Introduction
Evidence-based policymaking (EBPM) has been emerging as a sine qua non for policymaking across the world, including India. Its role in shaping effective public policies is also being acknowledged in the domain of policy studies and other disciplines globally; the data-driven measures to control the COVID-19 pandemic the world over being a classic example.
The field of policy studies is gradually gaining momentum in India too. With increased interest in public policy and its related aspects in the domain of higher education, many public policy schools are being established, and courses on public policy have increased in the past few years. Think tanks and research organisations on public policy with a specific focus on policy research are in a boom in India. However, evidence-based policy research in India is still in its nascent stages and needs in-depth studies, in terms of evidences and their implications. This becomes especially significant for the social sector, which encompasses many policies and programmes for welfare and development while also playing a critical role in the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
In this context, this chapter examines the centrality of EBPM in the context of Indian policy studies. The first part of the chapter deals with the evolution of the concept of EBPM and its various facets. In the second part, it traces the growth and trajectory of EBPM in India using secondary resources. Further, it explores the issues and challenges that exist for EBPM through a case study of the Indian education sector. The last part deals with the identification of plausible solutions for enhancing the efficacy of EBPM in the context of people, processes and technology.
Evidence-based policymaking (EBPM) as an approach to policymaking
Policymaking is a vital function of the government, which has been evolving and transforming with shifts in governments and governance. This process, also called a “policy cycle,” is a complex and continuous process involving many actors and influenced by many factors. With roots in the West, the academic interest in policymaking and policy research began after the 1930s. As a result, prominent theories of policymaking evolved that include the four-stage model of policy formulation, incremental approach and recent theories such as advocacy coalition framework (ACF) and punctuated-equilibrium. In addition to these, EBPM is another concept that has gained momentum in the 1990s and continues to be theorised.
Drawing from the field of medicine, evidence-based medicine in particular, EBPM is conceptually an extension of the scientific method. As in evidence-based medicine, which relies on the most effective interventions based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs), EBPM focuses on a variety of evidences for effective policymaking. The Nobel Prize in economic sciences in 2019 to Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo and Michael Kremer “for their experimental approach to alleviating global poverty” is a case in point.
If one looks at policymaking, choices based on information/data from various sources have been a driving force. In this context, EBPM ushered in the need for a systematic use of evidences at various stages of policymaking – from agenda setting to policy evaluation. Although various nations have been basing their policies directly or indirectly on different kinds of data, the first reference to the use of evidence in policymaking can be traced to the United Kingdom (UK) in the pre-millennium era.
The UK government, headed by Tony Blair, in 1999, as part of its endeavour to modernise the government for the new millennium, emphasised on effective policymaking. It focused on “[policies] that are forward-looking and shaped by evidence rather a response to short-term pressures; that tackle causes not symptoms; that are measured by results than activity” and calls for “better use of evidence and research in policymaking and better focus on policies that will deliver long-term goals” (Cabinet Office, 1999).
Defining evidence-based policymaking
When it comes to defining the concept of evidence-based policymaking (EBPM), not many definitions are available in the literature as most studies use it as a self-explanatory term. One direct reference to the definition of EBPM is as follows: “an approach that helps people make well-informed decisions about policies, programmes and projects by putting the best available evidence from research at the heart of policy development and implementation” (Davies, 1999 as cited in Davies, 2004). According to Shaxson (2005), “Evidence for policymaking is any information that helps to turn a department’s strategic priorities and other objectives into something concrete, manageable and achievable.” Further, many scholars also looked closely at the nomenclature of this approach. They argue whether EBPM is evidence-based or evidence-influenced or evidence-aware policymaking (Nutley et al., 2003; Head, 2013). However, the term “evidence-based policymaking” continues to be widely used by scholars and governments worldwide.
A critical question in the discourse of EBPM is what counts as evidence. Many times, it is argued that all policymaking happens either based on evidence or using evidence, which in turn poses the question of how EBPM is a novel approach. The UK Cabinet Office (1999) described evidence as “Expert knowledge; published research; existing research; stakeholder consultations; Previous policy evaluations; the Internet; Outcomes from consultations; costings of policy options; and Output from economic and statistical modelling.” Further, Marston and Watts (2003) classified the evidence as “hard” and “soft,” which implies objective and subjective connotations, respectively. The hard evidence, which is valued as objective, includes “Primary quantitative data collected by researchers from experiments; secondary quantitative social and epidemiological data collected by government agencies; clinical trials; and interview or questionnaire-based social surveys.” The soft evidence, which is the subjective data, includes “qualitative data such as ethnographic accounts and autobiographical materials.” Thus, it becomes clear that the concept of evidence includes both objective and subjective elements, which add a “scientific” character to the policymaking process. Building on earlier works of researchers, Shaxson (2005) provided a framework for improving robustness of evidence, which included five characteristics: credibility, generalability, reliability, objectivity and rootedness.
