This chapter distils findings from the EIPM project’s seven country studies into key lessons and guiding principles, including actions for inspiration. The project applied a shared analytical framework to assess the strengths and gaps in national evidence ecosystems. Each country used national diagnostic reports underpinned by national surveys, identification of needs and gaps through interviews, and production of roadmap reports with policy recommendations and implementing actions. The chapter identifies presents five major lessons identified across these reports: 1) a shared language is critical to reaching a common goal; 2) system level thinking is needed for effective co-ordination; 3) overcoming siloes is key to unlocking cross-sectoral evidence use; 4) strong leadership is needed to build a culture of evidence; and 5) bridging skills gaps require aligned efforts at both individual and organisational level. Building on these insights, the chapter proposes six principles for effective EIPM ecosystems: valuing diversity and interaction, institutionalising co-ordination mechanisms, investing in capacity building, promoting access to high- quality, interdisciplinary evidence, fostering a culture of inquiry, and aligning incentives across government. These principles each highlight several implementing actions for consideration and inspiration.
Strengthening National Evidence‑Informed Policymaking Ecosystems
Abstract
The goal of this project was to support the participating seven European countries, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, and the Netherlands in their ongoing reforms towards improved capacity for EIPM in governance and public administration. The aim also included promoting increased awareness, recognition and understanding, at the political level and in the scientific communities, of the actions and investments that are required for evidence to be able to fully contribute to well-informed policymaking. Moving from concept to practice required shaping a shared analytical structure, and then as part of the project implementation, translating this structure into practical terms with policy relevance for the participating countries. This analytical structure was key to providing terms of reference and context for the country-specific research undertaken for each of the seven countries. The shared analytical structure is presented in Box 2.1 below.
In the first phase the JRC and OECD organised national kick-off meetings with national communities of the participating countries. The JRC and OECD experts subsequently prepared national diagnostic reports, underpinned by comprehensive national surveys translating the analytical structure into sets of practical questions, which were distributed to the national beneficiary organisations of the project – a wide range of ministries with economic, environmental and social functions, as well as research and advisory organisations. The JRC and OECD teams also engaged with a large share of domestic institutions, as well as experts in universities, social partners, and civil society organisations, to ensure that the project would be informed by a range of perspectives.
A second phase involved identifying needs and gaps, as well as introducing an international comparative dimension with best practice benchmarks. This led to a set of national interactive focus groups and workshops, creating space for mutual sharing and understanding. Based on these needs and gaps assessments and the workshops organised for the local stakeholders, the JRC and OECD produced country roadmap reports with policy recommendations and implementing actions for strengthening EIPM in governance and public administration. Chapter 3 of this report provides a synthesis of the findings of these country reports, which follows the analytical structure underpinning those reports.
In addition, and in parallel to the national level analysis, the project involved organising capacity building workshops for policymakers, for scientists and for knowledge brokers, as well as a set of thematic mutual learning exercises (See Annex A).
This second chapter goes a step beyond, drawing the key lessons of this project, which will be presented in the subsequent section. Bringing the roadmaps together also allowed for the identification of a set of key principles for a healthy ecosystem, presented in the third section of this chapter. These are illustrated by some of the actionable recommendations, that are offered as inspiration for wider dissemination. It is important to note that these lessons, and the key principles adopt a strategic forward-looking structure, which differs from the more analytical and exhaustive approach used in national policy analysis and which is reflected in chapter 3.
The interactive approach of this project created an impetus for change at the national level, presenting each of the participating countries with new possibilities and options that had not always been previously envisaged. As a result, the project had a tangible impact on national policy contexts, altering both the framing and substance of policy discussions over the course of its implementation. The project was therefore an instrument of change, helping nurture recommendations for actions leading to tangible outcomes, while at the same time creating favourable conditions for reform at the national level through increased awareness.
A key feature of the EIPM project was the combination of extensive analysis at the national level, with a multi-country setup. This setup required a framework that was applicable to all countries, while at the same time providing flexibility to capture the specific characteristics and needs of each country. The analysis looked at evidence supply, demand and where the two meet. It distinguished four steps for analysis: individual, organisational, interorganisational and systemic level. Within these levels, the framework distinguishes several elements that are ingredients of a well-functioning EIPM ecosystem. While the use of a consistent framework for analysis was a prerequisite for a cross-country project, it does not mean that there is a singular, standardised model for EIPM. What works depends on the fit with the national culture and governmental system. The demand and supply chapters were introduced, when necessary, with stakeholder mapping.
Demand and use of evidence
Individual capacity: Competence, training, and resources, skills for using evidence.
Organisational capacity: Policy framework, guidelines and other practices.
Inter-organisational: Internal capacity for EIPM and engagement with scientific expertise. across government, provisions for conflicts of interest, role of parliamentary structures, culture, and values.
Supply of evidence
Individual capacity and skills: competence, training, and resources of evidence suppliers.
