Įrodymais grįstos politikos apraiškos Lietuvos viešojo administravimo institucijose

LTŠiame straipsnyje nagrinėjama įrodymais grįstų sprendimų prielaidos bei tokios politikos formavimo teoriniai pagrindai, taikant šią metodologiją viešojo administravimo sprendimams parengti. Taip pat diskutuojama dėl galimų kliūčių, įgyvendinant įrodymais grįstos politikos sprendimų parengimą. Straipsnyje nagrinėjama Lietuvos viešojo administravimo institucijų patirtis kaupiant bei panaudojant rengiamų sprendimų pagrindimus įgyvendinant viešojo administravimo funkcijas. Pagrindinis dėmesys skiriamas viešojo sektoriaus sugebėjimo pasinaudoti įrodymais problematikai. Nors Lietuvoje nei viešajame administravime, nei mokslinėje literatūroje terminologija „įrodymais grįsti sprendimai" kol kas nevartojama, tačiau Lietuvos viešasis administravimas veikia, naudodamasis vienokius ar kitokius įrodymus sprendimų parengimo procese. Lietuvoje dažniausiai naudojami moksliniai tyrimai ir sociologinės apklausos. Straipsnyje diskutuojama dėl nepakankamai efektyvaus įrodymų panaudojimo. Tai yra susijęs su objektyviomis priežastimis (pvz., viešojo sektoriaus veiklos specifika), kurios išoriniai tyrėjai ne visada turi prielaidas pažinti. Todėl parengtos mokslinių tyrimų rekomendacijos ne visada yra tinkamos įgyvendinti be papildomų viešojo administravimo specialistų pastangų. Taigi įrodymais grįstų sprendimų metodologija galėtų būti įgyvendinama stiprinant viešojo administravimo specialistų analitinius gebėjimus, kuriant specializuotas institucijas. [Iš leidinio]

ENThis paper puts forward arguments that there are many different data types used as input for evidence-based policy. The aim of the paper is to discuss the strengths and threats introducing evidence into the public administration decision-making process and investigate facts of the emergence of evidence used in Lithuanian public administration on the ministerial level. Evidence-based policy raises the transparency of the decision-making process, promotes deep awareness about the problem analyzed and awards decision-makers with reasoning analyses of alternatives and promising results. The main factors of the usefulness of evidence could be named as the timing of evidence, resources available, the quality of the evidence, the focus of reports and trustworthiness of the available evidence. The level of the contribution of the evidence depends on the adoption of evidence to the policy development process. Though the meaning of evidence-based policy is used in Lithuanian public administration neither on a theoretical level nor on a practical level, the performance of evidence-based policy has been observed on some moderate public administration level. Three ministries, the Ministry of Education and Science, the Ministry of the Economy and the Ministry of the Interior, were chosen as the study objective for the realization of evidence-based policy in Lithuania.The study has revealed that from the whole range of usable evidence, such as quantitative/statistical data, reviews, meta analyses, quantitative studies, opinion/outlook studies, behavior studies, social experiments, research evidence, control studies (as pilot projects), consultations, anecdotal evidence, only research evidence and sociological interviews are used as evidence in the ministries for the realization of public administration functions. The restriction of evidence-based policy in Lithuanian public administration practice and its realization are discussed. The effective use of research evidence is always under consideration. Since the research evidence for public administration is usually produced by researchers having no objective preconditions to acknowledge the way public administration acts research evidence usually describes a stable future desirable state of the future decision. Such research lacks transformation evidence, which could be easily transformed into decision. Otherwise additional transformation evidences are needed requiring additional time. Such kinds of misunderstandings are rather common in Lithuania, and this situation is very dangerous for evidence-based policy practices due to the damaging of confidence in the eyes of decision-makers and society. [From the publication]