Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-04T19:50:30.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Policy Practitioners’ Accounts of Evidence-Based Policy Making: The Case of Universal Credit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 July 2018

MARK MONAGHAN Open the ORCID record for MARK MONAGHAN [Opens in a new window]  and
JO INGOLD
MARK MONAGHAN
Affiliation:
Social Sciences, Loughborough University, Brockington Building, Loughborough LE11 3TU, United Kingdom email: [email protected]
JO INGOLD
Affiliation:
Business School, University of Leeds, Maurice Keyworth Building, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds, West Yorkshire LS2 9JT, United Kingdom email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper draws on insider accounts from UK Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) officials to analyse the relationship between evidence and policy making at a time of rapid policy development relating to Universal Credit (UC). The paper argues, firstly, that evidence selection within the DWP was constrained by the overarching austerity paradigm, which constituted a Zeitgeist and had a significant bearing on the evidence selection and translation process, sharpening the focus of policy officials and analysts on the primacy of quantitative evidence when advising Ministers. Secondly, while methodological preferences (or an ‘evidence hierarchy’) impacted on evidence selection, this was not as significant as practitioners’ perceived capabilities to handle and develop evidence for policy. These capabilities were linked to departmental structures and constrained by political feasibility. Together, these dimensions constituted a significant filtration mechanism determining the kinds of evidence that were selected for policy development and those omitted, particularly in relation to UC. The paper contributes to debates about the contemporary role of evidence in policymaking and the potential of the relationship between future evidence production and use.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , April 2019 , pp. 351 - 368
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BBC (2016), ‘Universal Credit leaves working families worse off, says IFS http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35475350Google Scholar
Bochel, H. M. and Duncan, S. (Eds.). (2007), Making policy in theory and practice. Bristol: Policy Press.10.2307/j.ctt1t89698Google Scholar
Cabinet Office (1999), Modernising government, CM4310, London: The Stationary OfficeGoogle Scholar
Cabinet Office (2008), Beyond the horizon: International comparisons in policymaking. London: Centre for Management and Policy Studies.Google Scholar
Cairney, P. and Yamazaki, M. (2017), A Comparison of Tobacco Policy in the UK and Japan: If the Scientific Evidence is Identical, Why is There a Major Difference in Policy?. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 1–16.Google Scholar
Cameron, A., Salisbury, C., Lart, R., Stewart, K., Peckham, S., Calnan, M., Purdy, S. and Thorp, H. (2011), Policy makers' perceptions on the use of evidence from evaluations. Evidence & Policy: a journal of research, debate and practice, 7 (4), 429–447.10.1332/174426411X603443Google Scholar
Caplan, N. (1979), The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. American behavioral scientist, 22 (3), 459–470.10.1177/000276427902200308Google Scholar
Centre for Social Justice (2009), Dynamic benefits: Towards welfare that works. London: Centre for Social Justice.Google Scholar
Davis, A., Hill, K., Hirsch, D. and Padley, M. (2016), A minimum income standard for the UK in 2016, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
Department for Work and Pensions (2010), Universal Credit: Welfare that works Cm7957. London: DWP.Google Scholar
Department for Work and Pensions (2017), Understanding how Universal Credit influences employment behaviour: findings from qualitative and experimental research with claimants, available online at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/643952/understanding-how-universal-credit-influences-employment-behaviour.pdfGoogle Scholar
Ford, R. and Lymperopolou, K. (2016), Immigration: How attitudes in the UK compare with Europe, Findings from the British Social Attitudes Survey, available online at http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39148/bsa34_immigration_final.pdfGoogle Scholar
Garthwaite, K. (2016), Hunger pains: Life inside foodbank Britain. Policy Press.10.2307/j.ctt1t89f84Google Scholar
Gingerbread and the Children's Society (2013), Single Parents and Universal Credit: singled out? London: Gingerbread.Google Scholar
Head, B. W. (2008), Three lenses of evidence‐based policy. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67 (1), 1–11.10.1111/j.1467-8500.2007.00564.xGoogle Scholar
Head, B. (2010), Evidence-based policy: principles and requirements. Strengthening evidence-based policy in the Australian Federation, 1, 13–26.Google Scholar
Hendra, R., Ray, K., Vegeris, S., Hevenstone, D. and Hudson, M. (2011), Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) demonstration: Delivery, take-up, and outcomes of in-work training support for lone parents. Research Report 727. Sheffield: DWP.Google Scholar
Hirsch, D. and Hartfree, Y. (2013), Universal Credit: making work pay, York: Joseph Rowntree FoundationGoogle Scholar
HM Treasury (2003), The Green Book: appraisal and evaluation in central government, London: HM TreasuryGoogle Scholar
HM Treasury (2011), The Magenta Book: guidance notes for policy evaluation and analysis. London: HM Treasury (Magenta Book Background Papers).Google Scholar
Ingold, J. and Etherington, D. (2013), Work, welfare and gender inequalities: an analysis of activation strategies for partnered women in the UK, Australia and Denmark. Work, employment and society, 27 (4), 621–638.10.1177/0950017012460306Google Scholar
Ingold, J. and Monaghan, M. (2016), Evidence translation: an exploration of policy makers' use of evidence. Policy & Politics, 44 (2), 171–190.10.1332/147084414X13988707323088Google Scholar
