Suchergebnisse

In a recent report, the Commission for Evidence-Based Policymaking advocated for expanded use of data, including data linkage, from federal statistical and regulatory agencies to help guide decision-making and ultimately improve programs and policies. How data sharing and linkage is framed is important, and attitudes about data sharing and linkage are driven by respondents' privacy beliefs and views towards the government more generally. Using data from the RDD telephone Gallup Daily Tracking Survey, we examine how favorability towards data sharing for the purpose of informed decision-making compares to other purposes. Respondents were less favorable towards data sharing when the purpose was for informed decision-making than for efficient use of taxpayer money, government accountability, or for community benefits, suggesting this is an ineffective way to frame data sharing to increase support. However, views towards the government, beliefs about privacy, and response behavior are still important determinants of favorability.

We live in a digital world where shopping, working and even meeting our friends and partners are online but, despite the wealth of digital tools at our fingertips, participation in democratic processes is falling across Europe. The "Stakeholder Engagement Track" of the Evidence Based Policymaking in Europe Summit 2021 explored how new technologies and tools can be used for engagement and innovative collaboration between policy makers and citizens creating ecosystems for a positive change. It demonstrated that in the case of Stakeholder Engagement and the Co-Creation process, the biggest challenge is cultural and not technical. To overcome this challenge it is important to be open, trying to adapt the process to what is needed from the citizens' point of view, to be ready to listen and to keep the process fluid, not forcing it into a specific direction. Finally, capacity building is a pillar of the process. Traditional training is not working so it is time to start testing role play training or serious gaming to target this objective.

I describe a policy theory story in which a decentred state results from choice and necessity. Governments often choose not to centralise policymaking but they would not succeed if they tried. Many policy scholars take this story for granted, but it is often ignored in other academic disciplines and wider political debate. Instead, commentators call for more centralisation to deliver more accountable, 'rational,' and 'evidence-based' policymaking. Such contradictory arguments, about the feasibility and value of government centralisation, raise an ever-present dilemma for governments to accept or challenge decentring. They also accentuate a modern dilemma about how to seek 'evidence-based policymaking' in a decentred state. I identify three ideal-type ways in which governments can address both dilemmas consistently. I then identify their ad hoc use by UK and Scottish governments. Although each government has a reputation for more or less centralist approaches, both face similar dilemmas and address them in similar ways. Their choices reflect their need to appear to be in control while dealing with the fact that they are not.

This chapter examines the practice of evidence-based policymaking in five Nordic countries. By comparing the references that national policy actors have utilized in their policy documents to evidentiate policy ideas and recommendations, it draws attention to the contextual factors that shape each country's practice of evidence-based policymaking. The results illustrate that all five Nordic countries actively use evidence to support and legitimate their policy proposals; however, their utilization varies by (1) institutionalized forms of policymaking system, (2) degree of self-referentiality, and (3) type of reform. This comparative study offers timely reflections on how the discourse of evidence-based policymaking is interpreted and adapted differently across countries. ; publishedVersion ; Peer reviewed

A popular explanation for governments' persistent enthusiasm for evidence-based policymaking (EBPM) is its expected capacity to solve policy conflict. However, research is divided on whether or not EBPM actually has a positive impact on conflict. On the one hand, EBPM is said to introduce a set of principles that helps overcome political differences. Simultaneously, EBPM has been criticised for narrowing the space for democratic debate, fuelling the very conflict it is trying to prevent. This article explores how EBPM structures policy conflict by studying the example of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) in policy processes through reconstructive interviews and ethnographic observations. It argues that, although EBPM channels conflict in a way that prompts engagement from stakeholders, it also escalates conflict by misrepresenting the nature of policy processes. As such, the findings suggest that managing process participants' expectations about what evidence is and can do is key in fostering productive policy conflict.

