Evidence-based policy (also known as evidence-informed policy or evidence-based governance) is a concept in public policy that advocates for policy decisions to be grounded on, or influenced by, rigorously established objective evidence. This concept presents a stark contrast to policymaking predicated on ideology, 'common sense', anecdotes, or personal intuitions. The methodology employed in evidence-based policy often includes comprehensive research methods such as randomized controlled trials (RCT). Good data, analytical skills, and political support to the use of scientific information are typically seen as the crucial elements of an evidence-based approach.
An individual or organisation is justified in claiming that a specific policy is evidence-based if, and only if, three conditions are met. First, the individual or organisation possesses comparative evidence about the effects of the specific policy in comparison to the effects of at least one alternative policy. Second, the specific policy is supported by this evidence according to at least one of the individual's or organisation's preferences in the given policy area. Third, the individual or organisation can provide a sound account for this support by explaining the evidence and preferences that lay the foundation for the claim.
The effectiveness of evidence-based policy hinges upon the presence of quality data, proficient analytical skills, and political backing for the utilization of scientific information.
While proponents of evidence-based policy have identified certain types of evidence, such as scientifically rigorous evaluation studies like randomized controlled trials, as optimal for policymakers to consider, others argue that not all policy-relevant areas are best served by quantitative research. This discrepancy has sparked debates about the types of evidence that should be utilized. For example, policies concerning human rights, public acceptability, or social justice may necessitate different forms of evidence than what randomized trials provide. Furthermore, evaluating policy often demands moral philosophical reasoning in addition to the assessment of intervention effects, which randomized trials primarily aim to provide.
In response to such complexities, some policy scholars have moved away from using the term evidence-based policy, adopting alternatives like evidence-informed. This semantic shift allows for continued reflection on the need to elevate the rigor and quality of evidence used, while sidestepping some of the limitations or reductionist notions occasionally associated with the term evidence-based. Discussions on evidence-informed policy have considered, for example, the inclusion of policy, practice and public stakeholders in the production of evidence; the relevance, adaptability and acceptability of evidence, alongside issues of rigour and quality; and how power and politics permeate the production and use of evidence. Despite these nuances, the phrase "evidence-based policy" is still widely employed, generally signifying a desire for evidence to be used in a rigorous, high-quality, and unbiased manner, while avoiding its misuse for political ends.
History
The shift towards contemporary evidence-based policy is deeply rooted in the broader movement towards evidence-based practice. This shift was largely influenced by the emergence of evidence-based medicine during the 1980s. However, the term 'evidence-based policy' was not adopted in the medical field until the 1990s. In social policy, the term was not employed until the early 2000s.
The initial instance of evidence-based policy was manifested in tariff-making in Australia. The legislation necessitated that tariffs be informed by a public report issued by the Tariff Board. This report would cover the tariff, industrial, and economic implications.
History of evidence-based medicine Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is a term that was first introduced by Gordon Guyatt. Nevertheless, examples of EBM can be traced back to the early 1900s. Some contend that the earliest instance of EBM dates back to the 11th century when Ben Cao Tu Jing from the Song dynasty suggested a method to evaluate the efficacy of ginseng.
Many scholars regard evidence-based policy as an evolution from "evidence-based medicine", where research findings are utilized to support clinical decisions. In this model, evidence is collected through randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compare a treatment group with a placebo group to measure outcomes.
While the earliest published RCTs in medicine date back to the 1940s and 1950s, the term 'evidence-based medicine' did not appear in published medical research until 1993. In the same year, the Cochrane Collaboration was established in the UK. This organization works to keep all RCTs up-to-date and provides "Cochrane reviews", which present primary research in human health and health policy.The Cochrane Collaboration Retrieved 10 September 2014.
The usage of the keyword EBM has seen a significant increase since the 2000s, and the influence of EBM has substantially expanded within the field of medicine.
History of evidence-based policy making The application of randomized controlled trials in social policy was notably later than in the medical field. Although elements of an evidence-based approach can be traced back as far as the fourteenth century, it was popularized more recently during the tenure of the Blair Government in the United Kingdom. This government expressed a desire to shift away from ideological decision-making in policy formulation. For instance, a 1999 UK Government white paper, Modernising Government, emphasized the need for policies that "really deal with problems, are forward-looking and shaped by evidence rather than a response to short-term pressures; [and] tackle causes not symptoms."
