IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/140380.html

Ideological alignment and evidence-based policy adoption

Author

Listed:
  • Garcia-Hombrados, Jorge
  • Jansen, Marcel
  • Martinez, Angel
  • Ozcan, Berkay
  • Rey-Biel, Pedro
  • Roldan-Mones, Antonio

Abstract

The implementation of evidence-based policies hinges on the dissemination of evidence to policymakers, a process influenced by the attributes of the sender. We conducted a nationwide RCT with ideologically opposite think tanks, major newspapers, and a research institution with nonsalient ideology to communicate a nonideological, cost-effective policy to local policymakers. Results show a 65 percent increase in policy adoption when informing institutions align ideologically with policymakers. We compare the impact of think tanks versus media outlets on implementation, finding both equally effective when ideologically aligned. We explore three actions where ideology may influence adoption: information exposure, belief updating and implementation.

Suggested Citation

  • Garcia-Hombrados, Jorge & Jansen, Marcel & Martinez, Angel & Ozcan, Berkay & Rey-Biel, Pedro & Roldan-Mones, Antonio, 2026. "Ideological alignment and evidence-based policy adoption," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 140380, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:140380
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://researchonline.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/140380/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jonas Hjort & Diana Moreira & Gautam Rao & Juan Francisco Santini, 2021. "How Research Affects Policy: Experimental Evidence from 2,150 Brazilian Municipalities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(5), pages 1442-1480, May.
    2. Shaoda Wang & David Y. Yang, 2021. "Policy Experimentation in China: the Political Economy of Policy Learning," NBER Working Papers 29402, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Druckman, James N. & Klar, Samara & Krupnikov, Yanna & Levendusky, Matthew & Ryan, John Barry, 2021. "How Affective Polarization Shapes Americans’ Political Beliefs: A Study of Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 223-234, November.
    4. Stefano DellaVigna & Woojin Kim, 2022. "Policy Diffusion and Polarization across U.S. States," NBER Working Papers 30142, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Daron Acemoglu & James A. Robinson, 2013. "Economics versus Politics: Pitfalls of Policy Advice," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(2), pages 173-192, Spring.
    6. Dan M. Kahan & Hank Jenkins-Smith & Donald Braman, 2011. "Cultural cognition of scientific consensus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 147-174, February.
    7. James N. Druckman & Mary C. McGrath, 2019. "The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(2), pages 111-119, February.
    8. Marit Hinnosaar & Toomas Hinnosaar & Michael E. Kummer & Olga Slivko, 2022. "Externalities in knowledge production: evidence from a randomized field experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(2), pages 706-733, April.
    9. Lee, Nathan, 2022. "Do Policy Makers Listen to Experts? Evidence from a National Survey of Local and State Policy Makers," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 116(2), pages 677-688, May.
    10. Diana Arnautu & Christian Dagenais, 2021. "Use and effectiveness of policy briefs as a knowledge transfer tool: a scoping review," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-14, December.
    11. Merkley, Eric & Stecula, Dominik A., 2021. "Party Cues in the News: Democratic Elites, Republican Backlash, and the Dynamics of Climate Skepticism," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(4), pages 1439-1456, October.
    12. Edoardo Masset & Marie Gaarder & Penelope Beynon & Christelle Chapoy, 2013. "What is the impact of a policy brief? Results of an experiment in research dissemination," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 50-63, March.
    13. Daniel M. Butler & David E. Broockman, 2011. "Do Politicians Racially Discriminate Against Constituents? A Field Experiment on State Legislators," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 463-477, July.
    14. Vivalt, Eva & Coville, Aidan, 2023. "How do policymakers update their beliefs?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    15. Roland Bénabou & Jean Tirole, 2016. "Mindful Economics: The Production, Consumption, and Value of Beliefs," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 30(3), pages 141-164, Summer.
    16. repec:nos:voprec:y:2013:id:595 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Crawfurd, Lee & Hares, Susannah & Minardi, Ana & Sandefur, Justin, 2025. "Understanding education policy preferences: Survey experiments with policymakers in 35 developing countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    2. Robert Dur & Arjan Non & Paul Prottung & Benedetta Ricci, 2025. "Who's Afraid of Policy Experiments?," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 135(666), pages 538-555.
