Evidence-Based Policy Transfer

Abstract

Our panel title is provocative. It describes what some policy actors might say they want, but most policy scholars say they can’t have, at least most of the time. In some cases, we can identify: (a) the international transfer of very specific policy interventions (b) often described as ‘evidence based’ with reference to narrow measures such as a hierarchy of evidence in which the systematic review of randomised control trials is at the top. In these cases, the proponents of such interventions have a clear idea about how to demonstrate the case for policy transfer as well as describe, measure and account for its success. However, such activity forms part of a much wider and messier process of policy learning in which: there are far more claims to knowledge (and far less support for a hierarchy), there is a tendency to import or export ‘ideas’ rather than specific interventions, and the mechanisms to measure success and be held to account for action are less clear or more contested. How do we describe these messier processes of knowledge production, learning and transfer? How do we translate such insights into practical action, to provide a meaningful way for policy actors to encourage effective policy transfer? Each paper addresses these questions in different ways: • Kamkhaji and Radaelli interrogate the meaning of the often-vague term ‘idea’ to help us understand what exactly a government might transfer • Dunlop and Radaelli examine the ways in which policymakers develop accountability measures for policy learning • Cairney and St Denny examine the practical implications of such insights, identifying the conditions under which EBPT could take place NB only Paul and Claudio's emails are accepted. We will update discussant, authors and co-authors.