IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ceo/wpaper/6.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

L'évaluation des politiques à l'épreuve des faits : apports des débats autour des approches evidence based policies

Author

Listed:
  • Marielle Berriet-Solliec
  • Jacques Baudry
  • Pierre Labarthe

Abstract

Les méthodes couramment utilisées pour l'évaluation des politiques publiques rencontrent deux principaux écueils. Le premier est d'analyser les relations de cause à effet uniquement à partir des opinions et avis des parties prenantes (stakeolders). Quand ces schémas de causalité mobilisent les théories en sciences sociales (theory driven evaluation), le second écueil est qu'ils sont rarement confrontés aux faits. Pour pallier cette défaillance de validité empirique, les approches evidence-based proposent de mobiliser des connaissances scientifiques testées empiriquement. Toutefois, même si ces approches sont répandues dans les domaines de l'éducation ou de la santé dans les pays anglo-saxons, elles s'avèrent encore très rarement utilisées dans les deux domaines d'application étudiés dans ce papier, le conseil en agriculture et l'agri-environnement. - The methods for the evaluation of public policies face two major limits. The first one happens when the schemes of causal relations involved in a given public policy are analysed only though the opinions and the knowledge of some stakeholders. When the description of these schemes is rather driven by some social sciences theories, a second limit may occur: the lack of confrontation with field observations. Both methods raise the question of their level of validity. In that respect, the EBP approaches proposes to ground the evaluation of public policies on scientific knowledge that rely on the best available empirical evidences. These approaches and the debates about them are well spread in the cases of health or education policies evaluation in Anglo-Saxon countries. However, they are much less implemented in the two cases studied in this paper: agri-environement and agricultural extension.

Suggested Citation

  • Marielle Berriet-Solliec & Jacques Baudry & Pierre Labarthe, 2010. "L'évaluation des politiques à l'épreuve des faits : apports des débats autour des approches evidence based policies," INRA UMR CESAER Working Papers 2010/5, INRA UMR CESAER, Centre d'’Economie et Sociologie appliquées à l'’Agriculture et aux Espaces Ruraux.
  • Handle: RePEc:ceo:wpaper:6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www2.dijon.inra.fr/cesaer/workingpapers/RePEc/ceo/wpaper/wp2010_5.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James C. Hanson & Richard E. Just, 2001. "The Potential for Transition to Paid Extension: Some Guiding Economic Principles," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(3), pages 777-784.
    2. Ariel Dinar & Gabriel Keynan, 2001. "Economics of Paid Extension: Lessons from Experience in Nicaragua," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(3), pages 769-776.
    3. Birner, Regina & Davis, Kristin & Pender, John & Nkonya, Ephraim & Anandajayasekeram, Pooniah & Ekboir, Javier M. & Mbabu, Adiel N. & Spielman, David J. & Horna, Daniela & Benin, Samuel & Kisamba-Muge, 2006. "From "best practice" to "best fit": a framework for designing and analyzing pluralistic agricultural advisory services," Research briefs 4, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    4. Ariel Dinar, 1996. "Extension Commercialization: How Much to Charge for Extension Services," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(1), pages 1-12.
    5. Carney, Diana, 1995. "The changing public role in services to agriculture: a framework for analysis," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 521-528, December.
    6. Ariel Dinar & Giannis Karagiannis & Vangelis Tzouvelekas, 2007. "Evaluating the impact of agricultural extension on farms' performance in Crete: a nonneutral stochastic frontier approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 36(2), pages 135-146, March.
    7. Dominique Foray & Robin Cowan, 2002. "Evolutionary economics and the counterfactual threat: on the nature and role of counterfactual history as an empirical tool in economics," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 12(5), pages 539-562.
    8. Bondonio, Daniele, 2001. "Evaluating Decentralized Policies: How to Compare the Performance of Economic Development Programs across Different Regions or States," POLIS Working Papers 16, Institute of Public Policy and Public Choice - POLIS.
    9. Esposti, Roberto, 2002. "Public agricultural R&D design and technological spill-ins: A dynamic model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 693-717, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Evaluation; Evidence Based Decision; Agricultural extension; agri-environment; biodiversity;

    JEL classification:

    • Q16 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - R&D; Agricultural Technology; Biofuels; Agricultural Extension Services
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy
    • Q59 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Other
    • H50 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ceo:wpaper:6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Corinne DASEN). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/ceinrfr.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.