Dear members

The debate on evidence based policy is really interesting.  I've been quiet
for a while so for my good behaviour I thought I'd put my two pennies worth
to the debate.

On the face of it evidence based policy (EBP)seems like a really good idea
and it seems odd in this day and age that more policy cannot be shown to be
so.  However I can think of at least two reasons why we might be sceptical:


    1. 'evidence' is not nearly as neutral as it sounds.  Its ok to have
EBP but who is providing the evidence.  You only have to watch the news or
read the papers to see all political parties arguing that the evidence
shows this or proves that, one argues black, the other white.  In an ideal
world I guess it should be our job to produce neutral evidence- but we
don't do we!  You all have your dept.'s to look after and funding to secure
etc etc. not to mention our own moral agendas.  So while while evidence can
be a useful input into policy its not the be all and end all because it is
so vulnerable to manipulation.

     2.  The second downside as I see it is often the 'evidence' goes
against what politicians and policy makers would wish.  There are hundreds
of examples where Govt's make decisions in the best interests of everyone
based on 'evidence' that people don't actually support regardless.  You see
democracy is rule by the people for the people and says nothing about
having to be based on evidence.  Perhaps immagration is a good topical case
in point.  Many groups are at pains to show evidence that increased
immagration does not adversely affect either the economy or society.
However not everyone accepts that evidence or even cares about evidence
rather than the principle of helping people out who have contributed
nothing.


My own position (at present) is that EBP could and perhaps should be very
useful for the pursuit of welfare.  However if that is to be so then we
must carry the people with us.  Society at large needs to accept the
practice and be secure in the knowledge the any 'evidence' gathered is
transparent (its probably too much to ask that it can be truly neutral).

Anyway lets keep this debate going for a bit because its a good one (hows
that for non-evidence based policy, lol).
Tim Clark