From evidence to values-based decision making in African parliaments

Q2 Social Sciences
Caitlin Blaser Mapitsa, Aisha J. Ali, Linda S. Khumalo
{"title":"From evidence to values-based decision making in African parliaments","authors":"Caitlin Blaser Mapitsa, Aisha J. Ali, Linda S. Khumalo","doi":"10.1177/1035719X20918370","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Monitoring and Evaluation discourse in Africa has evolved to focus on building systems at a national level. While this systemic approach has many advantages, its implementation often runs up against the uncomfortable reality that governments have complex incentives to use evidence, and this evidence can equally contribute to decision making that is neither development-focused nor democratic if values are not part of the conversation. Much of the literature on public-sector reform focuses on evidence-based policy making. While relevant, it does not reflect on values, and this article will argue that acknowledging the central role values play in interpreting evidence is critical to effective national evaluation system building. To make this argument, this article will present and discuss vignettes from the parliaments of Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe that illustrate the pivotal role values have played in interpreting and acting on evidence in a parliamentary context. Finally, it makes a case for the discourse about evidence-based policy making to consider values-based policy making as an appropriate lens for parliaments to acknowledge and engage with the complex landscape of the politics of evidence.","PeriodicalId":37231,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation Journal of Australasia","volume":"20 1","pages":"68 - 85"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1035719X20918370","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation Journal of Australasia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X20918370","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Monitoring and Evaluation discourse in Africa has evolved to focus on building systems at a national level. While this systemic approach has many advantages, its implementation often runs up against the uncomfortable reality that governments have complex incentives to use evidence, and this evidence can equally contribute to decision making that is neither development-focused nor democratic if values are not part of the conversation. Much of the literature on public-sector reform focuses on evidence-based policy making. While relevant, it does not reflect on values, and this article will argue that acknowledging the central role values play in interpreting evidence is critical to effective national evaluation system building. To make this argument, this article will present and discuss vignettes from the parliaments of Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe that illustrate the pivotal role values have played in interpreting and acting on evidence in a parliamentary context. Finally, it makes a case for the discourse about evidence-based policy making to consider values-based policy making as an appropriate lens for parliaments to acknowledge and engage with the complex landscape of the politics of evidence.
从证据到非洲议会基于价值观的决策
非洲的监测和评价讨论已演变为侧重于建立国家一级的系统。虽然这种系统性方法有很多优点,但它的实施往往会遇到一个令人不安的现实,即政府有复杂的动机来使用证据,如果价值观不在对话中,这些证据同样有助于做出既不注重发展也不民主的决策。许多关于公共部门改革的文献都侧重于循证政策制定。虽然相关,但它并没有反映价值观,本文将认为,承认价值观在解释证据方面发挥的核心作用对于有效的国家评估体系建设至关重要。为了提出这一论点,本文将介绍和讨论马拉维、坦桑尼亚、乌干达、赞比亚和津巴布韦议会的小插曲,这些小插曲说明了价值观在议会背景下解释和处理证据方面发挥的关键作用。最后,它为关于循证政策制定的讨论提供了一个理由,即将基于价值观的政策制定视为议会承认和参与证据政治的复杂景观的适当视角。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Evaluation Journal of Australasia
Evaluation Journal of Australasia Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信