IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v51y2018i3d10.1007_s11077-018-9318-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Neglected challenges to evidence-based policy-making: the problem of policy accumulation

Author

Listed:
  • Christian Adam

    (LMU Munich)

  • Yves Steinebach

    (LMU Munich)

  • Christoph Knill

    (LMU Munich)

Abstract

Claims for evidence-based policy-making are motivated by the assumption that if practitioners and scholars want to learn about effective policy design, they also can. This paper argues that this is becoming more and more challenging with the conventional approaches due to the accumulation of national policy portfolios, characterized by (a) a growing number of different policy targets and instruments, that (b) are often interdependent and (c) reformed in an uncontrolled way. These factors undermine our ability to accurately relate outcome changes to individual components within the respective policy mix. Therefore, policy accumulation becomes an additional source of the well-known ‘attribution problem’ in evaluation research. We argue that policy accumulation poses fundamental challenges to existing approaches of evidence-based policy-making. Moreover, these challenges are very likely to create a trade-off between the need for increasing methodological sophistication on one side, and the decreasing political impact of more fine-grained and conditional findings of evaluation results on the other.

Suggested Citation

  • Christian Adam & Yves Steinebach & Christoph Knill, 2018. "Neglected challenges to evidence-based policy-making: the problem of policy accumulation," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(3), pages 269-290, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:51:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s11077-018-9318-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-018-9318-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-018-9318-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-018-9318-4?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Beryl A. Radin, 2009. "What can we expect from performance measurement activities?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(3), pages 505-512.
    2. Andrea Bassanini & Romain Duval, 2009. "Unemployment, institutions, and reform complementarities: re-assessing the aggregate evidence for OECD countries," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 25(1), pages 40-59, Spring.
    3. May, Peter J., 1991. "Reconsidering Policy Design: Policies and Publics," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 187-206, April.
    4. Michael Howlett & Jeremy Rayner, 2013. "Patching vs Packaging in Policy Formulation: Assessing Policy Portfolio Design," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 1(2), pages 170-182.
    5. Maureen A. Pirog & Kathleen M. Ziol-Guest, 2006. "Child support enforcement: Programs and policies, impacts and questions," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(4), pages 943-990.
    6. Carley, Sanya, 2009. "State renewable energy electricity policies: An empirical evaluation of effectiveness," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 3071-3081, August.
    7. Thelen,Kathleen, 2004. "How Institutions Evolve," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521546744, September.
    8. Rachel Glennerster, 2012. "The Power of Evidence: Improving the Effectiveness of Government by Investing in More Rigorous Evaluation," National Institute Economic Review, National Institute of Economic and Social Research, vol. 219(1), pages 4-14, January.
    9. Brambor, Thomas & Clark, William Roberts & Golder, Matt, 2006. "Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 63-82, January.
    10. Thelen,Kathleen, 2004. "How Institutions Evolve," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521837682, September.
    11. Rosalie L. Pacula & David Powell & Paul Heaton & Eric L. Sevigny, 2015. "Assessing the Effects of Medical Marijuana Laws on Marijuana Use: The Devil is in the Details," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(1), pages 7-31, January.
    12. Giliberto Capano & Andrea Lippi, 2017. "How policy instruments are chosen: patterns of decision makers’ choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 269-293, June.
    13. Ulf Rinne & Klaus Zimmermann, 2012. "Another economic miracle? The German labor market and the Great Recession," IZA Journal of Labor Policy, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 1(1), pages 1-21, December.
    14. McCONNELL, ALLAN, 2010. "Policy Success, Policy Failure and Grey Areas In-Between," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 345-362, December.
    15. Linder, Stephen H. & Peters, B. Guy, 1989. "Instruments of Government: Perceptions and Contexts," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 35-58, January.
    16. Burt S Barnow, 2000. "Exploring the relationship between performance management and program impact: A case study of the job training partnership act," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(1), pages 118-141.
    17. Philip Davies, 2012. "The State of Evidence-Based Policy Evaluation and its Role in Policy Formation," National Institute Economic Review, National Institute of Economic and Social Research, vol. 219(1), pages 41-52, January.
    18. Christian Adam & Christoph Knill & Xavier Fernandez-i-Marín, 2017. "Rule growth and government effectiveness: why it takes the capacity to learn and coordinate to constrain rule growth," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 241-268, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hyensup Shim & Kiyoon Shin, 2021. "Empirical Analysis of Evidence-Based Policymaking in R&D Programmes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-15, December.
    2. Guillermo M. Cejudo & Philipp Trein, 2023. "Pathways to policy integration: a subsystem approach," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(1), pages 9-27, March.
    3. Martino Maggetti & Philipp Trein, 2022. "Policy integration, problem-solving, and the coronavirus disease crisis: lessons for policy design [Neglected challenges to evidence-based policy-making: The problem of policy accumulation]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 41(1), pages 53-67.
    4. Alexandra Lesnikowski & James D. Ford & Robbert Biesbroek & Lea Berrang-Ford, 2019. "A policy mixes approach to conceptualizing and measuring climate change adaptation policy," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 156(4), pages 447-469, October.
    5. Stijn Voorst & Ellen Mastenbroek, 2019. "Evaluations as a decent knowledge base? Describing and explaining the quality of the European Commission’s ex-post legislative evaluations," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(4), pages 625-644, December.
    6. Thomas Bolognesi & Florence Metz & Stéphane Nahrath, 2021. "Institutional complexity traps in policy integration processes: a long-term perspective on Swiss flood risk management," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(4), pages 911-941, December.
    7. Yves Steinebach, 2022. "Instrument choice, implementation structures, and the effectiveness of environmental policies: A cross‐national analysis," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 225-242, January.
    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. Martino Maggetti & Philipp Trein, 2021. "More is less: Partisan ideology, changes of government, and policy integration reforms in the UK [“Neglected Challenges to Evidence-Based Policy-Making: The Problem of Policy Accumulation.”]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 40(1), pages 79-98.
    10. Nicole Lemke & Philipp Trein & Frédéric Varone, 2023. "Agenda-setting in nascent policy subsystems: issue and instrument priorities across venues," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(4), pages 633-655, December.
    11. Sébastien Lambelet, 2023. "Unintended policy integration through entrepreneurship at the implementation stage," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(1), pages 161-189, March.
    12. Birgit A. Henrich & Thomas Hoppe & Devin Diran & Zofia Lukszo, 2021. "The Use of Energy Models in Local Heating Transition Decision Making: Insights from Ten Municipalities in The Netherlands," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-23, January.

