Explore the vast range of titles available.

In politics, ideas matter. They provide the foundation for economic policymaking, which in turn shapes what is possible in domestic and international politics. Yet until now, little attention has been paid to how these ideas are produced and disseminated, and how this process varies between countries.The National Origins of Policy Ideasprovides the first comparative analysis of how \"knowledge regimes\"-communities of policy research organizations like think tanks, political party foundations, ad hoc commissions, and state research offices, and the institutions that govern them-generate ideas and communicate them to policymakers. John Campbell and Ove Pedersen examine how knowledge regimes are organized, operate, and have changed over the last thirty years in the United States, France, Germany, and Denmark. They show how there are persistent national differences in how policy ideas are produced. Some countries do so in contentious, politically partisan ways, while others are cooperative and consensus oriented. They find that while knowledge regimes have adopted some common practices since the 1970s, tendencies toward convergence have been limited and outcomes have been heavily shaped by national contexts. Drawing on extensive interviews with top officials at leading policy research organizations, this book demonstrates why knowledge regimes are as important to capitalism as the state and the firm, and sheds new light on debates about the effects of globalization, the rise of neoliberalism, and the orientation of comparative political economy in political science and sociology.

The present mixed methods study used UK policymakers to answer the following: (1) are there common topics for which evidence is requested over time (2019 to 2023) that cut across government departments or agencies, and (2) is there a preferred style in the way evidence is requested? Three separate datasets of policy questions ( n  = 3260) posed by UK policy makers to academics were coded by a combination of humans and an algorithm and then analysed. First, of the 7 recurring topics identified (Climate and Environment, Defence and Security, Economy, Health, Information Technology, Social Welfare, Technology), Economy (27%) was the most featured across all policy makers across all 5 years. Climate and Environment showed the sharpest rise over time (16–38%). Second, of 7 styles of questions, procedural (33%) was the most common, which means addressing “how to” (e.g. measure, intervene, prevent) type questions. In the qualitative interviews policymakers reported gaining the most from an exploratory rather than a goal-specific approach during one-to-one interactions with academics. Also when having their assumptions challenged this helped to expand the way they thought of policy issues that they were currently addressing. This UK test case shows the value of focused iterative policy-academic exchanges and could be a way to enhance evidence-based policymaking initiatives.

Digital health technologies offer significant opportunities to reshape current health care systems. From the adoption of electronic medical records to mobile health apps and other disruptive technologies, digital health solutions have promised a better quality of care at a more sustainable cost. However, the widescale adoption of these solutions is lagging behind. The most adverse scenarios often provide an opportunity to develop and test the capacity of digital health technologies to increase the efficiency of health care systems. Catalonia (Northeast Spain) is one of the most advanced regions in terms of digital health adoption across Europe. The region has a long tradition of health information exchange in the public health care sector and is currently implementing an ambitious digital health strategy. In this viewpoint, we discuss the crucial role digital health solutions play during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic to support public health policies. We also report on the strategies currently deployed at scale during the outbreak in Catalonia.

Abstract This paper conceptualizes the notion of “evidence culture” in evidence-informed policymaking by surveying existing literature that either specifically employs the term or uses adjacent terms such as “epistemic” or “research culture”. It employs mixed-methods scoping review, combining citation analysis using Web of Science data used to identify the key clusters of scholarship with a qualitative thematic analysis of key papers across these clusters. This analysis identifies seven distinct approaches to “evidence cultures” across disciplinary communities. The key points of divergence across the clusters include the meanings of evidence, the underlying understanding of the evidence–policy interplay, the conceptualization of culture, and its implications for evidence use in policy. Building on these insights, we offer a framework for analyzing evidence cultures, arguing for the conceptual and empirical utility of this term in advancing scholarship on evidence use in policy settings.

Many aspects of migration policy involve hard moral dilemmas. Whether the dilemmas are concerned with refugee accommodation and integration, temporary labor migration, or the prospects of rejected asylum seekers, policymakers must sometimes make tough choices between competing and equally compelling moral values. Through in-depth discussion of various concrete examples, contributions to this roundtable argue that recognition and systematic analysis of the “ethics of migration policy dilemmas” can both increase philosophical and social-scientific understanding of public debates and policymaking on migration and provide ethical guidance for migration policy. Before introducing the roundtable’s individual contributions, this essay argues for the distinct epistemic value of the Dilemmas perspective by contrasting it with an approach that emphasizes the “busting” of myths; that is, the empirical uncovering of influential falsehoods in public and policy debates, often in the hope of improving policymaking through stronger evidence. We argue that while such myth busting can be valuable, it is insufficient and sometimes unhelpful for understanding how migration policy comes about and can be improved. Policymaking is not just shaped by empirical facts and understandings but also by interests and goals, including moral ones, that give empirical considerations deeper meaning and action-guiding potential. Often, these moral goals are numerous, similarly or equally compelling, and in profound tension with one another. Where this is the case, we should not simply introduce more and more accurate factual descriptions; we must also analyze dilemmas.

