We are delighted to announce this year’s prizes for award winning papers published in Policy & Politics in 2023.
The Bleddyn Davies Prize, which acknowledges scholarship of the very highest standard by an early career academic, is awarded to joint winners:
Michael Gibson, Felix-Anselm van Lier and Eleanor Carter (Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford, UK) for their article entitled Tracing 25 years of ‘initiativitis’ in central government attempts to join up local public services in England.
AND
Ville Aula (London School of Economics (LSE, UK) for his article on Evidence-based policymaking in the legislatures – Timeliness and politics of evidence in Finland.
In celebration of these winning articles, we present summaries of each of their distinct contributions to the field.
In our jointly winning article of the Bleddyn Davies prize entitled Tracing 25 years of ‘initiativitis’ in central government attempts to join up local public services in England, authors Michael Gibson and colleagues illustrate the ‘initiativitis’ inflicted upon local governments by identifying patterns in the approach of government through their analysis of the central government’s 55 initiatives to join up local public services in England over the last 25 years. In this way, the article sheds new light on our understanding of coordination programmes at a central–local government level, offering an empirical lens to map the ‘glacial and incremental’ reframing of central–local relations and associated shifts in public accountability.
By providing more solid foundations for understanding central governments’ reliance on controlling the reins of funding, the competitive nature of allocation processes, and the enduring centralisation of accountability, their findings bring a new clarity to this topic.
Our second joint winner of this year’s Bleddyn Davies prize goes to Ville Aula for his article on Evidence-based policymaking in the legislatures – Timeliness and politics of evidence in Finland.
In this article, Ville Aula provides new insights on evidence-based policymaking, which has long called for a more realistic understanding of how politicians use evidence, and especially the ways that use of evidence is negotiated alongside political goals. This article offers a new perspective on this question by drawing on research from legislative organisations. It introduces a new framework for the study of evidence-based policy, developed by reviewing key insights from legislative studies and applying it to an interview-based case-study of the Parliament of Finland. Previous studies have identified timeliness and relevance as some of the key barriers to using evidence, but this research focuses on how key actors in legislative organisations understand and manage these.
The findings suggest that it is important for research on evidence-based policymaking in a legislative context to go beyond the study of committees and individual legislators, to explore the role of political parties. By providing insights on the often non-linear and indirect ways that evidence can influence policy, this article makes a clear contribution to the field.
Congratulations Michael, Felix-Anselm and Eleanor, and Ville on your well-deserved joint prize!
Winning authors: Michael Gibson, Felix-Anselm van Lier, Eleanor Carter and Ville Aula
This year’s Ken Young Prize, which is awarded to the best article judged to represent excellence in the field published in Policy & Politics, is awarded to Margaret MacAulay, Patrick Fafard (University of Ottawa, Canada), Adèle Cassola and Michèle Palkovits (from www.globalstrategylab.org) for their article entitled Analysing the ‘follow the science’ rhetoric of government responses to COVID-19.
In this innovative article, the authors claim that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, governments’ repeated claims to “just following the science” were in fact an abdication of responsibility by politicians. They argue that making policy decisions based only on scientific evidence is impossible (if only because ‘the science’ is always contested) and undemocratic (because governments are elected to balance a range of priorities and interests in their decisions). They evidence that such claims of “following the science” weren’t so much about adhering strictly to scientific advice as they were about deflecting blame for policy failures or unpalatable decisions.
They conclude that, in mature democratic countries, credit and blame for government decisions are borne by elected politicians, not those appointed to advise them. Crucially, their research raises important questions about the nexus of science and politics and how the latter can manipulate the former for political gains.
This contribution is a worthy winner of our Best Paper of 2023 prize. Congratulations Margaret, Patrick, Adèle and Michèle!
Winning authors: Margaret MacAulay, Patrick Fafard, Adèle Cassola and Michèle Palkovits
Read the winning articles here:
Tracing 25 years of ‘initiativitis’ in central government attempts to join up local public services in England.
Michael Gibson, Felix-Anselm van Lier and Eleanor Carter (Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford, UK)
Evidence-based policymaking in the legislatures – Timeliness and politics of evidence in Finland
Ville Aula (London School of Economics, UK)
Analysing the ‘follow the science’ rhetoric of government responses to COVID-19.
Margaret MacAulay, Patrick Fafard (University of Ottawa, Canada), Adèle Cassola and Michèle Palkovits (from www.globalstrategylab.org)
With best wishes,
Oscar, Claire, Elizabeth and Chris
Policy & Politics Co-Editors
Policy & Politics Journal Blog 
