EVIDENCE-BASED POLICY OR POLICY-BASED EVIDENCE - THE VIEW FROM EXPERIENCE

CHAPMAN, BRUCE   ADDRESS TO ECONOMICS SOCIETY OF AUSTRALIA, QLD ON 6/10/10

TOPIC:  EVIDENCE-BASED POLICY AND POLICY-BASED EVIDENCE

I have twice had the privilege of hearing Professor Bruce Chapman, Director of Policy Impact at the Crawford School of Economics and Government at the Australian National University, speak on the topic of evidence-based policy and policy-based evidence (Richard Mulgan’s notion), drawing on his involvement in the development of far-reaching policies from the Hawke and Keating governments and from his experience as a member of the 2009 Bradley Review Panel. 

The catalyst for Professor Chapman’s thinking and speaking on this topic was an invitation to give testimony to the Productivity Commission’s 2009 inquiry into Contemporary Government Challenges: Challenges of evidence-based policy-making.

In his preparation for the Inquiry, Professor Chapman applied to each policy process a label indicating whether it had been an example of evidence-based policy (Type 1 – in which evidence caused a re-think and recreation of policy) or an example of policy-based evidence (Type 2 – in which evidence was sought to justify a position or policy outcome already chosen by the relevant minister).  The policies analysed were:  the Higher Education Contributions Scheme (HECS)(Dawkins);  Working Nation (Keating); and reforms to the “independent-at-home” Youth Allowance (IAH).  Of these, the genesis of Working Nation from long-term unemployment projections data (which revealed information not present in Treasury modelling) and the reforms to the  IAH  were considered to be Type 1; the Working Nation expenditure debate using the unemployment/vacancy rate curve as evidence was considered to be Type 2; and HECS was considered to be an amalgam of Type 1 and Type 2.

His observed that:

• some data have been directly influential in policy reform (long-term unemployment projections and a comparison of the household incomes of youth allowance and non-youth allowance groups of students)
• other evidence is used to back up decisions already made and to silence critics (age-earnings profiles for HECS and unemployment/vacancy rate for Working Nation expenditure debate)
• academics may find that their involvement in policy-making can support either type
• in policy implementation, timing is critical and evidence used may be inappropriate because it has been misunderstood (for example: 10,000 jobs lost from the coal-mining industry from ETS is not significant when the on-going scale of job creation and job-losses is taken into account)
• about 90% of policies developed do not eventuate.

Professor Chapman’s observations on the nature of policy development provide some reassurance to policy officers and policy analysts grappling with the current array of complex policy issues facing governments.  Many will find his observations about the use of evidence for policy or political purposes and the consignment of so much policy effort to the metaphorical “garbage can” echo their own experiences.  His reflections on his historical policy experience will serve to demonstrate that the frustrations that many endure in order to produce policy are part of the nature of the policy development beast.