Original Research

Use of evidence in policy making in South Africa: An exploratory study of attitudes of senior government officials

Gemma Paine Cronin, Mastoera Sadan
African Evaluation Journal | Vol 3, No 1 | a145 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.4102/aej.v3i1.145 | © 2015 Gemma Paine Cronin, Mastoera Sadan | This work is licensed under CC Attribution 4.0
Submitted: 24 April 2015 | Published: 30 September 2015

About the author(s)

Gemma Paine Cronin, Organisation and Strategy Development, Design and Evaluation Services, South Africa
Mastoera Sadan, Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development, National Planning Commission, South Africa

Abstract

This paper outlines a 2011 study commissioned by the Presidency’s Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD) which promotes evidence-based policy making (EBPM) in South Africa. EBPM refers to norms, initiatives and methods aimed at improving evidence-based policy in countries from which South Africa traditionally borrows public service reforms, particularly the UK and Canada. The study provides a descriptive snapshot of attitudes to evidence-use in policy making. All 54 senior government officials interviewed felt that evidence-use is too limited to ensure relevant, effective policy responses. This includes policies on which complex results depend and those with long-term and high-resource implications. Although all respondents regarded EBPM as self-evidently desirable, there were different views on practical application. Examples provided suggest that, where evidence was used, it was very often related to a borrowed international policy without a prior evidencedrivenanalysis of successes and failures or its relevance and feasibility in terms of local issuesand context. Policy makers generally know they should be making optimal use of availableevidence, but highlighted systemic barriers beyond the influence of individual managersto resolve. The study suggests that improved use of evidence throughout the policy cycle,particularly in analysing problems and needs, is a requirement for learning through evidencebased policy development. It suggests that political and administrative leadership will need to agree on norms, ways of dealing with the barriers to effective use of evidence and on the role of each throughout the policy cycle in ensuring appropriate evidence is available and used.

Keywords

No related keywords in the metadata.

Metrics

Total abstract views: 13848
Total article views: 22178

 

Crossref Citations

1. How evidence, implementation, policy, and politics come together within evidence systems: Lessons from South Africa
Ruth Stewart
Development Policy Review  vol: 41  issue: 2  year: 2023  
doi: 10.1111/dpr.12657

2. Researcher and policymaker dialogue: the Policy BUDDIES Project in Western Cape Province, South Africa
Taryn Young, Jessica C Shearer, Celeste Naude, Tamara Kredo, Charles S Wiysonge, Paul Garner
BMJ Global Health  vol: 3  issue: 6  first page: e001130  year: 2018  
doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001130

3. Opening the floor for discussion: A perspective on how scholars perceive attitudes to science in policymaking in South Africa
Molly V. Czachur, Melvi Todd, Tainã Gonçalves Loureiro, James M. Azam, Siphokazi Nyeleka, Amanda Alblas, Sarah J. Davies
South African Journal of Science  vol: 117  issue: 1/2  year: 2021  
doi: 10.17159/sajs.2021/7948

4. Use of research evidence in the policy domain: A best‐evidence synthesis of social science research in Africa, Asia, and Latin America
Daniel Sidney Fussy
International Social Science Journal  vol: 72  issue: 246  first page: 1181  year: 2022  
doi: 10.1111/issj.12357

5. A Model to Foster Records Use in Evidence-Based Decision-Making: Neither Restricted by Time nor Space
Nikiwe Momoti, Lizette King
Mousaion: South African Journal of Information Studies  vol: 39  issue: 4  year: 2022  
doi: 10.25159/2663-659X/10295

6. Evaluation capacity assessment of the transport sector in South Africa: An innovative approach
Basia D. Bless, Khotso Tsotsotso, Eden K. Gebremichael
African Evaluation Journal  vol: 5  issue: 1  year: 2017  
doi: 10.4102/aej.v5i1.188

7. Evaluation2 – Evaluating the national evaluation system in South Africa: What has been achieved in the first 5 years?
Ian Goldman, Carol N. Deliwe, Stephen Taylor, Zeenat Ishmail, Laila Smith, Thokozile Masangu, Christopher Adams, Gillian Wilson, Dugan Fraser, Annette Griessel, Cara Waller, Siphesihle Dumisa, Alyna Wyatt, Jamie Robertsen
African Evaluation Journal  vol: 7  issue: 1  year: 2019  
doi: 10.4102/aej.v7i1.400

8. Achieving and Sustaining Evidence-Informed Policy Making: Effective Communication and Collaboration Can Go a Long Way
Diana Warira, Eunice Mueni, Elizabeth Gay, Marlene Lee
Science Communication  vol: 39  issue: 3  first page: 382  year: 2017  
doi: 10.1177/1075547017710243

9. Opportunities and pitfalls for researchers to contribute to the design of evidence-based agricultural policies: lessons from Uganda
P. N. Pali, M. Schut, P. Kibwika, L. Wairegi, M. Yami, P. J. A. van Asten, V. M. Manyong
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability  vol: 16  issue: 3  first page: 272  year: 2018  
doi: 10.1080/14735903.2018.1471830

10. Uncovering the practices of evidence-informed policy-making
Louise Shaxson
Public Money & Management  vol: 39  issue: 1  first page: 46  year: 2019  
doi: 10.1080/09540962.2019.1537705

11. The evidence ecosystem in South Africa: growing resilience and institutionalisation of evidence use
Ruth Stewart, Harsha Dayal, Laurenz Langer, Carina van Rooyen
Palgrave Communications  vol: 5  issue: 1  year: 2019  
doi: 10.1057/s41599-019-0303-0

12. “These are the realities”: insights from facilitating researcher-policymaker engagement in Nigeria’s household energy sector
Temilade Sesan, Willie Siyanbola
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications  vol: 8  issue: 1  year: 2021  
doi: 10.1057/s41599-021-00754-5

13. An integrated model for increasing the use of evidence by decision-makers for improved development
Ruth Stewart, Laurenz Langer, Yvonne Erasmus
Development Southern Africa  vol: 36  issue: 5  first page: 616  year: 2019  
doi: 10.1080/0376835X.2018.1543579