What is the evidence for evidence-based policy making? Pretty thin, actually.

A recent conference in Nigeria considered the evidence that evidence-based policy-making actually, you know, exists. The conference report sets out its theory of change in a handy diagram – the major conference sessions are indicated in boxes.

Conclusion?

‘There is a shortage of evidence on policy makers’ actual capacity to use research evidence and there is even less evidence on effective strategies to build policy makers’ capacity. Furthermore, many presentations highlighted the insidious effect of corruption on use of evidence in policy making processes.’

i.e. you can have all the arguments you like on the nature of evidence – disciplinary and political bias, what constitutes knowledge etc etc (as this blog recently did), but policy makers are often either unable or unwilling to use it anyway – supply doesn’t guarantee demand.

The aid agencies and research councils that fund research are very keen to promote this shift from worrying about supply to wondering how to boost demand (although the researchers are often less keen – they just want to be left alone to churn out papers and develop their careers). What was nice about this conference was the amount of on-the-ground grassroots research on how decision makers actually use (or more often ignore) research in places like Nigeria (‘political manipulation and ambition seem to be among the strongest determinants of factors influencing policy development processes’) and Indonesia (‘Even if technocratic or political – it doesn’t matter – it’s 90% personality’).

One thing I learned is that agonising over per diems is not confined to the aid business:

‘One particularly heated debate concerned the frequent requests from policy makers for ‘sitting fees’ in order to attend training or seminars which could inform them about research issues. Participants agreed that this practice is widespread in most of the African countries represented; however, opinions on how to respond to this differed. Some suggested that those who aim to inform policy makers about research need to just accept that paying these fees is necessary and should therefore include them in their budgets. However others felt that continuing to pay such fees just propagates the problem and that those funding research communication and uptake work should take a ‘zero-tolerance’ approach.’

On the demand side, the report considers both capacity and incentives. On capacity ‘most people don’t know what they don’t know!’ will resonate with researchers in NGOs trying to convince their colleagues to look harder at the evidence. There’s a mountain to climb: a survey of Zambian parliamentary researchers and librarians (and these had positively agreed that they needed to use research) found that ‘only one in three believed there was consensus that the CIA did not invent HIV’.

‘Research-evidence is often used opportunistically to back up pre-existing political decisions/opinions (confirmation bias)’. That preference for policy-based evidence-making is alive and well in the big aid donors and NGOs too, of course……..

And unfortunately, research from Ghana, Sierra Leone, Uganda, and Zambia concluded that ‘a lack of capacity to understand research was perceived as beneficial to policy makers since it ‘allowed’ them to ignore evidence and instead follow their own agenda. Thus, there is not only a lack of capacity but also a disincentive to build capacity.’ Oh dear.

How to build the incentives to use research, assuming these political obstacles are not insuperable? On HIV policy in Pakistan, DFID ‘built the capacity of civil society organisations representing marginalised groups to demand policy change’.

Other useful tips:

• including policy makers in the design phase of research projects (get them on the advisory board, guys, don’t just see them as seminar fodder once you’ve finished the research)
• networks and linkages between researchers and policy makers are necessary but definitely not sufficient
• researchers need to change the (often dire) way they communicate their work – in one case study from Ghana ‘photographs of real people suffering from mental illness is far more powerful in influencing opinions than any policy brief could be.’ (Well duh)
• target the ‘policy entrepreneurs’ with influence over decision-makers (the Minister’s old university professor etc)
• ‘There is a tendency for researchers and research intermediaries to focus their communication efforts on elected representatives and appointed officials but to ignore the crucial role that technocratic staff play.’

All good stuff, but the report reminded me of the governance debates of a few years ago, in that even though it recognized the problem is incentives and politics, kept drifting back to the comfort zone of supply issues (if they don’t want research, we just have to get better at communicating or building their capacity), rather than thinking harder about the demand side. For example:

• Anyone involved in advocacy knows that the openness of policy makers to new ideas is episodic, and linked to things like changes of administration, scandals, crises and failures. So how does research need to be redesigned to capitalise on such brief windows of opportunity?
• Opposition parties are often much less well resourced, and much more malleable in their thinking as they cast around for clever ideas that will help them win power – to what extent should researchers concentrate on those without power, rather than those currently in office?
• Young minds are (generally) more open to new ideas than old ones: should researchers target future leaders (who are pretty easy to identify by faculty and university) rather than waste their time on the current generation?

