KATHMANDU, JANUARY 31
Rather than the pre-defined architect of policy or only the expert's/experienced person's opinion and beliefs and/or personal bias, evidence–based policies seem self-evident, and hence, these designs differ when the evidence-based policy is underpinned.
The rigorous assessment of relevant variables (that is, contextual as per the country/community need) leads to preparing a solid foundation for research work and the outcome which is to be determined.
The focus of evidence-based policy is on using what we already know from programme evaluation to make policy decisions and to build knowledge to better inform future decisions. This approach is executed/driven by research findings, data, analytics and evaluation of new innovations above anecdotes, ideologies, marketing and inertia around the status quo.
The principles of evidence-based policies are: 1.
Build and compile rigorous evidence about what works, including costs and benefits, both tangibles and intangibles. 2. Monitor programme delivery and use impact evaluation to measure programme effectiveness.
3. Use rigorous evidence to improve programmes, scale what works and redirect funds away from consistently ineffective programmes. 4. Encourage innovation and test new approaches.
The principles presented here are basic building blocks in that process. They can be applied at every level of government and at various points in the policymaking process, including the testing of new approaches, improvement of existing programmes, identification of ineffective programmes, and scaling of programmes with strong evidence.
Incorporating the principles of evidence-based policymaking into decision-making on a regular basis will improve the effectiveness of government programmes and help solve the nation's social problems. The foundation of such policies is theoretical, empirical, practical, or a combination thereof.
The process takes a series of stages – from problem identification to evaluation.
Moreover, there is coalescence of key players like politicians, ministries, bureaucrats, and imple-menting organisations like NGOs or private sector companies and international organisations.
One example, among the many, of the use of evidence-based policy from Finland, is presented here.
The Finnish government instituted an experiment on universal basic income.
The research was conducted to find whether providing a basic income wouldcause to change in the employment ratio and how such a policy would impact people's lives.
The study concludes that improving monetary incentives for employment can be an ineffective policy tool for some groups of unemployed, especially if the increase in incentives peaks at relatively high wage levels. The experi-ment was based on the degree of income and substitution effects and showed there were minor employment effects at best.
Therefore, impact evaluation is at the heart of evidence-based policy-making and is also an integral part of the process. Evidence-based policymaking corroborates that resources be used optimally, as we strive to meet our nation'smost important challenges while ensuring that public funds are used as effectively and efficiently as possible.
It is a tool to help the government learn what works. Such policymaking can be significant at the federal, state and local levels.
Policy experiments are common in developing countries, in part becausebudgets and capacity are scarcer. So being able to provide credible evidence of efficacy is important to access funding and support in this context. Such policies are relevant in the context of the current government in Nepal.
Nepal is becoming a country of failed policies.
Primarily, the reason is the lack of research while devising policy leading to failure in implementation in letter and spirit. The variables are taken into consideration from the framework of success factors of some previous policy – nationally or internationally – but the role of these variables varies from country to country and society to society.
In the context of Nepal, the geo-political structure demands such policy-making.
Of course, evidence and research will not be the only factor in policy decisions.
Nepal has mostly failed in its policies due to poor framework formulation, lack of coordination among the complementing bodies, and no proper allocation of resources for effective policy implementation and lack of policy evaluation.
Moreover, there always has been a role differentiation between political leaders and civil servants, which is the conflict of interest.
The rent-seeking tendency and corruption
