The myth of ‘evidence-based policymaking’ in a decentred state

Abstract

I describe a policy theory story in which a decentred state results from choice and necessity. Governments often choose not to centralise policymaking but they would not succeed if they tried. Many policy scholars take this story for granted, but it is often ignored in other academic disciplines and wider political debate. Instead, commentators call for more centralisation to deliver more accountable, 'rational', and 'evidence based' policymaking. Such contradictory arguments, about the feasibility and value of government centralisation, raise an ever-present dilemma for governments to accept or challenge decentring. They also accentuate a modern dilemma about how to seek 'evidence-based policymaking' in a decentred state. I identify three ideal-type ways in which governments can address both dilemmas consistently. I then identify their ad hoc use by UK and Scottish governments. Although each government has a reputation for more or less centralist approaches, both face similar dilemmas and address them in similar ways. Their choices reflect their need to appear to be in control while dealing with the fact that they are not.

The UK government’s COVID-19 policy: assessing evidence-informed policy analysis in real time

“…It is difficult to imagine the UK Government taking that advice, because Westminster systems encourage stories of accountability based on central government control (Cairney 2020c ). It pursues a different trial-and-error approach: centralising the adaptive process while projecting the sense that it is in control and that policy modification is part of a consistent approach.…”

“…These insights contradict the image of British politics associated with the ‘Westminster model’: the idea that policy is controlled by a small number of UK government ministers, with the power to solve major policy problems, remains popular in media and public debate but provides a wildly misleading way to assess policy outcomes (Cairney 2020c ).…”

The future of public health policymaking after COVID-19: a qualitative systematic review of lessons from Health in All Policies

“…'The former relates to the idea that we can generalize from common experience, while the latter emphasizes the complexity and uniqueness of each case and diversity of experience … Or, the latter relates explicitly to the politics of knowledge production and use, to criticise a narrow scientific view of evidence as exclusionary and contributing to the further marginalisation of vulnerable groups' (Cairney, 2021b). Introduce the same model in each area.…”

Government human rights focal points: Lessons learned from focal points under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

“…Public policy theorists highlight that bureaucrats are often limited by bounded rationality, which includes the 'inability to separate values from facts in any meaningful way, or rank policy aims in a logical and consistent manner'. 102 Love and others note that the CRPD calls for a 'fundamental realignment of the accepted and ingrained norms and procedures that have dictated how disability policy is made and who gets to participate in that process'. 103 A CRPD focal point performs a central role in changing underlying values within the broader bureaucracy in line with the CRPD, and in encouraging bureaucrats to appreciate the value of ensuring the effective inclusion of persons with disabilities in developing public policy.…”