The evidence debate, you won’t be surprised to hear, continues……

So What do I take Away from The Great Evidence Debate? Final thoughts (for now)

The trouble with hosting a massive argument, as this blog recently did on the results agenda (the most-read debate ever on this blog) is that I then have to make sense of it all, if only for my own peace of mind. So I’ve spent a happy few hours digesting 10 pages of original posts and 20 pages of top quality comments (I couldn’t face adding the twitter traffic).

(For those of you that missed the wonk-war, we had an initial critique of the results agenda from Chris Roche and Rosalind Eyben, a take-no-prisoners response from Chris Whitty and Stefan Dercon, then a final salvo from Roche and Eyben + lots of comments and an online poll. Epic.)

On the debate itself, I had a strong sense that it was unhelpfully entrenched throughout – the two sides were largely talking past each other,  accusing each other of ‘straw manism’ (with some justification) and lobbing in the odd cheap shot (my favourite, from Chris and Stefan ‘Please complete the sentence ‘More biased research is better because…’ – debaters take note). Commenter Marcus Jenal summed it up perfectly:

‘The points of critique focus on the partly absurd effects of the current way the results agenda is implemented, while the proponents run a basic argument to whether we want to see if our interventions are effective or not. I really think the discussion should be much less around whether we want to see results (of course we do) and much more around how we can obtain these results without the adverse effects.’

There were some interesting convergences though, particularly Whitty and Dercon’s  striking acknowledgement of the importance of power and politics, which are often assumed to be excluded from the results agenda. But what they actually said was

‘Understanding power and politics and how to assist in social change also require careful and rigorous evidence.’

True, but what about reversing the equation? Does understanding the role of evidence in development also require a careful and rigorous understanding of power and politics? They never fully address that crucial point, which is at the heart of Roche and Eyben’s critique.

Both sides (rather oddly, as acknowledged experts in their fields) decried the role of experts. Whitty and Dercon called for ‘moving from expert (i.e. opinion-based, seniority-based and anecdote-based) to evidence-based policy’. Ah, turns out that what is actually being suggested is a move from one kind of expert (practitioners) to another (evidence/evaluation).

As a non number-cruncher I also took exception to their apparent belief that only those who understand the methodological intricacies of different evaluation techniques are eligible to pass judgement. On that basis politicians would be out of a job, and only rocket scientists would get to pronounce on Trident.

There was also a really confusing exchange on the hierarchy of evidence. Whitty and Dercon show a surprising (to me at least) commitment to multi-disciplinarity: ‘Methods from all disciplines, qualitative and quantitative, are needed, with the mix depending on the context….. it is not a matter of just RCTs, but of rigour, and of combining appropriate methods, including more qualitative and political economy analysis.’

Music to the ears of the critics, but is it actually, you know, true? Everything I hear from evaluation bods is that DFID does actually see RCTs as the gold standard, and other forms of evidence as inferior. Roche and Eyben returned to the attack on this in their response, arguing that what Whitty and Dercon call the ‘evidence-barren areas in development’ are only barren if you discount sociology and anthropology, among others, as credible sources of evidence. By the way, Ed Carr has a brilliant new post on the (closely linked) clash between quants and quals, arguing that while quants can establish causation, only quals can explain how that causation occurs.

But the exchange did provide me with one important (I think) lightbulb moment. It was about failure. Whitty and Dercon were particularly convincing on this: the evidence agenda ‘involves stopping doing things which the expert consensus agreed should work, but which when tested do not’. This is a nice Popperian twist – the role of evidence is not to prove that things work, but to prove they don’t, forcing us to challenge received wisdom and standard approaches. This is indeed what I noticed about Oxfam’s recent ‘effectiveness reviews’ – if you find no or negative impact, then you (rightly) start to re-examine all your assumptions. But if this is the proper role for the evidence agenda, is it politically possible? By coincidence I have just read Ed Carr’s forceful critique of Bill Gates’ approach to evaluation, arguing that failure is often airbrushed out in order to safeguard funding and credibility. That seems a pretty fundamental contradiction.

The comments were just as thought-provoking. One of the key messages that emerged is the gulf between these debates and what those in charge of gathering results in aid agencies actually face – highly constrained resources, crazy time pressure, and the need to deliver some (any!) results to feed the MEL machine. Oxfam’s Jennie Richmond reflected on the gap between theory and practice yesterday.

