Neata Georgiana RAP Final Essay

8/3/2019 Neata Georgiana RAP Final Essay

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/neata-georgiana-rap-final-essay 1/6

CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY

10

RESEARCH AND POLICYFinal Essay (autumn semester)

Neata Georgiana



Research and policy

³Indeed, the traditional pattern of policy making in which government bureaucrats have

played a predominant role has come under fire in recent years.[...] These politicians have

begun taking legislative initiatives in areas where social needs clearly require addressing but where government bureaucracy has constrained efforts to address them. [...] Yet these

politicians are not sufficiently equipped with the necessary support structure for conducting

legislative activities. Alternate source of policy ideas from outside the government

bureaucracy are very much needed [...].´

Introduction

Living in a dynamic society in which knowledge means power is even more surprising how

people still oppose resistance towards evidence in making policy and are more likely to create

policies based on ideology, superstition or unconscious bias. Therefore, the aim of this essay

is to look at the much controversial issue of the evidence based policy process, by trying to

answer two questions: is there a gap between policy and research? and, should scientificevidence to a larger extent be the basis of policy making? In my attempt to find the answers

for these questions I will present in the first part of this paper the meaning of this so called

gap by presenting the dispute between evidence based policy and policy based evidence, and

what are the factors that lead to this conflict between policy makers and researchers. The

second part will focus on the position of Japan¶s government towards evidence based policy

making approach, and in order to have a complete picture about the topic I will also present

ways in which we can bridge policy and research.

Firstly I would like to show the importance of policy research and evidence in creating

policies. Considering the policy cycle model it is said that policy research plays an important

role at every stage of the process: in helping to frame and understand problems that demand

policy intervention, in comparing the likely impact of alternative policy solutions to these

problems and in evaluating the ultimate impact of any measure that is put into effect. I

believe that the importance of evidence based policy also comes from the need for good

governance, that should be judged in terms of the quality of the decisions taken and policies

adopted, specifically whether they produce outcomes more likely, however, clearly depends

to a large extent on the quality of the policy advice that is injected into the governance

process to help guide key decision makers (Paul Burton, 2006).

Defining the problem

The mean of the gap between policy and research is that researchers often consider that thereis no political audience for their work despite the important observations they make and

policy relevant explanations they develop, and on the other side, policy makers often consider

that what researchers contribute is not relevant, too esoteric and asking theoretical questions

that do not resonate with the needs of policy makers. Or how Danida Report presents it:

³Where one group feels nobody listens, the other feels their opposite numbers have little to

say´. In words of Diane Stone we can say that there is a lack of dialogue between researchers

and policy makers and that inadequate or insufficient use is made of research findings.



Next I will show the factors that lead to this gap both from the view of policy makers and

researchers, or how Diane Stone1

puts it from the demand side and also from the supply side.

Policy makers argue that there is an inadequate supply of policy relevant research, that there

is currently insufficient information for policy planning; or where evidence exists there is a

lack of access to research, data and analysis. Furthermore the supply of research is flawed

due to the poor policy comprehension of researchers about the policy process and howresearch might be relevant to this process. Research recommendations can be impossible to

implement because political realities are not addressed. Or even if the comprehension exists,

researchers are ineffective communicators, they usually cannot and often do not want to

provide the unequivocal answers or solutions of the kind policy-makers demand.

On the other side, one of the problems researchers imply is that their work is undermined by

the ignorance of politicians or overstretched bureaucrats about the existence of policy ±

relevant research. Decision makers have limited time and resources. Consequently, they

employ information from trusted sources ± usually in-house or close to the centre of power ±

to help generate simple and understandable recommendations about complex problems. They

may be unaware of cutting ± edge research. Another argument is that there is a tendency for

anti ± intellectualism in government that mitigates against the use of research in policy ±

making, while the policy process itself is riddled with a fear of the critical power of ideas.

But even if they are not ignorant or censorious, policy makers and leaders may be incapable

of absorbing and using research. Problems arise from the politicisation of research. Research

findings are easy to abuse, either through selective use, decontextualisation, or misquotation.

Decision makers do this in order to reinforce existing policy preferences or prejudices.

Alternatively, they gather and utilise information to support their policy positions as well as

to legitimise decision outcomes.

Improving the relation between policy and researchThe value of research is based primarily on the rigour with which it is undertaken and hence

the robustness of its findings and conclusions, although the significance of timeliness and

presentation is also acknowledged. However, the demonstrable and persistent failure to use

much of the evidence generated by policy research presents a problem under this conception

as the inherent quality of the research cannot account adequately for this lack of utilisation.

The solution seems to lie in a number of developments.

First, policy research should be driven more by the needs and requirements of policy makers

than by the inquisitive preferences of researchers. Second, forward planning and greater

dialogue between researchers and policy makers can harmonise the cycles of research and

policy making so that research evidence is more likely to be available when policy makersneed it. Third, policy researchers are encouraged to present their findings more clearly,

concisely and coherently and to avoid an overly ³academic´ style of writing in which a

highly specialised language is used, definitive conclusions are often eschewed and there is a

preoccupation with methodology and citation of the work of others. Finally, policy

researchers are urged to pay more attention to the quality of their research.

