2 results
Two - Policy analysis in practice: reinterpreting the quest for evidence-based policy
- Edited by Frans van Nispen, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam Instituut Beleid en Management Gezondheidszorg, Peter Scholten
-
- Book:
- Policy Analysis in the Netherlands
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 04 March 2022
- Print publication:
- 26 November 2014, pp 17-32
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
In the past decade, the discipline of policy analysis has regained momentum in the form of attention for ‘evidence-based policy’ (Adams, 2004; Walter et al, 2005; Pawson, 2006; Nutley et al, 2007; Boaz et al, 2008a, 2008b; Head, 2008, 2010; Argyrous, 2009; Banks, 2009; Leigh, 2009; Cartwright and Hardie, 2012). The concept of evidencebased policy was originally developed in the Anglo-Saxon context of British and US public administration (Sherman et al, 1997; Strategic Policy Making Team Cabinet Office, 1999; Solesbury, 2001; De Groot, 2010; Head, 2010). It rapidly expanded to other countries, in part due to the influence of international organisations such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the European Union (EU) (Burns and Schuller, 2007; EU, 2007; Head, 2010). In the Netherlands, the rise of evidence-based policy was fuelled by various conclusions of successive parliamentary commissions examining policy failures, which indicated that minimal thorough analysis, and a lack of a sound scientific foundation, were significant, consistent deficiencies that contributed towards policy failure (Bax et al, 2010; De Wree et al, 2010; see also Chapter Twelve on the role of party-political think tanks). The message that resonated in Dutch policy organisations as a result was that successful policy requires sound and rigorous analysis, as well as underlying policy theory (CPB, 2002; Cornet and Webbink, 2004; De Wree et al, 2010).
One of the most common interpretations of evidence-based policy at the Dutch national level is that it relies on a quantitative analysis of effectiveness. In other words, it calls for randomised experiments or similar research designs. This often draws comparisons with the double-blind clinical trials that establish the efficacy of new medicines. In both cases, the objective is to establish a causal relationship between an intervention and its intended effects (Cornet and Webbink, 2004). Like proving medicinal effects, the allure of proven policy results is appealing in a political debate. The notion that there exists evidence, proof and, above all, ‘guaranteed value for public money’ resonates strongly in a debate that emphasises the effectiveness of policy. Measurable effect has become an important driver for political debate (Head, 2010). Public funds must be spent efficiently, and in order to do so, policy interventions must be tried and tested. However, effective policy is not the same as policy with a proven effect in a clinical trial experimental setting.
six - Complex causality in improving underperforming schools: a complex adaptive systems approach
- Edited by Sarah Ayres, University of Bristol
-
- Book:
- Rethinking Policy and Politics
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 04 March 2022
- Print publication:
- 21 July 2014, pp 117-138
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
In most welfare states, the quality of education greatly determines the future opportunities of children and of society in general. Therefore, high quality education is considered an important public service and schools that are underperforming are considered a policy problem. In the Netherlands, the government has developed policies and interventions that deal with underperforming schools – referred to as ‘very weak schools’. These schools are included in a black list that is published online annually and then they become subject to increased supervision by the Inspectorate for Education. However, the results are diverse. In some schools, the approach has led to major improvements in quality and positively surprising results, whereas in other schools the situation has spiralled out of control in a series of undesired policy effects. Similar interventions have had different effects; some intended, others unintended; some desired, others undesired. This empirical observation is the starting point of this chapter: what causes the differences in outcomes of similar policies in similar contexts? Can patterns and causation be found in what seem to be unpredictable, unstable, and chaotic systems?
In general, policy is constructed along the lines of intentions and expectations of policy makers. Policy makers often assume, or desire, a ‘magic button’ that they can push to achieve intended outcomes. However, for decades, social scientists, historians, and economists have all been fascinated by the ubiquity of the so-called ‘unintended’, ‘unanticipated’, or ‘unexpected’ consequences of policies; policy plays out differently, sometimes positive, but often tragic. How can such ‘surprises’ be explained and understood? What mechanisms underlie the intentions and anticipation – or lack thereof – of public policy? Why are ‘great expectations dashed’ (Pressman and Wildavsky, 1984)?
Throughout its 40-year history, the Policy & Politics journal has devoted much attention to explaining the – often unexpected – outcomes of policy interventions. From the first volume in 1972 (see Sigsworth and Wilkinson, 1972) to the current volume (see Lindsay and Dutton, 2013) many articles have tried to open the ‘black box’ of the mechanisms through which policy interventions reach their impacts, and to identify conditions that affect the transfer of policy interventions into policy outcomes.