    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. Giliberto Capano & Michael Howlett, 2020. "The Knowns and Unknowns of Policy Instrument Analysis: Policy Tools and the Current Research Agenda on Policy Mixes," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440199, January.
    2. Ilana Shpaizman, 2020. "The end–means nexus and policy conversion: evidence from two cases in Israeli immigrant integration policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(4), pages 713-733, December.
    3. Michael Howlett & Ishani Mukherjee, 2014. "Policy Design and Non-Design: Towards a Spectrum of Policy Formulation Types," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 2(2), pages 57-71.
    4. Daniel Béland & Michael Howlett & Philip Rocco & Alex Waddan, 2020. "Designing policy resilience: lessons from the Affordable Care Act," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 269-289, June.
    5. Araz Taeihagh, 2017. "Network-centric policy design," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 317-338, June.
    6. Ishani Mukherjee, 2021. "Rethinking the procedural in policy instrument ‘Compounds’: a renewable energy policy perspective [Introducing vertical policy coordination to comparative policy analysis: The missing link between ," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 40(3), pages 312-332.
    7. Biegert, Thomas, 2017. "Welfare benefits and unemployment in affluent democracies: the moderating role of the institutional insider/outsider divide," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 85913, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Michael Howlett, 2014. "From the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ policy design: design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(3), pages 187-207, September.
    9. Biegert, Thomas, 2017. "Welfare Benefits and Unemployment in Affluent Democracies: The Moderating Role of the Institutional Insider/Outsider Divide," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 82(5), pages 1037-1064.
    10. Ishani Mukherjee & M. Kerem Coban & Azad Singh Bali, 2021. "Policy capacities and effective policy design: a review," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(2), pages 243-268, June.
    11. HaeOk Choi & KwangHo Lee, 2020. "Toward Sustainable and Inclusive Regulatory Policies to Meet Public Demands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-18, October.
    12. Michael Howlett & Jeremy Rayner, 2013. "Patching vs Packaging in Policy Formulation: Assessing Policy Portfolio Design," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 1(2), pages 170-182.
    13. Michael Howlett & Pablo del Rio, 2015. "The parameters of policy portfolios: verticality and horizontality in design spaces and their consequences for policy mix formulation," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 33(5), pages 1233-1245, October.
    14. Коршунов И. А. & Гапонова О. С., 2017. "Непрерывное Образование Взрослых В Контексте Экономического Развития И Качества Государственного Управления," Вопросы образования // Educational Studies Moscow, National Research University Higher School of Economics, issue 4, pages 36-59.
    15. Paul Ryan & Howard Gospel & Paul Lewis, 2007. "Large Employers and Apprenticeship Training in Britain," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 45(1), pages 127-153, March.
    16. Anke Hassel, 2014. "Adjustments in the Eurozone: Varieties of Capitalism and the Crisis in Southern Europe," Europe in Question Discussion Paper Series of the London School of Economics (LEQs) 6, London School of Economics / European Institute.
    17. Giliberto Capano & Andrea Lippi, 2017. "How policy instruments are chosen: patterns of decision makers’ choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 269-293, June.
    18. Eriksson, Martin & Pettersson, Thomas, 2012. "Adapting to liberalization: government procurement of interregional passenger transports in Sweden, 1989–2008," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 182-188.
    19. Malte Luebker, 2019. "Can the Structure of Inequality Explain Fiscal Redistribution? Revisiting the Social Affinity Hypothesis," LIS Working papers 762, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.
    20. Hanno JENTZSCH, 2017. "Tracing the Local Origins of Farmland Policies in Japan—Local-National Policy Transfers and Endogenous Institutional Change," Social Science Japan Journal, University of Tokyo and Oxford University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 243-260.

    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:kap:policy:v:51:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s11077-018-9318-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.