This chapter presents the rationale for the EIPM project, and highlights some of the challenges, including fragmented advice, data gaps, and gaps in institutional capacity. The chapter highlights the role of EIPM in helping to address complex policy trade-offs, particularly in the context of political priorities such as boosting competitiveness and the green transition, as well in improving government’s relationship with citizens and ensuring quality policy and regulation. The chapter highlights the broad international relevance of the project at European level. It also frames the project’s ecosystem approach, identifying the role of knowledge brokers, and the role of systemic co-ordination, cultural change, and both formal and informal mechanisms that adapt to national contexts.
Strengthening National Evidence‑Informed Policymaking Ecosystems
Abstract
While policymaking is underpinned by multiple factors, including political priorities, public opinion, economic conditions, and various technological and policy trade-offs, evidence is a key component for ensuring policies are well-informed and grounded in analysis. The project ‘Building capacity for evidence-informed policymaking in governance and public administration in a post-pandemic Europe’, was inspired by the need for participating countries to better respond to complex policy issues that required both specialised knowledge and greater capacity to mobilise evidence and data. This report offers a broad synthesis of the findings and experiences of this project, which will be identified throughout the report as the EIPM project. Concretely, the project was triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, during which governments and countries realised that they were facing significant evidence gaps, including scientific evidence. This had significant economic and social repercussions where major decisions had to be made, such as shutting down entire economic sectors. The pandemic left many governments struggling, particularly at the centre of government, which often received conflicting advice on a variety of sectors, including economic, health and social (OECD, 2020[1]). This brought the role of evidence to the fore, with a widespread recognition in governments that the use of evidence in informing policy was not as effective as it should be. Moreover, the pandemic highlighted critical governance and organisational gaps, with a widespread lack of capacity, institutionalisation tools, and systemic processes. It also highlighted the critical role of a whole-of-government perspective in resolving economic and social trade-offs, as well as in integrating evidence from multiple sources.
At the European level, the need for evidence-informed policymaking (EIPM) was underlined by the Commission Staff Working Document ‘Supporting and connecting policymaking in the Member States with scientific research’ (European Commission, 2022[2]). This document had been preceded by a set of Science for Policy dialogues organised by the European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC), which helped create country-wide networks of experts, in both academia and government, with a joint interest in and recognition of the role of EIPM as well as science for policy.
This created an analytical structure under which this project (henceforth referred to as the ‘EIPM project’) was conceived and initiated. However, in any policymaking process, there are a multiplicity of interests, perspectives, stakeholders and values that must be accounted for. As such, while evidence can inform and enrich public debates, it is not the sole determinant of policy outcomes.
This project uses a broad definition of evidence, defining it as a systematic investigative process employed to increase or revise current knowledge. It encompasses scientific evidence and knowledge, evidence on policy acquired through policy evaluations, regulatory impact assessments, strategic foresight, and monitoring data, as well as surveys and probes into citizen and stakeholder views, expectations, perceptions and attitudes on the issue at hand.
EIPM is an approach to policymaking that considers the tools, structures, capacities and methods that exist in a country to enable the development, formulation and implementation of policies underpinned by evidence, as defined above. Part of the evidence in EIPM will be scientific evidence. Therefore, the EIPM approach includes a specific “science for policy approach”, or Science4Policy, which refers to an active engagement from scientists and experts in ensuring that their competence, data, and knowledge of the scientific state-of-the-art on a given issue can be fed into policy debates and discussions.
The term “evidence-informed”, instead of “evidence-based”, recognises the fact that evidence is one of the factors contributing to the policymaking process, which cannot be defined only by an expert perspective, but will include, for example, ideological principles and values and trade-offs considerations across policy areas.
In the two years during which this project was undertaken, countries in Europe and beyond have faced many new challenges. Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, initiated in 2022, had significant economic repercussions, with an energy crisis that increased the cost of gas for all European countries and fuelled inflation across Europe. Once again, governments had to react under emergency conditions, designing significant policy packages under major uncertainty. In many countries, data gaps did not always allow for a full understanding of the distributional consequences and the exact scoping of these packages.
As a result, political agendas have shifted in the past two years in response to new geopolitical threats, and increased fiscal pressures arising from the extensive government expenditure of the pandemic and energy crisis. These new pressures mean that countries in Europe have to boost competitiveness, while also addressing new challenges such as mis- and dis-information and the erosion of trust in public institutions. There is a further need to consider new priorities, including in defence and the green transition. To address those challenges, sound evidence remains of critical importance to understanding the policy implications and impact of potential solutions, evaluate the outcomes and economic consequences, and support decision making.
