Evidence Based Policy & Value Addition: A Debate

  Evidence Based Policy & Value Addition: A Debate

                                            ---S M Mehedi Hasan 

That evidence- based policy promotes value to policy making admits of little doubt. Conceptually it adds value to policy making using knowledge from diverse sources through critical evaluation of data and   makes possible an informed decision on the most effective course of treatment or intervention ( Gambrill 2007, cited in Farley et al 2009,1). Evidence is a ‘ground for belief, testimony or facts regarding a claim for conclusion’ that comes in the shape of ‘empirical data’ and ‘practice wisdom’ achieved through sharing and disseminating experience between practitioners and feedback from  service receivers. ( Gambrill 2006,99 cited in in Farley et al 2009,2). In other words EBP is, at its core, about curiosity and knowledge ( Farley et al 2009 ,1). This paper aims at focusing strengths and weakness of EBP and analyzing the way it adds value to policy making. The first part of this paper gives a very short genealogy of EBP and provides some definitions, the second part talks about the positive sides of EBP and final part describes some drawbacks followed by a brief conclusion.

Evidence –based policy, in one form other, has been described ‘as old as the state itself’ (Parsons 1995, cited in Nutley,   Walter and Davies 2009, 3; Wyatt 2002, cited in Freiberg and Carson 2010, 153). However, in the case of the United Kingdom, it dates back from Bacon’s 17^th century vision of the New Atlantis when policies were ‘informed by knowledge, truth, reason and facts’( Davies Nutley and Smith 2000,25; cited in Freiberg and Carson 2010,153) to the Tony Blair’s policy notion ‘what matters is what works’. In the United States, evidenced -based public policy measures became ‘subject to systematic evaluation’ between the mid -1960s and the 1980s through the experiments in education (Oakley 2000, cited in Freiberg and Carson 2010, 153).

Though the intensity of attraction for evidence-based policy in the United Kingdom during Labor Government led by Tonny Blair became unique, it remained no longer limited in Britain.  Similar debates  got foot in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States, and in many other European countries ( Head 2008; Latham 2001; Marston & Watts 2003; Morton & Nutley 2007; SPEaR 2001; WT Grant Foundation 2008; Zussman 2003; cited in Nutley,   Walter and Davies 2009,4). For instance, in Australia, the concept of evidence- based policy culminated popularity through voice of Kevin Rudd in April 2008.He set out goals of ‘robust, evidence-based policy making process’ to lead government by reason, not by ideology; to be ‘interested in facts, not fads’; and to lay ‘policy innovation and evidence-based policy making’ (Rudd 2008, cited in Freiberg and Carson 2010, 153).

EBP is the ‘conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients’ (Sacket et al.1996, 71; cited in Farley et al, 1) .According to Gambrill ( 2007, 449)  EBP is a ‘philosophy and process designed to forward effective use of professional judgment integrating information regarding each client’s unique characteristics, circumstances, preferences, actions and external research findings’.

Petre and Walter (2005, 254) referred EBP as an expanded idea which recognizes the significance of the professional and consumer in identifying the congruity of ‘the evidence to the situation a at hand’. Evidence is a ‘ground for belief, testimony or facts regarding a claim for conclusion’ that comes in the shape of ‘empirical data, practice wisdom’ achieved through sharing and disseminating experience between practitioners and feedback from service receivers. ( Gambrill 2006,99 cited in in Farley et al 2009,2).

Evidence-based policy has been described as an approach that ‘helps people make well informed decisions about policies, program  and projects by putting the best available evidence from research at the heart of policy development and implementation’( Davies 2004;3;Davies 1999;cited in Freierg and Carson 2010 152).

Evidence- based policy adds value to modern policy making by integrating evidence into policy making process, while dealing with different issues of national and sub-national importance. In that case, ‘we must have good evidence to begin with’ (Banks 2009a, 1). In fact, if the policy makers have the needed skills to identify the useful and reliable evidence, if the data is collected measurably and, if required investment is made in research, evidence based policy making will result in proper value.

Policies are influenced by ‘research evidence’ either directly or indirectly and the agencies engaged in ‘research advocacy’ invest considerable resources to develop the evidence base and ‘deploy a number of strategies to increase the impact’ of evidence-informed advocacy on policies (Nutley, Walter and Davies 2009, 18-19). In such cases ‘more direct contact with ministers and policy-makers is sought through specialist advisors and lobbying’ research activities are often pursued with more creativity by ‘policy entrepreneurs’,   and opens  ‘windows of opportunity’  adding values to existing policy initiatives (Nutley, Walter and Davies 2009,  19).  Further,  by  building alliances or networks with others of similar view, independent evidence advocates  seek ‘synergies’  which are  often broad d sometimes relatively narrow but deeper, more strategic and sustained. (Nutley, Walter   and   Davies (2009, 19).  In addition, some of these agencies   develop demonstration projects showing ‘evidence in action’ and these working projects provide concrete examples that  can  stop ‘implementation failure’ ( Nutley, Walter  and   Davies 2009, 19).