Institute for Government (2012), Evidence and evaluation in policymaking a problem of supply or demand? London, Institute for Government.Google Scholar
Legrand, T. (2012), Overseas and over here: policy transfer and evidence-based policy-making. Policy studies, 33 (4), 329–348.10.1080/01442872.2012.695945Google Scholar
Liebling, A., Maruna, S. and McAra, L. (2017), Introduction: The New Vision, in Liebling, A., Maruna, S. and McAra, L eds. The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, 6th Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press 10.1093/he/9780198719441.001.0001Google Scholar
Maybin, J. (2015), Policy analysis and policy know-how: A case study of officials in England's department of health. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 17 (3), 286–304.10.1080/13876988.2014.919738Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. (1945), Role of the intellectual in public bureaucracy. Social Forces, 405– 415.10.2307/2571834Google Scholar
Millar, J. and Bennett, F. (2016), ‘Universal Credit: Assumptions, contradictions and virtual reality. Social Policy and Society, 16 (2), 169–182.10.1017/S1474746416000154Google Scholar
Monaghan, M. (2010), The complexity of evidence: Reflections on research utilisation in a heavily politicised policy area. Social Policy and Society, 9 (1), 1–12.10.1017/S1474746409990157Google Scholar
Monaghan, M. (2011), Evidence versus politics: Exploiting research in UK drug policy making? Bristol: Policy Press.10.2307/j.ctt9qgrgdGoogle Scholar
Mulgan, G. (2005), Government, knowledge and the business of policy making: the potential and limits of evidence-based policy. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 1 (2), 215–226.10.1332/1744264053730789Google Scholar
Nutley, S. M., Walter, I. and Davies, H. T. (2007), Using evidence: How research can inform public services. Policy press.10.2307/j.ctt9qgwt1Google Scholar
Nutley, S., Powell, A. and Davies, H. (2013), What counts as good evidence? provocation paper for the alliance for useful evidence. London: Alliance for Useful Evidence.Google Scholar
Parkhurst, J. (2016), The politics of evidence: from evidence-based policy to the good governance of evidence, London: Routledge 10.4324/9781315675008Google Scholar
Patrick, R. (2014), Working on welfare: Findings from a qualitative longitudinal study into the lived experiences of welfare reform in the UK. Journal of Social Policy, 43 (4), 705–72510.1017/S0047279414000294Google Scholar
Patrick, R. (2017), For whose benefit?: The everyday realities of welfare reform. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Pawson, R. (2006), Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. Sage.10.4135/9781849209120Google Scholar
Pearson, M. (2010), ‘What do we know? What should we do?’ Melding research validity and rhetoric in the analysis of policy making. Evidence and Policy, 6 (1), 77–90.10.1332/174426410X483015Google Scholar
Purdon, S., Stratford, N., Taylor, R., Natarajan, L., Bell, S. and Wittenburg, D. (2006), Impacts of the Job Impacts of the Job Retention and Retention and Rehabilitation Pilot Rehabilitation Pilot Rehabilitation Pilot. Research Report 342. Leeds: DWP Corporate Document Services.Google Scholar
Rose, R. (1991), What is lesson-drawing? Journal of Public Policy, 11 (1):3–3010.1017/S0143814X00004918Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R. and Di Matteo, M. R. (2001), Meta-analysis: Recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual review of psychology, 52 (1), 59–82.10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.59Google Scholar
Rotik, M. and Perry, L. (2011), Perceptions of welfare reform and universal credit, Department for Work and Pensions Research Report no 778, available online at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214563/rrep778.pdfGoogle Scholar
Sanderson, I. (2009), Intelligent policy making for a complex world: pragmatism, evidence and learning. Political Studies, 57 (4), 699–719.10.1111/j.1467-9248.2009.00791.xGoogle Scholar
Savage, M. (2018), Ministers told to expect backlash as millions lose out from Universal Credit, available online at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/apr/07/universal-credit-backlash-millions-lose-outGoogle Scholar
Seddon, T. (2005), Drugs, crime and social exclusion: social context and social theory in British drugs–crime research. British Journal of Criminology, 46 (4), 680–703.10.1093/bjc/azi079Google Scholar
Smith, K. E. and Joyce, K. E. (2012), Capturing complex realities: understanding efforts to achieve evidence-based policy and practice in public health. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 8 (1), 57–78.10.1332/174426412X6201371Google Scholar
Stevens, A. (2007a), Survival of the ideas that fit: an evolutionary analogy for the use of evidence in policy. Social Policy and Society, 6 (1), 25–35.10.1017/S1474746406003319Google Scholar
Stevens, A. (2007b), When two dark figures collide: Evidence and discourse on drug-related crime. Critical Social Policy, 27 (1), 77–99.10.1177/0261018307072208Google Scholar
Stevens, A. (2011), Telling policy stories: an ethnographic study of the use of evidence in policy-making in the UK. Journal of Social Policy, 40 (2), 237–255.10.1017/S0047279410000723Google Scholar
Taylor‐Gooby, P. (2012), Root and branch restructuring to achieve major cuts: The social policy programme of the 2010 UK coalition government. Social Policy & Administration, 46 (1), 61–82.10.1111/j.1467-9515.2011.00797.xGoogle Scholar
Taylor‐Gooby, P. (2016), The Divisive Welfare State. Social Policy & Administration, 50 (6), 712–733.10.1111/spol.12257Google Scholar
Vaughan, R. J. and Buss, T. F. (1998), Communicating social science research to policymakers (Vol. 48). Sage Publications, Inc.10.4135/9781412983686Google Scholar
Weiss, C. H. (1979), The many meanings of research utilization. Public administration review, 39 (5), 426–431.10.2307/3109916Google Scholar
Wintour, P. (2013), Auditors challenge government over cost of universal credit IT problems, London: The Guardian, available online at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/10/auditors-challenge-cost-universal-credit-it-problems (accessed 20 April 2018).Google Scholar