Bringing the political back in: reconstructing the debate over evidence-based policy. A response to Newman

In his article, Newman aims at overcoming the binary rift between rationalists and constructivists, between supporters and opponents of evidence-based policy. Both positions, he argues, are not as incompatible as it seems. They could coexist by understanding that rationalists seek to reduce the influence of ideology on policy and that constructivists can show the difficulties of this task. The argumentative steps leading to his 'deconstruction' of the debate, however, do not reflect well the complexity of the subject. The response therefore aims at reconstructing the debate over evidence-based policy by focusing on three main points: first, the deficits of the distinction between rationalists and constructivists; second, the political dimension of evidence and the relationship between knowing and governing; third, the different uses of evidence in political and cultural contexts. Under the conditions of the postnational constellation, ignoring the political dimension of evidence and the cultural contexts in which expertise operates may even intensify the controversies. There are, however, also promising attempts to critically redefine the principles and modes of evidence-based policy beyond simple dichotomies.