challenges as demanding even higher investment in knowledge production and synthesis, together with a greater commitment to collaborative processes and knowledge exchange networks. Further progress has been achieved in some policy areas, with a renewed focus on investment in research and information systems and is assisted by new knowledge networks to exchange information and to work together on complex or systemic problems.

However, a sea-change in this optimistic sentiment emerged in the decade following the global financial crisis of 2008. The rational hopes and expectations concerning evidence-rich policy processes were quickly challenged and deflated.

Back to basics

To better understand this shift in momentum, scholars have returned to some basic questions – what are the conditions required to build and protect EIPM in democratic systems of governance? Building on these insights, contemporary analysis of EIPM must go beyond exploring the core topics such as the quality of evidence, the analytical skills of policy professionals, the wide dissemination of reliable information and transparency in decision-making. We also need to address the inherent tensions between expert-driven approaches to decision-making and the democratic accountabilities of political leaders whose world is more focused on stakeholders and public support.

Political culture is important. In some countries with populist leadership, including the US and Hungary, the political executive has deliberately chosen to weaken or undermine EIPM, encouraged by populist hostility to knowledge “elites”. Even where populist ideas have not become dominant, there has been a trend toward the narrowing of policy advice — especially where ministers assert political control via a circle of policy advisors appointed by these ministers. The prospects for EIPM are weakened by these developments. Some wider features of the policy context tend to reinforce these challenges for evidence-informed analysis, including distrust of politicians and political institutions; intense partisanship and polarisation; and value-based opinions conveyed through digital media channels.

The future of evidence-informed policy making depends not only on the commitment of skilled policy professionals but also on the leadership qualities and problem-solving capacities of the decision-makers themselves

Under these conditions, what are the potential contributions and limitations of evidence-informed approaches to complex policy problems? Complexities and controversies are widely found across many policy areas. Modern policy-making now requires engaging with the value differences that underpin the intractability of many policy issues. Complex inter-related social issues increase the challenges of adequate knowledge and competent coordination at all points in policy design and program implementation.

Evidence under fire

Evidence cannot provide the “solution” for deeply divisive problems. Evidence is crucial for mapping socio-economic trends, documenting the diverse positions taken by stakeholders, and providing evaluation findings for certain policy options, where available. However, in a controversial policy field, the necessary trade-offs and conflict resolution mechanisms can only be managed through the political process.

In turbulent policy fields, relevant “evidence” itself is contested. Defining the options and consequences becomes closely linked to “framing” contests between the proponents of various positions. If evidence is being selectively used to consolidate positions, there is little chance of developing agreed bodies of research evidence about “what works”. Where evidence remains contested and new proposals do not reinforce established organisational cultures and stakeholder values, the trajectory of the policy debate is unpredictable.

In conclusion, the future of EIPM depends not only on the commitment of skilled policy professionals but also on the leadership qualities and problem-solving capacities of the decision-makers themselves.

A focus on future-oriented problem-solving for complex and wicked problems may benefit from participatory processes for learning and deliberation

If complex and wicked problems cannot be resolved by appeals to evidence, where can constructive new ideas come from? Public officials tend to be tightly constrained by risk management and established routines. New processes, such as deliberative juries or participatory policy design workshops, require high-level political authorisation. Innovative ideas may be sponsored by policy entrepreneurs in NGOs, think-tanks, research networks, the media and business associations. New ideas often gain initial traction outside government departments, before being considered and adopted by public agencies.

These ideas encourage a more realistic consideration of the levers available for policy learning via strengthening and institutionalising EIPM. Learning from the past occurs primarily through policy reviews and evaluations, which ideally might utilise a wide array of stakeholder and expert processes. A focus on future-oriented problem-solving for complex and wicked problems may benefit from participatory processes for learning and deliberation. In either case, commitments to the value of good evidence and open debate need to be considered within each individual agency, across the span of public sector agencies and in building bridges with other sectors. — Brian Head

(Picture credit: Unsplash)