Commenter Enrique Mendizabal asked whether we are demanding a different role for evidence in poor countries than in our own.

‘In the UK, health policy is decided by a great many number of factors or appeals (evidence, sure, but also values, tradition, biases, political calculations, etc). We may complain about it but we accept that it is a system that works. But health policy for Malawi (or other heavily Aid dependent countries) is decided mainly by evidence (or what often passes as evidence at the time) and usually by foreign experts…. would we be happy with USAID funding a large evidence-based campaign to reform the NHS or our education policy?’

But he took his argument a step further – if the final decision should be left to the interplay of evidence (of different sorts), politics and negotiation, then DFID and other donors would be better advised to boost the ‘enabling environment’ for such debates and decisions by investing in tertiary education in developing countries:

‘strengthening economic policy debate is a more adequate objective than achieving policy change (even if it is evidence based).’

Commenter David highlighted a fundamental point that rather went missing in the initial exchange – how the results agenda does or doesn’t work in complex systems:

‘The results agenda approach tends, by presenting development as objectively knowable if broken down into discrete and small bits, todrive attention toward small, more easily measurable interventions to test, particular those that are suited to situations that are simple or complicated rather than complex. Current processes around evidence-based results fail to grapple with complex systems, interaction effects, and emergent properties that dominate most aid project landscapes.

A fundamental critique of the evidence-based revolution is that it actually diminishes efforts to get rigorous evidence about addressing complex challenges. We all want evidence, it’s a question of whether the current framing of “evidence-based” is distorting what types of evidence we gather and value. For those who think that the current emphases on methods to test what works are distorting how we value the evidence coming in (RCT=gold, qualitative methods=junk), this offers little other than platitudes about lots of other methods existing.

Personally, I would be a bigger proponent of the evidence-based revolution if it was coming to folks interested in power, politics, and development, and asking them what their questions are and what evidence might contribute to their work. Absent a learning agenda set to fit complex space and concern itself with power, it will continue to seem to me to be an instance of methods leading research – or searching for keys under the light rather than inventing a flashlight.’

To be fair, Roche and Eyben explicitly chose to focus on the politics of evidence, rather than the implications of complex systems (for example, the question of external validity in complex systems – or lack of it – raised by Lant Pritchett in our recent conversation.)

Final thoughts? After about 500 votes, the poll went narrowly to Whitty and Dercon (34% v 31% for Roche and Eyben, with a pleasing late rally for the ‘totally confused’ camp – my natural habitat). I think Chris Roche and Rosalind Eyben need to work on their communication style (more punchy, less abstract, more propositional). Chris Whitty and Stefan Dercon should give some examples of gold standard anthropological or sociological evidence to allay the doubts over their true commitment to multi-disciplinarity, and take the complex systems question more seriously.

A massive thankyou to all who took part, and please can you come back for another go in a year or so? This one isn’t going away.

Theory’s fine, but what about practice? Oxfam’s MEL chief on the evidence agenda

Two Oxfam responses to the evidence debate. First Jennie Richmond, (right) our results czarina (aka Head of Programme Performance and Accountability) wonders what it all means in for the daily grind of NGO MEL (monitoring, evaluation and learning). Tomorrow I attempt to wrap up.

The results wonkwar of last week was compelling intellectual ping-pong. The bloggers were heavy-hitters and the quality of the comments provided lots of food for thought. However, I was left wondering what it all meant for those of us who work in NGOs, trying to generate and learn from ‘evidence’ on a daily basis. I found myself unable to simply vote, so instead I blog….

The results and evidence agendas have brought some real benefits to NGOs in my view. First and foremost, it is important and right that those of us who claim to work in the interests of the poorest people in the world and are stewards of other people’s money, should set ourselves high standards for our own impact. In its simplest form the results agenda asks us to justify the trust others have placed in us, by demonstrating whether we are actually bringing about positive change. In Oxfam GB, accountability has long been held as a core organisational value. It is not the results and agenda that has got us thinking about how to capture and communicate our effectiveness, but it has provided a helpful additional push.