Organisational capacity for supply of evidence: financing mechanisms for research and evidence, public sector analytical structures, analytical structures co-ordinating the work of research organisations, data access and use in government.
Inter-organisational co-ordination mechanisms for evidence and science for policy: existence of S4Policy champions, networks of analysts, co-ordination platforms, culture, and values.
Where supply and demand meet: established processes and policies within government for EIPM
Role of knowledge brokers and their networks
Science advice
Strategic Foresight
Better regulation processes and RIA
Preparation of budgets and resource allocations
Research policy frameworks and funding plans in support of EIPM (both National and European).
A key feature of this EIPM project was the combination of extensive analysis at the national level with a multi-country setup. This provided the opportunity to both design recommendations tailored towards each participating country and to draw lessons that are helpful for all countries that share the goal of improving their science-for-policy ecosystem. From the start, the significant diversity among participating countries was noticeable. As highlighted in Box 2.1 above, there is no singular, standardised model for EIPM. What works depends on the fit with the national culture and governmental system. Nevertheless, the project did provide key overarching lessons, presented in this section. These lessons start from the wider and sometimes intangible benefits of the project in terms of providing a shared language and framing an ecosystem approach, to the more technical aspects in terms of skills and competences.
A shared language is critical to reaching a common goal
Language and terminology matter, especially if you want to join forces to reach a shared goal: improving national EIPM capacity in public administration. This EIPM project has not only brought together many actors, such as ministries, agencies, advisory councils and research organisations, but provided them with common terminology and an analytical framework. This was key in developing a shared analysis of the main needs and gaps and will support a joint effort for the implementation of the roadmaps. Using a common vocabulary enhances the potential for mutual learning and impact.
The systemic perspective emphasises a need for co-ordination
EIPM does not happen in a vacuum, as science-for-policy ecosystems do not self-organise, even in countries with advanced systems of governance. They require a minimum level of capacity, infrastructure and individual skills. In addition, they need co-ordination to make sure the different elements of the ecosystem talk to each other. Co-ordination is in part about creating the right incentives and the capacity to engage and work with each other. As an example, researchers, knowledge brokers and policymakers are more likely to be motivated to participate in individual trainings if they know their investment will be rewarded in terms of recognition and career opportunities.
Co-ordination can happen through various channels. While it can be driven by a central agency or centre of government institution, in countries with more decentralised systems it can also be a shared responsibility of different stakeholders. This involves, for example, the capacity to jointly formulate a knowledge agenda that reaches beyond single domains, single disciplines, and the issues of today. What works in a country depends on its culture and governmental system. In countries with a ‘centre of government’ with wide responsibilities such as in Greece, the Czech Republic or the Baltic states, a central analytical unit or a Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA) can be highly valuable. In countries with more decentralised structures, such as Belgium and the Netherlands, there can be value in investing in peer-to-peer co-ordination, for example by creating networks, such as a network of science advisors or policy evaluators, to bridge departmental silos that hamper the sharing of knowledge and the formulation of joint knowledge needs.
Such networks are also necessary for countries with significant centralised capacity if they are to work together from a whole-of-government perspective. They should take advantage of the skills and competences of line ministries equipped for cross-government co-ordination, including in the areas of policy evaluation, or strategies and capacity for going green.
Inter-departmental and inter-disciplinary way of working is key to unlocking cross-sectoral evidence use
This project highlighted the difficulty that both researchers and policymakers had in engaging with ministries and research institutions beyond their respective areas of responsibility.1 Most national ecosystems face similar challenges in bringing together interdisciplinary evidence and formulating cross-sectoral knowledge needs. In many countries, public sector institutions only provide knowledge brokerage functions on a strictly sectoral basis that serve the needs of specific ministries. This highlights gaps in understanding and in the capacity to engage in more innovative communication approaches from a whole-of-government perspective, including preparing evidence gaps maps and conducting systematic reviews. Countries such as Latvia and Belgium have a significant number of advisory bodies, but most cover only a specific policy domain. While valuable, as policy issues become increasingly interconnected, it becomes increasingly important for such bodies to be able to co-ordinate and collaborate.
Challenges remain even when countries have dedicated interdisciplinary advisory bodies, such as the Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR). For example, such bodies can struggle to find appropriate recipients for their work, due to siloed structures on the demand side (Dorren et al., 2024[1]). Policymakers should aim to formulate cross-sectoral knowledge demands and, while working in a siloed public administration, use the evidence provided to solve issues that do not fall into single departmental focus. Traditional disciplinary methods of producing knowledge and making decisions within government silos function poorly in a world of many interdependencies. The fragmented nature of knowledge and the quick pace of decision making do not easily allow for EIPM processes to thrive. In addition to improving the synthesis and integration of various knowledge sources for policymaking, successfully addressing this challenge also requires aligning and integrating knowledge needs across government.
