An article titled “Evidence-Based Public Policies: A Necessary Debate,” written by Professor Daniel Pereira Andrade of Fundação Getulio Vargas’ Sao Paulo School of Business Administration (FGV EAESP) and published in the school’s journal, GV-Executive, critically analyzes the rise of evidence-based public policies in the context of far-right populist governments and the subsequent return of these practices following changes in political leadership. Andrade argues that although evidence-based public policies are valued for their transparency and objectivity, they have political and ethical implications that need to be analyzed carefully.

The paper emphasizes that evidence-based public policies, often presented as neutral and impartial, are actually influenced by implicit visions of the common good. “Quantitative indicators and implementation strategies should not be seen as a transparent portrait of reality,” says the author, who points out that “the production of numbers is based on theoretical and value-based assumptions about what and how to measure.” Thus, indicators end up legitimizing certain worldviews and contributing to the perpetuation of specific power relations.

The professor also criticizes managerialism, an approach that highlights efficiency and cost-benefit analysis as the main criteria for formulating public policies. According to him, “managerialism tacitly fosters a certain model of social order based on a market society, seeking to remove it from public scrutiny through its technocratic positivism.” By focusing exclusively on efficiency, this model ends up ignoring the value dimension of public policies, which can be just as damaging as denialism.

To counter this view, the author proposes the re-politicization of evidence-based public policies and suggests incorporating knowledge from the human sciences, such as political philosophy, ethics and sociology, into the debate on the design and evaluation of these policies. “Mobilizing knowledge other than the predominant economic rationality is essential to denaturalize the market model as the only possible option,” Andrade writes.

In addition, the article suggests that social participation should be expanded in the formulation of public policies. “Consultation with beneficiaries not only helps policies make sense in practice, but also contributes to a social form of democratic existence,” Andrade says. He argues that economic efficiency must be balanced with political deliberation, allowing different models of society to be discussed and evaluated democratically.

In short, the article highlights that although evidence-based public policies have their value, it is crucial to recognize the political and ethical influences that permeate these policies. “Being clear about how conceptions of the common good are intertwined at various levels of public policy contributes to more consequential choices and to democratic scrutiny of decisions made,” Andrade concludes, advocating a more critical and inclusive approach to public policy formulation.

To read the full paper, click here.