CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY

RESEARCH AND POLICY

Final Essay (autumn semester)
Neata Georgiana

10

Research and policy

Indeed, the traditional pattern of policy making in which government bureaucrats have played a predominant role has come under fire in recent years.[...] These politicians have begun taking legislative initiatives in areas where social needs clearly require addressing but where government bureaucracy has constrained efforts to address them. [...] Yet these politicians are not sufficiently equipped with the necessary support structure for conducting legislative activities. Alternate source of policy ideas from outside the government bureaucracy are very much needed [...]. Introduction Living in a dynamic society in which knowledge means power is even more surprising how people still oppose resistance towards evidence in making policy and are more likely to create policies based on ideology, superstition or unconscious bias. Therefore, the aim of this essay is to look at the much controversial issue of the evidence based policy process, by trying to answer two questions: is there a gap between policy and research? and, should scientific evidence to a larger extent be the basis of policy making? In my attempt to find the answers for these questions I will present in the first part of this paper the meaning of this so called gap by presenting the dispute between evidence based policy and policy based evidence, and what are the factors that lead to this conflict between policy makers and researchers. The second part will focus on the position of Japans government towards evidence based policy making approach, and in order to have a complete picture about the topic I will also present ways in which we can bridge policy and research. Firstly I would like to show the importance of policy research and evidence in creating policies. Considering the policy cycle model it is said that policy research plays an important role at every stage of the process: in helping to frame and understand problems that demand policy intervention, in comparing the likely impact of alternative policy solutions to these problems and in evaluating the ultimate impact of any measure that is put into effect. I believe that the importance of evidence based policy also comes from the need for good governance, that should be judged in terms of the quality of the decisions taken and policies adopted, specifically whether they produce outcomes more likely, however, clearly depends to a large extent on the quality of the policy advice that is injected into the governance process to help guide key decision makers (Paul Burton, 2006). Defining the problem The mean of the gap between policy and research is that researchers often consider that there is no political audience for their work despite the important observations they make and policy relevant explanations they develop, and on the other side, policy makers often consider that what researchers contribute is not relevant, too esoteric and asking theoretical questions that do not resonate with the needs of policy makers. Or how Danida Report presents it: Where one group feels nobody listens, the other feels their opposite numbers have little to say. In words of Diane Stone we can say that there is a lack of dialogue between researchers and policy makers and that inadequate or insufficient use is made of research findings.

Next I will show the factors that lead to this gap both from the view of policy makers and researchers, or how Diane Stone1 puts it from the demand side and also from the supply side. Policy makers argue that there is an inadequate supply of policy relevant research, that there is currently insufficient information for policy planning; or where evidence exists there is a lack of access to research, data and analysis. Furthermore the supply of research is flawed due to the poor policy comprehension of researchers about the policy process and how research might be relevant to this process. Research recommendations can be impossible to implement because political realities are not addressed. Or even if the comprehension exists, researchers are ineffective communicators, they usually cannot and often do not want to provide the unequivocal answers or solutions of the kind policy-makers demand. On the other side, one of the problems researchers imply is that their work is undermined by the ignorance of politicians or overstretched bureaucrats about the existence of policy relevant research. Decision makers have limited time and resources. Consequently, they employ information from trusted sources usually in-house or close to the centre of power to help generate simple and understandable recommendations about complex problems. They may be unaware of cutting edge research. Another argument is that there is a tendency for anti intellectualism in government that mitigates against the use of research in policy making, while the policy process itself is riddled with a fear of the critical power of ideas. But even if they are not ignorant or censorious, policy makers and leaders may be incapable of absorbing and using research. Problems arise from the politicisation of research. Research findings are easy to abuse, either through selective use, decontextualisation, or misquotation. Decision makers do this in order to reinforce existing policy preferences or prejudices. Alternatively, they gather and utilise information to support their policy positions as well as to legitimise decision outcomes. Improving the relation between policy and research The value of research is based primarily on the rigour with which it is undertaken and hence the robustness of its findings and conclusions, although the significance of timeliness and presentation is also acknowledged. However, the demonstrable and persistent failure to use much of the evidence generated by policy research presents a problem under this conception as the inherent quality of the research cannot account adequately for this lack of utilisation. The solution seems to lie in a number of developments. First, policy research should be driven more by the needs and requirements of policy makers than by the inquisitive preferences of researchers. Second, forward planning and greater dialogue between researchers and policy makers can harmonise the cycles of research and policy making so that research evidence is more likely to be available when policy makers need it. Third, policy researchers are encouraged to present their findings more clearly, concisely and coherently and to avoid an overly academic style of writing in which a highly specialised language is used, definitive conclusions are often eschewed and there is a preoccupation with methodology and citation of the work of others. Finally, policy researchers are urged to pay more attention to the quality of their research.
1

Diane Stone, Using Knowledge: the dilemmas of Bridging Research and Policy , 2002