Background Bridging the translational gap between research evidence and health policy in state legislatures requires understanding the institutional barriers and facilitators to non-partisan research evidence use. Previous studies have identified individual-level barriers and facilitators to research evidence use, but limited perspectives exist on institutional factors within legislatures that influence non-partisan research evidence use in health policymaking. Objective We describe the perspectives of California state legislators and legislative staff on institutional barriers and facilitators of non-partisan research evidence use in health policymaking and explore potential solutions for enhancing use. Design Case study design involving qualitative interviews. Participants We interviewed 24 California state legislators, legislative office staff, and legislative research staff. Approach Semi-structured recorded interviews were conducted in person or by phone to identify opportunities for enhancing non-partisan research evidence use within state legislatures. We conducted thematic analyses of interview transcripts to identify (1) when research evidence is used during the policymaking process, (2) barriers and facilitators operating at the institutional level, and (3) potential solutions for enhancing evidence use. Results Institutional barriers to non-partisan research evidence use in health policymaking were grouped into three themes: institutional policies, practices, and priorities. Interviews also revealed institutional-level facilitators of research evidence use, including (1) access and capacity to engage with research evidence, and (2) perceived credibility of research evidence. The most widely supported institutional-level solution for enhancing evidence-based health policymaking in state legislatures involved establishing independent, impartial research entities to provide legislators with trusted evidence to inform decision-making. Conclusions Potential institutional-level changes within state legislatures may enhance evidence use in health policymaking, leading to improved health outcomes and lower healthcare costs for states.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is clearly illustrate this convergence and the prescriptive recommendations that such documents entail. There is a significant amount of research into the ethical consequences of artificial intelligence (AI). This is reflected by many outputs across academia, policy and the media. Many of these outputs aim to provide guidance to particular stakeholder groups. It has recently been shown that there is a large degree of convergence in terms of the principles upon which these guidance documents are based. Despite this convergence, it is not always clear how these principles are to be translated into practice. Design/methodology/approach In this paper, the authors move beyond the high-level ethical principles that are common across the AI ethics guidance literature and provide a description of the normative content that is covered by these principles. The outcome is a comprehensive compilation of normative requirements arising from existing guidance documents. This is not only required for a deeper theoretical understanding of AI ethics discussions but also for the creation of practical and implementable guidance for developers and users of AI. Findings In this paper, the authors therefore provide a detailed explanation of the normative implications of existing AI ethics guidelines but directed towards developers and organisational users of AI. The authors believe that the paper provides the most comprehensive account of ethical requirements in AI currently available, which is of interest not only to the research and policy communities engaged in the topic but also to the user communities that require guidance when developing or deploying AI systems. Originality/value The authors believe that they have managed to compile the most comprehensive document collecting existing guidance which can guide practical action but will hopefully also support the consolidation of the guidelines landscape. The authors’ findings should also be of academic interest and inspire philosophical research on the consistency and justification of the various normative statements that can be found in the literature.

At face value, it could be argued that, during the pandemic, UK Government policymaking (like that in some other countries) came close to being evidence-based, in the sense that it drew on virological and epidemiological evidence about the spread of the virus, as well as on a broader range of scientific evidence about what measures were likely to be successful in dealing with it. I consider what this case can tell us about the complexities and limits of evidence-based policymaking, and about the conditions required if closer approximation to a model of rational decision-making drawing on scientific evidence is to be achieved. In particular, I examine: problems caused by uncertainties surrounding scientific evidence and advice; issues to do with the channels of communication by which scientific information reached policymakers; the fuzzy interface between evidence and grounds for policy action; and the contextual factors that affected both its reception and its production – in particular, the role of interests and ideology.

The role of experts and expert knowledge in policymaking has attracted growing public and academic attention. Scholarship on the topic has, however, remained deeply fragmented. It is discussed in separate silos of the literature – such as evidence-based policymaking, epistemic communities, and ideas and politics – and this has hindered sustained empirical study. This article argues that to stimulate more systematic research on the role that experts play in policymaking and develop a theoretical understanding of it, we need to foster dialogue across these literatures. To facilitate this, the article critically reviews how the role of expert knowledge in policymaking is conceptualised and explained in existing literatures, and offers suggestions about how to create common ground for future research by reframing research around the question of the influence of experts, and examining more closely the administrative underpinnings of expert influence.