The Case for Evidence-Based Policy: Beyond Ideology, Politics, and Guesswork

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

The text below is an excerpt from the complete document. Read the full paper in PDF format.

Abstract

U.S. public policy has increasingly been conceived, debated, and evaluated through the lenses of politics and ideology. The fundamental question—Will the policy work?—too often gets short shrift or even ignored. A remedy is evidence-based policy—a rigourous approach that draws on careful data collection, experimentation, and both quantitative and qualitative analysis to determine what the problem is, which ways it can be addressed, and the probable impacts of each of these ways. Examples of how evidence informs good policy and lack of evidence can invite bad include health insurance coverage, education, sentencing policy, and redress for housing discrimination.

Introduction

Public policy in the United States in recent years has increasingly been conceived, debated, and evaluated through the lenses of politics and ideology—policies are Democratic or Republican, liberal or conservative, free market or government controlled. Discussion surrounding even much-vaunted bipartisan initiatives focuses on the politics of the compromise instead of the substance or impact of the policy. The fundamental question—Will the policy work?—too often gets short shrift or ignored altogether. In contrast, in the United Kingdom and some other democracies facing challenges similar to ours, "evidence-based policy" is gaining momentum.

This term may sound esoteric to many Americans. On further reflection most might think it either a truism (What other kind of policy could there be?) or an academic pipedream (Isn't all policy just politics?). Neither is the case. Evidence-based policy is a rigorous approach that draws on careful data collection, experimentation, and both quantitative and qualitative analysis to answer three questions: What exactly is the problem? What are the possible ways to address the problem? And what are the probable impacts of each? A fourth question that figures into all public policy decisions—What political and social values do the proposed options reflect?—is largely outside the scope of evidence-based policy. Nevertheless, hard evidence and analysis can bound the political battlefield, help build consensus, and identify the social and economic costs of different policy choices.

Whether research drives policy or policy drives research, an evidence-based approach has its limitations. As every courtroom judge can vouch, all parties to disputes can find or buy "evidence" to their liking, and policymakers, like judges and juries, can be hard-pressed to separate the reasoned from the self-serving. Knowing how and where to apply even the most incontrovertible evidence is tricky, too. Evidence can be ambiguous or even contradictory, and it can be complex or difficult to interpret. Also, the path from research to sound policy can be long and winding. Often, as in the cases of counting the uninsured or the homeless, research findings only gradually turn into conventional wisdom and then, much later, help shape good policy. And—merely human—researchers don't always admit to, understand, or overcome their own biases in gathering, selecting, or analyzing data.

These are serious pitfalls, but they summon to mind Winston Churchill's famous description of democracy as "the worst form of government except all others." Compared with the alternatives, evidence-based policy is simply the best we've got. Policy positions based on ideology or political considerations tend to agitate the fragile body politic and alienate a significant fraction of Americans—think of affirmative action or education vouchers. Such policies are likely to fail because they may not be grounded in the economic, institutional, and social reality of the problem. Horse trading can get a bill passed, but it's no guarantee that the problem will really be addressed. Goals proliferate, responsibility is diffused, and promises inflated. Politically acceptable doesn't necessarily mean effective, affordable, or otherwise viable.

(End of excerpt. The entire paper is available in PDF format.)

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

Usage, posting and reprint of materials on the UI web site:

Most publications may be downloaded free of charge from the web site in PDF format. This information may be used and copies made for research, academic, policy or other non-commercial purposes. Proper attribution is required.

Copyright of the written materials contained within the Urban Institute website is owned or controlled by the Urban Institute. Posting UI research papers on other websites is permitted subject to prior approval from the Urban Institute—contact paffairs@urban.org.

If you are unable to access or print the PDF document please contact us or call the Publications Office at (202) 261-5687.