Several countries are trying to stimulate an inter-departmental way of working. In Latvia, line ministries are required to present an annual list of any research planning for policymaking purposes and submit it to the State Chancellery, helping avoid duplication of research and increase the visibility of findings. Most countries are advised to introduce or prioritise cross-sectoral knowledge agendas, as well as to introduce funding initiatives that support interdisciplinarity, such as the programme recently launched by the Belgian Science Policy Office (BELSPO) (OECD, 2025[2]).
Strong leadership and high-level demand are needed to build a culture of evidence
The analytical structure of this project addressed supply, demand, and the processes through which demand and supply interact. This often highlighted the critical role of policymakers, and the gaps in actual use of evidence. While many of the countries in the project have good capacity for evidence supply, particularly in core economic areas, this capacity is often not enough to ensure that the right type of evidence is available at the right time. Countries also frequently suffer lack of interest inside government to consume and use this evidence, or to engage in proper problem formulation.
Obstacles preventing optimal uptake of evidence in policymaking processes include a culture that is influenced by short-termism, political pressures and a lack of resources. These factors create a shortage of time and a lack of capacity to absorb the evidence. Evidence becomes something considered ‘nice to have’, instead of being seen as an essential part of the policymaking process. The national roadmaps identify a need for senior civil servants and administrators to visibly and tangibly support use of evidence in policymaking. For example, the Estonian roadmap suggests producing a bi-annual report on ‘The State of EIPM’, to be discussed in the Cabinet meeting of the Government, and Lithuania has established a ‘Public Policy Decisions and Data Analysis Group’, within the Ministry of Economy and Innovation, which formalises the integration of evidence into decision making and ensures a direct link between administrative evidence providers and political leaders (Koppel et al., 2025[3]; Nakrošis et al., 2025[4]).
A strong learning culture needs to be embedded in national public administration and academic structures. This learning culture is often related to the capacity to accept risk and promote public sector innovation and experimentation. The driving force behind building capacity ultimately comes down to a culture of demand for evidence from top-level decision makers, including at the political level. If these decision makers start to regularly ask questions such as ‘What is the evidence for this?’ ‘What evidence will we need to understand the problem and evaluate the options?’ ‘What are the key assumptions behind the model or study?’, this will send the necessary signals to the eco-system.
Bridging skills and competence gaps requires aligned efforts at individual, organisational and system level
All countries which participated in the project acknowledge the importance of individual skills and competences and recognise that this should be addressed both on the supply side, including by increasing analytical capacity within the administration and capacity in the academic community to engage with government, but also on the demand side, in terms of the capacity of governments to demand and use evidence. Too often the assumption is that the problem lies with the other side: policymakers don’t understand the evidence and science provided to them, and researchers cannot deliver the evidence on time.
Some of the countries enjoy ample supply of high-quality research with a large and diversified academic and evidence ecosystem, with the potential to inform and support policymaking. However, such ecosystems are often not fully used due to communication issues and a lack of incentives. The small size of some of the countries, particularly the Baltic states, means they face challenges in ensuring that their academic systems can cover an adequately wide range of research needs, and may therefore benefit from wider exchanges at European level.
The focus on specific skills differs depending on country needs. In the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, analytical capacities in the public administration, particularly in line ministries, contain several gaps. These gaps include both the capacity to supply policy relevant analysis to ministers and senior policymakers, and the capacity to identify, understand and map the most recent evidence. The Czech Republic is currently developing a competence model for public servants, which includes points on analytical skills. This model is intended to be used during recruitment and to guide the setting of learning and development goals for civil servants. Estonia’s roadmap report points towards strengthening foresight skills, as the practical use of foresight activities is underdeveloped. Latvia and Lithuania are also making efforts to build and strengthen analytical capacities within government (Koppel et al., 2025[3]) (OECD, 2024[5]).
The project also identified the value of pairing schemes (i.e. programmes where scientists and policymakers spend time together to build personal relationships and teach each other about their respective worlds) and fellowships in supplementing the skills and knowledge acquired in trainings. Some countries, such as the Netherlands, are already working with such pairing schemes and were advised to expand existing programmes, while countries such as the Czech Republic, Estonia and Greece were advised to set up new possibilities, drawing on some best practice examples identified through the project. Latvia plans to upgrade and modernise its current PhD law in 2025, which should facilitate pairing or fellowship possibilities in the future with government sponsored PhDs (Koppel et al., 2025[3]).
Although investment in individual skills is very important, the EIPM project underlines that if organised as an isolated action the return on investment will be limited. Investments in individual capacity need to be combined with a supportive culture that recognises the value of analytical and technical skills, particularly in science-for-policy contexts, and provides incentives for individuals to strengthen their own capacities. The latter may include a professionalisation of the knowledge brokerage function (see Box 2.2) as well as promotion of dedicated career tracks.
The ecosystem approach helps to widen the view on EIPM practices. Besides evidence supply and demand, this project also looked at the knowledge brokerage function. For some, knowledge brokers formed a more elusive category, because not all participating countries had people and/or organisations that viewed themselves primarily as boundary workers and organisation, who bring the worlds of science and policy together.
Knowledge brokers are persons or organisations that facilitate the creation, sharing, and use of knowledge (Sverrisson, 2001[6]). Knowledge brokers are the organisations and individual actors who connect research and the practice of policymaking to help them better understand one another and support knowledge exchange. The role of a knowledge broker is to establish and maintain links between researchers and their audience via the appropriate translation of research findings and of policy and knowledge questions (Lomas, 1997[7]). People that perform this function can work in dedicated knowledge broker organisations, but also within government, for example as a science adviser, within a governmental analytical unit or within academia or research institutes. Able to link know-how, know-why, and know-who, the knowledge broker thus works in the public domain as well as in the private domain (Blondel, 2006[8])” (Meyer, 2010[9]).
As governments rely on access to, and the ability to use, rigorous evidence to solve policy problems researchers and the public sector should be natural partners, but discrete cultural norms and institutional structures maintain a gap between the two which impedes decision makers’ use of research evidence and the public value that flows from it. It is in this context that various knowledge brokers have a role to play to connect research, analysis and science with societal problems and knowledge questions of policymakers in in the context of evidence informed policymaking.
Knowledge Brokers, include:
Institutions that operate at the science to policy interface. This can include a range of applied research institutes working at arm’s length from ministries, applied research centres in the academia, key government advisory bodies, such as Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR) in the Netherlands, the Central Planning bureau in Belgium, The Centre of Planning and Economic Research (KEPE) in Greece, just to name a few examples from the TSI project.
Individuals that perform the function, for example, within a ministry or research organisation. This may include a very heterogeneous group of experts, from the policy analysts and science advisors working in government, drafting analytical reports and developing research agendas for their Ministry, to the Chief Science Officers, or Chief Economists directly in contact with Ministers and in charge of providing advice over the last mile, connecting to policy. In addition to these, individuals that work connecting science and policy within Parliament or as part of a dedicated unit with a university, are also performing the role of knowledge broker.
While the concept has been initially developed and popularised among English speaking countries, with examples from Australia, New Zealand or the United Kingdom, it has become a central feature of the policy analysis of evidence informed policymaking and received significant attention during the project. In fact, a special capacity building workshop was held to strengthen capacity for knowledge brokerage at an individual and institutional level addressing key topics and challenges in knowledge broker roles and functions.
Sources: (ANZSOG, 2023[10]), (Blondel, 2006[8]) (Jacobzone and Picalarga, 2023[11]) (Langeveld, Stronks and Harting, 2016[12]) (Lenihan, 2013[13]) (Lomas, 1997[7]) (Meyer, 2010[9]), (Sverrisson, 2001[6]) (Topp et al., 2018[14]) (Ward, House and Hamer, 2009[15]). The OECD developed some comparative analysis of the concept of knowledge brokers in the area of child wellbeing
Many common elements emerge from the country roadmaps, which can be brought together to identify some principles for healthy EIPM ecosystems. There are earlier attempts to identify principles for the interaction between scientific evidence and policymaking (Oliver, 2022[16]) (Pedersen, 2023[17]) (SAPEA, 2019[18]). However, they are mostly framed in general terms and not necessarily connect to the ecosystem approach.
By using an ecosystem approach and connecting with recent and actual policy experience across seven European countries, this project emphasised that EIPM is not a simple linear process, and does not occur at a fixed moment in the policy cycle where policy asks and science answers. This approach also acknowledges that the process of producing evidence and then using it to inform policy should not be considered a one-off, but rather a continuous process, where policy outcomes can be used as the bases for further research to form further policy ideas. It also highlights the diversity among countries, and does not imply that there is, or should be, a singular, standardised solution. However, when analysing the seven national ecosystems, it became clear that all ecosystems could improve by considering some general principles that provide direction for further improvement. As such, while there is no one-size-fits-all, the principles identified below can be useful in providing inspiration for further action.
Drawing some inspiration from these principles, while improving the EIPM ecosystem, will contribute to instilling an EIPM culture among actors and organisations, assure resilience of the EIPM ecosystem across political cycles and crises, and ultimately improve policymaking through the creation and adoption of innovative procedures. This, in the longer run, should be conducive to strengthening trust in government.
An EIPM ecosystem should value diversity and enable frequent dynamic interactions
EIPM is about more than a linear supply and demand relationship, it incorporates not only evidence producer and user roles, but also facilitator and boundary roles. A strong EIPM ecosystem includes policymakers, scientists, knowledge brokers, societal organisations, citizens and other stakeholders. These actors may act as individuals or as part of organisations, which in turn can take different forms different natures: public and private, government and non-government, scientific and administrative. Diversity is a strength of an ecosystem, ensuring collective intelligence, agility and the possibility for mutual learning. At the same time, it also poses the need for a shared language and processes of transparency and accountability to establish mutual trust. A healthy ecosystem has a high frequency or productive and dynamic interactions, with formal structures that in turn facilitate informal dialogues between evidence providers and policymakers (European Commission et al., forthcoming[19]).