Evidence ensures transparency and leaves room for ‘public and professional debates’ and it can of great aid to governments to measure  community reactions before policies are finally formulated( Banks 2009a  ,1) Though it is said that sometimes evidence fails to play ‘deterministic role in policy outcome’, policy decisions are typically influenced by academic debates and rational analysis (Banks 2009a ,1).

Further, without evidence, policy makers need to depend on intuition, ideology or traditional wisdom or at best theory only. As a result, many policy decisions are bound to go astray due to interdependencies and complexities of our socio-economic structure and ‘unpredictability of people’s reaction to change’ (Banks 2009b, 4). Besides, policies that have not been informed by good evidence and analysis may result in untoward consequences and lead to ‘costly mistakes’ .For instance, the Australian Productivity Commission found in a series of reviews that ‘ well-intended regulatory frameworks devised to protect native flora and fauna , and to conserve the historic buildings , were actually undermining conservation goals by creating perverse incentives for those responsible’( Banks 2009a,4 ).Though, sometimes, some policies are taken with good intention but results in evil consequences due to having no evidence –based approach.

Banks (2009b, 7) further observed   strong and publicly available evidence and analysis serve as an important ‘counterweight to the influence of sectional interests’ and enable ‘the wider community’ to be well- informed about what is at stake in proposals of the interest groups and enfranchise those who would bear the costs of implementation

.

Good evidence reduces or neutralizes political barriers and makes reform more feasible. That is, perhaps, the reason why Kevin Rudd (2008, cited in Banks 2009b, 3; ANU Public Lecture Series), former Prime Minister of Australia, observed that ‘evidence -based policy is at the heart of being a reformist government’.

Moreover, evidenced-based approaches ensure cost-effectives and help ‘determine an estimated net payoff to society’ (Banks 2009a, 8). In fact, it is a strong ‘framework for explicit recognition of costs and benefits, and requires the policy makers to consider the full range of potential impacts’ (Banks 2009a, 8). So the more evidence-based policies are formed, the stronger linkage to goals and efforts will  be established, the less financial costs are underestimated and the less non-financial benefits are overstated.

Evidence –based policy always leaves options for political leaders, bureaucrats and other public managers. Its ‘opportunity is apparent and for continuous improvement in policy setting and program performance on the basis of well-informed debates’ and ‘the prospect of mutual benefits for managers, researchers is alluring,( Head 2007,1).

Head (2007, 2), further observed that the evidence –movement in modern public policy is the ‘latest version of the search for usable and relevant knowledge to help address and resolve problems’. It links rational problem solving to accurate diagnosis and maintains congruity with crucial strategic concerns, accurate mitigation responses and risk analyses. It aspires to produce the knowledge needed for ‘fine- tuning programs’ and create ‘tool-kits’ to deal with known problems (Head 2007, 2).

The evidence- based approach, if large and accurate data sets are systematically collected, can ‘fill important gaps in the value chain’ when ‘data is transformed into information and usable knowledge’. Large organizations have introduced ‘knowledge management strategies’ to manage their crises (Head 2007,2)  .These strategies are also replicable in  public sector management to address complex issues and better implementation of projects by setting performance indicators as well as by monitoring the ongoing and evaluating the previously implemented .

There are reasons to believe that evidence –based policy provides assistance to answer some key questions of New Public Management (NPM). It says what options will ‘deliver the goods’, how programs be improved to get better ‘value for money’, how innovation and competition be expanded to ‘drive productivity’, how program managers achieve particular ‘outcomes’  for clients and stakeholders and , in summary, ‘what work’( Davies, Nutley and Smith 2000, Reid 2003 cited in Head 2008,2). In addition , it helps ‘measure the nature of extent of problems, assess the current impacts of service system and provides benchmarks for judging future performance’(Head 2008,3)Though evidenced –based policy may change character when we move from one approach to other more rational approach, it makes, at the same time, room for ‘several evidence bases’ and create ‘multiple sets of evidence’ (Davies 2004, Schorr 2003;cited in Head 2008, 4) to inform and influence the policy makers .With the aid broader understanding of policy related knowledge, validated by standard scientific methodology, an important input can be provided to policy developers.

Evidence based approach also adds value to policy making when problems are seen as ‘complex, interlinked and cross- cutting’ (Head 2008, 4) requiring discrete policy areas to address. Policy makers need to move forward with relational and systemic approaches and build networks and partnerships to bring relevant stakeholders to negotiation table with their ‘diversity of evidence’ ;for instances , ‘relevant information, interpretation and priorities’ (Head 2008, 4).

