IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/devpol/v41y2023i2ne12657.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How evidence, implementation, policy, and politics come together within evidence systems: Lessons from South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Ruth Stewart

Abstract

Motivation Although the field of evidence‐informed policy‐making has grown significantly in the last 20 years, little is written about how it manifests within government policy, and whether it makes a meaningful difference to development outcomes. This article seeks to fill that gap. Purpose Through reflection and analysis of shifts in the wider evidence ecosystem, and developments in South Africa specifically, the article describes how in South Africa the political and policy spheres come together with changes in production and use of evidence to increase the potential to improve the lives of millions of people. Methods and approach This article is based on structured reflection and analysis of 20 years of contributions to the evidence ecosystem in low‐, lower‐middle, and upper‐middle income countries (L&MICs), in particular in Africa. It includes analysis of documentation of initiatives, policies, and practices relating to the production and use of evidence, with a focus on South Africa. Findings There are clear shifts within evidence‐informed decision‐making (EIDM) systems over time in the production of evidence and in the implementation of evidence approaches. The varied experiences documented in South Africa and across L&MICs highlight valuable lessons for others. In South Africa the policies underpinning evidence use, and the political context in which evidence‐informed decision‐making takes place, combine to contribute to increasing use of evidence in the country. Reflecting on the system developments across Africa and further afield reveals how one country's system is both influenced by these wider contexts and has potential to influence the wider system with clear policy implications. Policy implications Routine use of evidence in decision‐making requires new practices to become standard across not only policy systems, but also evidence systems. Changes are needed across a range of actors, organizations, and institutions. There are lessons to be learnt from varied experiences including those in L&MICs, to inform advances towards the institutionalization of evidence use in policy. This case study highlights the importance of synergistic developments in both evidence production and use, of genuine partnerships at all levels, and of the policies and frameworks that underpin change.

Suggested Citation

  • Ruth Stewart, 2023. "How evidence, implementation, policy, and politics come together within evidence systems: Lessons from South Africa," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 41(2), March.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:devpol:v:41:y:2023:i:2:n:e12657
    DOI: 10.1111/dpr.12657
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12657
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/dpr.12657?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ruth Stewart & Harsha Dayal & Laurenz Langer & Carina van Rooyen, 2019. "The evidence ecosystem in South Africa: growing resilience and institutionalisation of evidence use," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-12, December.
    2. Willem Fourie & Isak van der Walt & Hannes Strydom & Christopher Marais, 2019. "South African system tracks SDG research," Nature, Nature, vol. 573(7773), pages 196-196, September.
    3. Huw T. O. Davies & Sandra M. Nutley & Peter C. Smith, 1999. "Viewpoint: Editorial: What Works? The Role of Evidence in Public Sector Policy and Practice," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(1), pages 3-5, January.
    4. Elizabeth N. Farley-Ripple & Kathryn Oliver & Annette Boaz, 2020. "Mapping the community: use of research evidence in policy and practice," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-10, December.
    5. Ruth Stewart, 2018. "Do evidence networks make a difference?," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(1), pages 171-178, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ruth Stewart & Harsha Dayal & Laurenz Langer & Carina van Rooyen, 2019. "The evidence ecosystem in South Africa: growing resilience and institutionalisation of evidence use," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-12, December.
    2. Piers Steel & Sjoerd Beugelsdijk & Herman Aguinis, 2021. "The anatomy of an award-winning meta-analysis: Recommendations for authors, reviewers, and readers of meta-analytic reviews," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 52(1), pages 23-44, February.
    3. Richard Manning & Ian Goldman & Gonzalo Hernández Licona, 2020. "The impact of impact evaluation: Are impact evaluation and impact evaluation synthesis contributing to evidence generation and use in low- and middle-income countries?," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2020-20, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    4. David P. Farrington & Brandon C. Welsh, 2001. "Preface," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 578(1), pages 8-13, November.
    5. Chris Painter & Emma Clarence, 2001. "UK Local Action Zones and Changing Urban Governance," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 38(8), pages 1215-1232, July.
    6. Ruth Stewart & Harsha Dayal & Laurenz Langer & Carina van Rooyen, 2022. "Transforming evidence for policy: do we have the evidence generation house in order?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-5, December.
    7. Thoto, Frejus & Mas Aparisi, Alban & Derlagen, Christian, 2023. "An ecosystemic framework for analysing evidence-informed policy systems for agricultural transformation – Case study of Benin," ESA Working Papers 330800, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Agricultural Development Economics Division (ESA).
    8. Jesper Dahl Kelstrup & Jonas Videbæk Jørgensen, 2024. "Explaining differences in research utilization in evidence-based government ministries," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(2), pages 257-280, June.
    9. Capasso, Marco & Hansen, Teis & Heiberg, Jonas & Klitkou, Antje & Steen, Markus, 2019. "Green growth – A synthesis of scientific findings," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 390-402.
    10. Yuwan Malakar & Justine Lacey & Paul M Bertsch, 2022. "Towards responsible science and technology: How nanotechnology research and development is shaping risk governance practices in Australia," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, December.
    11. Acuto, Michele & Dickey, Ariana & Butcher, Stephanie & Washbourne, Carla-Leanne, 2021. "Mobilising urban knowledge in an infodemic: Urban observatories, sustainable development and the COVID-19 crisis," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    12. Muench, Stefan & Guenther, Edeltraud, 2013. "A systematic review of bioenergy life cycle assessments," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 257-273.
    13. Gillian Bristow & John Farrington & Jon Shaw & Tim Richardson, 2009. "Developing an Evaluation for Crosscutting Policy Goals: The Accessibility Policy Assessment Tool," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(1), pages 48-62, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:devpol:v:41:y:2023:i:2:n:e12657. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/odioruk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.