遊雅堂ブラックジャック

This page uses Javascript. Please enable Javascript in your browser. Skip to Content Japanese English Chinese About RIETI Site Map Help Contact Discussion Papers Search Site Search Menu Research Areas Research Programs (FY2024-2028) Research Programs (FY2020-2023) Research Programs (FY2016-2019) Research Programs (FY2011-2015) Policy Research Domains (FY2006-2010) Projects Survey Fellows According to Title Alphabetical order RIETI Alumni Research/Policy Papers Discussion Papers (English) Discussion Papers (Japanese) Policy Discussion Papers (English) Policy Discussion Papers (Japanese) Technical Papers (English) Technical Papers (Japanese) Non Technical Summaries List of Articles in Journals Research Digest Discussion Papers Search Publications RIETI Books (English) RIETI Books (Japanese) History of Japan's Trade and Industry Policy Authors' Words Other Publications (English) Other Publications (Japanese) Events Symposiums Workshops BBL Seminars Archived Seminar Series Data JIP Database R-JIP Database CIP Database Industry-Specific Nominal and Real Effective Exchange Rates AMU and AMU Deviation Indicators JSTAR RIETI-TID RIETI FDI Database ICPA Project Links Articles Column Special Series Newspapers & Magazines Fellows' Works VoxEU Column From IZA Perspectives from Around the World Other Contents RIETI Report Policy Update Keizai Sangyo Journal (METI Journal) Research Areas Fellows Research/Policy Papers Publications Events Data Articles Site Map Technical Issues Coontact Discussion Papers Search Close HomeArticlesColumnFY2023 Overseas EBPM Situation: Focusing on United States and United Kingdom Tweet Print UCHIYAMA Yu Faculty Fellow, RIETI How is evidence-based policymaking (EBPM) progressing in the United States and the United Kingdom, which are known for their advanced EBPM? In fact, the two countries in recent years have experienced a political headwind for EBPM. In this column, I would like to explain the recent situation regarding EBPM in the two countries, while taking note of the relationship between democracy and EBPM. United States In the United States, the Evidence-Based Policymaking Commission Act of 2016 was enacted in March 2016 (Note 1). The act was co-sponsored by then Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan and Democrat Senator Patty Murray. Under the act, the 15-member bipartisan Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking was established to consider ways to improve the use of government-held data for evidence-building purposes, while preserving privacy and confidentiality of information. Under the Trump administration launched in January 2017, however, EBPM plunged into jeopardy. In December 2017, President Donald Trump banned the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from using terms such as "evidence-based" and "science-based," as well as "diversity" and "transgender" (Note 2). However, the political system in the United States is characterized by a strict separation of powers. It is not easy for the president to stop a congress-led policy. Despite the president's intention as described above, therefore, the EBPM Commission proceeded with its deliberations. Its final report was issued in September 2017, paving the way for the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 to be enacted in January 2019. The act requires each government agency to name a Chief Data Officer, an Evaluation Officer, and a Statistical Official to develop a learning agenda (evidence-building plan), and to submit annual evaluation plans. Specifically, the Evaluation Officer is responsible for educating agency leaders and staff on evaluation, advising agency leaders on evaluation policy and practice, and coordinating with other stakeholders, the Chief Data Officer, and the Statistical Official. As a cross-agency forum, the Evaluation Officer Council has been established, comprised of Evaluation Officers at agencies. The council serves as a forum to exchange information, advise the Office of Management and Budget on evaluation capacity building and other issues, and coordinate and collaborate on areas of common interest (Note 3). Soon after taking office in January 2021, Democratic President Joe Biden issued the "Memorandum on Restoring Trust in Government Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-Based Policymaking" to government agencies (Note 4). “It is the policy of my Administration to make evidence-based decisions guided by the best available science and data,” the memorandum stated at the outset, including a number of instructions to emphasize evidence and science in policymaking. Demonstrating the Biden administration's firm will to restore trust in science and evidence that was damaged by his predecessor, President Trump, the memorandum is expected to provide a strong tailwind for U.S. EBPM. United Kingdom In the United Kingdom, analytical professions, including government economists, play a major role in EBPM. The number of government economists grew rapidly under the Blair administration, which began to promote EBPM. In the 2010s, the number failed to grow due to austerity measures. In the past few years, however, it has shown an upward trend again (Note 5). Figure: Changes in the number of UK government economists * “The GES Strategy 2021-24” p.14 In addition to government economists, analytical professions include social researchers, operational researchers, statisticians, and actuaries. The Analysis Function has been established as a cross government network consisting of these professionals (Note 6). It has its secretariat in the Office for National Statistics and is headed by the National Statistician. The purpose of the function is to share good practices and standards, develop innovative methods, and provide impactful analysis across analytical professions (Note 7). By the way, the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union, known as Brexit, came as a headwind for EBPM. Although Her Majesty’s Treasury and others had predicted that Brexit would hurt the UK economy, the national referendum held in June 2016 resulted in a narrow majority in favor of Brexit. Voters for Brexit may have been attracted by slogans such as "Take back control," rather than by economic evidence. It was significant that Brexiteers were spreading the narrative