APRIL 15 — We live in an age of unprecedented data. Governments have more statistics, research, and real-time feedback at their fingertips than ever before. Yet, as a striking new OECD analysis reveals, a profound and persistent gap remains between having evidence and actually using it to design, implement, and evaluate public policy. This isn’t just a technical failure; it’s a core democratic and governance crisis, where policy too often drifts on currents of intuition, short-term political pressure, or outdated assumptions. There is now a growing call for authorities to conduct research to provide the evidence for decision making.
The OECD’s review, “Mobilising Evidence for Good Governance,” performs a vital service: it moves beyond praising the idea of evidence-based policy to scrutinise the messy reality. The findings are both a sobering diagnosis and a clear roadmap. The central, uncomfortable truth is that the barriers are rarely about a lack of information. Instead, they are systemic, cultural, and human.
First, the report identifies a culture clash between the pace of politics and the pace of evidence. Politicians operate in news cycles, seeking rapid, visible wins. Robust evidence, however, requires time to generate, validate, and interpret. This mismatch leads to the “cherry-picking” phenomenon — where a single favourable study is weaponised to justify a pre-determined course, while a body of contrary evidence is ignored. The result is policy theatre, not policy substance.
Secondly, there is a stark capacity deficit. Many civil servants, while dedicated, are not trained or incentivised to be systematic evidence hunters, brokers, or users. The skills to critically appraise a randomised controlled trial, synthesise complex behavioural insights, or commission an effective evaluation are not standard issue. Without this embedded professional competence, the default is to fall back on routine, precedent, or the loudest voice in the room.
Most critically, the OECD highlights a governance vacuum. Few countries have the strong institutional architecture — the “what,” “how,” and “who”— to make evidence-use non-negotiable. This means clear standards mandating evidence statements for new proposals, dedicated units like policy labs or chief scientific advisers with real authority, and transparent processes for evaluation that are independent and whose findings are published without interference. The consequences of this gap are all around us: well-intentioned programmes that fail to improve outcomes, costly reforms based on flawed assumptions, and a corrosive erosion of public trust. When policies fail to deliver, citizens don’t blame the missing evidence; they blame the government’s competence and integrity. We see much of this being played out here.
But the OECD report is not a counsel of despair. Its power lies in its practical blueprint for closing the gap. It calls for: Professionalising the public service: Making evidence literacy a core competency for promotion and recruitment, creating communities of practice, and fostering closer collaboration with academia and civil society. Hardwiring evidence into process: Legislating for ex-ante impact assessments and mandatory ex-post evaluations, with the results feeding directly into budgetary decisions and programme redesign. Fostering a culture of curiosity and humility: Rewarding public servants for asking hard questions and for course-correcting based on new data, rather than punishing them for deviations from a political line.
Ultimately, this is about redefining what good governance means. It’s not just about avoiding corruption or delivering services efficiently — as vital as those are. It’s about committing to a cycle of learning and adaptation. It requires leaders with the confidence to say, “We will test our assumptions,” and the humility to say, “The evidence shows we need to change course.”
Mobilising evidence is not a technocratic side-project. It is the fundamental engine for rebuilding public trust, enhancing effectiveness, and navigating the complex challenges of the 21st century. The OECD has laid out the principles and standards. The question now is whether governments have the political will to install them. Our collective future depends on the answer. We experience this in the country. We see policy u-turns happening without the necessary evidence to support the change. Much is attributed to the fact that policy monitoring and audit rarely happens. It is time this changes. Only then will we see the evidence!
* The author is affiliated with the Tan Sri Omar Centre for STI Policy Studies at UCSI University and is an Adjunct Professor at the Ungku Aziz Centre for Development Studies, Universiti Malaya. He can be reached at [email protected].
** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
