IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v57y2024i2d10.1007_s11077-024-09529-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Explaining differences in research utilization in evidence-based government ministries

Author

Listed:
  • Jesper Dahl Kelstrup

    (Roskilde University)

  • Jonas Videbæk Jørgensen

    (Roskilde University)

Abstract

Studies of evidence-based policy have found that research often fails to influence policy-making and identify a number of barriers to research utilization. Less is known about what public administrations do to overcome such barriers. The article draws on a content analysis of 1,159 documents and 13 qualitative interviews to compare how and why evidence standards affect research utilization in two Danish ministries with available evidence, policy analytical capacity, and broad political agreement on key policy goals. The article finds support for the proposition that more exclusive evidence standards in ministries will lead to higher levels of research utilization by showing that average levels of research utilization are higher in the Ministry of Employment than in the Ministry of Children and Education in the period 2016?2021. In active employment policy the adoption an evidence hierarchy and the accumulating evidence in a knowledge bank has interacted with stakeholder support and a continued coordination with the Ministry of Finance to provide economic incentives for policy-makers to adopt evidence-based policies thus stimulating research utilization. Evidence for public education policy, by contrast, has been more contested and the Ministry of Children of Education retains inclusive evidence standards in an attempt to integrate evidencebased and practical knowledge from stakeholders, which has led to lower average levels of utilization in the period.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:57:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s11077-024-09529-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-024-09529-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-024-09529-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-024-09529-6?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. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    2. Annette Boaz & Siobhan Fitzpatrick & Ben Shaw, 2009. "Assessing the impact of research on policy: A literature review," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(4), pages 255-270, May.
    3. Jennifer E. Mosley & Katherine Gibson, 2017. "Strategic use of evidence in state-level policymaking: matching evidence type to legislative stage," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 697-719, December.
    4. Falk Daviter, 2015. "The political use of knowledge in the policy process," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(4), pages 491-505, December.
    5. Justin O. Parkhurst, 2016. "Appeals to evidence for the resolution of wicked problems: the origins and mechanisms of evidentiary bias," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 373-393, December.
    6. Adam,Christian & Hurka,Steffen & Knill,Christoph & Steinebach,Yves, 2019. "Policy Accumulation and the Democratic Responsiveness Trap," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781108481199.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Giliberto Capano & Anna Malandrino, 2022. "Mapping the use of knowledge in policymaking: barriers and facilitators from a subjectivist perspective (1990–2020)," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(3), pages 399-428, September.
    10. May, Peter J. & Koski, Chris & Stramp, Nicholas, 2016. "Issue expertise in policymaking," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(2), pages 195-218, June.
    11. Fischer,Frank, 2021. "Truth and Post-Truth in Public Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781108796071.
    12. Joshua Newman & Adrian Cherney & Brian W. Head, 2017. "Policy capacity and evidence-based policy in the public service," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(2), pages 157-174, February.
    13. Jon Baron, 2018. "A Brief History of Evidence-Based Policy," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 678(1), pages 40-50, July.
    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. Yongjin Choi & Ashley M. Fox & Jennifer Dodge, 2022. "What counts? Policy evidence in public hearing testimonies: the case of single-payer healthcare in New York State," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(4), pages 631-660, December.
    2. Hyensup Shim & Kiyoon Shin, 2021. "Empirical Analysis of Evidence-Based Policymaking in R&D Programmes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-15, December.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Torgler, Benno & Schneider, Friedrich & Schaltegger, Christoph A., 2007. "With or Against the People? The Impact of a Bottom-Up Approach on Tax Morale and the Shadow Economy," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt6331x6vz, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
    7. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    8. Christina Leuker & Thorsten Pachur & Ralph Hertwig & Timothy J. Pleskac, 2019. "Do people exploit risk–reward structures to simplify information processing in risky choice?," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 76-94, August.
    9. Jae Wook Yoo & Richard Reed & Shung Jae Shin & David J. Lemak, 2009. "Strategic Choice and Performance in Late Movers: Influence of the Top Management Team's External Ties," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 308-335, March.
    10. Giovanni Calice & Levent Kutlu & Ming Zeng, 2021. "Understanding US firm efficiency and its asset pricing implications," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 803-827, February.
    11. Westerhoff, Frank H. & Dieci, Roberto, 2006. "The effectiveness of Keynes-Tobin transaction taxes when heterogeneous agents can trade in different markets: A behavioral finance approach," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 293-322, February.
    12. José Castro Caldas & Helder Coelho, 1999. "The Origin of Institutions: Socio-Economic Processes, Choice, Norms and Conventions," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 2(2), pages 1-1.
    13. Nagler Matthew G., 2007. "Understanding the Internet's Relevance to Media Ownership Policy: A Model of Too Many Choices," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-28, June.
    14. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    15. Westerhoff Frank H., 2008. "The Use of Agent-Based Financial Market Models to Test the Effectiveness of Regulatory Policies," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 228(2-3), pages 195-227, April.
    16. Andrew Caplin & Mark Dean & Daniel Martin, 2011. "Search and Satisficing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(7), pages 2899-2922, December.
    17. Shi, Yi & Deng, Yawen & Wang, Guoan & Xu, Jiuping, 2020. "Stackelberg equilibrium-based eco-economic approach for sustainable development of kitchen waste disposal with subsidy policy: A case study from China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    18. Lawrence Bunnell & Kweku-Muata Osei-Bryson & Victoria Y. Yoon, 0. "RecSys Issues Ontology: A Knowledge Classification of Issues for Recommender Systems Researchers," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-42.
    19. da Silveira, Jaylson Jair & Lima, Gilberto Tadeu, 2021. "Wage inequality as a source of endogenous macroeconomic fluctuations," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 35-52.
    20. Nathan N. Cheek & Jacob Goebel, 2020. "What does it mean to maximize? “Decision difficulty,†indecisiveness, and the jingle-jangle fallacies in the measurement of maximizing," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(1), pages 7-24, January.

    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:57:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s11077-024-09529-6. 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.