The myth of 'evidence-based policymaking' in a decentred state
The myth of 'evidence-based policymaking' in a decentred state
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/0952076720905016
复制
发表时间：
2020-02-12
影响因子：
3.1
通讯作者：
Cairney, Paul
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cairney, Paul
我描述了一个政策理论的故事，在这个故事中，一个去中心化的国家是由选择和必要性造成的。政府通常选择不集中决策，但即使尝试也不会成功。许多政策学者认为这个故事是理所当然的，但在其他学科和更广泛的政治辩论中，它往往被忽视。相反，评论人士呼吁加强中央集权，以制定更负责任、更“理性”和更“循证”的政策。这种关于政府集权的可行性和价值的相互矛盾的论点，给政府提出了一个永远存在的两难境地，是接受还是挑战分权。它们还凸显了如何在去中心化的国家寻求“基于证据的决策”的现代困境。我提出了三种理想的方法，政府可以用这些方法始终如一地解决这两种困境。然后，我确定了英国和苏格兰政府对它们的临时使用。尽管两国政府都以或多或少的中央集权方式闻名，但它们都面临着类似的困境，并以类似的方式解决这些问题。他们的选择反映了他们需要表现出掌控一切的样子，同时又需要应对事实并非如此。
I describe a policy theory story in which a decentred state results from choice and necessity. Governments often choose not to centralise policymaking but they would not succeed if they tried. Many policy scholars take this story for granted, but it is often ignored in other academic disciplines and wider political debate. Instead, commentators call for more centralisation to deliver more accountable, 'rational,' and 'evidence-based' policymaking. Such contradictory arguments, about the feasibility and value of government centralisation, raise an ever-present dilemma for governments to accept or challenge decentring. They also accentuate a modern dilemma about how to seek 'evidence-based policymaking' in a decentred state. I identify three ideal-type ways in which governments can address both dilemmas consistently. I then identify their ad hoc use by UK and Scottish governments. Although each government has a reputation for more or less centralist approaches, both face similar dilemmas and address them in similar ways. Their choices reflect their need to appear to be in control while dealing with the fact that they are not.