Potential actions for consideration and inspiration in operationalising this principle
Improve conditions for knowledge brokerage
It is important to have people and/or organisations that can strengthen the interaction between supply and demand of evidence. This function should ideally be performed by people well-versed in both academic and policy-related ways of working. In many countries these people are already appointed, as in Estonia, Greece, Belgium and The Netherlands. Such roles look different in different countries: in the Netherlands, for example, knowledge brokers include both Chief Scientific Officers, individuals located in ministries and tasked with connecting ministry knowledge needs to evidence, and substantive knowledge organisations operating at arm’s length from government, such as the Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (CPB) or the Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR). In Greece they are often councils or Units located within government, responsible for producing analysis and gathering evidence. However, even when such roles exist, they often operate in a siloed manner, and thus could use more (institutional) support to fulfil their role more effectively. It would thus be of value to create dedicated co-ordination mechanisms to support such roles, encourage peer exchange across departments to highlight the value of such roles, and embed knowledge brokers in cross-ministerial planning processes, as is already the case in some of the participating countries.
Encourage knowledge brokers and advisory bodies to focus on impact
The need to achieve impact can be addressed through a whole set of actions. Some are in relation to knowledge brokers. Actions encouraging knowledge brokers and advisory bodies to focus more on public impact are found in the Belgian and Lithuanian roadmaps. Several roadmaps call for setting up evidence champions, often by giving a clear title, recognition and professional functions to senior public sector executives working at the evidence-to-policy interface, such as chief economists or chief scientists.2 To strengthen the knowledge brokerage function, governments could formally appoint such evidence champions in senior positions, assigning them specific mandates to promote the use of evidence. In addition, they can strengthen the outward communication function of knowledge brokerage organisations.
Increase the connections with the Parliaments
Parliamentarians should be involved in discussions on evidence and evaluation, as they have an important function in the policymaking process. This could take the form of better connecting parliamentary and scientific offices with knowledge brokers and analytical units, including those within the executive and those operating at arms’ length from the executive.
Encourage interactions between science advisers, senior analytical roles and strategy advisers
As these different groups bring distinct but complementary expertise to decision-making processes, regular interaction can help ensure that policy is grounded in cohesive, multidisciplinary evidence. The Estonian roadmap calls for regular interaction between science advisers and strategy advisers, while the Dutch roadmap has a full section on strengthening interactions between organisations, promoting a systematic “knowledge at the table” approach to bring knowledge partners together. This could take the form of periodic cross-functional meetings between different units, helping to foster relationships and align evidence.
An EIPM ecosystem should institutionalise co-ordination mechanisms to ensure and strengthen stability
EIPM ecosystems do not self-organise. Established structures and institutionalised forms of co-ordination and interaction are necessary to avoid reliance on ad hoc arrangements and personal relationships. In this context, co-ordination refers to formal mechanisms, such as structures, roles and processes, that guide and sustain interactions across the ecosystem. Co-ordination and institutionalisation should contribute to the stability and security of the ecosystem, as well as the formal and informal relations within it. There is a need for basic financial and institutional stability to support the sustainability and resilience of the evidence-informed policymaking ecosystem. Institutionalisation should be directed at the cross-cutting and systemic nature of EIPM.
Potential actions for consideration and inspiration in operationalising this principle
Strengthen cross-governmental networks for science advisors, evaluations, and statistics
Many of the roadmaps call for cross-government networks for functions related to evidence and statistics, evaluation, and scientific advice, such as in Lithuania, Belgium, Estonia, and the Netherlands.
Create guidelines to promote incorporation of evidence into policy
The Latvian and Lithuanian roadmaps include references to the need for guidelines to promote the incorporation of scientific research into policy and policy evaluation, highlighting the broader need for some form of a structure to engage EIPM.
Organise checks and balances in evidence mobilisation processes
In a context where EIPM has been recognised as a major factor contributing to trust in government, there is a need to ensure that the evidence itself can be trusted. It is thus important to ensure a system of checks and balances in the evidence mobilisation process, for example through reviews by chief science advisers, chief economists, and statisticians or in the Netherlands through commitment to use the policy compass. Integrating such reviews into major policy processes could be useful in ensuring that the evidence used is reliable.
Institutionalise EIPM at the Centre of Government
There are references across the roadmaps to establishing a dedicated EIPM office, either at or close to the centre of government, in the Greek and Estonian roadmaps, and references to cross-departmental and intergovernmental analytics in the Czech and Lithuanian reports. Such an office could have a mandate to set evidence standards, support line ministries, and co-ordinate EIPM across government.
Develop knowledge repository and knowledge management tools
Four roadmaps – Belgium, Latvia, Estonia and Greece – call for developing knowledge repositories/portals and knowledge management tools. Such a repository could take the form of a digital platform available across government, allowing evaluations, research outputs and datasets to be centralised, helping ensure accessibility and institutional memory.