A further positive is that space has been created both within our own organisations and in the wider sector, to stop, listen and learn. MEL-istas (as Duncan calls us) 5 years ago struggled to get the ear of senior managers (let alone Ministers). But the results agenda has increased the stakes around MEL – encouraging organisations not only to increase investment, but also to listen to the findings coming from our own data gathering and analysis.

However, it has also increased the demand and the expectation, which are not easily met by all NGOs. In Oxfam GB the investment in MEL has increased over the last couple of years, undoubtedly, but still it is a real stretch to deliver the ever-more ambitious demands from donors, to develop tools to tell the story of our broader organisational impact, and to ensure that we are developing innovative ways of measuring cutting-edge programming areas, such as resilience, enterprise development and influencing.

And we are one of the largest international development NGOs in the UK. How much more difficult for the smaller and niche NGOs, or those who lack the flexible financing that permits investment in MEL and innovation? We are conscious in Oxfam that we and other large NGOs need to guard against distorting the NGO market place by pushing the boundaries on MEL and impact too far, and thereby creating expectations that cannot be met by everyone. Somehow we all need to keep our sights on a proportionate approach.

It is not just important to generate evidence, but also to use it properly. There is increased demand for serious, evidence-based conversations about what works.  None of us can get away with decisions made purely on gut instinct, force of habit or ideological leaning. We are challenged by the ‘evidence’ question to collate and distil from the broad knowledge base we have at our disposal. And this has in some cases led to surprises. Rigorous studies, whether based on qualitative or quantitative methods, can challenge our preconceptions – showing us impact where we were not optimistic, or the opposite. The test, of course, comes when new programmes are designed. Will the body of evidence be applied – will we be able to find it for starters (in our often not-so-state-of-the-art knowledge management systems), and will it be politically acceptable in our own organisations to apply it to practice?

So, how can we use the results and evidence agendas and make them useful to us as NGOs?  We need to do this in a way that a) is true to the actual work we do (which in the case of Oxfam includes a great deal of work that drives for political change and influencing) and b) does not distort decision-making away from the right decisions (i.e. what most suits the specific needs and opportunities of each context) in our efforts to be able to measure and communicate what we are doing.

One of the concerns raised in last week’s blog was that in some institutions, evidence becomes synonymous with impact evaluations, and even specifically with Randomised Control Trials. As all the bloggers agreed, the default use of one research method for interventions of all types is simply nonsensical. You only have to look at the enormous variety of the things we do in international development (from campaigning for policy change to delivery of bed-nets, from building of bridges to raising awareness of the rights of citizens) to realise that one approach is just not going to cut it.

Another challenge is that so much of what we do in international development is extremely hard to measure. How can we trace the input through to impact chain and clearly demonstrate the ‘on the ground’ changes we have brought about in people’s lives when the investment is in budget support or core funding?  How can we reduce the process of a community standing up against acts of violence against women to a Value for Money calculation? The ethical dilemmas and practical difficulties wrapped up in measuring and ‘evidencing’ many of the processes we are involved in are huge. And, as Eyben and Roche point out, much of what we engage with in international development is messy and political. We need to make sure that the tools we have at our disposal for evidence generation are sophisticated and nuanced enough to acknowledge this messy political reality, and that we are sharing ideas on how to do this in a practical and affordable way.

The push for evidence should go hand in hand with a more entrepreneurial approach to development, opening up space for honest

MEL that - US military mindmap of Afghanistan

reflection on both success and failure. That is the theory. But, of course, there are obstacles to this becoming a reality. Our systems in large institutions, including NGOs, are designed to demonstrate success. We all have our logframes and our KPIs, and we want to be able to put a tick in the box. No-one wants their project to be the one famous for not achieving what it set out to do, even if the real story is that it helped enormously to generate learning for future projects. Complexity thinking is having some influence right now, which helps to raise the right questions about process and incentives. However, we have a long way to go before even in the most reflexive learners in NGOs and other development institutions want their project to be hailed as the great failure.

So, we proceed with caution – welcoming the increased space the Results Agenda provides to consider ‘what seems to work’, and the profile it gives to the need to take a thorough and transparent look at the information coming out of our programmes. But, wary of the dangers of distorting what we do in order to make it measurable; of placing the MEL ‘bar’ for NGOs too high to reach; of the over-emphasis of certain methodologies; and of the danger of ignoring political realities in the work that we do. It is certainly helpful to keep reflecting and questioning, however, from all sides of the debate – so the wonkwar of last week was welcome.

