IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jodepp/v6y2021i2p137-143.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evidence-based Policy in India: Crossing the Long, Uphill Bridge

Author

Listed:
  • Abhirup Bhunia

Abstract

The evidence-based-policy ecosystem, and its arsenal of approaches and techniques need course-correction to adequately respond to complex and practical policymaking contexts. Experimental findings do not resonate in scale implementation, particularly in large and diverse contexts like India’s. Causal empiricism leaves out investigation of complex pathways and impact mechanisms, while ‘evidence’ often disengages political economy considerations. Surmounting the methodological constrictions—which limit the utility and uptake of such evidence for a decisionmaker—requires being able to sufficiently account for institutional factors, social norms, politics, and stakeholder incentives among other related influences in policymaking. This may be possible through robust use of qualitative nuances, and integration of political economy analysis towards adopting a realist approach in evidence generation. It is important to acknowledge that measurement alone should qualify as neither evaluation or research. The state of research, its guiding principles, approaches and methods are often directed by current influences and preferences of stakeholders who are in a position to shape discourse. Interjections by more stakeholders are urgently needed to orient evidence generation to ‘real world’ realities and respond to the non-linear complexities of developmental change pathways.

Suggested Citation

  • Abhirup Bhunia, 2021. "Evidence-based Policy in India: Crossing the Long, Uphill Bridge," Journal of Development Policy and Practice, , vol. 6(2), pages 137-143, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:jodepp:v:6:y:2021:i:2:p:137-143
    DOI: 10.1177/24551333211035566
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/24551333211035566
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/24551333211035566?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. Gisselquist Rachel M. & Niño-Zarazúa Miguel, 2015. "What Can Experiments Tell Us About How to Improve Government Performance?," Journal of Globalization and Development, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-45, June.
    2. Angus Deaton & Nancy Cartwright, 2016. "Understanding and Misunderstanding Randomized Controlled Trials," Working Papers august_25.pdf, Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Research Program in Development Studies..
    3. Alexander Frankel & Maximilian Kasy, 2022. "Which Findings Should Be Published?," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(1), pages 1-38, February.
    4. Deaton, Angus & Cartwright, Nancy, 2018. "Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 2-21.
    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. Vellore Arthi & James Fenske, 2018. "Polygamy and child mortality: Historical and modern evidence from Nigeria’s Igbo," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 97-141, March.
    2. Andreas C Drichoutis & Rodolfo M Nayga, 2020. "Economic Rationality under Cognitive Load," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(632), pages 2382-2409.
    3. Jörg Peters & Jörg Langbein & Gareth Roberts, 2018. "Generalization in the Tropics – Development Policy, Randomized Controlled Trials, and External Validity," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 33(1), pages 34-64.
    4. Maurizio Canavari & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2018. "How to run an experimental auction: A review of recent advances," Working Papers 2018-5, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    5. Vicky Chemutai & Hubert Escaith, 2017. "Measuring World Trade Organization (WTO) Accession Commitments and their Economic Effects," Journal of International Commerce, Economics and Policy (JICEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 8(02), pages 1-27, June.
    6. Ashkan Pakseresht & Brandon R McFadden & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2017. "Consumer acceptance of food biotechnology based on policy context and upstream acceptance: evidence from an artefactual field experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(5), pages 757-780.
    7. Sutherland, Alex & Ariel, Barak & Farrar, William & De Anda, Randy, 2017. "Post-experimental follow-ups—Fade-out versus persistence effects: The Rialto police body-worn camera experiment four years on," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 110-116.
    8. Robin Maialeh, 2019. "Generalization of results and neoclassical rationality: unresolved controversies of behavioural economics methodology," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 1743-1761, July.
    9. Florent Bédécarrats & Isabelle Guérin & François Roubaud, 2019. "All that Glitters is not Gold. The Political Economy of Randomized Evaluations in Development," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 50(3), pages 735-762, May.
    10. Alexander Ruder, 2019. "What Works at Scale? A Framework to Scale Up Workforce Development Programs," FRB Atlanta Community and Economic Development Discussion Paper 2019-1, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
    11. Boris Salazar-Trujillo & Daniel Otero Robles, 2019. "La revolución empírica en economía," Apuntes del Cenes, Universidad Pedagógica y Tecnológica de Colombia, vol. 38(68), pages 15-48, July.
    12. Gustavo Canavire-Bacarreza & Luis Castro Peñarrieta & Darwin Ugarte Ontiveros, 2021. "Outliers in Semi-Parametric Estimation of Treatment Effects," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-32, April.
    13. Anthony Yezer & Yishen Liu, 2017. "Can Differences Deceive? The Case of “Foreclosure Externalities"," Working Papers 2017-29, The George Washington University, Institute for International Economic Policy.
    14. Justman, Moshe, 2018. "Randomized controlled trials informing public policy: Lessons from project STAR and class size reduction," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 167-174.
    15. Huber, Martin & Steinmayr, Andreas, 2017. "A Framework for Separating Individual Treatment Effects From Spillover, Interaction, and General Equilibrium Effects," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 21, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    16. Rao, Vijayendra & Ananthpur, Kripa & Malik, Kabir, 2017. "The Anatomy of Failure: An Ethnography of a Randomized Trial to Deepen Democracy in Rural India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 481-497.
    17. Moshe Justman, 2016. "Economic Research and Education Policy: Project STAR and Class Size Reduction," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2016n37, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    18. Andor, Mark A. & Gerster, Andreas & Peters, Jörg & Schmidt, Christoph M., 2020. "Social Norms and Energy Conservation Beyond the US," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    19. Margaret Dalziel, 2018. "Why are there (almost) no randomised controlled trial-based evaluations of business support programmes?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-9, December.
    20. Fausto Hernández-Trillo & Ana Laura Martínez-Gutiérrez, 2022. "The Dark Road to Credit Applications: The Small-Business Case of Mexico," Journal of Financial Services Research, Springer;Western Finance Association, vol. 62(1), pages 1-25, October.

    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:sae:jodepp:v:6:y:2021:i:2:p:137-143. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.