The UK government’s imaginative use of evidence to make policy

1. The UK government’s imaginative useof evidence to make policy Paul Cairney, Professor of Politics and Public Policy • p.a.cairney@stir.ac.uk • @Cairneypaul • https://paulcairney.wordpress.com • Click here for full article

2. 2 meanings of imaginative • A euphemism for ridiculous: • ‘Policy-based evidence’: not using the evidence correctly • Think of the idea that we use high quality information to reduce • uncertainty about the severity of policy problems • (b) Cynical policymaking: not making the correct choices • because they understand/ portray policy problems incorrectly • Think of the idea that we use our beliefs to reduce ambiguity • about how we should interpret policy problems • See this blog post for more

3. 2 meanings of imaginative • 2. a government has to be creative with evidence: • in the presentation and framing of its evidence-informed • agenda (more here) • when facing pressure to go beyond the evidence and • envisage policy outcomes

4. These definitions compete in 3 ways:Imagine a conversation between a criticand a policymaker (and follow up here):1. You don’t use the evidence versusYou don’t know what the evidence is2. You are making irrational choices versusYou don’t understand the pressure I’m under3. You are not following due process versusI do not control it ….

5. There are many images of this policy process: control v complexity (more)

6. There are many models of good governance (beyond ‘evidence based policymaking’)There are many models for evidence-informed policymaking

7. Political choices combine: evidence and governance

8. Table 1 highlights even greater choice of approach and classification

9. Case study: 1. The Troubled Families programme2. Part of a wider focus on ‘families policy’

10. Examples of EBP versus PBE1. Troubled families: almost 100% successHow? (a) identify 120,000 ‘troubled families’(b) Define troubled as 3 things:1. ASBO2. School absence3. Parent on benefits(c) Success in ‘turning around’:Evidence = change in one measure

11. 2. Use ‘neuroscience’ to stress immediacyIt’s now or neverThe damage is done by age 3Image for shock, notscientific value?Brain scans and cortisol

12. How can governments use evidence more sincerely?1. Evaluate domestic pilot projects‘Family Intervention Projects’evaluation:(1) interview staff, families (2) case reports describing progress (3) not controlled/ experimentalReports are positive but tentativeCausal driver: coordination? Desperation?

13. How can governments use evidence more sincerely?2. Learn from international RCTsSpecific interventionand fidelityOne model: Family Nurse Partnership (US)Packages: Triple P (Aus) & Incredible Years (US)FNP in the UK: 1st RCT shows limited effect. Why?Triple P: Coyne et alIncredible Years: works well as last resort?

14. Overall narratives from ‘the evidence’: supportive versus critical versus carefulWe think these interventions work, but we don’t know exactly how much and whyMoral: keep doing it while it works‘The weight of evidence … suggests that the approach doesn’t work’ (Crossley & Lambert)Moral: stopWe don’t know if, how, and why they workMoral: gather more evidence

15. Under these circumstances, what do we expect a UK government to do?1. Do nothing and declare powerlessness? Not likely in a Westminster system2. Declare success and move on?Quite possible, if only driven by elections.3. Declare success and delegate policy to local public bodies and professionals?More common than we would think if we focus only on exciting Westminster politics

16. Take home messages1. EBPM and PBE are political slogans, and not useful for academic analysis2. Better analysis requires understanding of (a) policymaker psychology (b) policymaking complexity(c) specific versus ever-present political drivers3. Useful to separate criticisms of (a) wrong use of evidence, and (b) wrong beliefs & choices