IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jodepp/v6y2021i2p137-143.html

Evidence-based Policy in India: Crossing the Long, Uphill Bridge

Author

Listed:
  • Abhirup Bhunia

Abstract

The evidence-based-policy ecosystem, and its arsenal of approaches and techniques need course-correction to adequately respond to complex and practical policymaking contexts. Experimental findings do not resonate in scale implementation, particularly in large and diverse contexts like India’s. Causal empiricism leaves out investigation of complex pathways and impact mechanisms, while ‘evidence’ often disengages political economy considerations. Surmounting the methodological constrictions—which limit the utility and uptake of such evidence for a decisionmaker—requires being able to sufficiently account for institutional factors, social norms, politics, and stakeholder incentives among other related influences in policymaking. This may be possible through robust use of qualitative nuances, and integration of political economy analysis towards adopting a realist approach in evidence generation. It is important to acknowledge that measurement alone should qualify as neither evaluation or research. The state of research, its guiding principles, approaches and methods are often directed by current influences and preferences of stakeholders who are in a position to shape discourse. Interjections by more stakeholders are urgently needed to orient evidence generation to ‘real world’ realities and respond to the non-linear complexities of developmental change pathways.

Suggested Citation

  • Abhirup Bhunia, 2021. "Evidence-based Policy in India: Crossing the Long, Uphill Bridge," Journal of Development Policy and Practice, , vol. 6(2), pages 137-143, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:jodepp:v:6:y:2021:i:2:p:137-143
    DOI: 10.1177/24551333211035566
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/24551333211035566
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/24551333211035566?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gisselquist Rachel M. & Niño-Zarazúa Miguel, 2015. "What Can Experiments Tell Us About How to Improve Government Performance?," Journal of Globalization and Development, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-45, June.
    2. Angus Deaton & Nancy Cartwright, 2016. "Understanding and Misunderstanding Randomized Controlled Trials," Working Papers august_25.pdf, Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Research Program in Development Studies..
    3. Alexander Frankel & Maximilian Kasy, 2022. "Which Findings Should Be Published?," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(1), pages 1-38, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Teresa Molina Millán & Karen Macours, 2017. "Attrition in randomized control trials: Using tracking information to correct bias," FEUNL Working Paper Series novaf:wp1702, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Faculdade de Economia.
    2. Gisselquist, Rachel M., 2020. "How the cases you choose affect the answers you get, revisited," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    3. Andor, Mark A. & Gerster, Andreas & Peters, Jörg & Schmidt, Christoph M., 2020. "Social Norms and Energy Conservation Beyond the US," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    4. Rachel M. Gisselquist, 2018. "Legal empowerment and group-based inequality," WIDER Working Paper Series 039, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    5. Vellore Arthi & James Fenske, 2018. "Polygamy and child mortality: Historical and modern evidence from Nigeria’s Igbo," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 97-141, March.
    6. Andreas C Drichoutis & Rodolfo M Nayga, 2020. "Economic Rationality under Cognitive Load," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(632), pages 2382-2409.
    7. Cristina Corduneanu-Huci & Michael T. Dorsch & Paul Maarek, 2017. "Learning to constrain: Political competition and randomized controlled trials in development," Thema Working Papers 2017-24, THEMA (Théorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), CY Cergy-Paris University, ESSEC and CNRS.
    8. Jörg Peters & Jörg Langbein & Gareth Roberts, 2018. "Generalization in the Tropics – Development Policy, Randomized Controlled Trials, and External Validity," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 33(1), pages 34-64.
    9. William Rhodes & Gerald Gaes, 2020. "Estimating the Distribution of Treatment Effects From Random Design Experiments," Evaluation Review, , vol. 44(4), pages 262-294, August.
    10. Maximilian Kasy & Jann Spiess, 2022. "Optimal Pre-Analysis Plans: Statistical Decisions Subject to Implementability," Papers 2208.09638, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2024.
    11. Isaiah Andrews & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2021. "A Model of Scientific Communication," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(5), pages 2117-2142, September.
    12. Maurizio Canavari & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2018. "How to run an experimental auction: A review of recent advances," Working Papers 2018-5, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    13. Davide Viviano & Kaspar Wuthrich & Paul Niehaus, 2021. "A model of multiple hypothesis testing," Papers 2104.13367, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2026.
    14. Aufenanger, Tobias, 2018. "Treatment allocation for linear models," FAU Discussion Papers in Economics 14/2017, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Institute for Economics, revised 2018.
    15. Molina Millán, Teresa & Macours, Karen, 2017. "Attrition in Randomized Control Trials: Using Tracking Information to Correct Bias," IZA Discussion Papers 10711, IZA Network @ LISER.
    16. Vicky Chemutai & Hubert Escaith, 2017. "Measuring World Trade Organization (WTO) Accession Commitments and their Economic Effects," Journal of International Commerce, Economics and Policy (JICEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 8(02), pages 1-27, June.
    17. Ashkan Pakseresht & Brandon R McFadden & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2017. "Consumer acceptance of food biotechnology based on policy context and upstream acceptance: evidence from an artefactual field experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(5), pages 757-780.
    18. Maximilian Kasy & Jann Spiess, 2022. "Rationalizing Pre-Analysis Plans:Statistical Decisions Subject to Implementability," Economics Series Working Papers 975, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    19. Felgenhauer, Mike, 2024. "Competition for publication-based rewards," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 244(C).
    20. Sutherland, Alex & Ariel, Barak & Farrar, William & De Anda, Randy, 2017. "Post-experimental follow-ups—Fade-out versus persistence effects: The Rialto police body-worn camera experiment four years on," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 110-116.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jodepp:v:6:y:2021:i:2:p:137-143. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.