Evidence and results wonkwar final salvo (for now): Eyben and Roche respond to Whitty and Dercon + your chance to vote

In this final post (Chris Whitty and Stefan Dercon have opted not to write a second installment), Rosalind Eyben and

Chris Roche reply to their critics. And now is your chance to vote (right) – but only if you’ve read all three posts, please. The comments on this have been brilliant, and I may well repost some next week, when I’ve had a chance to process.

Let’s start with what we seem to agree upon:

• Unhappiness with ‘experts’ – or at least the kind that pat you patronizingly on the arm,
• The importance of understanding context and politics,
• Power and political institutions are generally biased against the poor,
• We don’t know much about the ability of aid agencies to influence transformational change,
• Mixed methods approaches to producing ‘evidence’ are important. And, importantly,
• We are all often wrong!

We suggest the principal difference between us seems to concern our assumptions about: how different kinds of change happen; what we can know about change processes; if how and when evidence from one intervention can practically be taken and sensibly used in another; and how institutional and political contexts then determine how evidence is then used in practice. This set of assumptions has fundamental importance for international development practice.

Firstly, we understand social change to be emergent and messy. Organised efforts to direct change confront the impossibility of any of us ever having a total understanding of all the sets of societal relationships and contested meanings that generate change and are in constant flux. New inter-relational processes are constantly being generated that in turn affect and change those already in existence. Complexity theory privileges a concern for process as much as goals and supports an approach that seeks to make a difference by working through relationships rather than focusing on narrowly defined pre-set projects and outcomes. It encourages being explicit about values and a concern for how an organisation’s intervention is judged by others, in particular by those that are meant to ultimately benefit, and the creation of effective feedback mechanisms – including, but not limited to, those produced by high quality research.

At their best, development practitioners often have to surf the unpredictable realities of national politics, spotting opportunities supporting interesting new initiatives, acting like entrepreneurs or searchers, rather than planners. They are keeping their eye on processes and looking to ride those waves that appear to be heading in the direction that matches their own agencies’ mission and values, and which can support local coalitions for change.  On the contrary, assuming that development practitioners are in control and that change is predictable – as expressed through some of the demands of evidence-based planning approaches – prevent them from responding effectively to feedback in an often unpredictable and dynamic policy environment, and can, if badly managed, chain them to a desk. Ben Ramalingam’s blog site – Aid on the Edge of Chaos – offers current insights on complexity thinking in development.

That it is relatively easier to eradicate rinderpest in cattle and build bridges than tackle police corruption or reduce violence against women is because the first are examples of what Dave Snowden describes as complicated problems and the latter are complex – an effect of there being so many collaborators involved in non-routine interventions with absence of consensus among them.  Such issues can’t be ‘solved’ like a Sudoku puzzle. In that respect, we were puzzled by Chris and Stefan’s two examples of what we would describe as complex issues. We found the first – the effect of political quotas for women in rural India – to be somewhat superficial and wondered why so little reference was made to the considerable number of studies from political sociology on the same topic that ask more probing questions and arguably provide more insightful understanding of what has been learnt in different contexts.  The World Bank study on whether top-down large scale interventions can stimulate bottom-up participation was on the other hand  puzzling for exposing myths that perhaps only World Bank staff had previously believed in, while ignoring the very considerable body of sociological and anthropological knowledge on this topic. It led us to wondering whether you need economists to find something out for it to be accepted as evidence.  Perhaps that explains some of ‘the evidence-barren areas in development’………

Which brings us to the second set of assumptions about how we know and therefore what is judged as evidence.  This is about more than pluralism and mixed methods, though we recognise that recent advances, in this case funded by DFID, are important.  Let’s start by insisting that a criterion for rigorous research is that it should be explicit about its assumptions or world-view. We suggest that a weakness in many studies is that they usually focus solely on the methodological and procedural and render invisible their ‘philosophical plumbing’. The evidence-based approaches that Stefan and Chris advocate are imposing a certain view of the world, just as our approaches do. Their claims to the contrary foreclose any possible discussion about the different intellectual traditions in interpreting reality.  Theory invites argument and debate.