Scholarship on evidence-based policymaking (EBP) has long called for more a realistic understanding of how politicians use evidence, especially the ways that use of evidence is negotiated with political goals. This article offers a new perspective on this question by drawing from research on legislative organisations. It introduces a new framework for the study of evidence-based policy, developed by reviewing key insights from legislative studies and interpreting their relevance for the study of EBP. It then applies this framework in an interview-based case-study of the Parliament of Finland. Previous studies have identified timeliness and relevance as some of the key barriers to using evidence, and our data focus on how key actors in legislative organisations understand and manage timeliness. Our findings show that timeliness is dominated by short-term reactions to new bill proposals, but the window for timely evidence in the legislatures can vary from months to days. Our study identifies three strategies used in legislative organisations to overcome the problems of reactivity: programmatic work, specialisation and network building. Practices relating to these strategies are discussed across legislators, political parties and committees. Our findings suggest that it is important for research on EBP in a legislative context to go beyond the study of committees and individual legislators, to explore the role of political parties. This strategy allows researchers to discover the often non-linear and indirect ways that evidence can influence policy through political parties.

What if policymakers allocated government funding based on scientific evidence of what works, instead of anecdote, status quo, or political belief? In most major policy debates, compelling—but theoretical— arguments can be made on both sides. But despite increasing pressure to "use big data" to inform decisions especially when resources are scarce, it's often challenging for policymakers to disaggregate the impacts of a specific program from broader economic and societal conditions—and to separate good research from bad. By using data they already collect and applying the same scientific tool that transformed modern medicine—randomized evaluations—to social policy, researchers and policymakers can work together to cut through opinion and build an arsenal of rigorous evidence in its place. Despite the hyperpartisan climate of politics in many areas of the world today, the evidence-based policymaking movement is gaining traction. In the United States, Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan, Democratic Senator Patty Murray and President Obama came together last year to enact legislation creating a federal Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking, which aims to develop a strategy for increasing the availability and use of data to build evidence about government programs. State and local governments—who are collectively responsible for spending $2.5 trillion each year (about 40 percent of the total government spending)—are also joining in. In Washington State, for example, state human services departments track and report the percentage of funding allocated for evidence-based and/or research-based programs. Reorienting government decision-making to identify and fund programs that work can be slow and challenging, but can make a real difference in people's lives. We offer five concrete steps state and local policymakers can take to use data effectively and ensure the greatest return on taxpayer dollars

Over the last few decades performance management (PM) has invaded the public sector in most Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. More recently, we have seen increasing demands for evidence-based policymaking (EP). This article critically discusses the political implications of PM and EP by regarding them as particular forms of governing. Accordingly, PM may be viewed as a form of governing hinging on the regulated and accountable forms of freedom exercised by public administrators. In contrast, EP may be regarded as a technocratic and potentially authoritarian form of governing depending on quite narrow and exclusive forms of knowledge production. EP then seems to be directly at odds with PM and sits uneasily with neoliberal forms of rule.

What if policymakers allocated government funding based on scientific evidence of what works, instead of anecdote, status quo, or political belief? In most major policy debates, compelling—but theoretical— arguments can be made on both sides. But despite increasing pressure to "use big data" to inform decisions especially when resources are scarce, it's often challenging for policymakers to disaggregate the impacts of a specific program from broader economic and societal conditions—and to separate good research from bad. By using data they already collect and applying the same scientific tool that transformed modern medicine—randomized evaluations—to social policy, researchers and policymakers can work together to cut through opinion and build an arsenal of rigorous evidence in its place. Despite the hyperpartisan climate of politics in many areas of the world today, the evidence-based policymaking movement is gaining traction. In the United States, Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan, Democratic Senator Patty Murray and President Obama came together last year to enact legislation creating a federal Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking, which aims to develop a strategy for increasing the availability and use of data to build evidence about government programs. State and local governments—who are collectively responsible for spending $2.5 trillion each year (about 40 percent of the total government spending)—are also joining in. In Washington State, for example, state human services departments track and report the percentage of funding allocated for evidence-based and/or research-based programs. Reorienting government decision-making to identify and fund programs that work can be slow and challenging, but can make a real difference in people's lives. We offer five concrete steps state and local policymakers can take to use data effectively and ensure the greatest return on taxpayer dollars

AbstractPolitical elites increasingly express interest in evidence-based policymaking, but transparent research collaborations necessary to generate relevant evidence pose political risks, including the discovery of sub-par performance and misconduct. If aversion to collaboration is non-random, collaborations may produce evidence that fails to generalize. We assess selection into research collaborations in the critical policy arena of policing by sending requests to discuss research partnerships to roughly 3,000 law enforcement agencies in 48 states. A host of agency and jurisdiction attributes fail to predict affirmative responses to generic requests, alleviating concerns over generalizability. However, across two experiments, mentions of agency performance in our correspondence depressed affirmative responses – even among top-performing agencies – by roughly eight percentage points. Many agencies that initially indicate interest in transparent, evidence-based policymaking recoil once performance evaluations are made salient. We discuss several possible mechanisms for these dynamics, which can inhibit valuable policy experimentation in many communities.

