IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Pourquoi s'intéresser à la notion d'"Evidence -based policy" ?
[Why should we care about evidence-based policy?]

Listed author(s):
  • Laurent, Catherine
  • Baudry, Jacques
  • Berrier-Solliec, Marielle
  • Kirsch, Marc
  • Perraud, Daniel
  • Tinel, Bruno
  • Trouvé, Aurélie
  • Allsopp, Nicky
  • Bonnafous, Partrick
  • Burel, Françoise
  • Carneiro, Maria Jose
  • Giraud, Christophe
  • Labarte, Pierre
  • Matose, Frank
  • Ricroch, Agnès

"Evidence-based medicine” approaches began to be formalized in the early 1990s to promote a conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in decision-making on care for individual patients. These approaches were subsequently extended to other spheres of public decision (education, justice, environment, poverty alleviation, etc.), giving birth to the concept of "evidence-based policy” (EBP). In the Francophone world, with the exception of the medical sector, these approaches are not well known. This is partly a problem of translation. In French, no concept associates the idea of empirical corroboration with that of proof, unlike English where they are both encapsulated in the word "evidence". The lack of familiarity with EBP also results from an intellectual tradition that is suspicious of simplistic pragmatisms in public action, which are believed to favour a principle of immediate effectiveness, regardless of the multiple dimensions of such action. The increasing use of the EBP concept is consequently often equated to mere rhetoric or to an attempt to depoliticize the debate by defending a normative model of decision-making grounded in the rational choice theory. This article presents a critical analysis of the debates on EBP. It shows how these debates argue for a renewal of positive approaches to public decision-making, primarily by proposing methods that facilitate circulation within the realm of existing knowledge, and that assess the quality of the empirical content of that knowledge. The article emphasizes the point that such debates contributes to offering an alternative to the increasing use of knowledge models based too exclusively on expert opinions or simulations that disclaim empirical validation tests. Finally, it suggests the need for more in-depth reflection on the types of evidence and the levels of proof that could support the design, implementation and evaluation of public policies, and points to some paths in that direction.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/27073/1/MPRA_paper_27073.pdf
File Function: original version
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 27073.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 2009
Publication status: Published in Revue Tiers Monde 200 (2009): pp. 853-873
Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:27073
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Ludwigstraße 33, D-80539 Munich, Germany

Phone: +49-(0)89-2180-2459
Fax: +49-(0)89-2180-992459
Web page: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as
in new window


  1. Raghabendra Chattopadhyay & Esther Duflo, 2004. "Women as Policy Makers: Evidence from a Randomized Policy Experiment in India," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(5), pages 1409-1443, 09.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:27073. 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: (Joachim Winter)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.