Promote evidence champions, chief scientists, chief economists
Several roadmaps call for setting up evidence champions, often by giving a clear title, recognition and explicit professional functions to senior public sector executives working at the evidence-to-policy interface, such as chief economists or chief scientists. Such roles should have formal job descriptions with specific hiring criteria, and clearly defined responsibilities for promoting evidence use, mentoring staff, and reporting on evidence impact.
An EIPM ecosystem should invest in continuous capacity building at individual and institutional levels
Strengthening, maintaining and developing competences and skills for individuals must be ensured permanently to respond to evolving policy contexts. A well-functioning ecosystem invests in the availability and effectiveness of training opportunities, to guarantee a supply of skilled personnel across all capacities involved in the EIPM process. This includes competences on producing evidence as well as brokering and using evidence effectively. For a well-functioning EIPM ecosystem building capacity on the institutional level is of equal importance.
Potential actions for consideration and inspiration in operationalising this principle
Map analytical skills within government
The issue of skills to ensure capacity for effective supply and uptake of evidence within government surfaces in many of the country roadmaps. For example, the need to map analytical skills was recognised in Belgium, Estonia and the Czech Republic. Beyond the mapping, there is a need for incorporating references to EIPM in professional evaluations, as highlighted by Belgium. There could be benefit in conducting government-wide skills reviews to identify where analytical expertise exists and where gaps lie, and use this review to inform future training and hiring approaches.
Develop training programmes
The need for training programmes was identified as an action by five roadmaps, namely Belgium, Latvia, Greece, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands, and was almost universally recognised throughout the project. While many of the countries have a rich university system, in several countries, the need to develop specific university programmes for policy analysis was identified, such as in the Czech Republic and Latvia. Such programmes could benefit from collaboration with universities.
Develop job profiles for science advisors
In more practical terms, the need for developing job profiles for specific categories of knowledge brokers (such as science advisors) appear in the roadmaps for Estonia and the Netherlands. Such job descriptions could benefit from clear outlining of required qualifications and expected responsibilities, as well as integration into recruitment and promotion frameworks.
Envisage policy analysis tracks in the civil service with attention to the relative level of compensation
Some roadmaps go a step further, calling for the implementation of a specific policy analysis track in the civil service, as was done in Belgium and Latvia, and to a lesser extent in Greece as part of the Executive State Law.
Promote secondments of academics and PhDs, pairing schemes with the civil service
Almost all the roadmaps call for promoting secondment of academics and PhDs to government organisations, and for introducing pairing schemes within the civil service, including Latvia, Belgium, Estonia, Greece and the Czech Republic. Some roadmaps call for “industrial PhDs”, that is using existing schemes of developing applied PhDs for R&D and industrial development, for applied policy analysis in a government setting, or for experience-oriented placements for researchers, as in the Netherlands.
An EIPM ecosystem should promote accessible, usable and trustworthy evidence
Evidence provided must meet current policy challenges which are increasingly cross-sector, requiring multidisciplinary problem cross-sectoral framing and solving. To enhance evidence usability in improving decision-making processes, evidence supply that aims for interdisciplinarity, timely delivery, and to be applicable and understood across different sectors should be prioritized. Evidence production should acknowledge policymaking perspectives from the start while following the rules of scientific integrity, not about ‘selling’ research results at the end.
Potential actions for consideration and inspiration in operationalising this principle
Facilitate easy access to and use of data
The need to ensure access to data surfaced in various forms across almost all the roadmaps. Several call for setting up a single access point in co-operation with national statistical institutions, specifically to access linked individual micro datasets, to render them more accessible to researchers, such as in Belgium, Latvia, or Greece. This is often accompanied by calls to ensure increased access to administrative data. Several roadmaps also call for better mapping of data sources within the ministries and the public sector for purposes of data analysis, such as in the Belgian, Latvian and Greek roadmaps. Finally, several roadmaps also highlight the importance of common data and metadata standards in fostering intergovernmental collaboration.
Promote misinformation debunking efforts
In a context of mis and disinformation, the need for promoting debunking by public knowledge-driven institutions such as statistical offices and by knowledge brokers was reflected in the Belgian roadmap. This highlights the potential value of communications training or dedicated communications staff, ensuring capacity for public engagement.
Strengthen analytical units in ministries
Several roadmaps call for strengthening analytical units in line ministries and developing cross-departmental and inter-governmental analytics, including in Greece and the Czech Republic. This could take the form of increasing budget, reinforcing the presence of expertise within these units, or developing networks to allow such units to join forces.
Promote capacity to integrate foresight into cross government processes for EIPM
The project highlighted the relevance and importance of foresight, and the value of a more systematic and co-ordinated application in various policy domains, including Belgium, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands. There is value in ministries recognising the value of foresight, and for guidance and training being offered to this effect.