Significance of EBPM
In terms of the significance of EBPM, policymaking based on evidence makes decision-making more effective, which in turn is expected to have positive outputs and outcomes. With governments across the world allocating and expending huge sums of money on policies and programmes for the welfare of its citizens, it certainly calls for better-informed and better outcome-based decision-making. Various researchers have been emphasising the potential of EBPM in solving policy problems. As early as 2005, Shaxson suggested the need for evidence as “a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for decision-making.” Kay (2011) asserted, “The ambition for evidence-based policy-making should be seen in terms of the transition from a single, unique and universal rationality towards multiple rationalities that vary according to different policymaking contexts.” Davies (2012) argued that evidence-based policy made a worldwide impact “at least at the rhetorical, and institutional levels, and in terms of analytical activity.” He adds that “the role of evaluation evidence in policymaking can be instrumental (direct), conceptual (indirect) or symbolic (i.e. using research results to legitimate and sustain pre-determined positions).” Head (2013), in his article, grouped various articles on the subject of EBPM under four themes, thus emphasising that evidence plays a critical role in each of the stages of policymaking. These themes include foundational issues: value, politics and governance; knowledge and skills for policymaking; policy capacity and policy contestability; policy evaluation and accountability.
Many nations across the world embraced EBPM, including the United States, Canada, South Africa, Australia and recently, India, which eventually garnered scholarly attention. A recent example of the use of evidences for deciding the course of policymaking was experimented with in Finland (Box 7.1). Over a period, bureaucracy through political leadership has been taking EBPM forward. Further, some nations that introduced EBPM constituted machinery-like commissions and other bodies, for increased capacities in the domain of EBPM: the Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking (under the Evidence-Based Policymaking Commission Act of 2016) and Evidence Based Policy Analysis Project (Australia), to name a few. The major objective of most of these has been similar – to take forward the use of evidences in policymaking.
Box 7.1 The experience of Finland in evidence-based policymaking (EBPM)
Finland, a Nordic country with a population of 5.52 million (as of July 2019), experimented with a policy for two years. Drawing from the findings of the experiment – the evidences – the government made a decision on the future course of the policy. In other words, an experiment or a scientific method (evidence) was used for decision-making (policymaking).
The Finnish government introduced a social welfare policy, a variant of the Universal Basic Income (UBI), for unemployed citizens in January 2017. The government introduced the policy as an experiment for a period of two years. Through the experiment, the government attempted to study the effects of basic income on employment and income. Accordingly, the government gave a tax-exempt stipend of €560 to a random sample of 2,000 unemployed citizens in the 25–58 age group. If the trial was successful, it was proposed to be extended to all adults in Finland.
However, the experiment of the Finnish government ended in December 2018. According to the preliminary findings released by the Finnish government, “the universal income did not have any effect on employment status during the first year of the experiment.” It did not improve the employment of the individuals although the well-being of the basic-income recipients improved (Kangas et al., 2019). Based on the evidences from the experiment, the Finnish government withdrew the idea of converting the trial into a full-fledged policy.
A few international organisations also have been carrying out studies and experiments, and the findings from them are being utilised as inputs for policymaking. The Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL), founded by Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo and Sendhil Mullainathan, for example, is a policy think tank, which works “to reduce poverty by ensuring that policy is informed by scientific evidence.” It carries out randomised impact evaluations to find solutions to fight poverty. However, the new interest in EBPM should not be lost sight of.
Despite many nations introducing EBPM in their policymaking processes, the role of evidence in policy formation and policy analysis is widely debated in the domains of policy studies and policy analysis. There is equally compelling literature that draws our attention to the invincibility of this approach. Notable among them are recent works, which attempt to bring forth perspectives on the use, prospects and challenges of EBPM (French, 2019; Cairney, 2019; Gamoran, 2018).
Drawing from the evolution and significance of the concept of EBPM, the following section brings forth the policy environment and the potential for EBPM in India.
