ABSTRACT
It has been argued that ‘evidence-based policy making should work well’ (Choi et al. 2005, and Chapter 9, this volume) because it is based on the assumption that better information will lead to better policy outcomes. In particular, following on from a comprehensive overview by Choi et al., scientists working on drought issues can readily produce various forms of evidence of and about drought, so therefore this should enable policy makers to optimise decision making. An extension of this optimistic view and approach is that policy makers, in turn, provide scientists working on ‘drought’ with evidence requirements and resources for their research to enhance future policy decisions (Choi et al. 2005). More pessimistically, it has been argued variously that evidence-based policy does not always work, or perhaps almost never works (Parsons 2002; Botterill and Hindmoor 2012), and there are several tendencies that work against it. The natural sciences approach to decision making ‘relies excessively on the use of linear systems and discounts non-scientific forms of knowledge’ (McLain and Lee 1996). Further to this, scientists engaged in policy development and advice may not be prepared to share their advisory and decision-making roles with other stakeholders or to participate with them on an equal footing.