This has been acknowledged at the European level, with the new political guidelines of the European Commission. Recent reports, such as Mario Draghi’s The Future of European Competitiveness and Enrico Letta’s “Empowering the Single Market to Deliver a Sustainable Future and Prosperity for All EU Citizens”, also underscore the need for increasing Europe’s competitiveness to address these new challenges. Furthermore, there is a new focus on administrative simplification, with the need to consider evidence related to administrative burdens for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and investors, and to identify and map incentives attracting foreign direct investment.
While EIPM is not a silver bullet, high-quality scientific evidence, thorough analysis of data, ex ante evaluations and high-quality impact assessments can improve the quality of both regulatory and policy measures. Well-designed rules and policy measures can also benefit from the integration of “implementation evidence”, including insights from experimentation. This can reduce implementation gaps and increase compliance by citizens and companies, fostering greater trust and understanding. The rules and measures can also benefit from the use of strategic foresight, which can help identify emerging trends and explore a variety of future scenarios to develop a more concrete understanding of future effects. The importance of such forward-looking approaches in ensuring regulations remain fit for purpose in the face of rapid change is also highlighted by the OECD Recommendation on Agile Regulatory Governance (OECD, 2021[11]). Ex post evaluation is also valuable in helping policymakers learn lessons from previous policies and regulations, which when implemented help governments invest in what works and cut what does not, helping achieve competitiveness and restore public finances. Reliable data and sound policy choices are critical for the Economic Governance Framework, and for the sound design and implementation of the Medium-Term Fiscal Plans of the Member States and the European Semester. Finally, evidence-informed economic analysis will better equip the participating countries for negotiations in the new Multi-annual Financial Framework.
Sound policymaking must consider its increasingly complex context. While recent OECD Trust Survey data show that transparent use of data can enhance public trust, policymakers also operate in an environment where multiple actors challenge the role of science and spread misinformation, especially via social media. This means that governments and academia are navigating a competitive marketplace for public attention, where data and scientific findings coexist with mis- and disinformation. As such, it is essential not only to produce high-quality evidence but to ensure it is effectively disseminated.
The 2024 results of the OECD Trust Survey confirmed that governments face significant challenges to address the erosion in trust, with 44% of citizens having low or no trust in the national government, compared to 39% with high or moderate trust, a slight reduction compared to the 2021 results.1 More importantly, these results highlighted the importance of EIPM as a key driver underpinning trust in national government: as shown in Figure 1.1 below, trust in national government is closely related to the percentage of citizens who think that the government makes decisions based on the best available evidence, research and data (OECD, 2024[12]).
Share of population with high or moderately high trust in the national government (y-axis) by share of people that think it is likely government takes decisions based on best available evidence (x-axis), 2023
Source: (OECD, 2024[12])
These results highlight that this is an area for potentially high future returns and thus requires investment. There is a clear perception by citizens that major and complex challenges such as climate change, immigration, and inflation require substantial and robust evidence, necessitating policymakers to seek insights from the scientific community beyond their constituency for the public to trust that decisions are made in pursuit of the public interest. However, 38% of citizens across OECD countries find it unlikely that their government makes policies based on the best available evidence (OECD, 2024[12]).
These results also highlight the importance of the positive perception of government’s capacity to use the best available evidence in policymaking as the second most important driver of trust in national government. Furthermore, the findings show evidence to be an important driver of trust in Parliament. Finally, the findings highlight the importance of transparency and that government decision making can be perceived as opaque. There is a need to better communicate the evidence used for decisions, an important area for action also identified by the project. These results are also consistent with other findings, such as the Eurobarometer insights that EIPM can increase trust more indirectly, as citizens strongly support the use of science in policymaking, and that translates into increased trust in institutions that use evidence (European Commission, 2021[13]).
Strong science-for-policy ecosystems are not a goal in themselves, and science also comes with a degree of uncertainty. However, science-for-policy ecosystems are part of the checks and balances that safeguard the functioning of our democratic societies. Hence, in the context of eroding trust, investing in the capacity and resilience of science-for-policy ecosystems is essential to guarantee that they continue to operate even when faced with challenging political conditions.
The 2023 Competitiveness Council Conclusions and the 2024 Ghent EUPAN Ministerial Declaration
In the past several years, the issue of EIPM has been prominent among discussions in public administrations in Europe and beyond. This has driven initiatives that foster closer co-operation among EU Member States and call for establishing or strengthening existing EIPM ecosystems. This section discusses the main political declarations in this area: the 2023 Competitiveness Council (COMPET) conclusions and the 2024 Ghent declaration of European Ministers for Public Administration (European Union Public Administration Network, EUPAN).
