Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T22:50:43.033Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evidence-based policy: What sort of evidence do governments need?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

Ann Nevile
Ann Nevile*
Affiliation:
Australian National University, Australia
*
Ann Nevile, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia. Email: Ann.Nevile@anu.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Very few would dispute the proposition that evidence about the effects of different policy options should inform policy decisions. However, there is less agreement on the nature of the evidence needed. In addition, there may be problems in evaluating that evidence. This is particularly the case when experts offer conflicting advice. This article presents the position held by Professor Nevile that in giving policy advice to the government, it is almost always desirable to draw on a range of different policy instruments. While theoretical input is usually important, it is even more important that theory does not lose contact with the real world. Factual descriptions of the real world and the use of a theoretical toolkit containing more than one theory are essential in achieving this goal. These principles are illustrated by a discussion of a particular category of policy advice – the evaluation of government programmes.

Keywords

J080Evidence-based researchpolicy framingprogramme evaluationsocial policyWork for the Dole
Type
Symposium Articles
Information
The Economic and Labour Relations Review , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 219 - 227
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bacchi, CL (1999) Women, Policy and Politics: The Construction of Policy Problems. London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bevir, M (2011) Public administration as storytelling. Public Administration 89(1): 183–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenstadt, N (2011) Providing a Sure Start: How Government Discovered Early Childhood. Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Griew, R (2009) Drawing on powerful practitioner-based knowledge to drive policy development, implementation and evaluation. In: Strengthening evidence-based policy in the Australian Federation: roundtable proceedings, Canberra, 17–18 August, vol. 1, pp. 249–258. Productivity Commission.Google Scholar
HM Treasury (2007) Analysis for policy: evidence-based policy in practice. Available at: http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Analysis-for-Policy-report_tcm6-4148.pdf (accessed 10 January 2013).Google Scholar
Hogwood, B, Gunn, L (1993) Why ‘perfect implementation’ is unattainable. In: Hill, M (ed.) The Policy Process: A Reader. New York: Harvester/Wheatsheaf, pp. 217–225.Google Scholar
Industry Commission (1993) Public housing. Report no. 34, 11 November. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
Mosse, D (2004) Is good policy unimplementable? Reflections of the ethnography of aid policy and practice. Development and Change 35(4): 639–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevile, A (1997) Financial deregulation in Australia in the 1980s. The Economic and Labour Relations Review 8(2): 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevile, A (2002) Conclusion. In: Nevile, A (ed.) Policy Choices in a Globalized World. Huntington, NY: Nova Science.Google Scholar
Nevile, A, Nevile, J (2003) Work for the Dole: Obligation or Opportunity? Kensington, NSW, Australia: Centre for Applied Economic Research, University of New South Wales.Google Scholar
Reinharz, S (1992) Feminist Methods in Social Research. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar