An underlying assumption of modern political states is that they are rational systems that ‘follow the science’ to achieve optimal outcomes for their citizens. Whilst COVID-19 continues to foreground the strengths and weaknesses of different national scientific advice systems, Flavia Donadelli draws on evidence from Brazilian policymaking to argue that evidence informed policymaking is a far more ephemeral process and heavily dependent on institutional and political contexts for it to operate effectively

Donadelli, Flavia

English

LSE Research Online

When	evidence	does	not	matter	–	What	Brazil	teachesus	about	the	fragility	of	evidence	based	policymakingAn	underlying	assumption	of	modern	political	states	is	that	they	are	rational	systems	that	‘follow	the	science’	toachieve	optimal	outcomes	for	their	citizens.	Whilst	COVID-19	continues	to	foreground	the	strengths	andweaknesses	of	different	national	scientific	advice	systems,	Flavia	Donadelli	draws	on	evidence	from	Brazilianpolicymaking	to	argue	that	evidence	informed	policymaking	is	a	far	more	ephemeral	process	and	heavily	dependenton	institutional	and	political	contexts	for	it	to	operate	effectively.There	could	be	no	better	time	to	discuss	the	relationship	between	scientific	evidence	and	policy-making	than	now:as	the	COVID-19’s	pandemic	brutally	exposes	and	brings	the	intricacies	of	this	complex	and	unavoidableinteraction	into	the	mainstream.	Presently,	policy	makers	rely	on	scientists	more	than	ever,	and	the	need	for	scientists	to	communicate	clear	andactionable	information	couldn’t	be	more	pressing.	Examples	of	national	leaders	who	decisively	searched	for	andfollowed	scientific	advice	are	now	easily	contrasted	by	those	that	mocked	and	continue	to	mock	scientific	warningsas	hysteria.	The	Brazilian	president	Jair	Bolsonaro	is	amongst	the	most	emblematic	cases	of	the	latter,	declaringthat	COVID-19	is	nothing	but	a	“small	flu”	and	urging	the	Brazilian	population	to	get	back	to	work	in	defiance	of	localgovernors	and	World	Health	Organization		recommendations.	However,	rather	than	being	a	new	development,recent	Brazilian	history	is	full	of	symptomatic	examples	of	a	poor	interaction	between	scientific	evidence	and	policymaking.There	is	a	general	expectation	in	the	evidence-based	policy	making	literature	that	if	the	right	conditionsof	scientific	consensus	and	effective	communication	between	policymakers	and	scientists	occur,	thepolicy-evidence	gap	will	necessarily	narrowTaking	an	example	from	my	research	on	forestry	and	pesticides	policies	in	Brazil,	despite	counting	with	34occasions	of	direct	participation	of	experts	during	congressional	debates	and	4	scientific	reports	with	considerablyconsensual	and	directly	applicable	scientific	evidence	between	2005	and	2015,	the	resulting	policies	markedlyopposed	scientific	advice.	Despite	being	widely	available	and	effectively	communicated	by	scientists	to	legislators,scientific	evidence	has	been	largely	disregarded	by	policy-makers	in	these	two	areas.Impact of Social Sciences Blog: When evidence does not matter – What Brazil teaches us about the fragility of evidence based policymaking Page 1 of 2		Date originally posted: 2020-07-22Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/07/22/when-evidence-does-not-matter-what-brazil-teaches-us-about-the-fragility-of-evidence-based-policymaking/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/However,	whilst	it	may	or	may	not	be	surprising	that	scientific	inputs	are	not	effectively	incorporated	by	Brazilianpolicy-makers	(even	in	highly	technical	areas	such	as	these),	the	underlying	reasons	for	this	finding	warrant	furtherattention.	There	is	a	general	expectation	in	the	evidence-based	policy	making	literature	that	if	the	right	conditions	ofscientific	consensus	and	effective	communication	between	policymakers	and	scientists	occur,	the	policy-evidencegap	will	necessarily	narrow.	This	focus	on	the	analysis	of	the	immediate	science-policy	interface	neglects	thebroader	institutional	context	that	often	dictates	how	evidence	is	used.	Without	the	necessary	institutional	pre-conditions,	efforts	towards	incorporating	scientific	evidence	to	policy-making,	even	if	well-intended,	are	doomed	tofail.Two	significant	contextual	or	institutional	characteristics	to	effective	evidence	use	are	political	openness	andconsensus	requirements.	Political	openness	refers	to	the	levels	of	influence	of	different	groups	in	processes	ofdecision-making.	Consensus	requirements	are	associated	with	how	much	political	consensus	is	needed	beforedecisions	are	taken.	In	relation	to	consensus	requirements,	countries	such	as	the	US	would	have	lower	needs(majoritarian	democracies)	while	Switzerland,	Austria,	and	the	Netherlands	would	tend	towards	the	moreconsensual	end	of	the	spectrum.	In	relation	to	political	openness,	pluralist	countries	(such	as	the	US)	would	allowfor	the	highest	level	of	social	participation	in	decision-making,	permitting	the	participation	and	representation	ofvarious	social	interest	groups.This	sheds	light	on	the	disturbing	fact	that	scientific	evidence	can	and	has	been	utterly	ignored	when	itcontradicts	the	dominant	interests	in	majoritarian	and	relatively	closed	political	systemsBecause	of	its	history	and	political	system,	Brazil	can	be	characterised	as	having	very	low	levels	of	politicalopenness	and	medium	levels	of	consensus	requirement.	In	this	context,	access,	voice,	and	actual	interferencewithin	political	institutions	tend	to	be	relatively	limited	and	conditional	on	personal	connections.	Moreover,	becauseBrazil	has	medium	levels	of	consensus	requirements,	the	ideological	position	with	a	congressional	majority	will	tendto	prevail	without	much	social	or	political	restraint.	The	combination	of	these	specific	institutional	features	with	a	highly	conservative	political	establishment	has	beenproven	particularly	disastrous	for	the	incorporation	of	scientific	evidence	in	processes	of	policy-making	in	thecountry.	This	ultimately	resulted	in	decisions	that	directly	contradicted	scientific	evidence,	such	as	the	reduction	offorestry	protection	requirements	for	riparian	zones	in	private	rural	properties,	and	the	reduction	of	pesticides’controls	and	authorisation	procedures.This	sheds	light	on	the	disturbing	fact	that	scientific	evidence	can	and	has	been	utterly	ignored	when	it	contradictsthe	dominant	interests	in	majoritarian	and	relatively	closed	political	systems	such	as	Brazil,	even	before	they	werefaced	with	explicitly	polarised	scientific	controversies	such	as	COVID-19.	Whilst	it	has	never	been	the	case	thatknowledge	simply	equals	power,	the	marked	acceleration	of	this	trend	after	the	2018	Brazilian	elections	shouldalarm	even	those	already	sceptical	of	the	evidence-based	policy	wave.	What	was	prior	to	the	2018	elections	–	aveiled	avoidance	of	scientific	evidence	–	has	become	explicit	scientific	negationism.	The	current	Brazilian	responseto	COVID-19	could	not	be	a	better	and	most	ill-fated	example	of	this	concerning	trend.	Whilst	it	might	be	difficult	tore-imagine	evidence-based	policy	systems	in	times	of	extreme	ideological	polarisation,	to	do	so	will	require	arenewed	focus	on	assuring	openness,	transparency	and	accountability	in	decision-making	processes.	This	post	draws	on	the	author’s	article,	When	evidence	does	not	matter:	The	barriers	to	learning	from	science	intwo	cases	of	environmental	policy	change	in	Brazil,	published	in	Science	and	Public	Policy.	Note:	This	article	gives	the	views	of	the	authors,	and	not	the	position	of	the	LSE	Impact	Blog,	nor	of	the	LondonSchool	of	Economics.	Please	review	our	comments	policy	if	you	have	any	concerns	on	posting	a	comment	belowImage	Credit:	Palácio	do	Planalto,	03/05/2019	Presidente	da	República,	Jair	Bolsonaro	Recebe	os	Alunos	doCentro	Educacional	01	da	Cidade	Estrutural,	via	Flickr	(CC	BY	2.0)Impact of Social Sciences Blog: When evidence does not matter – What Brazil teaches us about the fragility of evidence based policymaking Page 2 of 2		Date originally posted: 2020-07-22Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/07/22/when-evidence-does-not-matter-what-brazil-teaches-us-about-the-fragility-of-evidence-based-policymaking/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/

When evidence does not matter – what Brazil teaches us about the fragility of evidence based policymaking

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/105986/1/impactofsocialsciences_2020_07_22_when_evidence_does_not_matter_what.pdf

When evidence does not matter – what Brazil teaches us about the fragility of evidence based policymaking

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online