This is seen to lie mainly in the design of research as well as the application of relevant methods and is manifest most clearly in ongoing debates about the value of experimental and other methods in outcome evaluations. However, there is also a perceived need to improve standards in the conduct of qualitative research and to develop more widespread competence in quantitative research and to develop more widespread competence in quantitative analytical techniques in public policy analysis (Paul Burton, 2006). Further I will have a look at the attitude that concrete governments have in what it concerns the importance of policy research and evidence in constructing policies, and for this I will present the case of Japans government and the sources of advice it uses in developing policies in the way that R Kent Weaver and Paul B Stares2 sees it . Japans model Along with the more active, substantive involvement of politicians in legislative activities in recent years, there has emerged a distinct trend for more politicians to seek independent sources of advice outside the government bureaucracy. The role of government bureaucrats in the policymaking process has declined because of their inability to cope with pluralistic social needs, as evidenced by some clear cases of policy failures, and because of the enactment of specific legislation to curb their influence. The new political environment in Japan calls out for a critical assessment of possible sources of policy ideas that can help politicians formulate policy initiatives or equip themselves with a better understanding of diverse policy options. Moreover there is a growing awareness that there should be greater involvement of diverse actors in the policy debate and the legislative process in response to the growing diversification of interests within society and the increasing complexities of Japans external relationship. Besides the resources available to the legislative branch (The House of Representatives and the House of Councillors both have research staff attached to their committees) and the legislative assistants available to members of Diet, in Japan there are also research departments assigned for each major political party, whose staff members are not policy research experts but party operatives that have the job to organize the numerous meetings that take place under the auspices of Policy Affairs Research Council. Given the lack of internal competence for generating policy ideas and initiatives, political leaders have voiced the need for their parties to develop think thanks of their own. The LDP has its think tank whose board is made up of party officials, that have the limited role to assemble policy related data, although they work occasionally with outside experts to generate policy ideas. In Japan, the contribution of think tanks to the policy process has been limited by the dominant role of civil servants in the formulation of public policy. Though the number of research institutes in Japan is very large, they are very different from those in the United States, specifically, many of them being for profit institutions. So, from
2

R Kent Weaver and Paul B Stares, Guidance for Governance, comparing alternative sources of public policy advice , 2001

the 332 think tanks studies show to be in Japan, 46.5% are for profit institutes. Another characteristic of Japanese think tanks is that they are closely associated with government agencies or major corporations and are often regarded as their subsidiaries. More than 40 percent of think tanks worldwide make all their research output available to the public, while only one institute in Japan does so; more than 75 percent of think thanks worldwide published all or mostly all of their research, while less than 50 percent in Japan does so. One way think tanks in Japan do contribute to the public debate is through the constant visibility of their leaders in the media, at Diet hearings, on government commissions, and at public occasions. NGOs, academics, and leading citizens have set in motion additional initiatives sources of policy advice in Japan. These groups usually operate with specific goals in mind, seeking to convince politicians of the need for certain policy. Another source of advice used in Japan are the private advisory councils for political leaders, consultative organs to government agencies, that are often portrayed as helpless or willing tools of their parent agencies, they have been tarred as robots cheerleaders backers tunnel organizations and ornaments. At best these councils are regarded as an effort by the bureaucracy to counteract the diminished authority of the civil service after World War II and generate public trust in the impartiality and openness of the bureaucracy. The debate over governance in Japan has centred on moving away from the ineffective bureaucracy led system. The infrastructure to support the policymaking initiatives of elected politicians is still very fragile. In particular there are few alternative sources of policy ideas for legislators to rely on outside the government bureaucracy. There is multiplicity of challenges in creating independent institutions for the provision of alternative policy advice, building a funding base that circumvents control by the government agencies and recruiting competent policy experts to meet short term requirements. There is as well the need to develop a stable supply of human resources by providing training and assuring a secure career path, to develop a market for policy advice among politicians, and to orient politicians in different ways of policymaking. Conclusion John D Sterman3 sees the problem as: Creating a healthy, sustainable future requires a fundamental shift in the way we generate, learn from, and act on evidence about the delayed and distal effects of our technologies, policies, and institutions. What prevents us from overcoming policy resistance is not a lack of resources, technical knowledge, or a genuine commitment to change. What thwarts us is our lack of meaningful systems thinking. Policy makers should recognise the enlightenment that can be brought to bear on the general policy environment by social scientific concepts, theories and ideas. Still I must admit that this ideal method of policy making has its flows, and cannot be always used, because it may be expensive and time consuming, but evidence based policy process should be the rule and not the exception in creating policies.
John D. Sterman, Learning from evidence in a complex world , American Journal of Public Health, March 2006, Vol 96, No. 3
33

Bibliography

1. John D. Sterman, Learning from evidence in a complex world, American Journal of Public Health, March 2006, Vol 96, No. 3 2. R Kent Weaver and Paul B Stares, Guidance for Governance, comparing alternative sources of public policy advice, 2001 3. Diane Stone, Using Knowledge: the dilemmas of Bridging Research and Policy, 2002 4. Paul Burton, Modernising the policy process Making policy research more significant?, Policy Studies, Vol 27, No 3, 2006