The implicit hypothesis in this piece seems to be that data "ought to" move policy. I find this naive, but perhaps I'm extremely jaded. I would assume that data has (almost) no influence on policy until proven otherwise (i.e. it's the Null Hypothesis)!
Perhaps it's because of my heavy exposure to healthcare policy, by way of pharmaceuticals (my professional field). There is this charming expectation among academics in the pharmacoeconomics field that their analyses, if only paid attention to by whomever's in charge, would lead to a more efficient / equitable / [insert liberal nostrum] healthcare "system". I'm leading the witness here, but you can see the problem: nobody's in charge of healthcare (in the US), so it's not a "system". All of it is transactional, so nobody has any use for some disembodied view of what the "right" thing to do might be; instead, everybody has bills to pay, shareholders to placate, etc.
Now, extending this theme beyond healthcare: "policy makers", in countries with elected, representative governments (more or less), ultimately respond to "politicians" (or they might be one and the same). Thus, "policy" is downstream of "politics" and we know how little these rely on data and studies. You could have the best data in the world to show that free needles for drug abusers have good societal outcomes, or that jailing people for crimes have bad ones, none of this matters as much as what voters believe. And data don't change beliefs very much. So, it's actually interesting when studies *do* have an effect on policy (and opinions).
Thanks for reading! I do think there are at least more people "in charge" in the political system than there are in the healthcare world, though as this study shows it matters how quickly those people change. Your null hypothesis may have been the more sensible one.
Overall, your model makes sense to me. Basically what this study finds is that the politicians are already bought in on particular politics, so if you can find sympathetic politicians and run a quick study and get it in their hands, it does give them some more cover and confidence to expand that policy. That's at least something, and a nice middle ground between full jadedness and the naive academic view.
Fair enough. There's room for a well-timed study, well-amplified by the right opinion-makers etc. that could make a difference when the stars align. I am quite certain that there are examples! But the point is, they are worth writing up as case studies.
The implicit hypothesis in this piece seems to be that data "ought to" move policy. I find this naive, but perhaps I'm extremely jaded. I would assume that data has (almost) no influence on policy until proven otherwise (i.e. it's the Null Hypothesis)!
Perhaps it's because of my heavy exposure to healthcare policy, by way of pharmaceuticals (my professional field). There is this charming expectation among academics in the pharmacoeconomics field that their analyses, if only paid attention to by whomever's in charge, would lead to a more efficient / equitable / [insert liberal nostrum] healthcare "system". I'm leading the witness here, but you can see the problem: nobody's in charge of healthcare (in the US), so it's not a "system". All of it is transactional, so nobody has any use for some disembodied view of what the "right" thing to do might be; instead, everybody has bills to pay, shareholders to placate, etc.
Now, extending this theme beyond healthcare: "policy makers", in countries with elected, representative governments (more or less), ultimately respond to "politicians" (or they might be one and the same). Thus, "policy" is downstream of "politics" and we know how little these rely on data and studies. You could have the best data in the world to show that free needles for drug abusers have good societal outcomes, or that jailing people for crimes have bad ones, none of this matters as much as what voters believe. And data don't change beliefs very much. So, it's actually interesting when studies *do* have an effect on policy (and opinions).
Thanks for reading! I do think there are at least more people "in charge" in the political system than there are in the healthcare world, though as this study shows it matters how quickly those people change. Your null hypothesis may have been the more sensible one.
Overall, your model makes sense to me. Basically what this study finds is that the politicians are already bought in on particular politics, so if you can find sympathetic politicians and run a quick study and get it in their hands, it does give them some more cover and confidence to expand that policy. That's at least something, and a nice middle ground between full jadedness and the naive academic view.
Fair enough. There's room for a well-timed study, well-amplified by the right opinion-makers etc. that could make a difference when the stars align. I am quite certain that there are examples! But the point is, they are worth writing up as case studies.