This shift in policy formulation led to an upswing in research and activism advocating for more evidence-based policy-making. As a result, the Campbell Collaboration was established in 1999 as a sibling organization to the Cochrane Collaboration.The Campbell Collaboration Retrieved 10 September 2014. The Campbell Collaboration undertakes reviews of the most robust evidence, analyzing the impacts of social and educational policies and practices.
The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) furthered the drive for more evidence-based policymaking by granting £1.3 million to the Evidence Network in 1999. One outcome of this investment was the establishment of the first international, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the study of the field, Evidence and Policy in 2005. Similar to both the Campbell and Cochrane Collaborations, the Evidence Network functioned as a hub for evidence-based policy and practice. From 2011 to 2022 the Alliance for Useful Evidence was established, funded by the ESRC, Big Lottery, and Nesta, to advocate for the use of evidence in social policy and practice. The Alliance, operating throughout the UK, promoted the use of high-quality evidence to inform decisions on strategy, policy, and practice through advocacy, research publication, idea sharing, advice, event hosting, and training. It also supported the development of the UK's What Works network. Current collaborations in the UK supporting the field include Transforming Evidence and the Transforming Evidence Network (TEN).
The application of evidence-based policy varies among practitioners. For instance, Michael Kremer and Rachel Glennerster, curious about strategies to enhance students' test scores, conducted randomized controlled trials in Kenya. They experimented with new textbooks and flip charts, and smaller class sizes, but they discovered that the only intervention that boosted school attendance was treating intestinal worms in children. Their findings led to the establishment of the Deworm the World Initiative, a charity highly rated by GiveWell for its cost-effectiveness.
Recent discussions have emerged about the potential conflicts of interest in evidence-based decision-making applied to public policy development. In their analysis of vocational education in prisons run by the California Department of Corrections, researchers Andrew J. Dick, William Rich, and Tony Waters found that political factors inevitably influenced "evidence-based decisions," which were ostensibly neutral and technocratic. They argue that when policymakers, who have a vested interest in validating previous political judgments, fund evidence, there is a risk of corruption, leading to policy-based evidence making.
Methodology
Evidence-based policy employs various methodologies, but they all commonly share the following characteristics: They test a theory as to why the policy will be effective and what the impacts of the policy will be if it is successful. They include a counterfactual: an analysis of what would have occurred if the policy had not been implemented. They incorporate some measurement of the impact. They examine both direct and indirect effects that occur because of the policy. They identify uncertainties and control for external influences outside of the policy that may affect the outcome. They can be tested and replicated by a third party.
The methodology used in evidence-based policy aligns with the cost-benefit framework. It is designed to estimate a net payoff if the policy is implemented. Due to the difficulty in quantifying some effects and outcomes of the policy, the focus is primarily on whether benefits will outweigh costs, rather than assigning specific values.
Types of evidence in evidence-based policy making Various types of data can be considered evidence in evidence-based policy making. The scientific method organizes this data into tests to validate or challenge specific beliefs or hypotheses. The outcomes of various tests may hold varying degrees of credibility within the scientific community, influenced by factors such as the type of blind experiment (blind vs. double-blind), sample size, and replication. Advocates for evidence-based policy strive to align societal needs (as framed within Maslow's Hierarchy of needs) with outcomes that the scientific method indicates as most probable.
Quantitative evidence Quantitative evidence for policymaking includes numerical data from peer-reviewed journals, public surveillance systems, or individual programs. Quantitative data can also be collected by the government or policymakers themselves through surveys. Both evidence-based medicine (EBM) and evidence-based public health policy constructions extensively utilize quantitative evidence.
Qualitative evidence Qualitative evidence comprises non-numerical data gathered through methods such as observations, interviews, or focus groups. It is often used to craft compelling narratives to influence decision-makers. The distinction between qualitative and quantitative data does not imply a hierarchy; both types of evidence can be effective in different contexts. Policymaking often involves a combination of qualitative and quantitative evidence. However, EBPM tends to prioritize qualitative evidence over quantitative evidence; for instance, the U.S. Commission of Evidence-Based Policymaking's 2017 report used the work "Evidence" only to refer to information produced by “statistical activities” for a “statistical purpose” explicitly overlooking qualitative forms of evidence.
Scholarly communication in policy-making
Academics provide input to policy beyond the production of content relating to issues addressed via policy through various channels: some studies investigate existing policies (policy studies) University press release: some studies include policy options with varying levels of specificity or detail or compare possible rough pathway-options some science-related organizations devise concrete policy proposals