that if the United Kingdom left the EU, contributions to the EU would be returned to improve public finances. However, that narrative lacked any actual grounds. While UK politics was heavily disrupted after the Brexit referendum, progress was seen in regard to EBPM. For example, the Policy Evaluation Task Force (ETF) was established under the Johnson administration in April 2021. The ETF, under a joint umbrella of the Cabinet Office and Her Majesty’s Treasury, aims to ensure priority is given to robust evidence regarding the effectiveness of policies in government spending decisions. Specifically, it provides advice and support to Her Majesty’s Treasury Spending Teams (equivalent to the Budget Bureau of the Ministry of Finance in Japan) on evidence underpinning government departments’ spending proposals and to government departments on designing and delivering evaluations. The ETF also compiled the Magenta Book which serves as a guide on evaluation, along with Her Majesty’s Treasury (Note 8). The ETF, though a new organization, is active and expected to lead U.K. EBPM together with the Analysis Function. Finally, I would like to summarize the relationship between democracy and EBPM. As seen in the cases for former U.S. President Trump and Brexit, there is a certain tension between democracy and EBPM. While democratically elected leaders frequently ignore evidence, voters also often cast votes without considering evidence. However, it is not appropriate to focus only on the ways in which democracy constrains EBPM. If policy choices are made through evidence-based, democratic deliberations, EBPM can play a role in vitalizing democracy. How to develop such a situation will be an important challenge for the future. * Current situation of EBPM in the United States and the United Kingdom is described in detail in Chapters 5 and 6 of EBPM: Introduction and Practice of Evidence-Based Policy Making (Nikkei Business Publications, Inc. 2022) by Fumio Ohtake, Yu Uchiyama, and Yohei Kobayashi, which is the result of RIETI research. Unfortunately, the book was published only in Japanese. October 23, 2023 >> Original text in Japanese Footnote(s) ^ See below for the final report of the EBPM Commission and the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act: Hirokazu Tsuda and Kohei Okazaki, "Evidence-based Policymaking in the United States," RIETI Policy Discussion Paper Series 18-P-016, 2018 (https://www.rieti.go.jp/en/publications/summary/18110004.html). ^ “CDC banned words include ‘diversity’, ‘transgender’ and ‘fetus’ – report,” The Guardian, 16 December 2017 (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/16/cdc-banned-words-fetus-transgender-diversity). ^ Evaluation Officer Council website ”Evaluation.gov” (https://www.evaluation.gov/about-evaluation-officers/). ^ White House website (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/memorandum-on-restoring-trust-in-government-through-scientific-integrity-and-evidence-based-policymaking/). ^ “GES (Government Economic Service) Strategy 2021-2024” (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ges-strategy-2021-2024). ^ “Functions” are cross government networks introduced in the civil service system reform under the Cameron administration. Functions have been established for major government operations including finance, human resources, public relations, commerce, and digital data technology, in addition to analysis. (Yu Uchiyama and Yukiko Fujita "The Fate of Political Leadership and Bureaucracy: UK Ways to Protect the Neutrality of Bureaucrats" Nikkei Shimbun, October 3, 2023) (https://www.rieti.go.jp/jp/papers/contribution/uchiyama-yu/01.html). ^ “Analysis Function Strategy for 2022 to 2025” (https://analysisfunction.civilservice.gov.uk/about-us/analysis-function-strategy/ ). ^ ETF website (https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/evaluation-task-force/about ). Tweet February 22, 2024 Print Article(s) by this author Overseas EBPM Situation: Focusing on United States and United Kingdom March 29, 2024［RIETI Report］ Outlook on Political Leadership and the Civil Service: British wisdom for preserving impartiality in the civil service March 25, 2024［Newspapers & Magazines］ Overseas EBPM Situation: Focusing on United States and United Kingdom February 22, 2024［Column］ Articles Column FY2024 FY2023 FY2022 FY2021 FY2020 FY2019 FY2018 FY2017 FY2016 FY2015 FY2014 FY2013 FY2012 FY2011 FY2010 FY2009 FY2008 FY2007 FY2006 FY2005 FY2004 FY2003 FY2002 FY2001 Special Series Newspapers & Magazines Fellows' Works VoxEU Column From IZA Perspectives from Around the World Other Contents RIETI Report Policy Update Keizai Sangyo Journal Communications Newsletter RSS Feed Facebook X YouTube Research Areas Research Programs (FY2024-2028) Research Programs (FY2020-2023) Research Programs (FY2016-2019) Research Programs (FY2011-2015) Policy Research Domains (FY2006-2010) Projects Survey Fellows Research/Policy Papers Discussion Papers (English) Discussion Papers (Japanese) Policy Discussion Papers (English) Policy Discussion Papers (Japanese) Technical Papers (English) Technical Papers (Japanese) Non Technical Summaries List of Articles in Journals Research Digest Discussion Papers Search Publications RIETI Books (English) RIETI Books (Japanese) History of Japan's Trade and Industry Policy Authors' Words Other Publications (English) Other Publications (Japanese) Events Symposiums Workshops BBL Seminars Archived Seminar Series Data JIP Database R-JIP Database CIP Database Industry-Specific Nominal and Real Effective Exchange Rates AMU and AMU Deviation Indicators JSTAR RIETI-TID RIETI FDI Database ICPA Project Links Articles Column Special Series Newspapers & Magazines Fellows' Works VoxEU Column From IZA Perspectives from Around the World Other Contents RIETI Report Policy Update Keizai Sangyo Journal (METI Journal) About RIETI Privacy Policy Site Policy Site Map Help Contact METI Web Site Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry, IAA (JCN 6010005005426)JCN: Japan Corporate Number Opinions expressed or implied on this website are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).Titles, numbers, specific names, etc. on this website are as of the date of publication. In the case of reposting material from our website, contact us beforehand. Top