While the project was conducted at national level, it is also of broader international relevance at European level. The 2023 COMPET Conclusions under the subject ’Strengthening the role and impact of research and innovation in the policymaking process in the Union’ underline the importance of reliable, transparent, verifiable and interdisciplinary evidence as input in forming public policies that serve the interests of people and societies. Research and innovation (R&I) and policymaking are highlighted as mutually reinforcing. The Conclusions were published on the 8th of December 2023 under the Spanish Presidency of the Council of the EU (Council of the European Union, 2023[14]). The Spanish Minister for Science, Innovation and Universities Diana Morant Ripolli explains:
“Good policymaking is essential for the progress of research and innovation, but research and innovation are also fundamental for the success of the regulatory process. Strengthening the contribution of research and innovation to policymaking benefits society, has a positive impact on the planet and eventually improves citizens’ lives and reinforces democracy” (Competitiveness Council, 2023[15]).
The Conclusions built on the promises of a new European Research Area in 2020, which refers to the need to exploit the potential of research and innovation for society more effectively, and the 2021 Council Conclusions, which recognise the increased role of research and innovation in addressing future challenges. In this vein, in May 2025 the Competitiveness Council formally endorsed the European Research Area (ERA) Policy Agenda, which aims to enhance Europe’s research and innovation ecosystem, addressing key challenges such as knowledge mobility, open science, and boosting knowledge valorisation (European Council, 2025[16]) (Council of the European Union, 2025[17]).
The Conclusions, while acknowledging that the use of evidence varies across Member States, call for the Commission to develop specific tools that can foster the establishment of a Science for Policy ecosystem. The main purpose for the EU in this regard is to act as a facilitator and a bridge between different structures, and provide training activities that improve the capacity of Science for Policy actors with an emphasis on intermediary organisations. The text also stresses the critical role of local and regional actors in strengthening competitive R&I ecosystems and the need for:
“Greater coordination across innovation ecosystems and a more efficient use of all capabilities and resources at European, national and regional levels.” (Council of the European Union, 2023[14])
Under the Belgian Presidency, there was another European level endorsement of evidence as a major contributing factor to more robust and innovative public administrations. The Ghent Declaration, signed under the European Public Administration Network (EUPAN) meeting in February 2024, saw 29 countries commit to building public administrations that are more representative of society and capable of implementing policies that are data-driven (beEU, 2024[18]). Its second chapter focuses on EIPM, and explicitly acknowledges the use of evidence in making and evaluating policy decisions by:
Building EIPM capacity throughout the government
Strengthening the exchange between policy, scientific institutions, and knowledge brokers
Providing accessible data
Analysing the possibilities of a framework that embodies policy preparation and evaluation.
The EIPM project built on several years of experience, blending JRC and OECD expertise. The project used an ecosystem approach, which recognises the fact that EIPM requires a whole ecosystem to function properly, bringing together both supply and demand for evidence through processes and institutions (Keizer et al., 2025). It recognised that the effective uptake of evidence in the policy process can only be achieved if two conditions are met:
On the supply side, the technical ability to provide the best available and relevant evidence to the decision maker at the right time in the right format.
On the demand side, effective demand for and uptake of evidence, which depends on political willingness and appetite on the government side to consider, ask for and use evidence in policymaking.
The project took an ecosystem approach, with a cross-cutting perspective both on the demand and the supply of evidence in the broadest sense. It considered the processes and institutions by which supply and demand meet within government, such as the availability of knowledge brokers and knowledge broker organisations, the better regulation and regulatory impact assessment processes. It also recognised the various levels at which supply, demand and their interaction can be organised, including the individual, organisational and interorganisational levels, building on Langer et al.
This ecosystem approach, also implies promoting a culture facilitating openness and curiosity. Crucially, this is also consistent with the need for a whole-of-government perspective, bringing in the centres of government, which was the case in most of the countries of the project.
In “Science for policy” terms, this ecosystem approach reflects a complex set of organisational structures and entities, processes, and networks that interact to support the mobilisation, acquisition, synthesis, translation, presentation for use, and application of scientific knowledge in policymaking processes. The approach is systemic, in the sense that it involves all relevant actors and their functions, a thorough study of the different layers and interactions among different parts of the system, and a process that specifies the rules or ‘paths’ in these linkages. The ecosystem approach acknowledges the diversity among countries, and does not imply that there is, or should be, a singular, standardised solution. While formal mechanisms should be in place to ensure reliable and transparent processes, they can be supplemented by informal mechanisms, which may be particularly useful in smaller countries where individual networks can facilitate interaction. An ecosystem approach helps to understand how formal and informal channels can be mutually reinforcing.