An interesting paper by Greenhalg and Russell on evaluating health programmes notes how experimental approaches often ignore thetricky philosophical and political questions. Like the authors of that article, we take an approach that recognizes the partial (in both senses of the word) nature of our knowledge. How does this approach try to deal with unavoidable bias?  Through seeking to use dialogic, democratic methods in which multiple perspectives and understandings of what is at stake are explored, and the use of multiple and hybrid approaches.  The implications for practice are to be involved in mutual single and double-loop learning and adaptation as you go along. This does not preclude specific studies commissioned from ‘experts’, but it is not they alone who should define the problem nor should they assume that only their kind of knowledge has validity for collective efforts to try to secure greater equity and social justice.  Knowledge and power are bed-mates.  Our critique of ‘expertise’ – the laboratory references are an extreme example of the trend – is that expertise often uses its power to ignore other ways of knowing and doing, something Chris and Stefan would seem to agree with. Might it be that some of these ways might prove to be pretty good at tackling police corruption or reducing violence against women?

This is where reflexivity comes in.  Those of us working as practitioners, bureaucrats and scholar activists in international development cannot escape the contradiction that we are strategizing for social transformation from a position in a global institution – international development – that can and does sustain inequitable power relations, as much as it succeeds in changing them. Reflexive practice seeks to address these power inequities by recognizing that (a) many problems we seek to address are the products of human interaction – and some very important problems for people with less voice go ignored for that reason, and  (b) even if people are in agreement about there being a problem, they will often offer multiple diagnoses for its existence, and thus of course (c) multiple solutions, which need to be debated democratically with different kinds of evidence, based on alternative ways of knowing, and having the space to be heard.

We are heartened to note that Chris and Stefan believe “that all actions by external actors will interact with political forces and vested interests” and that “in many of the settings where development actors want to make a difference, power and political institutions are biased against the poor”. We would therefore assume that a reflexive donor would recognise that their power and agenda need examination as much as anyone else’s.

Chris and Stefan suggest ‘the commitment to evidence has opened up the space fundamentally to challenge conventional, technical approaches to aid.’ We would agree, but it would seem that the exception to this is when it comes to addressing the power of donors such as DFID, being honest about the domestic political pressures they are under, and assessing the possibility that their behaviour (including how evidence-based approaches are managerialised) may on occasions be undermining processes of development and social transformation. Is DFID drawing upon anthropologists or ethnographic researchers, as the Police in the UK have recently done, to understand how its policies on, for example, results or value for money change behaviour in the agency, and its relationships with others?

To imply that we are suggesting that ‘it is not worth trying to provide the best and most rigorous evidence to those who need to make difficult decisions’ is simply a wilful mis-stating of our position. On the contrary we are arguing there is more ‘evidence’ out there than some seem to admit because their world view precludes seeing this as such. Where we in particular see the need for more evidence is about how the evidence-based and results agenda plays out in practice. How it affects the behaviour of development agencies and their staff as well as their ability to support the promotion of the kinds of transformational change which are likely to make a significant difference to the lives of people living in poverty and injustice. It is odd that those that argue for more evidence seem rather reluctant to admit that this is needed!

This is a debate we are keen to pursue further in the upcoming Big Push Forward conference on the Politics of Evidence.

The political implications of evidence-based approaches (aka start of this week’s wonkwar on the results agenda)

The debate on evidence and results continues to rage. Rosalind Eyben (left) and Chris Roche (right, dressed for battle), two of the organisers of April’s Big Push Forward conference on the Politics of  Evidence, kick off a discussion. Tomorrow Chris Whitty, DFID’s Director of Research and Evidence and Chief Scientific Adviser, and Stefan Dercon, its Chief Economist, respond

Distinct from its more general usage of what is observed or experienced, ‘evidence’ has acquired a particular meaning relating to proof about ‘what works’, particularly through robust evidence from rigorous experimental trials. But no-one really believes that it is feasible for external development assistance to consist purely of ‘technical’ interventions. Most development workers do not see themselves as scientists in a laboratory, but more as reflective practitioners seeking to learn how to support locally generated transformative processes for greater equity and social justice. Where have these experimental approaches come from and what is at stake?

The origins and critiques of evidence-based approaches

Evidence-based approaches are pre-occupied with avoiding bias and increasing the precision of estimates of effect. In the UK they spread beyond clinical practice when the government elected in 1997 was keen to demonstrate that its decisions would not be driven by political ideology but rather by objective evidence. Evidence-based approaches became linked to value for money concerns to deliver ‘results’ as efficiently and effectively as possible, by a government recently described as ‘truth junkies’.

