Syndicate content

Add new comment

RCT are a very valuable tool for policymakers (and decision makers in general). They offer valuable information. But this information needs to be used along side a other types and must be carefully considered before taking action. The hype of RCT should not lead us to forget that we have been here before. The foundation of modern think tanks in the early 1900s was fueled by a belief that scientific method could cure society of it's ills. Driven by metaphors from medicine (cure the patient), physics (make society efficient), engineering (plan and design) and even religion (build new states) generations of new think tanks and research programmer have followed each other in this quest. And although they have made great contributions they have failed to achieved their visions. Most forgot that societies are not machines nor patients who can be told what to do. Ideology matters and the manner in which decisions are made is sometimes far more important than the decisions themselves. Donors have been quick to jump on the bandwagon of this new gold standard and are now promoting far reaching reforms driven by 'evidence' but allowing little debate among those whose lives wil be affected by these changes. The rush to achieve impact leads to undermining political debate, weakens political parties who watch idly while their governments broker deals with donors for policies that can change the very nature of their society -cash transfers or user fees are not technical issues: they are Political. It would be great if these initiatives promoted a debate on the nature of decision making like the one that nations such as India and China have through the promotion of new generation of think tanks (see http://onthinktanks.org for some examples from China)