EBPM

This page brings together my work on ‘evidence-based policymaking’, including a newly published book The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making, some journal articles, and many posts. Please scroll down to see the main argument and links to further reading (including a free pre-publication version of my book).

Pivot cover

(for more policy videos see Urban Policy Lab Konstanz)

Cairney wisely navigates between the naïve peddlers of ‘evidence-based policy’, and the grumpy cynics who think such an endeavour is hopeless.  The book gives some much needed insights into the psychology, political theory and cognitive biases of decision-making. It’s essential reading for anybody with a practical interest in seeing evidence have – at the very least- a foot in the policymaker’s door” Jonathan Breckon, Head of Alliance for Useful Evidence

Pivot endorsements

There is now a large literature on the gaps between the production of scientific evidence and a policy or policymaking response. However, the literature in key fields – such as health and environmental sciences – does not use policy theory to help explain the gap. In my book – The Politics of Evidence-based Policymaking – I explain why this matters by identifying the difference between empirical uncertainty and policy ambiguity. Both concepts relate to ‘bounded rationality’: policymakers do not have the ability to consider all evidence relevant to policy problems. Instead, they employ two kinds of shortcut: ‘rational’, by pursuing clear goals and prioritizing certain kinds and sources of information, and ‘irrational’, by drawing on emotions, gut feelings, deeply held beliefs, and habits to make decisions quickly. This takes place in a complex policymaking system in which policymaker attention can lurch from issue to issue, policy is made routinely in subsystems, and the ‘rules of the game’ take time to learn.

The key problem in the health and environmental sciences is that studies focus only on the first short cut. They identify the problem of uncertainty that arises when policymakers have incomplete information, and seek to solve it by improving the supply of information and encouraging academic-practitioner networks and workshops. They ignore the importance of a wider process of debate, coalition formation, lobbying, and manipulation, to reduce ambiguity and establish a dominant way to frame policy problems. Further, while scientific evidence cannot solve the problem of ambiguity, persuasion and framing can help determine the demand for scientific evidence.

Therefore, the second solution is to engage in a process of framing and persuasion by, for example, forming coalitions with actors with the same aims or beliefs, and accompanying scientific information with simple stories to exploit or adapt to the emotional and ideological biases of policymakers. This is less about packaging information to make it simpler to understand, and more about responding to the ways in which policymakers think – in general, and in relation to emerging issues – and, therefore, how they demand information.

In the book, I present this argument in three steps. First, I bring together a range of insights from policy theory, to show the huge amount of accumulated knowledge of policymaking on which other scientists and evidence advocates should draw. Second, I discuss two systematic reviews – one by Oliver et al, and one that Wellstead and I developed – of the literature on ‘barriers’ to evidence and policy in health and environmental studies. They show that the vast majority of studies in each field employ minimal policy theory and present solutions which focus only on uncertainty. Third, I identify the practical consequences for actors trying to maximize the uptake of scientific evidence within government.

My conclusion has profound implications for the role of science and scientific experts in policymaking. Scientists have a stark choice: to produce information and accept that it will have a limited impact (but that scientists will maintain an often-useful image of objectivity), or to go beyond one’s comfort zone, and expertise, to engage in a normative enterprise that can increase impact at the expense of objectivity.

You can read a summary of these issues here, which includes a brief lecture:

Here is my talk (2 parts) on EBPM at the School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver 24.2.16 (or download the main talk and Q and A):

The full pre-submission draft of the book is here:

Full pre-submission draft 9.10.15 (compare with Kenneth Prewitt, Thomas A. Schwandt, and Miron L. Straf, (Editors) (2012) Using Science as Evidence in Public Policy)

Additional journal articles include:

  1. Paul Cairney, Kathryn Oliver, and Adam Wellstead (2016) ‘To Bridge the Divide between Evidence and Policy: Reduce Ambiguity as Much as Uncertainty’, Public Administration Review, Early View (forthcoming) DOI:10.1111/puar.12555 PDF
  2. Paul Cairney (2016) “Evidence-based best practice is more political than it looks: a case study of the ‘Scottish Approach’”, Evidence and Policy, Early View Open Access (forthcoming) PDF

See also: Political science improves our understanding of evidence-based policymaking, but does it produce better advice? (part of a continuous reflection on the implications of the issues raised in the book; I’m already rethinking the conclusion before the book is in print!).

When presenting evidence to policymakers, engage with the policy process that exists, not the process you wish existed

The Politics of Evidence Based Policymaking:3 messages

The politics of evidence-based best practice: 4 messages

The politics of implementing evidence-based policies

The original title was Evidence Based Policy Making: If You Want to Inject More Science into Policymaking You Need to Know the Science of Policymaking. It was built on an earlier paper that I did at a conference last year, and extended substantially to examine cases studies in the health and natural sciences.

Here are some posts based on chapter 4:

These complaints about ignoring science seem biased and naïve – and too easy to dismiss

Barriers/ solutions to the use of evidence in policy (environmental science)

The barriers to evidence based policymaking in environmental policy

See also these blog posts on EBPM themes, including:

‘Evidence-based Policymaking’ and the Study of Public Policy

How can you tell the difference between policy-based-evidence and evidence-based-policymaking?

Key issues in evidence-based policymaking: comparability, control, and centralisation

Political science improves our understanding of evidence-based policymaking, but does it produce better advice?

The politics of evidence and randomised control trials: the symbolic importance of family nurse partnerships

Is Evidence-Based Policymaking the same as good policymaking?

Four obstacles to evidence based policymaking (EBPM)

The Psychology of Evidence Based Policymaking: Who Will Speak For the Evidence if it Doesn’t Speak for Itself?

A ‘decisive shift to prevention’: how do we turn an idea into evidence based policy?

Policy Concepts in 1000 Words: ‘Evidence Based Policymaking’

Policy Concepts in 1000 Words: the intersection between evidence and policy transfer

How to deal with ‘irrational’ decision making (a draft for Cairney OA 3.6.16)

All of this discussion can be found under the EBPM category: https://paulcairney.wordpress.com/category/evidence-based-policymaking-ebpm/T

52 responses to “EBPM

  1. Pingback: Using psychological insights in politics: can we do it without calling our opponents mental, hysterical, or stupid? | Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s