The ecosystem approach also helps to widen the perspective on EIPM practices. It not only includes what is usually referred to as the demand side (which generally includes policymakers within government, public administration, and parliament) and the supply side (which generally includes researchers within scientific institutions and other types of expert organisations), but also includes what is referred to as knowledge brokerage: everything happening in between these two functions. This notion represents an intermediate and more elusive category, which includes a mix of individuals and institutions working at the evidence-to-policy interface. Knowledge brokers play a crucial role in disseminating, translating, synthesising and communicating evidence and scientific findings to ministers and to the broader public. They can also receive, articulate and manage requests for evidence, such as those coming from ministerial letters, requests from advisers and others. However, not all participating countries have people and/or organisations that identify as such, which can create gaps.
References
[18] beEU (2024), “The Ghent Declaration on the Challenges and Common Actions for European Public Administrations”, https://bosa.belgium.be/sites/default/files/documents/The%20Ghent%20Declaration.pdf (accessed on 31 March 2025).
[15] Competitiveness Council (2023), “Competitiveness Council (Research and space), 8 December 2023”, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/compet/2023/12/08/ (accessed on 31 March 2025).
[17] Council of the European Union (2025), “Competitiveness Council Brussels, 22-23 May 2025”, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/zaflzqhu/250522-23-background-note-compet_final.pdf (accessed on 24 June 2025).
[14] Council of the European Union (2023), “Strengthening the role and impact of research and innovation in the policymaking process in the Union - Council conclusions (approved on 8 December 2023)”, https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-16450-2023-INIT/en/pdf (accessed on 31 March 2025).
[2] European Commission (2022), “Staff Working Document - Supporting and connecting policymaking in the Member States with scientific research”, https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/file/staff-working-document-supporting-connecting-policymaking-member-states-scientific-research_en (accessed on 28 March 2025).
[13] European Commission (2021), “European citizens’ knowledge and attitudes towards science and technology”, https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2237 (accessed on 28 March 2025).
[16] European Council (2025), “Council endorses the European research area policy agenda for the next three years”, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/05/23/council-endorses-the-european-research-area-policy-agenda-for-the-next-three-years/ (accessed on 24 June 2025).
[7] Krieger, K. and L. Melchor Fernandez (eds.) (2023), An evaluation framework for institutional capacity of science-for-policy ecosystems in EU Member States, Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC136095.
[6] Krieger, K. and L. Melchor Fernandez (eds.) (2022), Assessing national institutional capacity for evidence-informed policymaking: the role of a science-for-policy system, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC129898.
[8] Krieger, K. and L. Melchor Fernandez (eds.) (2022), Constructing assessment indicator dashboards for evidence-informed policymaking: Insights from the perspective of public administration, institutions, and governance, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC130062.
[9] Krieger, K. and L. Melchor Fernandez (eds.) (2022), Indicator Dashboards in governance of evidence-informed policymaking: thoughts on rationale and design criteria, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC129902.
[3] Mackie, I. et al. (2022), Evidence-informed policy making - Building a conceptual model and developing indicators, Publications Office of the European Union, https://data.eurodata.europa.eu/doi/10.2887/81339.
[12] OECD (2024), OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions – 2024 Results: Building Trust in a Complex Policy Environment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9a20554b-en.
[11] OECD (2021), “Recommendation of the Council for Agile Regulatory Governance to Harness Innovation”, OECD Legal Instruments, OECD, Paris, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0464.
[5] OECD (2020), Building Capacity for Evidence-Informed Policy-Making: Lessons from Country Experiences, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/86331250-en.
[1] OECD (2020), “Building resilience to the Covid-19 pandemic: the role of centres of government”, OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19), OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/883d2961-en.
[4] OECD (2020), Mobilising Evidence for Good Governance: Taking Stock of Principles and Standards for Policy Design, Implementation and Evaluation, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3f6f736b-en.
[10] Šucha, V. and M. Sienkiewicz (2020), Science for Policy Handbook, Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/c2018-0-03963-8.
← 1. For the eighteen countries in which trust levels in the national government were measured in both the 2021 and 2023 waves, the share with high or moderately high trust in the national government declined from 43 to 41%.