Promote integrity standards for researchers and senior executives
Several roadmaps call for strengthening integrity standards for scientists and senior executives in advisory bodies, such as in Belgium and Estonia, with a code of conduct for the proposed science advisers. Such standards could include conflict-of-interest disclosure rules and requirements on transparency of advice.
An EIPM ecosystem should encourage clearly articulated policy problems and a culture of inquiry
To acquire evidence that is sound and useful, it is also necessary to invest in the formulation and communication of policy problems. Only then it becomes feasible to supply required relevant data and knowledge in an effective way. To counterbalance a culture influenced by short-termism and political pressures, questions that emerge from interdepartmental and cross-sectoral collaboration and facilitate a long-term perspective, should be encouraged. There is a need for a culture that asks for evidence at all levels, and where any policy initiative starts with the question: what do we know and what do we not know?
Potential actions for consideration and inspiration in operationalising this principle
Encourage senior leaders to ask for the evidence behind policy development
As widely recognised and discussed throughout this report, one of the challenges often faced is a cultural one, where evidence is not always considered as valuable in the policy process. As such, several roadmaps and the project underline the need for “tone at the top”, and for upscaling on the demand side. There is a need to encourage senior leaders and their advisers to actively consider evidence that underpins proposed policy developments, and to persuade them to be explicit about the value such evidence brings. This notion of “tone at the top” appears clearly in the Dutch report. However, one of the key challenges is that this “demand” side is very much political and subject to the discretion of Ministers and their advisers.
Promote evidence plans and sharing across civil service
An important feature to ensure that evidence can be prepared and used in a timely manner is the use of evidence and evaluation plans in the various line ministries, and the sharing of these plans across the civil service and with academia. The importance of such an approach was raised in Belgium, Latvia, and the Netherlands, with calls for a strategic knowledge agenda, which could complement the existing strategic evaluation agenda. Ministries could be required to publish annual evidence and evaluation plans, linked to policy priorities, with the aim of these plans forming the basis of inter-governmental discussion.
Ensure policymaking and RIA processes are evidence informed
Several of the roadmaps, including those for Belgium and Latvia, highlight the importance of evidence-driven regulatory impact assessment (RIA) processes. The Dutch report also refers to the need to increase the effectiveness of the “Kompass” system, which is in essence a form of regulatory impact assessment. These elements are also in line with the OECD Recommendation on Regulatory Quality and Governance (OECD, 2012[20]). Effectiveness could be increased through increased use of forward planning processes for regulations, more open consultation processes, and use of proportionality principles to effectively target resources.
Promote closer connection between evaluation and spending reviews
Both the Belgium and Latvian roadmaps call for closer connection between evaluation and spending reviews, in order to ensure that evidence can more directly feed into resource allocation decisions. This is also in line with the OECD Recommendation on Policy Evaluation which calls on countries to “embed evaluation in decision making processes, including incorporating the use of evaluation results into decision-making including through the policymaking and budgetary processes”.
An EIPM ecosystem should align incentives and strengthen feedback mechanisms
Creating the right incentives within the ecosystem is crucial in ensuring that stakeholders feel that their contributions to EIPM have value, and ensuring that they recognise the value of EIPM in their own work. The ecosystem should help academics to produce relevant knowledge or invest in further development of their skills, help policymakers realise that active use of evidence in their work improves the quality of public policies, and stimulate knowledge brokers by acknowledging their work as a real profession. To know what works we need to create ways to evaluate the effectiveness of evidence supply, brokerage and use in policymaking and providing feedback to enhance the system’s learning capabilities.
Potential actions for consideration and inspiration in operationalising this principle
Promote effective S4P funding schemes
There is a need to promote effective funding schemes to ensure that scientific research can be useful for policy, as reflected in the actions included in the roadmaps for Belgium, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Greece and the Czech Republic. Such funding schemes could be designed in collaboration with policymakers across government to ensure that funding criteria reflect practical policy relevance and support interdisciplinary approaches.
Ensure recognition of contributions to policy within academic curricula, career development criteria for scientists, and assessment of research centres
There is a need to ensure recognition of policy contributions as part of the academic curriculum, in the career development of scientists when relevant, and in the assessment of research centres, as reflected in the Lithuanian, Latvian, Belgian, Estonian and Czech roadmaps. The Greek report refers to the policy contribution as an assessment criterion only as an optional criterion wherever applicable.
Facilitate access for academics to tendering procedures for research and evaluation
Several roadmaps highlight the need to facilitate access by academics to tendering procedures for research and evaluation and to modernise procurement of government R&D, such as in Belgium, Latvia, Estonia and the Czech Republic. This could take the form of simplifying tendering procedures, or offering guidance and training to researchers on how to best approach such a process.
Develop an enabling culture for EIPM, with openness to innovation, experimentation and risk-taking
The findings of the project show a need to encourage a more open culture within government, as part of an enabling factor for EIPM, including more openness to innovation, questioning, experimentation and risk taking, as illustrated in the roadmap for the Netherlands.
