Enhancing gender equity through evidence‐based policymaking? Theorizing and tracing the use of systematic knowledge in family and tax policy reforms

Abstract

How can evidence—systematically generated substantive knowledge—be used to reach policy outcomes that promote gender equity? Initial hypothetical answers to this question are derived from three distinct theories of the policy process: the Rational Policy Cycle (RPC), the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), and the Multiple Streams Approach (MSA). With the help of these theoretical frameworks, we trace the use of evidence in four case studies in the fields of family and tax policy in Swiss Cantons. These empirical studies reveal that, within a policy process which follows the Rational Policy Cycle, evidence documenting existing deficits and studies indicating the efficiency of proposed measures are crucial for a progressive outcome. Attempts to promote policies that enhance gender equity by linking them to dominant topics like economic competitiveness are not successful as long as no strong evidence is provided and such a linkage can also be used for promoting policies that undermine gender equity. Finally, in a battle between rival advocacy coalitions, evidence that indicates the correspondence between a proposed policy and constitutional norms seems to be most powerful.

The Multiple‐Streams Framework and Knowledge Utilization: Argumentative Couplings of Problem, Policy, and Politics Issues

“…The MSF conceives of the policy process as three streams, operating largely independent of each other: problem, policy, and politics. As discussed above, one fruitful understanding of the nature of these streams is that of “discursive channels” (Blatter et al., , p. 12). In the problem stream, all issues and problems that compete for attention in a political system are debated.…”

“…But from an argumentative perspective, policy entrepreneurs can only act in the valley created by a discourse to couple the streams (Winkel & Leipold, ). In this creation of a discourse, scientific knowledge and evidence is an important instrument within the MSF to generate attention for problem or policy issues, and for “establishing a connection between a policy measure and a policy issue” (Blatter et al., , p. 13). “Argumentative coupling,” which is developed in the following section, can illuminate how these connections are build.…”

“…Frequently, the streams have been portrayed as sets of participants, which, for example, Mukherjee and Howlett () suggest to refine by distinguishing different sets of actors preoccupied with different tasks. More recently, Béland () argued for reading the MSF through an ideational lens, and Winkel and Leipold (, p. 108) looked at the MSF through the perspective of policy discourse analysis, understanding “streams as discursive patterns.” The latter understanding is followed in this article, as it opens up for connections with the knowledge‐utilization literature: The MSF is one of the theories of the policy process that pay attention to the role of knowledge and ideas (Blatter et al., ; Weible, ) but can benefit from further developing the possible types, carriers, and uses of such knowledge.…”

“…Manifold and often contradicting types of knowledge, such as evidence, ideas, or advice, are brought into policy processes in modern democracies, most notably if issues rank high on the agenda. And yet, while scientific expertise is thus one among many, it has—at least traditionally—been regarded as the most authoritative type of knowledge in the policy process (Blatter, Bombach & Wiprächtiger, ; Knaggård, ), as it is characterized by a more confirmed status. Not least, scientific knowledge is often associated with being “objective” and “neutral.” Against that backdrop, it has been described how policy‐makers draw on scientific knowledge for political–strategic purposes (such as legitimization of policy proposals), more than they do with other types of knowledge (Amara, Ouimet & Landry, ; Boswell, ; Knorr, ).…”

Addressing Multilevel Program Complexity by Evaluation Design

“…A further drawback is that not every canton can afford to provide for well-funded and professionalized implementation units (Sager 2003). Moreover, authors have shown the crucial importance of the issue framing and of the use of evidence during the different local policymaking processes, sometimes leading to very distinct cantonal outcomes (Balthasar and Müller 2014;Blatter, Bombach, and Wiprächtiger 2015). The central role of the horizontal cooperation among federated entities for the adoption of fragmented or countrywide policies in federalist countries has also been evidenced (Rothmayr, Varone, and Montpetit 2003).…”