Credit: tonefotografia via Adobe Stock.

26 November 2024

By Veronica Osorio Calderon and Mukdarut Bangpan

The growth of Evidence-Informed Decision-Making (EIDM)

Evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) is the idea that decisions, particularly in policy, should be based on the best available research, along with other factors like public opinion, costs and practicality. As an approach, it aims to make decision-making more systematic and transparent by using a structured way of identifying and applying research evidence in policies.

EIDM has gained significant traction in recent years. This was especially clear at the Global Evidence Summit in Prague in September, which brought together 1,800 attendees to discuss the role of evidence in policymaking. Just shortly afterwards, UK Research and Innovation and the Wellcome Trust committed approximately £56.5 million to further EIDM, globally. This latest example of funding to support EIDM is dedicated to advancing “living evidence” initiatives and, specifically, leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance evidence use in policymaking.

However, while AI can enhance efficiency in EIDM, real, lasting change in the use of evidence in public policy decisions requires more than new technology. As James Arnott emphasized, “Change will not hold fast unless it engages directly with the power structures that hold the system in place”. To truly institutionalise EIDM, we need to understand how different approaches to policymaking at different levels, including where and how evidence is used, are influenced by the actors involved, as well as institutional, political and economic factors and the interactions between them. This reflects a political economy perspective on EIDM.

Understanding the role of context in EIDM

Particularly via the work of the World Health Organization (WHO), advocacy and support to advance EIDM has been especially strong in the field of health policy. For example, the WHO has developed a checklist outlining essential elements for embedding and institutionalising EIDM in the policymaking process. By “institutionalising” it means establishing routines and practices, with complementary organisational structures, resourcing and cultures, that encourage governments and organisations to routinely use research and evidence to make better decisions. Alongside its checklist, the WHO has launched a Global Coalition for Evidence to help promote an EIDM mindset across both the generators and potential users of research evidence. In support of these efforts, our team at the EPPI-Centre, working with the WHO, is piloting the checklist in two case study countries, Trinidad and Tobago and Tajikistan.

However, while these efforts are an essential ‘piece of the puzzle’, in large part they are focused on dimensions and processes of EIDM institutionalisation. Along with our wider work on EIDM, the aforementioned pilots have also highlighted the value of adding a political economy perspective – drawing in the broader context of political power structures and economic interests in which governments and organisations shape public policy and adopt EIDM as part of that.

Why political economy matters for the use of evidence in policy

Political economy looks at how resources, priorities, and policy decisions are influenced by existing power structures and economic interests. For policymakers, understanding this context is essential, as it represents the complex terrain that policy decision-making – and the institutionalisation of EIDM itself – will need to navigate. Figure A, below, draws together these dimensions.

Figure A: Understanding political economy of Evidence-Informed Decision-Making (Bangpan et al. 2024, Political Economy of Evidence-Informed Decision-Making, Poster presentation at Global Evidence Summit, Prague, 2024). Credit: Veronica Osorio Calderon and Mukdarut Bangpan.

To illustrate: staying with the example of health, as well as public opinion and the position of interest groups, health policies might need to account for the influence of political functions or the preferences of funding bodies. Taking account of such dynamics ‘up front’ in adopting EIDM would allow policymakers to better assess how evidence fits within the broader power structures, making it more likely that evidence-informed policies will be both politically feasible and sustainable.

As another example of how such an approach could make evidence-informed policy more feasible, in climate action in Saudi Arabia, policymakers must consider not just the scientific evidence on climate change and its drivers but also the economic impact of reform on a country’s industries and influential stakeholders, like energy companies. Although the evidence might support a shift to renewable energy, policies must also address the short-term economic and political stability concerns of those who might oppose the transition. In such circumstances, the use of evidence will need to help policymakers show, for instance, how renewable energy investments can diversify the economy without jeopardising short-term stability.

The issue of access to education in Sub-Saharan Africa offers a further example: research shows that AI-driven education platforms could expand access to learning in that region. However, to succeed, these platforms need digital infrastructure – and therefore significant economic resources – and, in practice, partnerships between the public and private sectors. When policymakers are equipped with both relevant evidence and an understanding of economic interests, they can better navigate potential challenges and create equitable access within education systems.

What’s next?

Through the EPPI-Centre’s work with the WHO and now via work funded through the UCL Knowledge exchange and innovation programme, we are studying how different political and economic factors impact the adoption of evidence-informed approaches across countries. In the coming months, we plan to conduct a systematic review of the literature on this topic and develop a framework for analysing EIDM in diverse contexts.
In the meantime, to better understand how power dynamics, rules and regulations, interests, values and incentives can enhance EIDM within different political economies, we list below a few examples of existing initiatives and resources. These will aid our efforts in consolidating recent knowledge for effectively translating evidence to action.
If you’re interested in our ongoing work or would like to learn more about the political economy of EIDM, please reach out.

• Strengthening evidence use for development impact (SEDI), Oxford Policy Management
• Transforming Evidence for Policy and Practice
• Political Economy Analysis Toolkit, WaterAid
• How politics and economics intersect: a simple guide to conducting political economy and context analysis, Oxford Policy Management and Oxfam
• Introduction to political economy analysis, ReBUILD for Resilience Consortium