IntroductionIn September 2017, the bipartisan Commission for Evidence-based Policymaking released twenty-two recommendations to improve secure data access for evidence building activities involving population-level government files. Many of the files are siloed in government agencies. The commission deliberated over eighteen months to understand the risks and barriers to broader data use.
Objectives and ApproachI will describe the Commission's charge and review its recommendations, in context of US laws and privacy debates. I will compare the report's recommendations and implications to laws and initiatives in other countries. The report calls for the establishment of a National Secure Data Service (NSDS), which has the potential to transform the data sharing environment for federal agencies, policy makers, and researchers. The report suggests more extensive use of differential privacy and secure multiparty computation to protect privacy. I will describe how the current environment could change depending on how the recommendations are implemented.
ResultsThe Commission was established under one administration, but the recommendations were released under another. Despite the political and budget uncertainty in Washington, a bill was introduced and passed in the House in November 2017 to implement some recommendations. I will summarize the actions to be taken if the bill becomes law, including directives on learning agendas to prioritize and coordinate evidence-building activities across government, the roles of chief evaluation and chief data officers, and formation of an advisory committee to plan a NSDS. I will describe benefits that could follow from directives in the bill, including transparency about uses of administrative data, development of guidance to assess the risk when combining data sources, and minimization of the risk of publicly releasing de-identified data.
Conclusion/ImplicationsThe US may develop a national secure data service to support evaluations and policymaking. The recommendations are akin to the UK Data Service. Some recommendations are straightforward, others need years of planning and technical breakthroughs, and all require political buy-in and funding.

Governments' commitments to cope with climate change unpredictability, while ensuring an equal green transition, require clear plans to allocate resource better and estimate the impact of energy and social policies. Many energy models were developed to reach these goals. One of these is the Open Source Modelling System (OSeMOSYS), which uses the graphical Model Management Interface (MoManI). Feedback from MoManI users has shown unpleasant experiences and a steeper learning curve than desirable. In this study, the Simple And Nearly Done (CCG-SAND) Interface was developed to investigate whether an Excel-based tool could fasten and strengthen the process of evidence-based policymaking, reaching a wider audience of energy modelling practitioners. The potential improvements of CCG-SAND Interface compared to MoManI were tested and validated with an introductory Master course teaching exercise called Climate, Land, Energy and Water Systems for OSeMOSYS (CLEWS-O), four Master students from Imperial College London used CCG-SAND Interface for their energy models of Laos, Kenya, Nigeria, and Vietnam. To ensure a standardized collection and manipulation of data, replicable energy systems formats were created, respectively, for simple and more detailed analysis (Tier 1 and Tier 2 Models). Moreover, a case study on Uganda was analysed, including the validation of national energy policies which aim at diversifying the energy mix and reducing indoor pollution from the cooking applications of inefficient stoves. Analysis of the results obtained for the Ugandan case study showed massive enhancements of the quality of life if Improved Biomass and Electric Stoves are used. The results also indicated that the proposed electricity generation policy is not cost-effective. A revision of this plan could aim at reducing the dependency from nuclear energy. On these bases, CCG-SAND Interface proved to be a valuable and user-friendly tool for long-term energy policy modelling. Future work could aim at automatizing some processes of CCG-SAND Interface and reduce the computational time. Finally, CCG-SAND Interface has the potential to replace MoManI in universities Master programmes.

1. Introduction -- 2. Evidence-based policymaking -- 3. Correctional boot camps in the United States -- 4. Research evidence and the diffusion of public policies -- 5. Quantitative models of the diffusion and contraction of boot camps -- 6. Case studies of two states -- 7. Further analysis and future implications.