    3. Guglielmo Briscese & John A. List, 2024. "Toward an Understanding of the Political Economy of Using Field Experiments in Policymaking," NBER Working Papers 33239, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Francesco Capozza & Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2021. "Studying Information Acquisition in the Field: A Practical Guide and Review," CEBI working paper series 21-15, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. The Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality (CEBI).
    5. Michael Carolan, 2020. "Filtering perceptions of climate change and biotechnology: values and views among Colorado farmers and ranchers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 121-139, March.
    6. Lackner, Teresa & Fierro, Luca E. & Mellacher, Patrick, 2025. "Opinion dynamics meet agent-based climate economics: An integrated analysis of carbon taxation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    7. Jared Gars & Ram Fishman & Avinash Kishore & Yoav Rothler & Patrick S. Ward, 2025. "Confidence and information usage: Evidence from soil testing in India," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 107(5), pages 1406-1437, October.
    8. Crescioli, Tommaso, 2024. "Reinforcing each other: How the combination of European and domestic reforms increased competition in liberalized industries," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    9. repec:rim:rimwps:20-15 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Melissa K. Merry & Rodger A. Payne, 2024. "Climate fatalism, partisan cues, and support for the Inflation Reduction Act," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(2), pages 379-402, June.
    11. repec:osf:osfxxx:yshkt_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Frohnweiler, Sarah & Adongo, Charles A. & Beber, Bernd & Lakemann, Tabea & Priebe, Jan & Lay, Jann, 2024. "Effects of skills training on employment and livelihood outcomes: A randomized controlled trial with young women in Ghana," Ruhr Economic Papers 1095, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    13. Laura Bakkensen & Quynh Nguyen & Toan Phan & Paul Schuler, 2023. "Charting the Course: How Does Information about Sea Level Rise Affect the Willingness to Migrate?," Working Paper 23-09, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.
    14. Rogger, Daniel & Somani, Ravi, 2023. "Hierarchy and Information," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    15. Jingjing Zeng & Guihua Huang, 2024. "Bureaucratic biases in trust of expert policy advice: a randomized controlled experiment based on Chinese think tank reports," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(2), pages 305-351, June.
    16. Victor Y. Wu, 2025. "Messages from co-partisan elected officials can increase climate mitigation intentions without changing climate beliefs," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-14, December.
    17. Michael Thaler & Mattie Toma & Victor Yaneng Wang, 2024. "Numbers Tell, Words Sell," CESifo Working Paper Series 11600, CESifo.
    18. repec:osf:osfxxx:pkeb8_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Jessica E. Hughes & James D. Sauer & Aaron Drummond & Laura E. Brumby & Matthew A. Palmer, 2023. "Endorsement of scientific inquiry promotes better evaluation of climate policy evidence," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(6), pages 1-20, June.
    20. repec:ces:ceswps:_11254 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Carlsson, Fredrik & Kataria, Mitesh & Lampi, Elina, 2025. "The impact of politicized and costly climate policies on trust in scientific information and policy support," Working Papers in Economics 856, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    22. Cafferata, Alessia & Dávila-Fernández, Marwil J. & Sordi, Serena, 2021. "Seeing what can(not) be seen: Confirmation bias, employment dynamics and climate change," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 567-586.
    23. Francesco Capozza & Krishna Srinivasan & Mattie Toma, 2025. "Science by Consensus: Eliciting Citizens’ and Experts’ R&D Spending Priorities," CESifo Working Paper Series 12235, CESifo.
    24. Ankel-Peters, Jörg & Schmidt, Christoph M., 2025. "Rural electrification, the credibility revolution, and the limits of evidence-based policy," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(1), pages 70-81, February.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • D78 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Positive Analysis of Policy Formulation and Implementation
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • I23 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Higher Education; Research Institutions

    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:ehl:lserod:140380. 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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    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.