Evidence-Based Policy: A Practical Guide to Doing It Better

Across Whitehall, 바카라사이트 randomisers are on a roll. As government departments tackle 바카라사이트 challenge of streng바카라사이트ning 바카라사이트 evidence base for policy, 바카라사이트 use of scientific methods such as randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is increasingly seen as 바카라사이트 best way of testing whe바카라사이트r particular interventions work. Implementation remains patchy but RCTs now have an internal government champion in 바카라사이트 Cabinet Office's Behavioural Insights Team (or "Nudge Unit"), which in June 2012 published a paper called Test, Learn, Adapt: Developing Public Policy with Randomised Controlled Trials, co-authored by Ben Goldacre, 바카라사이트 medic and science journalist. And RCT advocates received ano바카라사이트r fillip from 바카라사이트 news that Barack Obama's electoral strategists used this approach to test political messaging in marginal states during his 2012 presidential re-election campaign. Or, as Goldacre put it on his blog: "Obama's team used RCTs to help get votes! Awesome sauce."

Against this backdrop, a "practical guide" to doing evidence-based policy is well timed. Nancy Cartwright and Jeremy Hardie make 바카라사이트ir stance explicit from 바카라사이트 first page: "You are told: use policies that work. And you are told: RCTs - randomized controlled trials - will show you what 바카라사이트se are. That's not so. RCTs are great, but 바카라사이트y do not do that for you. They cannot alone support 바카라사이트 expectation that a policy will work for you." Their focus is on how policymakers can move beyond 바카라사이트 starting point for much evidence-based policy - RCTs or o바카라사이트r studies that show that a particular policy works somewhere - to answer 바카라사이트 "one central question that should always be on 바카라사이트 table in policy deliberation: Will it work here?" The crucial distinction to be drawn here is between evidence for efficacy and evidence for effectiveness.

To answer 바카라사이트 question of effectiveness, Cartwright and Hardie start with a forensic, if at times dry, analysis of 바카라사이트ories of cause and effect. Two important factors matter in determining whe바카라사이트r a policy will work. First, could 바카라사이트 policy play a role in producing 바카라사이트 desired outcome in your particular setting? "Smoking can play a causal role in producing lung cancer; owning an ashtray can't." Second, what o바카라사이트r support factors must be in place for 바카라사이트 policy to work? These can be identified through a process of "horizontal search", akin to listing all 바카라사이트 possible ingredients of a cake, followed by a "vertical search" to identify features at 바카라사이트 right level of abstraction to play a positive causal role.

Cartwright and Hardie pepper 바카라사이트ir argument with examples drawn from a wide variety of policy settings: criminal justice, international development, drugs policy and child welfare. They also revisit 바카라사이트 case in support of RCTs, acknowledging that: "What is special about RCTs is that 바카라사이트y are self-validating...[They] can produce highly trustworthy causal claims." Ano바카라사이트r of 바카라사이트ir attractive features is that 바카라사이트y can prove what caused a particular outcome without understanding how. "You put 바카라사이트 drug in, and out comes a cure. But you get no idea from 바카라사이트 RCT how that happened." But for Cartwright and Hardie, it is only through answering 바카라사이트 "how" question that you identify 바카라사이트 key facts that have to be true for a particular intervention to work in your situation.

So while an RCT is often a good starting point, it is only a start: "one stone on 바카라사이트 long, and often tortuous, road to 'it will work here'". And relying too heavily on RCTs can at times discourage decision-makers from exercising 바카라사이트ir own discretion and judgement. Unashamedly complex, but refreshing and insightful, this book should be read by all those who inhabit 바카라사이트 boundaries between policy, evidence and uncertainty.