Taming the raging river - Qualitative Research & Social Media - Firefly
Evidence based policy in romania
1. Evidence based policy in
Romania
LAVINIA ANDREI
PHD CANDIDATE
UNIVERSITY OF BUCHAREST
ROMANIA
MAY 2011
2. • We can easily see now that the interaction between the research
community and the policy makers is problematic. Being based in a
“defensive insecurity” (academics insecure about the crisis of theory,
practitioners insecure about the failure of practice) each manifests
almost contempt to the other (Minogue, Martin “Theory and Practice
in Public Policy and Administration”).
• As a result, decision makers tend to rely on other criteria when
formulating policies. “Research has only a limited role in governance
because these policies are driven more by ideology, economic theory,
and political expediency than by the need to improve effectiveness”
(Black, 2001)
• Richard Lee – “tumultuos marriage in which the rules of conjugality
were never fully established or agreed to by both parties”
3. Lisel O’Dwyer’s classification of policy fields. He says that there are
broadly three types of policy fields which make different uses of
evidence and research:
Stable policy fields (areas where knowledge is reasonably settled;
theoretical foundations are strong; governments broadly know what
works; there is a strong evidence base and incremental
improvement).
Policy fields in flux (where the knowledge base is contested and
there is disagreement over the most basic theoretical approaches).
Inherently novel policy fields (the newness means there is no pre
existing evidence base, e.g. regulation of biotechnology; privacy on
the net)
4. Two distinct approaches regarding social research
and policy:
Max Weber and Robert Merton – science as truth
– the principal of axiological neutrality
Antonio Gramsci and Karl Manheim – critical
thinking and problem-building theories
Applied social science relies on researchers to be
neutral and professional, nevertheless, it takes
more than good science to make policy
5. The Policy Process in Romania
• Up to 2005 there was not a clear legislative
framework that introduced the concept of public
policy in Romania;
• State intervention was exclusively normative, and
this generally continues to be the case nowadays;
• Nevertheless there were some sectors (e.g. the energy
sector, the chemical industry sector) that the state
has always had a big influence and the policy process
was and still is quite structured.
6. Policy in the legislation
Government Decision no. 775/ 14.07.2005
Approving of rules regarding public policy drafting,
monitoring and evaluation at central level
Government Decision no. 750/ 14.07.2005
Setting up inter-ministry permanent committees for
strategy and policy making
Plenty of legislation followed setting up the planning
and implementation of public policies in Romania
7. Policy in the legislation (2)
Starting from 2009, the policy making process
changed dramatically due to one apparently minor
legislative change – the GD no. 561/2009
No impact analysis or evidence was required
anymore – official reason – legislative expediency;
The huge efforts to separate policy making from the
legislative process were annulled.
8. Policy makers in Romania
More than two thirds of the members of the Romanian
Government since 1989 hold at least a postgraduate degree.
By the year 2000, national degrees became obsolete and
Romanian officials started getting international training
certificates. Thus 45,6% of the ministers in the Nastase
Cabinet, and 64,15% of the following cabinet (Tariceanu
Cabinet) hold an international degree, most commonly a short
term training certificate.
1/3 of all the ministers in Romania hold a PhD and a quarter of
them are either professors or researchers.
Ionascu, Alexandra Les elites politiques en Roumanie
postcommuniste 1990-2008. Le voies d’acces au pouvoir
executif, Studia Politica, vol XI, no.1, 2011, pp 27-51
9. Policy makers in Romania (2)
Another study of the ways that political elites are recruited in
Romania, revealed that:
Around 30% of the MPs were ready to leave the Parliament for
another office. “People run for the parliament when they do not
have better options, but leave as soon as better opportunities arise.
And, even if these opportunities do not arise, those who long for
other types of offices will mostly disregard their parliamentary
responsibilities” (Stefan 2006:215).
What offices do they have in mind and why? As the study suggests, the
paths envisaged by the MPs span from district council president,
ministers and secretaries of state, head of governmental agencies,
mayors or prefects, and even ambassadors. To conclude,
“parliamentary mandates are clearly not top of the hierarchy” of
possible offices (Stefan, 2006:204)
10. Policy makers in Romania (3)
A report of the Institute for Public Policy, Bucharest entitled “Pe cine
am ales „uninominal”? Profil parlamentar 2008 faţă de 2004”
(Whom did we elect uni-nominally? Parliamentary profiles in 2008
compared to 2004) disclosed the following analysis regarding
education background of the Romanian MPs:
All Senators have a university degree in the present legislature. 40% of
them hold a PhD and 37% have other graduate level degree, totaling
77% of the total holding at least a master degree. Most of them are
specialized in law and economics (20% each) and around 18% hold
a degree in sciences. Only 10 senators hold a humanities degree.
The Deputies hold in a 42 percentage a PhD and 54% of them hold a
bachelor or a master’s degree. Only 3 of the MP in the Deputies
Chamber have only a Secondary School Degree. Adrian Moraru,
Elena Iorga, 2009, “Pe cine am ales „uninominal”? Profil
parlamentar 2008 faţă de 2004” Institutul pentru POlitici Publice,
Bucuresti, disponibil la http://www.ipp.ro/pagini/pe-cine-am-ales-
uninominal-profil-p-1.php
11. Policy makers in the region
A study regarding the professional background of new parliamentarians in
East Germany (Jahr, 2003) comes up with a few interesting ideas:
On one hand, more than 80% of the MPs at state and land level hold an
university degree, and nearly 30% hold a PhD. As opposed to the Romanian
data, most of the occupations are scientifical-technical while “lawyers and
those with a degree in humanities or social sciences were only weekly
represented” (Jahr, 2003:13-14).
Teachers and professors represent around 12-13% of the MPs.
Despite higher numbers of teachers and academics, and significantly more
social scientists in the Romanian Parliament as compared with the German
figures, we can assume it has no impact on increasing familiarity or use of
policy research, on the contrary.
In the Czech parliament seems to have witnessed a process of
professionalization. With each legislature, the number of outsiders
decreased, and the perceived ties with the constituency and citizens in
general diminished. While in 1992 many representatives of the scientific
and academic sphere were elected to the Parliament, in 2003 more than
half of the deputies are recruited from top political positions
14. Policy makers in Romania
Although there are hints to believe that the policy
makers pursued academic careers while in office,
there is no statistical data to support this.
The great majority of policy makers seems to be
well instructed, well acquainted to academic
research.
Why don’t they trust social research?
15. Researchers in Romania
• In Romania, research development and innovation cover 50 fields
of study and have a relatively steady evolution according to the
National Council for Higher Education Funding (CNFIS, 2007). The
major part of the research (60%) is public. Data from 2006 showed
that Romania had 3.13 researchers per 1000 employed inhabitants,
two times less that the corresponding EU15 figures.
• As far as the chief research funding schemes are concerned, they are
usually addressed to all public research institutions (we have
inherited from our communist past a large number of non-
university research institutes [100+], some half of which are
affiliated with the Romanian Academy of Sciences).
• The public expenditures for research are quite low (the .31% GDP),
and have fluctuated dramatically over the past decade. Funding has
been unpredictable peaking in 2007 to .5% of GDP after a steep
increase between 2006 and 2007 of nearly 50%.
16. Research questions
How does the policy process work in Romania?
Why isn’t social science used more in the policy
process?
How could evidence based policy work in Romania?
Method used: Semi-structured interviews with policy
makers, policy analysts and researchers (15
interviews up till now)
17. Some preliminary results from the interviews
Much of the talk regarding policy is related to the
correctness of public spending;
Time is an important issue for policy makers, and
research does not seem to be able to deliver
necessary information – nevertheless, policy makers
agree that usually policy decisions are postponed;
“I know social science, I myself hold a PhD in
economics . Unfortunately that kind of research is
not useful to us. They are too slow” (Secretary of
State)
18. Some preliminary results from the interviews (2)
“Although I would like to use more research findings
in my work, I do not usually find the data available
trustworthy enough. They have to work on their
credibility” (SME financing and competition policy
expert)
“There is no pressure from the electorate to
fundament policy decisions.” (policy expert)
“Policy makers always want us to find what they
were already looking for…” (researcher)
19. Some preliminary results from the interviews (3)
“There is no stable financial stream to support policy
research in Romania. When research is
commissioned after all, it is generally a gift for a
friend” (senior researcher)
“There has been a strong push from the
international organizations such as the UN, World
Bank and nowadays the IMF towards evidence based
policy. They led to good results but they were not
sustainable. Romanian policy makers do not seem to
be ready to give up their supremacy.” (university
professor)
20. Conclusions
1. Researchers seem to know what policy makers do
and should do;
2. Policy makers seem to know what researchers do
and should do;
3. They do not work together because they do not
seem to trust each other. Moreover, there is no
incentive or real responsibility to do so.
