Introduce the Main Ideas Behind the Politicization of Science and the Depoliticization of Politics : Evidence Based Policy Research Paper, CSC, Singapore

1.INTRODUCTION

This paper first intends to introduce the main ideas behind the politicization of science and the depoliticization of politics, and subsequently presents the concepts and examples of technical bias and issue bias in the use of evidence for policymaking as discussed by Parkhurst (2017) in his book, “The politics of evidence: From evidence-based policy to the good governance of evidence”.

Thereafter, this paper shall provide a brief summary of the group’s assigned Ateneo School of Government (ASOG) policy paper by Torio (2020), entitled “Metro Manila’s water privatization: Making sense of the so-called ‘onerous’ provisions”. Finally, relevant parts of the subject ASOG policy paper shall be analyzed and discussed in the context of the main concepts of technical bias and issue bias as earlier presented.

2.The politicization of science and the depoliticization of politics

There are two major perspectives surrounding bias in the use of evidence in public policymaking. The first, as advanced by the advocates of Evidence-Based Policymaking (EBP), concerns itself with the politicization of science, defined by Parkhurst (2017) to be “the ways that political interests appear to drive the misuse, manipulation, or cherry-picking of evidence to promote political interests”.

Similarly known as a form of technical bias, the politicization of science involves the use of evidence by policymakers that strays away from known scientific best practices and scientific fidelity. As a likely consequence of the presence of technical bias in the development of public policy, outcomes may end up poorer in comparison without it.

A recent example of the politicization of science in the Philippines has been the policy instituted on the mandatory use of face shields outside residences, as a preventive measure against the spread of COVID-19 (Parrocha, 2021).

While there appears to be a lack of scientific studies to support the efficacy and necessity of such a policy, with the Department of Health (DOH) even reporting that other countries have discontinued or never required such a policy in the first place (Corrales & Aning, 2021), the Philippine government has still decided to make them mandatory anyway.

The other perspective, as advanced by critics of those who solely hinge public policy on evidence alone, concerns itself with the depoliticization of politics, or “the ways in which social values can be obscured or marginalized through the promotion of certain forms or bodies of evidence” (Parkhurst, 2017). This phenomenon is also commonly referred to as a form of issue bias, with critics arguing that policymakers have been successful in shifting the political debate to particular prioritized issues through the non-transparent use of evidence.

According to Parkhurst (2017), this can occur when the “promotion of evidence skews agendas to those issues which are measured rather than those which are important to affected populations”. Thus, critics set out to remind policymakers of the importance of democratic representation in the development of public policy, especially in light of its innate political nature.

An example that displays the depoliticization of politics is the administration’s strict refusal to allow the pilot implementation of very limited face-to-face classes in low-risk areas nationwide, based on expert advice and scientific evidence over the Delta COVID-19 variant (Galvez, 2021).

While this policy decision only takes into consideration the possible physical risks and safety of learners, what is possibly not taken into account or measured as easily are the social impacts of the prolonged closure of schools on the learners, such as that of learning loss, and the quality level of the basic education delivered as a consequence of the general lack of resources or access to gadgets needed in effective distance learning (Asian Development Bank, 2021).

In his book, Parkhurst (2017) proposes that both perspectives hold weight and should not be seen to be mutually exclusive of the other. In fact, it is critical to address both types of biases in the use of evidence in policymaking, in order to ensure that their impacts on public policy are minimized or eliminated altogether, and improve the policymaking process overall.

While evidence utilization should aim for scientific fidelity by following known scientific best practices, there should also be recognition that “policymaking fundamentally involves competition between multiple social goals and the pursuit of social values” (Parkhurst, 2017), and thus, ultimately requires the acknowledgment of all social interests involved, their transparency in policy debates, and finally, their representation in informing the policymaking process.

B.Two distinct forms of evidentiary bias in policymaking

As briefly discussed in the preceding section, there are two distinct forms of evidentiary bias in the arena of policymaking. The first is technical bias, which relates to the “problematic uses of evidence from the perspective of scientific best practice” (Parkhurst, 2017). This can cover instances of studies with flawed designs and methodologies, of policymakers cherry-picking evidence in order to justify preferred positions, or of erroneous interpretations of study findings, among many others.

According to Parkhurst (2017), the utilization of evidence with technical bias brings with it several negative consequences for policymaking, such as the possibility of deceiving the public with misleading evidence, of only promoting the interests of the powerful few with exclusive access to information, and finally, of achieving harmful or less effective policy results in the end.

The other form of evidentiary bias in policymaking is issue bias, which reflects “the ways in which the invocation of particular forms of evidence can obscure the political nature of decisions and, in doing so, ‘bias’ decisions towards particular outcomes” (Parkhurst, 2017). This can cover instances where value choices are obfuscated, of the use of evidence only coming from a sub-set of relevant policy concerns, or of imposing priorities based on hierarchies of evidence, among many others.

The succeeding sections provide a more thorough discussion of the forms of technical and issue bias, which may both arise within the creation, selection, or interpretation of evidence.

ii. FORMS OF TECHNICAL BIAS

1. Technical bias in the creation of evidence
2. Technical bias in the selection of evidence
3. Technical bias in the interpretation of evidence

iii. FORMS OF ISSUE BIAS

Issue bias in the creation of evidence

Issue bias in the selection of evidence

Issue bias in the interpretation of evidence

iv. ANALYSIS OF ASSIGNED PAPER

Brief summary of the assigned paper

1.Context of paper – the current administration seeking to cancel the water concessions unless certain “onerous” provisions of the concession agreements were removed

2. Objectives of the paper

• to examine Metro Manila water privatization to determine the rationale for the inclusion of the provisions in the concession agreements; does not make attempt to ascertain whether the provisions are indeed onerous
• To comprehend the logic and value of the provisions as regards the concession agreements that govern Metro Manila’s water privatization
• to make sense of the provisions in the context of the program’s performance over the last 22 years

3. Methodology – examination of the “onerous” provisions against the history and track record of the privatization program, requirements of project finance, financing mode for privatization/PPP projects, and actual provisions of a project finance loan for the program