Yet, even within medicine, the leap from evidence-based clinical practice into evidence-based policy was challenged. A British Medical Journal article by Nick Black in 2001 drew on an extensive body of contemporary literature on policy processes to argue that policy was shaped by institutional arrangements, values and beliefs and a variety of different sources of information.

Opponents of evidence-based education critiqued its positivist assumptions; its linear cause-effect thinking; and the poor understanding of the tensions between scientific and democratic control of educational practice. An OECD report in 2007 on the reasons for the uptake of evidence-based education in Sweden, the UK, Canada, the USA and Australia, noted the increasing pressure for greater accountability of expenditure and effectiveness, an explosion in the search for measurable outcomes, and demands that impacts and effectiveness be given a monetary value.

The same report noted that evidence-based approaches were largely absent in OECD countries ‘less used to empirical and quantitative methodologies in the social sciences.’ The de-politicization of policy making is one of the reasons given by development researchers for its neglect in France.

In UK social policy, evidence-based approaches with their ‘gold standard’ of experimental or quasi-experimental design, have been criticised as being inapplicable to complex issues. In What Works, Tony Harrison argued that evidence-based approaches can only apply in cases of individual treatment and not at the wider community level where multiple perspectives come into play and no agreement exists about the nature of the problem.This of course is the case with most development programmes, and in particular those that seek transformational change.

Evidence based approaches in development: an anti-politics firewall?

Arguably evidence-based approaches build an anti-politics firewall. Development assistance becomes a ‘technical’ best practice intervention based on rigorous objective evidence, delivering best value for money to domestic taxpayers and recipient country citizens mostly without interfering in that country’s politics. They are the latest manifestation of  a certain long-standing approach to development that as Timothy Mitchell wrote in Power of Development, speaks to the sector’s ‘need to overlook its internal involvement in the places and problems it analyses and present itself instead as an external intelligence that stands outside the objects it describes’.

In the 1930s Africa was seen as ‘a living laboratory’ to achieve improvements in the welfare of the populations. Evidence-based approaches are reviving the development-as-laboratory idea. In 2012 the World Bank established a Gender Innovation Lab to design ‘innovative interventions to address gender inequality and to develop rigorous research projects in order to produce evidence on what works and what does not’.  Jeffrey Sachs’ Millennium Villages have been framed as  ‘laboratories to lift people out of poverty’. The most well-known is the J-Pal Poverty Action Lab whose mission is to reduce poverty ‘by ensuring that policy is based on scientific evidence’.

In the absence of political debate, this approach can exacerbate the tendency to see people as subjects requiring treatment, rather than as citizens with political voice. Power silences any challenges to the technical framing of ‘the problem’, foreclosing discussion of the structural causes and consequences of inequity and how these should be tackled. To act ‘technically’ in a politically complex context can make external actors pawns of more powerful vested interests and therefore by default makes them, albeit unintentionally, political actors.

High stakes

Evidence-based technical approaches can therefore deflect attention from the centrality of power, politics and ideology in shaping society. We agree with the view of the Developmental Leadership Program that recent research suggests that  the development sector should be ‘at the frontier of a narrative shift between a technical, rational, and scientific approach to development, and a recognition that politics matters; that poverty reduction is not a technical problem but requires significant social change, and that this social change is, and must be, both political and locally led.’

However this has some significant implications for external actors. We need to be self-aware to avoid disempowering others.  This requires undertaking power analyses with ourselves factored in – as organisations and individuals who can make a positive or negative contribution, often inadvertently.  It means engaging with a wider and more diverse group of policy actors in the state, civil society and the private sector; whenever possible, supporting debate, locally-driven problem solving, and independent research. It means avoiding overly linear project-based aid modalities that demand omniscience before they have even begun.

As Michael Sandel has recently argued in his book about the moral limits to markets, how we put values (and prices) on things can change their meaning, as well as change the relationship between economic actors.  More information, (dare we say ‘evidence’), is needed to draw some firmer conclusions about the consequences of evidence-based approaches to designing projects and assessing results. This is why the Big Push Forward is currently seeking to crowd-source more information from development practitioners about how they actually experience the ‘results’ agenda, and why we believe this issue needs more debate.

And make sure you come back tomorrow for DFID’s counterblast