Incorporate EIPM into professional evaluations
Beyond the mapping, there is a need for incorporating references to EIPM in professional evaluations, as highlighted by Belgium. Such evaluations should then be used in hiring, promoting and annual appraisal criteria.
References
[10] ANZSOG (2023), “Public admin explainer: What is knowledge brokering?”, ANZSOG, Australia New Zealand School of Government, https://anzsog.edu.au/news/public-admin-explainer-what-is-knowledge-brokering/.
[8] Blondel, D. (2006), “L’émergence des “knowledge brokers” (courtiers de science) et des KIBS: Knowledge-intensive business service. Paper presented at Au Carrefour de la science, de la technologie, de l’économie, de la culture et de la société: Les métiers ouverts aux docteurs par le besoin d’expertise”, Institut Henri Poincaré.
[1] Dorren, L. et al. (2024), Building capacity for evidence-informed policymaking in governance and public administration in a post-pandemic Europe: Country analysis, policy recommendations & implementation roadmap - The Netherlands, Scharfbillig, Mario; Smits, Paul, editor(s) Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://doi.org/10.2760/5012478 (accessed on 16 April 2025).
[19] European Commission, J. et al. (forthcoming), Knowledge needs to understand national science-for-policy ecosystems, European Commission, Brussels.
[11] Jacobzone, S. and S. Picalarga (2023), “Mobilising evidence to enhance the effectiveness of child well-being policies: The role of knowledge brokers”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 58, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/faeb9a0d-en.
[3] Koppel, A. et al. (2025), Building capacity for evidence-informed policymaking in governance and public administration in a post-pandemic Europe: Final integrated country report - Estonia, Kock, Elias; Olajos-Szabo, Alexandra editor(s), Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://doi.org/10.2760/4815761 (accessed on 16 April 2025).
[17] 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.
[16] 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.
[12] Langeveld, K., K. Stronks and J. Harting (2016), “Use of a knowledge broker to establish healthy public policies in a city district: a developmental evaluation”, BMC Public Health, Vol. 16/1, p. 271, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-2832-4.
[13] Lenihan, A. (2013), “Lessons from Abroad. International approaches to promoting evidence–based social policy”, Alliance for Useful Evidence, http://www.alliance4usefulevidence.org/assets/Alliance-paper_Lessons-from-Abroad.pdf (accessed on 26 March 2018).
[7] Lomas, J. (1997), “Research and evidence-based decision making”, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, Vol. 21, pp. 439-441.
[9] Meyer, M. (2010), “The Rise of the Knowledge Broker”, Science Communication, Vol. 32/1, pp. 118-127, https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547009359797.
[4] Nakrošis, V. et al. (2025), Building capacity for evidence-informed policymaking in governance and public administration in a post-pandemic Europe - Country analysis, policy recommendations & implementation roadmap Lithuania, Almeida, Mara; Olajos-Szabo, Alexandra editor(s) 2 Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://doi.org/10.2760/0030376 (accessed on 16 April 2025).
[2] OECD (2025), “Building capacity for evidence-informed policymaking in Belgium: Assessment and recommendations roadmap”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 71, OECD, Paris Cedex 16, https://doi.org/10.1787/223b01a8-en.
[5] OECD (2024), “Building capacity for evidence-informed policymaking in Latvia: Assessment and recommendations roadmap”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 65, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2b43bc19-en.
[22] OECD (2022), “Recommendation of the Council on Public Policy Evaluation”, OECD Legal Instruments, OECD, Paris, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0478.
[21] OECD (2015), OECD Public Governance Reviews: Estonia and Finland: Fostering Strategic Capacity across Governments and Digital Services across Borders, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264229334-en.
[20] OECD (2012), “Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance”, OECD Legal Instruments, OECD, Paris, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0390.
[18] SAPEA (2019), Scientific Advice to European Policy in a Complex World, Evidence Review Report n° 6, Group of Chief Scientific Advisers, https://op.europa.eu/en-GB/publication-detail/-/publication/5cb9ca21-0500-11ea-8c1f-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.
[6] Sverrisson, Á. (2001), “Translation networks, knowledge brokers and novelty construction: Pragmatic environmentalism in Sweden”, Acta sociologica, Vol. 44/4, pp. 313-327.
[14] Topp, L. et al. (2018), “Knowledge management for policy impact: the case of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre.”, Palgrave Commun, Vol. 4/87, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0143-3.
[15] Ward, V., A. House and S. Hamer (2009), “Knowledge brokering: Exploring the process of transferring knowledge into action”, BMC Health Services Research, Vol. 9/1, p. 12, https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-9-12.
← 1. This challenge is often identified in centres of government reviews (OECD, 2015[21]) and is a core challenge for centres of government.
← 2. These elements are also in line with the OECD Recommendation on Policy evaluation, which calls for strengthening the role of knowledge brokers, to strengthen the relationship between evidence from evaluation and its users (OECD, 2022[22]).