Can Complexity Move UK Policy beyond ‘Evidence-Based Policy Making’ and the ‘Audit Culture’? Applying a ‘Complexity Cascade’ to Education and Health Policy

2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Geyer

For much of the twentieth century UK public policy has been based on a strong centralist, rationalist and managerialist framework. This orientation was significantly amplified by New Labour in the 1990s and 2000s, leading to the development of ‘evidence-based policy making’ (EBPM) and the ‘audit culture’ – a trend that looks set to continue under the current government. Substantial criticisms have been raised against the targeting/audit strategies of the audit culture and other forms of EBPM, particularly in complex policy areas. This article accepts these criticisms and argues that in order to move beyond these problems one must not only look at the basic foundation of policy strategies, but also develop practical alternatives to those strategies. To that end, the article examines one of the most basic and common tools of the targeting/audit culture, the aggregate linear X-Y graph, and shows that when it has been applied to UK education policy, it leads to: (1) an extrapolation tendency; (2) a fluctuating ‘crisis–success' policy response process; and (3) an intensifying targeting/auditing trend. To move beyond these problems, one needs a visual metaphor which combines an ability to see the direction of policy travel with an aspect of continual openness that undermines the extrapolation tendency, crisis–success policy response and targeting/auditing trend. Using a general complexity approach, and building on the work of Geyer and Rihani, this article will attempt to show that a ‘complexity cascade’ tool can be used to overcome these weaknesses and avoid their negative effects in both education and health policy in the UK.

Author(s):  
Helen Pallett

Background:Debates about evidence-based policy (EBP) were revived in the UK in the 2010s in the context of civil service reform and changing practices of policy making, including institutionalisation of public participation in science policy making. Aims and objectives:This paper aims to explore this revival of interest in EBP in the context of the Government-funded public participation programme Sciencewise, which supports and promotes public dialogues in science policy making. It is based on in-depth ethnographic study of the programme during 2013, considering the impacts on Sciencewise practices and working understandings of engaging in the EBP debate. There is a particular focus on the advantages and disadvantages of categorising public participation as a source of evidence-based policy as opposed to presenting participation as a democratic act which is separate from discussions of EBP. Key conclusions:At different times Sciencewise actors moved between these stances in order to gain credibility and attention for their work, and to situate the outcomes of public participation processes in a broader policy context. In some instances the presentation of outputs from public participation processes as legitimate evidence for policy gave them greater influence and enriched broader discussions about the meaning and practice of open policy. However, it also frequently led to their dismissal on methodological grounds, inhibiting serious engagement with their outputs and challenging internal frameworks for evaluation and learning.


2002 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 215-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ken Young ◽  
Deborah Ashby ◽  
Annette Boaz ◽  
Lesley Grayson

There is a growing interest in ‘evidence-based policy making’ in the UK. However, there remains some confusion about what evidence-based policy making actually means. This paper outlines some of the models used to understand how evidence is thought to shape or inform policy in order to explore the assumptions underlying ‘evidence-based policy making.’ By way of example, it considers the process of evidence seeking and in particular the systematic review as a presumed ‘gold standard’ of the EBP movement. It highlights some of the opportunities and challenges represented in this approach for policy research. The final part of the paper outlines some questions of capacity that need to be addressed if the social sciences are to make a more effective contribution to policy debate in Britain.


2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gemma Paine Cronin ◽  
Mastoera Sadan

This paper outlines a 2011 study commissioned by the Presidency’s Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD) which promotes evidence-based policy making (EBPM) in South Africa. EBPM refers to norms, initiatives and methods aimed at improving evidence-based policy in countries from which South Africa traditionally borrows public service reforms, particularly the UK and Canada. The study provides a descriptive snapshot of attitudes to evidence-use in policy making. All 54 senior government officials interviewed felt that evidence-use is too limited to ensure relevant, effective policy responses. This includes policies on which complex results depend and those with long-term and high-resource implications. Although all respondents regarded EBPM as self-evidently desirable, there were different views on practical application. Examples provided suggest that, where evidence was used, it was very often related to a borrowed international policy without a prior evidencedrivenanalysis of successes and failures or its relevance and feasibility in terms of local issuesand context. Policy makers generally know they should be making optimal use of availableevidence, but highlighted systemic barriers beyond the influence of individual managersto resolve. The study suggests that improved use of evidence throughout the policy cycle,particularly in analysing problems and needs, is a requirement for learning through evidencebased policy development. It suggests that political and administrative leadership will need to agree on norms, ways of dealing with the barriers to effective use of evidence and on the role of each throughout the policy cycle in ensuring appropriate evidence is available and used.


2020 ◽  
Vol 135 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kari Lancaster ◽  
Tim Rhodes

Abstract Background Evidence-based policy decision-making is a dominant paradigm in health but realizing this ideal has proven challenging. Sources of data This paper conceptually maps health policy, policy studies and social science literature critically engaged with evidence and decision-making. No new data were generated or analysed in support of this review. Areas of agreement Barriers to evidence-based policy have been documented, with efforts made to increase the uptake of evidence. Areas of controversy Evident complexities have been regarded as a problem of translation. However, this assumes that policy-making is a process of authoritative choice, and that ‘evidence’ is inherently valuable policy knowledge, which has been critiqued. Growing points Alternative accounts urge consideration of how evidence comes to bear on decisions made within complex systems, and what counts as evidence. Areas timely for developing research An ‘evidence-making intervention’ approach offers a framework for conceptualizing how evidence and interventions are made relationally in practices, thus working with the politics and contingencies of implementation and policy-making.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document