Evidence –based policy works with ‘particular interpretations of constraints and limitations of public opinion’ ( Head 2008,5) and ,with the help of modern political know how, critical scientific and technical analysis as well as professional and practical field experiences,  shapes new policy directions.  Besides, when evidence is ‘systematically linked to cohesive ideological outlook’ and ‘characterized by some commentators as faith based- politics’ (Head 2008, 5), it helps identify the nature of problem and provide the best solution.

 Evidence, sometimes, adds challenges for policy makers .When evidence are open for public debates and professional analyses, it becomes more transparent and ‘transparency can have its downsides’; particularly,   ‘complicates and slows down the decision making process’ and requires more time and effort (Banks 2009a, 12).  But governments often have ‘a need for speed’ (Banks 2009a, 1) for quick implementation of policies. Further, often we cannot ‘get sufficiently good evidence, particularly when decision must be made quickly’ (Banks 2009a, 5).

In addition deficiencies of data inhibit evidence based analysis and policy formulation. These may lead to dependence on ‘dirty’ and ‘quick’ surveys or the use of merely focus group producing ‘superficial’ outcomes (Banks 2009a, 9). Because there is clash between any government’s acceptance of ‘the need for good evidence’ and the ‘need for speed’ from political sides, required quality data may not be collected and analyzed .When detailed research involving data gathering and the testing of evidence cannot be done overnight , it will obviously inhibit value in further  policy.

Evidence is ‘never absolute’ (Banks 2009a, 13) and we cannot have good evidence unless and until we can improve capability and expertise. Evidence –based policy needs good evidence, good evidence requires good research, and good research needs ‘good people’. In other words evidence needs ‘people skilled in quantitative methods and other analysis’ (Banks 2009a, 12). But bureaucracy engaged in public sectors is not as efficient as evidenced –based policy needs. Consequently, it may result in faulty policy formulation.

As Banks (2009a, 8) observes, ‘some policy arenas are more divergent and strongly contested than others’ and they may lack reliable ‘information base or a track record of on ground experience’ (Head 2008, 8).  Therefore, evidenced –based policy may result in unsettled and turbulent policy outcomes   leading   to utter policy failure. Perhaps, this is reason why  Freiberg and Carson   (2010, 153) regarded evidence as ‘only one part’ of policy making ‘process  of persuasion’  but ‘rarely determinative of policy outcomes’.

After that, evidence cannot play an important role in issues of high controversies and emotion. While implementing policies on abortion, war, surrogacy, gun control and the like evidence can be of no use. Because people’s emotion affects ‘shaping of government decision’, evidence cannot be ‘sufficient condition for the successful adoption and implementation of policy’ (Welch 1997, 55; cited in Freiberg and Carson 2008, 156).

Moreover, only evidence cannot reduce risks through governmental responses to emotional reactions and public panic (Freiberg and Carson 2008, 156). According to Leicester (1999,6 ;cited in  Freiberg and Carson 2008, 156) , “the political management of the evidence in our  ‘risk society’ is even more important than  the evidence itself”. Evidence based policy is not effective in the matters  like global warming, AIDS, terrorist attack , plane hijackings or crashes, shark attacks, sexual predators, , mad cow disease, genetic modification of food and the like where emotional responses trigger adverse outcomes(Freiberg and Carson 2008, 156). Rather, most often, knowledge or information cannot sufficiently motivate action but emotion can be a powerful instrument (Welch 1997, 67; cited in Freiberg and Carson 2008, 159).

Conclusion:

Finally, it can be said that, in spite of some weaknesses, adoption and implementation of evidence-based policy may result in better outcomes. With the aid of proper analysis of evidence, integration of knowledge and identification of problems,   relevant and easily implementable policies can be formulated. Evidence will remain useful to rectify research agendas, to continue or discontinue policies, and to provide theoretical bases for policies in the days to come.

Bibliography:

Ken Young et al. (2002) “Social Science and the Evidence-Based Policy Movement”, Social Policy and Society 1(3) 215-224 

Sandra Nutley, Isabel Walter and Huw Davies (2009) “Past, present, and possible futures for evidence-based policy” in George Argyrols (ed) Evidence for policy and decision-making: A practical guide, UNSW Press

Gary Banks (2009a) “Challenges of Evidence –based Policy-making”, Australian Public Service Commission, c2009. Canbera, vol, 28 p. ; 25 cm. 

 Brian Head (2008) “Three Lenses of Evidence-Based Policy”, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67(1) 1-11 

 Gary Banks (2009b) “Evidence-Based Policy-Making: What Is It? How Do We Get It?”, ANU Public Lecture, February 2009

Amanda Farley et al (2009) ‘The Challenges of Implementing Evidence-based Practice: Ethical Consideration in Practice, Education, Policy and Research’, Social Work and Society International Online Journal, Vol.7 No.2 (www.socwork.net › Home › Vol 7, No 2 (2009))

Arie Freiberg and WG Carson (2010) “The Limits to Evidence-Based Policy: Evidence, Emotion and Criminal Justice”, Australian Journal of Public Administration 69(2) 152-164.