Trends and issues in the study of evidence-informed policymaking

The ‘evidence-based policy’ movement has argued that systematic use of best-available evidence is the major route to improved policy and program outcomes. Critics and sceptics point to the highly selective and politicized... [ view full abstract ]

The ‘evidence-based policy’ movement has argued that systematic use of best-available evidence is the major route to improved policy and program outcomes. Critics and sceptics point to the highly selective and politicized use of evidence in real policymaking. In terms of a realistic middle ground, the concept of institutionalizing some key features of evidence production and utilization may be attractive to both groups. In schematic terms, this might require long-term commitments in six closely-related dimensions.
The first is substantial public investment in long-term data collection on key social, economic and environmental phenomena.
The second is public investment in the analytical skills required to manage and analyze these data collections, ensure quality control, and provide useful information for managers and other stakeholders.
Third is developing capacity to provide performance information for policy options analysis and to use expert information drawn from a variety of internal and external sources.
Fourth is the extensive use of evaluation and review mechanisms, with clear processes for assessing the impact of various programs and interventions and feedback into the policy development process.
Fifthly, expert advisory councils or standing committees might be valuable for considering matters where evidence is complex and issues are contentious.
Finally, political leaders and legislators need to be supportive of open debate and the sharing of knowledge, so that improved understanding of trends and issues can be joined up with focused deliberation on the merits of various options for action.
This paper explores recent experience in OECD countries in relation to: the use of evaluation reports in policy and budgetary review processes; and attempts to use expert advisory councils to improve the quality of government decision-making.