Understanding the Potential Policy Impact of a European Longitudinal Survey for Children and Young People

Chapter
Part of the Children’s Well-Being: Indicators and Research book series (CHIR, volume 19)

Abstract

This chapter examines the potential policy benefits - the use, effect and cost-effectiveness - of a European Longitudinal Survey for Children and Young People (ELSCYP). In order to identify and estimate such benefits, it is necessary to demonstrate: firstly, that such data are/would be used by policy makers in the policy process; secondly, to identify what policy change has occurred or is likely to occur; thirdly, to attribute any policy change to the use of these data; and, finally, to estimate the impact of any such attributable policy change. Such analyses requires an understanding of how social policy is made, and at which points in this process research and data from an ELSCYP might be used. It also requires an understanding of the different forms in which research and data might influence the policy process. In this chapter, we set out a broad theoretical understanding of the policy process and of knowledge mobilisation in the policy process. Drawing on findings from MYWeB and wider research, we suggest that longitudinal survey data are useful to, and used by, policy makers; that policy makers, academics and practitioners believe that such a survey would be useful and would improve the quality and efficiency of public expenditure on well-being. Finally, we find that the costs of the ELSCYP would be a small fraction of the overall expenditure in child well-being services, suggesting that very small increases in the cost-effectiveness of such programmes and services would be necessary for the investment in the survey to be worthwhile.

Keywords

Policy impact of longitudinal surveys Evidence-based policy making Policy impact Measuring policy impact European well-being policy 

References

  1. Badie, B., Berg-Schlosser, D., & Morlino, L. (Eds.). (2011). International encyclopaedia of political science. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Bartlett, W. (2013). Obstacles to evidence-based policy making in the EU enlargement countries: The case of skills policies. Social Policy and Administration, 47(4), 451–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boa, I., Johnson, P., & King, S. (2010). The impact of research on the policy process. Working paper 82. London: Department for Work and Pensions. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/207544/wp82.pdf . Accessed 25 June 2017.
  4. Brewer, G., & de Leon, P. (1983). The foundations of policy analysis. Ridgewood: Dorsey Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Bynner, J., & Bradshaw, P. (2008). Use of longitudinal research in the evaluation of the Scottish Government's national outcomes. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/249141/0071703.pdf. Accessed 5 Jun 2017.Google Scholar
  6. Bynner, J., & Joshi, H. (2007). Building the evidence base from longitudinal data. Innovation-the European Journal of Social Science Research, 20, 159–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Colebatch, H. (2005). Policy analysis, policy practice, and political science. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 64(3), 14–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Marchi, G., Lucertini, G., & Tsoukias, A. (2016). From evidence-based policy making to policy analytics. Annals of Operations Research, 236, 15–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diamond, I. (2008). Preface. In R. Berthoud & J. Burton (Eds.), In praise of panel surveys: The achievements of the British household panel survey: Plans for understanding society: The UK’s new household longitudinal study. Swindon: Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex. https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/files/in-praise-of-panel-surveys.pdf. Accessed 15 Jun 2017.Google Scholar
  10. Dror, Y. (1968). Public policy making re-examined. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Easton, D. (1965). A framework for political analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Everett, S. (2003). The policy cycle: Democratic process or rational paradigm revisited? Australian Journal of Public Administration, 62(2), 65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Halpern, D. (2008). Evidence and policy: A symbiosis. In R. Berthoud & J. Burton (Eds.), In praise of panel surveys: The achievements of the British household panel survey: Plans for understanding society: The UK’s new household longitudinal study. Swindon: Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex. https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/files/in-praise-of-panel-surveys.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2017.Google Scholar
  15. Heclo, H. (1972). Policy analysis. British Journal of Political Science, 2(1), 83–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hill, M. (1997). The public policy process. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.Google Scholar
  17. Hogwood, B., & Gunn, L. (1983). Policy analysis for the real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Howlett, M., & Cashore, B. (2009). The dependent variable problem in the study of policy change: Understanding policy change as a methodological problem. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 11(1), 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Howlett, M., McConnell, A., & Perl, A. (2015). Streams and stages: Reconciling Kingdon and policy process theory. European Journal of Political Research, 54(4), 419–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jann, W., & Wegrich, K. (2007). Theories of the policy process. In F. Fischer, G. Miller, & M. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  21. Jenkins, W. (1978). Policy analysis: A political and organisational perspective. London: Martin Robinson.Google Scholar
  22. John, P. (2012). Analyzing public policy (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Lasswell, H. (1956). The decision process: Seven categories of functional analysis. College Park: University of Maryland Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lasswell, H. (1971). A preview of policy sciences. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  25. Lindblom, C. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 78–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marvick, D. (1977). Harold Lasswell on political sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Nakamura, R. (1987). The textbook policy process and implementation research. Policy Studies Review, 7, 142–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nutley, S., Davies, H., & Walter, I. (2002). Evidence based policy and practice: Cross sector lessons from the UK. University of St Andrews. https://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/politicaleconomy/research/cep/pubs/papers/assets/wp9b.pdf. Accessed 15 Jun 2017.
  29. OECD. (2009). Doing better for children. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Parsons, W. (1995). Public policy: An introduction to the theory and practice of policy analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  31. Peters, G., & Pierre, J. (2015). Governance and policy problems: Instruments as unitary and mixed modes of policy intervention. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 37(4), 224–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pollock, G., Ozan, J., Baldwin, R., Goswani, H., O’Leary, C., & Fox, C. (2016). MYWeB. In Deliverable 7.2: Evaluation report: Cost benefit analysis of a ELSCYP, projected operational field costs, operational practice in longitudinal surveys. European Commission.Google Scholar
  33. Ronit, K., & Porter, T. (2015). Harold D. Lasswell, The decision process: Seven Categories of functional analysis. In M. Lodge, E. Page, & S. Balla (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of classics in public policy and administration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Sabatier, P. (1991). Towards better theories of the policy process. PS: Political Science and Politics, 24(2), 147–156.Google Scholar
  35. Schuller, T., Wadsworth, M., Bynner, J., & Goldstein, H. (2012). The measurement of well-being: The contribution of longitudinal studies. London: Office for National Statistics. London.Google Scholar
  36. Simon, H. (1947, 1997). Administrative behaviour (4th ed.). The Free Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Policy Evaluation and Research UnitManchester Metropolitan UniversityManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations