In today’s world, governments are inclining more and more towards policy advocacy established through incorporation of rigorous research and solid foundations of reliable evidence rather than mere preference or inclination or personal ‘value judgment’. Effective advocates are strongly urged to gain knowledge of ‘what works’ in effective policy advocacy so that they can draw on the 'best available evidence' and incorporate their findings in policy-making.
However, there are also inherent limitations, even where policy-makers have at their disposal, reliable information and sound analytical skills. Sometimes, even the best evidence alone cannot produce persuasion. ‘Hard evidence and cold logic’ are insufficient for really effective advocacy: necessary perhaps, but not sufficient by itself. In this context, the issue in focus is less about the reliability of the underlying policy analysis and more about the value preferences, and practical judgments about feasibility and legitimacy, which is vital to our perception of the credibility of the cause being advocated.
This article tries to incorporate the unacknowledged evidence about effective evidence-based policy advocacy, which is that ‘the facts’ alone rarely work. The professional crafts of policy advocacy require ‘weaving’ together the scientific information with the underlying value-driven approaches of the political system. The paper examines the theoretical aspect of EBP within Australia by analysing Brian Head’s seminal work on ‘Evidence-Based Policy: principles and requirements’ and supports his concept of incorporating other knowledge bases (political strategies & agenda setting and knowledge of service users' in a client-focused service delivery) apart from scientific evidence as a way to understand Australia’s Climate Change Policy, which, despite scientific research and evidence-backed findings suggesting immediate actions to aid on Australia's behalf, is still behind in implementation.
It must be mentioned here that there has been significant debate regarding the authenticity of evidence used in the government's plan to implement the proposed emission reduction scheme. It is not in the purview of this article to focus on this debate and comment on the credibility of the evidence that was incorporated in devising the emission control scheme.
EBP – An Overview
Advocates of EBP acknowledge that not all research is of a sufficient quality to form the basis of sound policy making (Davies, Nutley and Smith, 2000). Some argue that failure in EBP is characterised by research studies which are flawed by setting of unclear objectives, poor research designs, methodological weaknesses, and conclusions that are not supported by the data itself. Some have also point out that the problem with evidence-based policy is that evidence relates to the past but policy must focus on the future. Implications in the future may be quite different from the actions of the past (Demos 2006).
It is not guaranteed that EBP will result in either good research or good policy. Simple models of evidence-based policy-making may fail to serve its purpose as either accurate descriptions or effective prescriptions (Nutley et al. 2002, p. 10). As Solesbury (2001) puts it, “Emphasising the role of power and authority at the expense of knowledge and expertise in public affairs seems cynical; emphasising the latter at the expense of the former seems naïve.” Evidence through research is at its best when it is supported by strong political will and an organisational culture that values all form of ‘evidence’. Numerous policy case studies have concluded that policy-making is hardly ever a case based rationally identifying a problem and using scientific evidence to develop a policy solution (see Bacchi 1999, Marston 2000). Effective evidence-based policy will depend on organisational cultures where decision-makers value research inputs.
In light of these shortcomings, EBP requires a more systematic approach to searching for appropriate evidence along with a critical approach to analyse studies identified (Davies, 2004). Parsons (2001) argues that what works is often not a question of facts or evidence but more of the values: “This requires a policy process that is open and democratic and which can facilitate a process of deliberation and public learning, rather than control.”
Following these arguments, Head's (2009) identifies 'reliability of evidence' as a key in concerning the degree of efficiency and effectiveness of policy settings and its possible alternatives.. He also notes that it is important to encourage organisational cultures that support systematic evaluation of initiatives. But there are inherent challenges. Capacity building can be expensive. Moreover, it can be politically risky in attempting to provide transparent evaluations of program. Evaluation is best utilised and understood as a learning initiative, and therefore needs to be embedded as good practice (Head 2009).
The knowledge base for EBP is diverse. Scientific evidence is an important aspect of EBP but it is not the sole knowledge base. Head (2009) implies that policy debates consist of several other types of knowledge and expertise that have legitimate voices in a democratic society. Specifically, the following are the three other types of knowledge base (3 lenses) required to make effective evidence-based policy –
- The political strategies, tactics and agenda setting of political leaders and their organisations
- The professional knowledge of service delivery practitioners
- The experiential knowledge of service users and stakeholders for ‘client-focused’ service delivery.
However, this does not indicate that incorporating the above into the knowledge base of EBP ensures that good policy advocacy will result. Despite developing such diverse knowledge base, lack of effective communication to bridge the divergent interests of policy-makers and researchers is often cited as a reason for failure in EBP (UNESCO 2007). The argument presented here proposes only that Head's lenses of evidence-based policy-making warrants consideration in attempting to strengthen the advocacy of EBP
Australia's Climate Change Policy
The importance of establishing EBP for good governance was highlighted by ex-prime minister Kevin Rudd in 2008: He strongly emphasised the need for “a robust, evidence-based policymaking process”.
Such strong commitment was well received by the citizens. However, the kind of approach that will be undertaken to foster EBP practice in Australia is open to interpretations and debate (Argyrous 2009). The initial lack of explicit guidance concerning the preferred methodologies has been much of a concern among professionals. Moreover, the state level showed a disappointing picture regarding the overall level of commitment to investments in policy-relevant research, program evaluation and policy skills training (Head 2009).
These underlying concerns were evident in the Government's development of the Climate Change Policy. The government's attempt at implementing climate change policies can be best described as series of mixed approaches. Even though both major political parties displayed support for an emissions trading scheme, scheme has yet been implemented till date and it is uncertain as to when such a policy will actually take shape in future (Ord 2010).
However, evidence suggests scientific research and fact-finding were presented and provided to government time and again, suggesting that Australia face risks of deteriorating climate change. Ross Garnaut's report to the government indicated that the risk of climate change can be reduced substantially by active and immediate participation of all major economies in the work. “Without this, it is highly probable that Australians, over & beyond the 21st century, will face disruption in their standard of living and overall welfare” (Garnaut 2008). Moreover, a recent report by the Australian Academy of Sciences, suggested that if emissions continue unabated at this rate, current estimates are for 4.5°C higher global average temperatures by 2100. Sea level would continue to rise for many centuries. The impacts of such changes are difficult to predict at this point in time, but are likely to pose severe threat to the world populations and also to the natural world. To mitigate this risk, the report suggests that the world would need to be emitting less than half the amount of CO2 by 2050 than it did in 2000. To achieve this, global emissions would need to peak within the next 10 years and then decline rapidly. Despite all these scientific evidence, the report interestingly does not outline what policy needs to be undertaken to implement actions on reduction in carbon emission (Australian Academy of Science 2010).
So if there is evidence to support action to be taken to mitigate risks of climate change, it is rather surprising to see that no proper policy making has materialised for Australia. Implementing Head's (2009) lenses of evidence-based policy-making gives an indication to where the problem lies. First, there is a lot of confusion regarding setting of the political agenda of Climate Change. If we look into Australia's history of Climate Change Policy development, we see a series of mixed approaches begin with. The development process dates back to early 2003 when NSW Government's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme was introduced. The scheme sets benchmark emission target for certain entities - if an entity fails to meet its benchmark emissions, a penalty is applied. The year 2007 witnessed the passing of the National Greenhouse Energy Reporting Act 2007. The Act ensured that reporting and dissemination of information related to greenhouse gas emissions, greenhouse gas projects, energy production and energy consumption by large emitters and energy consumers are provided. It was in mid 2008 that the Rudd government, in response, released a green paper exploring potential design features of an an emissions trading scheme (ETS) to reduce carbon pollution. It was named, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) and was scheduled to be implemented by July 1, 2010. But the policy faced severe criticism and after being rejected twice at the Senate it was eventually shelved till 2013 (Ord 2010).
In summary, Australia's constant changing of political priorities and strategies have resulted in the not having a coherent set of policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the targeted 5% (from 2000 levels) by 2020. In a recent interview, adviser to the Labor Government, Ross Garnaut, indicated that the failure in tackling Australia's climate change policy attributed to poor leadership by both current and the previous government (The Australian 2010)
Secondly, Head suggest that along with scientific fact-finding, it is equally important to also capitalise on the the views of ordinary citizens in program evaluation for ensuring that services are appropriately responsive to their needs and choices. This raises areas of concern in case of Climate Change policy. A reason why the climate change policy has ceased to be of much value with large sections of the public is due to the lack of engagement of the citizens by the government and also for the lack of clarity shown by the government in explaining how the policy fit into a broader vision for Australia (Green & Picket 2010). In a range of surveys and past research conducted as part of The National Greenhouse Strategy, the environment has been an issue of concern for a large numbers of Australians. However, evidence also suggested that even though people agree more can be done to help protect the environment, evidence suggests that adoption of environmentally friendly behaviors is highly related to the amount of investments of time or money required on behalf of the public (NGS Communication Strategy, 2000).
Moreover, a recent survey by the Institute of Public Affairs announced that: "Two-thirds of Australians now doubt the scientific consensus on global warming". According to the IPA’s executive director John Roskam, "These figures reveal that Australians are no longer confident they’re hearing all the facts about climate change.” The survey indicates that a large segment of the Australians have paid little attention to the climate change debate due to lack of interest and also due to the fact that they don’t have a meaningful opinion about the evidence. The poll surveyed 1000 respondents across Australia from 30 April – 2 May 2010 about their attitude to global warming (IPA 2010). This trend in change of human behavior makes policy-making for climate change a complex affair.
Even if we assume that these changing pattern in human behavior have been accounted for in the government's plan in developing a climate change policy, it still indicates the due consideration that should be given in incorporation of Head's additional lenses would provide a different view in pursuing and developing Australia's climate change policy.
Climate change policy presents a new kind of challenge. It is uncertain in its form and extent, rather than drawn simplistically. It is more insidious than directly confrontational. In addressing both impacts and mitigations, it is long term rather than immediate (Garnaut 2008). Therefore, policy objectives may not come in the clear easily when dealing with such a complex issue.
The objective of this article was to look into the concept of EBP and analyse Australia's climate change policy in its context. The paper does not take a stance for or against the Climate Change Policy or question the authenticity of the scientific evidence, but rather puts forward a different perspective to address the reasons why it is failing to materialise. Analysing Australia's climate change policy, Head's three lenses suggests that there may be importantly divergent perspectives that requests acknowledgement and is worth investigating into. Meeting these conditions will not guarantee success for EBP, but they will at least increase the prospect of a more practical relationship between evidence and policy outcomes.
Reference
Bacchi, C. L. 1999, Women, Policy and Politics, Sage Publications, London.
Davies, H, Nutley, S, and Smith, P 2000, 'Learning from the past, prospects for the future', in H. T. O. Davies, Nutley, S and Smith, P What Works: Evidence-Based Policy and Practice in Public Services, Bristol, Policy Press.
Davies, P 2004 ‘Is evidence-based government possible?’ presented at the 4th Annual Campbell Collaboration Colloquium, Washington D.C., 19 February.
Green, F & Picker, G 2010, 'Long-term fortune favors the brave on climate change', Watoday, viewed October 24, 2010,
Head, B 2008, 'Three lenses of Evidence-based Policy', The Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 1-11.
Head, B 2009, ‘Evidence-based policy: principles and requirements’, Roundtable Proceedings, Strengthening evidence-based policy in the Australian Federation, Productivity Commission, Canberra.
Institute of Public Affairs, 2010, 'Media Release: Two-Thirds Of Australians Doubtful On Global Warming', viewed October 23, 2010,
Marston, G 2000, ‘Metaphor, morality and myth: A critical discourse analysis of public housing policy in Queensland’, Critical Social Policy, vol. 20, no 3, pp. 349–373.
Marston, G & Watts, R 2003, 'Tampering With the Evidence: A Critical Appraisal of Evidence-Based Policy-Making', The Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 143-163.
Nutley, S, Davies, H & Walter, I 2002, 'Evidence based policy and practice: cross sector lessons from the UK', keynote paper presented to the Social Policy Research and Evaluation Conference, Wellington, 2–3 July.
Ord, G 2010, 'A History of Climate Change Policy Development in Australia', CPA Australia, viewed October 18 2010,
Parsons, W 2001 ‘Modernising policy-making for the twenty first century: the professional model’. Public Policy and Administration, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 93-110.
Solesbury, W 2001, 'Evidence based policy: Whence it came and where it’s going', ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice: Working Paper, no. 1
Stilgoe, J, Irwin, A, & Jones, K 2006, 'The Received Wisdom: Opening Up Expert Advice', Demos, viewed October 23 2010,
Takver 2010, 'Australian Academy of Science Outlines Climate Change Facts', A Climate for Change, viewed October 23 2010,
The Australian 2010, 'Garnaut hits at failure on climate change policy', The Australian, viewed October 24 2010,
The Department of Environment and Heritage and the Australian Greenhouse Office, 'NGS Communications Strategy: Review of past research 26/07/2000', viewed October 18 2010,
UNESCO 2007, 'Social development: from research to policy to action', United Nations Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organisation, viewed October 23 2010,