1Diane Stone, Using Knowledge: the dilemmas of Bridging Research and Policy, 2002



This is seen to lie mainly in the design of research as well as the application of relevant

methods and is manifest most clearly in ongoing debates about the value of experimental and

other methods in outcome evaluations. However, there is also a perceived need to improve

standards in the conduct of qualitative research and to develop more widespread competence

in quantitative research and to develop more widespread competence in quantitative

analytical techniques in public policy analysis (Paul Burton, 2006).

Further I will have a look at the attitude that concrete governments have in what it concerns

the importance of policy research and evidence in constructing policies, and for this I will

present the case of Japan¶s government and the sources of advice it uses in developing

policies in the way that R Kent Weaver and Paul B Stares2

sees it .

Japan¶s model

Along with the more active, substantive involvement of politicians in legislative activities in

recent years, there has emerged a distinct trend for more politicians to seek independent

sources of advice outside the government bureaucracy. The role of government bureaucrats in

the policymaking process has declined because of their inability to cope with pluralisticsocial needs, as evidenced by some clear cases of policy failures, and because of the

enactment of specific legislation to curb their influence.

The new political environment in Japan calls out for a critical assessment of possible sources

of policy ideas that can help politicians formulate policy initiatives or equip themselves with

a better understanding of diverse policy options. Moreover there is a growing awareness that

there should be greater involvement of diverse actors in the policy debate and the legislative

process in response to the growing diversification of interests within society and the

increasing complexities of Japan¶s external relationship.

Besides the resources available to the legislative branch (The House of Representatives andthe House of Councillors both have research staff attached to their committees) and the

legislative assistants available to members of Diet, in Japan there are also research

departments assigned for each major political party, whose staff members are not policy

research experts but party operatives that have the job to organize the numerous meetings that

take place under the auspices of Policy Affairs Research Council.

Given the lack of internal competence for generating policy ideas and initiatives, political

leaders have voiced the need for their parties to develop think thanks of their own. The LDP

has its think tank whose board is made up of party officials, that have the limited role to

assemble policy related data, although they work occasionally with outside experts to

generate policy ideas. In Japan, the contribution of think tanks to the policy process has been

limited by the dominant role of civil servants in the formulation of public policy.

Though the number of research institutes in Japan is very large, they are very different from

those in the United States, specifically, many of them being for profit institutions. So, from

2R Kent Weaver and Paul B Stares, Guidance for Governance, comparing alternative sources of public policy

advice, 2001



the 332 think tanks studies show to be in Japan, 46.5% are for profit institutes. Another

characteristic of Japanese think tanks is that they are closely associated with government

agencies or major corporations and are often regarded as their subsidiaries. More than 40

percent of think tanks worldwide make all their research output available to the public, while

only one institute in Japan does so; more than 75 percent of think thanks worldwide

published all or mostly all of their research, while less than 50 percent in Japan does so. Oneway think tanks in Japan do contribute to the public debate is through the constant visibility

of their leaders in the media, at Diet hearings, on government commissions, and at public

occasions.

NGOs, academics, and leading citizens have set in motion additional initiatives sources of

policy advice in Japan. These groups usually operate with specific goals in mind, seeking to

convince politicians of the need for certain policy. Another source of advice used in Japan are

the private advisory councils for political leaders, consultative organs to government

agencies, that are often portrayed as ³helpless or willing tools of their parent agencies, they

have been tarred as robots cheerleaders backers tunnel organizations and ornaments. At best

these councils are regarded as an effort by the bureaucracy to counteract the diminished

authority of the civil service after World War II and generate public trust in the impartiality

and openness of the bureaucracy.

The debate over governance in Japan has centred on moving away from the ineffective

bureaucracy led system. The infrastructure to support the policymaking initiatives of elected

politicians is still very fragile. In particular there are few alternative sources of policy ideas

for legislators to rely on outside the government bureaucracy. There is multiplicity of

challenges in creating independent institutions for the provision of alternative policy advice,

building a funding base that circumvents control by the government agencies and recruiting

competent policy experts to meet short term requirements. There is as well the need to

develop a stable supply of human resources by providing training and assuring a secure

career path, to develop a market for policy advice among politicians, and to orient politicians

in different ways of policymaking.

Conclusion

John D Sterman3 sees the problem as: ³Creating a healthy, sustainable future requires a

fundamental shift in the way we generate, learn from, and act on evidence about the delayed

and distal effects of our technologies, policies, and institutions. What prevents us from

overcoming policy resistance is not a lack of resources, technical knowledge, or a genuine

commitment to change. What thwarts us is our lack of meaningful systems thinking.´

Policy makers should recognise the enlightenment that can be brought to bear on the general

policy environment by social scientific concepts, theories and ideas. Still I must admit that

this ideal method of policy making has its flows, and cannot be always used, because it may

be expensive and time consuming, but evidence based policy process should be the rule and

not the exception in creating policies.

33John D. Sterman, Learning from evidence in a complex world, American Journal of Public Health, March

2006, Vol 96, No. 3



Bibliography

1. John D. Sterman, ³Learning from evidence in a complex world´, American Journal of

Public Health, March 2006, Vol 96, No. 32. R Kent Weaver and Paul B Stares, ³Guidance for Governance, comparing alternative

sources of public policy advice´, 2001

3. Diane Stone, ³Using Knowledge: the dilemmas of µBridging Research and Policy¶´,

2002

4. Paul Burton, ³Modernising the policy process ± Making policy research more

significant?´, Policy Studies, Vol 27, No 3, 2006

Documents

Neata Georgiana RAP Final Essay