Modernisation, Marketisation and Housing Reform: The Use of Evidence

Based Policy as a Rationality Discourse

Keith JacobsUniversity of Tasmania

Tony ManziUniversity of Westminster

‘In everyday life ideology is at work, especially in the apparently

innocent reference to pure utility’ (Zizek, 2011: 248)

What is Evidence-Based Policy (EBP)?

• Comprehensive Analysis• Systematic Review• Framework for Evaluation• Justification for Reform

What Claims are Made for EBP?

• ‘Robust’ framework• Effective use of Research• Rationale for Intervention• Objective and scientific basis for change

EBP

• Distinction between:• ‘high ground wherein practitioners make

effective use of research-based theory and technique’

• ‘swampy lowland where situations are confusing messes incapable of technical solution’ (Schon (1983, pp.43-43)

The Research Context

• The Utilitarian Turn (Solesbury, 2001)• Instrumentalism– Academic rent-seeking?

• Contract research and commodification

EBP as Rationality Discourse

• Pragmatic, anti-ideological politics• ‘Concrete factual realism’ and ‘unvarnished

verisimilitude’ (Hood and Jackson, 1991)• ‘Retreat from priesthood’ (Pawson, 2006)• Technology as ‘vital currency’ for public policy

Role of deliberative policy making (Sullivan, 2011)

• Post hoc rationalities

Modernisation – the Stock Transfer Programme

• Evidence to win bids – e.g. deprivation etc• Extensive evaluation – ex post, ex ante• Depoliticisation - combination of managerial

common sense and community governance (Pawson and Mullins, 2010)

• Long-term migration towards the private sector

Marketisation: Housing Market Renewal

• ‘Pathfinder’ programme– Primacy of markets– Demolition

• Research and consistent lobbying• Importance of timing• Comprehensive evidence base but neglected

community impact

Housing Reform: Localism Act, 2011

• Pragmatic politics of power – reducing risk of failure

• Stigmatisation of social housing and shaping behaviour

• Discourse of financial crisis• Importance of argument rather than evidence

Instead of reaching solutions that can be judged by standards of rationality, policy making reaches settlements, reconciliations, adjustments and

agreements that one can evaluate only inconclusively by such standards as fairness,

acceptability, openness to reconsideration and responsiveness to a variety of interests. And analysis

in large part is transformed from an evaluative technique into a method of exerting influence,

control and power which we call partisan analysis (Lindblom, 1980: 122)

Conclusions

• The interdependence of power and knowledge

• Combination of managerialism, modernisation and ideology

• Implications for academia – Redefining relationship between academics and

policy makers– Reluctance to criticise policy

References• Communities and Local Government (2010) Local Decisions: a Fairer

Future for Social Housing – Consultation. London: CLG.• Hood, C. and Jackson, M. (1991) Administrative Argument. Aldershot:

Dartmouth Publishing Company.• Lindblom, C. (1980) (2nd ed) The Policy Making Process Englewood Cliifs:

Prentice Hall• Pawson, H. and Mullins, D. (2010) After Council Housing: Britain’s New

Social Landlords. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.• Schon, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.• Solesbury, W. (2001) Evidence Based Policy: Whence it Came and Where

its Going, Working Paper 1. London: ESRC UK Centre for Evidence-Based Policy and Practice.

• Sullivan, H. (2011) Truth junkies: using evaluation in UK public policy. Policy and Politics, 39, 4, 499-512.

• Zizek, S. (2011) Living in the End Times. London: Verso.