This report synthesises the findings of a project carried out by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (JRC) and the OECD to support seven European countries (Belgium, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania and the Netherlands) build capacity for evidence-informed policymaking (EIPM) in governance and public administration. While the project was launched in response to the challenges exposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, EIPM is needed more than ever. To address geopolitical and economic shocks, countries need the best available evidence to support effective decisions. This also matters for increasing competitiveness and reducing administrative burdens, which have been identified as European priorities.
Moreover, the results of the OECD 2023 Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions show a strong link between citizens’ perceptions of the use of evidence and public trust in national government: variation in the belief that government uses the best available evidence statistically accounts for 76% of the differences in trust levels across surveyed countries. However, 38% of citizens across OECD countries find it unlikely that their government makes policies based on the best available evidence, reinforcing the relevance of further embedding EIPM into public administration systems.
EIPM has received increased political attention: the EU’s 2023 Competitiveness Council Conclusions highlight the contribution of research and innovation to policymaking. Furthermore, the 2024 Ghent Declaration of European Ministers of Public Administration recognised the importance of building EIPM capacity throughout government and of strengthening the exchange between policymakers and scientific institutions.
The project took a systemic, whole-of-government approach to addressing the effective uptake of evidence in the policy process. This “ecosystem approach” considers both demand- and supply-side perspectives, as effective EIPM requires a whole system to function cohesively. The approach also addresses the knowledge brokerage function, which includes a mix of individuals and institutions working at the evidence-to-policy interface.
The project engaged with the seven countries using a common analytical structure, distinguishing between demand and supply of evidence, and analysing capacity at individual, organisational, interorganisational, and system levels. Shared learning and collaborative dialogues helped facilitate a common understanding of key challenges and ecosystem needs across the participating countries. This included capacity-building workshops for scientists, policymakers and knowledge brokers, and mutual learning exercises focusing on policy evaluation, foresight and artificial intelligence.
This report identifies five overarching findings from the project:
1. a shared language is critical to reaching a common goal given the multiple actors and stakeholders involved in EIPM.
2. system-level thinking is needed for effective co-ordination.
3. overcoming siloes is key to unlocking cross-sectoral evidence use.
4. strong leadership and high-level demand from policymakers to build a culture of evidence in public administration and academic structures.
5. bridging skills and competence gaps requires aligned efforts at individual and organisational levels.
In addition, the project helped identify five principles of well-functioning and future-proof EIPM ecosystems, underpinned by a set of concrete actions to support policy implementation:
An EIPM ecosystem should value diversity and enable frequent and dynamic interactions.
Co-ordination mechanisms need to be institutionalised to ensure stability and security.
There is a need to invest in continuous capacity building at individual and institutional level.
An EIPM ecosystem should promote accessible, interdisciplinary evidence aligned with policy needs.
An EIPM ecosystem should encourage a clear articulation of policy problems and a culture of enquiry.
This report also includes a synthesis of the findings from the country reports.
At the individual level, researchers, policymakers, and knowledge brokers face significant communication and competency gaps. Knowledge brokers play a vital role in bridging these gaps. Despite this, unclear mandates, limited institutional support, and lack of recognition can mean that they are often underutilised. Secondments, pairing schemes, policy labs, and communities of practice can help foster collaboration and shared mindsets, as seen in various training initiatives.
Despite growing recognition of EIPM’s value, skill gaps remain common: researchers often lack familiarity with policymaking timelines, communication formats, and tendering procedures. Communication and stakeholder engagement competencies remain generally underdeveloped. Within government, analytical skills are often undervalued and scattered across ministries, with no clear career path for employees. While some countries are establishing central analytical units, most civil servants receive limited and ad hoc EIPM training. Recognition of EIPM skills in hiring and performance evaluation remains limited. Some countries are beginning to formalise such frameworks, which was encouraged and stimulated by the project.
While some effective analytical structures exist, they are often sector-specific, under-resourced, and not formally integrated into decision-making processes. Regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) and ex post evaluations are present but inconsistently applied, often viewed as “box-ticking exercises”. Other good practices such as proportionality principles and stakeholder consultation remain relatively rare. Use of strategic foresight is gaining ground.
From an ecosystem perspective, fragmentation across advisory networks, ministries, and knowledge producers hinders effective use of evidence. Some countries have taken positive steps, developing structured portals underpinning the policy process as well as information libraries. However, whole-of-government co-ordination mechanisms remain rare.
At the political level, short-term incentives, coalition constraints, and rapid legislative cycles reduce windows of opportunity for effective evidence demand. Even where chief science advisers or senior knowledge brokers exist, they often lack visibility and resources. Access to data often remains a challenge.
This project has underscored the importance of creating and sustaining communities of practice at both national and European level. It has also helped identify pathways for advancing a European-wide EIPM agenda – one that addresses Europe’s most pressing challenges, responds to the changing needs of governments, and strengthens the capacity and resilience of public administrations with regard to future shocks. The project highlights the need to further professionalise the role of knowledge brokers, to balance and combine different types of evidence, to maximise the potential of AI while mitigating its risks, to assess the impact of EIPM, and to ensure commitment to the use of reliable information with integrity. Finally, the report identifies areas where the JRC and OECD remain committed to supporting EIPM in the future.
