LIST OF PANELS

 “Evidence based policies” are now identified objects in the field of policy analysis (Boaz and al. 2008). Beyond the production and use of scientific evidence, and the involvement of experts, the panel will focus on the organizations dedicated to the making of evidence for public policies. Far from being restricted to academic actors, the making of evidence rests on dedicated administrative organizations paying attention to their credibility (Carpenter, 2010; Jennings, Hall, 2012). Often located at a distance from political decision, they are able to gather, structure and publicize evidence in their field. This evolution concerns several policy domains, like health (with the use of evidence-based medicine), education, social care, security (with the use of evidence-based criminology), transport or development (with the role of J-PAL) for example. These new administrative organizations, often labeled “agencies”, are herein characterized as  “evidence based bureaucracies” in order to insist on two main analytical traits: (1) the use of evidence is highly structured by standards and protocols, which gives them a bureaucratic flavor (Yesilkagit, 2004 ; Benamouzig, Besançon, 2005); (2) a high level of openness to non-state actors, like experts, citizens or interest groups, gives them meanwhile an inclusive and deliberative aspect (Moffit, 2010). We are interested in papers tackling the following issues and questions: -Actors dimension. Who are the actors involved in these evidence based bureaucracies? How far are they “new” policy actors? What roles do they play in these organizations? How far are their representations of the public policies concerned transformed by their involvement in evidence based bureaucracies? -The dimension of the autonomy (Carpenter, 2001) of evidence based bureaucracies, in their relationship to other public administrations and to dominant policy actors in the policy domain concerned (for instance the pharmaceutical industry in the health policy field). How far are they steering at a distance (Kickert, 1995) a policy domain for the State? -The dimension of the impact of these evidence based bureaucracies on public policies. Are these agencies involved in policy decision processes?  How far are evidence based knowledge and methods used by other actors in the concerned policy domains? What policy change related to these new administrative organizations can be observed? -The comparative dimension.  Haw far is it possible to observe a transnational convergence process? What is the role of policy transfers and transnational actors in this process? Despite transnational policy transfers and diffusion what are the different national translations (Campbell 2004, Thatcher 2007) of evidence based bureaucracies in specific policy domains and how can they be explained?

“Evidence based policies” are now identified objects in the field of policy analysis (Boaz and al. 2008). Beyond the production and use of scientific evidence, and the involvement of experts, the panel will focus on the organizations dedicated to the making of evidence for public policies. Far from being restricted to academic actors, the making of evidence rests on dedicated administrative organizations paying attention to their credibility (Carpenter, 2010; Jennings, Hall, 2012). Often located at a distance from political decision, they are able to gather, structure and publicize evidence in their field. One example is the case of evidence-based medicine in expertise agencies such as NICE in the UK, the HAS in France or the IQWIG in Germany. This evolution concerns other policy domains, like education, social care, security (with the use of evidence-based criminology), transport or development (with the role of J-PAL) for example. These new administrative organizations, often labeled “agencies”, are herein characterized as  “evidence based bureaucracies” in order to insist on two main analytical traits: (1) the use of evidence is highly structured by standards and protocols, which gives them a bureaucratic flavor (Yesilkagit, 2004 ; Benamouzig, Besançon, 2005); (2) a high level of openness to non-state actors, like experts, citizens or interest groups, gives them meanwhile an inclusive and deliberative aspect (Moffit, 2010). In this panel we want to focus on the following dimensions and questions: -Actors dimension. Who are the actors involved in these evidence based bureaucracies? How far are they “new” policy actors? What roles do they play in these organizations? How far are their representations of the public policies concerned transformed by their involvement in evidence based bureaucracies? -The dimension of the autonomy (Carpenter, 2001) of evidence based bureaucracies, in their relationship to other public administrations and to dominant policy actors in the policy domain concerned (for instance the pharmaceutical industry in the health policy field). How far are they steering at a distance (Kickert, 1995) a policy domain for the State? -The dimension of the impact of these evidence based bureaucracies on public policies. Are these agencies involved in policy decision processes?  How far are evidence based knowledge and methods used by other actors in the concerned policy domains? What policy change related to these new administrative organizations can be observed? -The comparative dimension.  Haw far is it possible to observe a transnational convergence process? What is the role of policy transfers and transnational actors in this process? Despite transnational policy transfers and diffusion what are the different national translations (Campbell, Thatcher) of evidence based bureaucracies in specific policy domains and how can they be explained? Discussant : Daniel Carpenter (Harvard University), to be confirmed. Bibliography, Benamouzig, D., Besançon, J (2005) “Administrer un monde incertain. Les nouvelles bureaucraties techniques. Le cas des agencies sanitaires”, Sociologie du travail, vol.47, 301-342. Boaz, A. Grayson, L., Levitt, R, Solesbury, W. (2008) “Does Evidence Policy Work? Learning from the UK experience”, Evidence & Policy, vol.4, n°2, pp.233-253. Campbell, J. (2004), Institutional Change and Globalization, Princeton University Press Carpenter, D. (2001), The forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy. Reputation, Networks, and Policy Innovation on Executive Agencies, 1862-1928, Princeton University Press Carpenter, D. (2010) Reputation and Power, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2010 Jennings, E.T. Hall, J.L. (2012) Evidence-Based Practice and the Use of Information in State Agency Decision Making, Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, vol.22, n°3, pp.245-266. Kickert, W. (1995), “Steering at a Distance: a New Paradigm of Public Governance in Dutch Higher Education”, Governance, vol.8, n°1, pp.137-157. Thatcher, M. (2007), Internationalization and Economic Institutions. Comparing European Experiences, Oxford University Press Moffit, S. (2010) “Promoting Agency Reputation through Public Advice: advisory Committee Use in the FDA”, The Journal of Politics, vol.72, n°3, July 2010, pp.880-893. Yesilkagit, K. (2004) “Bureaucratic Autonomy, Organisational Culture and Habituation; politicians and Independent Administrative Bodies in the Netherlands”, Administration and Society, vol.36, pp. 528-552.