This article will investigate how democratic decline and autocratization influence evidence-based policymaking. Evidence-based policymaking (EBPM) denotes the idea that public policy should be based on or informed by scientific knowledge (Cairney, 2016; Parkhurst, 2017; Sager et al., 2023). So far, research has almost exclusively focused on explaining EBPM in democratic political systems, and not much is known on the use of evidence by public administration in authoritarian polities. However, any state with the minimum capacity to perform its functions uses some types of data do so. Authoritarian governments are no exception: they collect statistics, establish research centers, think tanks, and advisory bodies, and conduct regulatory impact assessments. Moreover, there is not much empirical knowledge on how EBPM is affected by the trends of democratic decline and autocratization (Cassani & Tomini, 2020). Some research suggests that authoritarian governments and public administrations are more successful in integrating evidence in policymaking than democratic governments (Schwartz, 2012). However, authoritarian governments also face institutional constraints to fully benefit from the advantages of EBPM (Head, 2014). Most importantly, autocracies restrict the involvement of a wide range of stakeholders in policy development, including scientists, experts, and independent think tanks, which hampers EBPM. Moreover, the impact of EBPM on policy implementation is, arguably, limited in authoritarian contexts.

This article conceptually examines the relationship between autocratization and EBPM. It asks two research questions: 1) what factors influence EBPM in authoritarian polities? and 2) how does autocratization influence EBPM? To answer these questions, the article draws on a systematic literature review along the PRISMA guidelines. All published articles on the utilization of scientific evidence in declining democracies and authoritarian states are analyzed using qualitative and quantitative content analysis to identify relationships between democratic decline and EBPM.

There is a widespread belief that the use of evidence in policy-making will lead to better outcomes. One source of evidence for policy is academic research (Britchfield & Sasse, 2020). There are multiple mechanisms for academic experts to inform policy. These vary across different political systems, but in the UK include direct routes for engagement - e.g., commissioned research, formal or informal advisory roles, secondments etc. - and indirect or mediated routes - e.g., via knowledge brokering organisations (KBO) – that act as evidence intermediaries between the worlds of research and policy (Caplan, 1979).

This study examines the experience of academics working with one KBO – the Wales Centre for Public Policy (WCPP) – to influence national and local policy-makers in Wales. The Centre provides ministers, civil service, and public service providers in Wales with high quality evidence and independent advice to inform policy-making and public service delivery. While there is a growing body of research on how KBOs function (MacKillop et al, 2020; Neal et al, 2022; Durrant et al, 2023), less is known about their impact on researchers and research utilisation. This paper addresses this gap by reporting early findings from a survey and semi-structured interviews with UK-based academic experts engaging with WCPP since 2017. It examines their motivations for policy engagement and the effects on their research impact, research agenda and academic practice (e.g., nature and volume of publications, further policy engagement and contributions to the Research Excellence Framework).

The effectiveness of any routes for research-policy engagement – in terms of impact on research utilisation or policymaking culture and process – is unclear and contextually contingent (Oliver et al, 2022). One reason for this is the tension between evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM) and democratic decision-making. Evidence is simultaneously perceived as an antidote to populism and partisan authority - fundamental to informing democratic deliberation of complex policy problems (Head and Banerjee, 2020) - and as representing an undemocratic slide into “elitist rule of the knowers” (Krick, 2021:3). The ability for researchers to access and inform policy is influenced by the temporal politics of policy-making and may require academics to accept certain restrictions on their practice - like maintaining the confidentiality of discussions with policy-makers (Young el al, 2002; Cairney & Toth, 2023). Evidence may also be cherry-picked to provide cover for highly political decisions (Cairney, 2017).

For academic research to support democratic decision-making, scholarship on the role of evidence in policy-making needs to understand the role of the political beliefs and preferences of democratically elected decision-makers, as well as practice-based professional judgement, and lived experience (Best and Holmes, 2010; Head and Banerjee, 2020). We argue that engaging with policymakers via KBOs may enhance the success of research evidence engagement with other forms of knowledge in democratic policy-making processes, and support government and research funder agendas to increase the utility of academic research, but comes with compromises, challenges and costs.

This research abstract addresses the intricate relationship between democratic quality, public policy design, and evaluation, focusing on India as a case study. The study seeks to unravel the complexities of policymaking in democratic versus non-democratic contexts by employing a multi-dimensional framework that includes regime, policy process, mechanistic and procedural, and organizational perspectives.

Drawing on the theoretical constructs of Democratic Governance and Policy Capacity frameworks, the research examines how democratic norms and values influence public policy processes in India, a country marked by its democratic aspirations amidst challenges of governance and policy execution. The Democratic Governance framework allows for an exploration of how legitimacy, accountability, participation, and fairness play out in policy formulation and implementation. Concurrently, the Policy Capacity framework provides insights into the government's ability to marshal the necessary skills and resources to effectively implement policies that reflect democratic ideals.

Employing a mixed-methods approach, this study combines quantitative data analysis with qualitative case studies and expert interviews to provide a comprehensive view of policy design and evaluation. It specifically focuses on recent initiatives in India that aim to enhance democratic engagement and oversight, such as digital governance reforms and decentralization efforts. The paper addresses several key aspects under the workshop's theme: from the regime perspective, it analyzes how India's democratic setup facilitates or impedes policy innovation; from the policy process perspective, it assesses the mechanisms through which policies are crafted and revised in light of democratic feedback loops; mechanistically and procedurally, it explores the role of bureaucratic and organizational structures in shaping policy outcomes; and from an organizational standpoint, it evaluates the impact of governmental and non-governmental actors in shaping the policy landscape.

Moreover, the study delves into specific areas such as the role of digital technology in democratizing policy feedback and evaluation processes, and how these technological advancements are reshaping the interactions between citizens and the state. It also examines the challenges of maintaining democratic quality in policy evaluation, especially in contexts where political or bureaucratic pressures may distort or limit the scope of evaluation processes.

This research contributes to the academic discourse by providing empirical evidence and theoretical analysis on the ways democratic contexts influence public policy design and evaluation. By focusing on India, the study offers insights that are not only relevant to similar democratic transitions globally but also contributes to the broader understanding of the dynamic interplay between governance structures and democratic quality in public policy formulation.