Evidence is central to effective economic policymaking, but how it is used in real-world decision-making
FCDO Research Commissioning Centre announces new awards on evidence use in policymaking in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia
Share Post :
Evidence is central to effective economic policymaking, but how it is used in real-world decision-making often depends on political incentives, institutional dynamics and timing.
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) Research Commissioning Centre (RCC) has awarded a new set of research grants under its Evidence-Informed Policymaking (EIPM) programme that will strengthen understanding of how evidence is used in economic policymaking, and how its use can be improved in low- and lower-middle-income countries, with a particular focus on Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.
Why evidence-informed policymaking matters
The value of using evidence to inform public policy is widely recognised. However, there is still limited empirical understanding of how policymaking processes work in practice, particularly in politically complex and resource-constrained contexts. Evaluations of initiatives designed to increase the use of evidence–such as technical support or technological innovations–are also scant, highlighting a need to enhance understanding of what works to facilitate EIPM, for whom, and under what circumstances.
The EIPM programme responds to this need by supporting research that explores the use of evidence in practice and tests approaches to enhance it.
What these awards will deliver
The EIPM programme sits within FCDO’s Global Research and Technology Development (GRTD) portfolio.
Collectively, the EIPM programme will generate:
- rigorous research on how evidence informs economic policymaking in practice
- enhanced understanding of what works to increase evidence use in policymaking and under what circumstances
- actionable lessons for governments, funders, researchers and evidence intermediaries through publications, events and other learning-sharing.
The programme has made 17 awards across two streams of work: Studies of evidence use in practice and Interventions to influence the use of evidence.
Studies of evidence use in practice
One set of projects uses theory-informed, qualitative and mixed-methods approaches to examine examples of evidence use across a range of high-priority economic policy areas, including labour markets, taxation, agriculture, migration and national development planning.
Together, the projects will generate comparative insights into:
- how political and institutional contexts shape evidence uptake
- the roles of different actors and forms of evidence
- the conditions under which evidence influences agenda-setting, policy design and implementation
Awarded projects
Lead Institution: African Institute for Development Policy (AFIDEP)
Partners: Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, Kenya | Ministry of Energy and Petroleum, Kenya
Examines how research evidence informs national economic policymaking in Kenya, focusing on labour and energy policy reforms. Using comparative qualitative case studies of two recent high-priority policy processes, the research analyses how political economy dynamics, institutional arrangements and sectoral characteristics shape evidence use. The study aims to generate insights into when and why evidence influences policy decisions and identify entry points for strengthening evidence-informed policymaking in Kenya and similar contexts.
Lead Institution: Centre for Economic Research in Pakistan (CERP)
Investigates how evidence is generated, interpreted and used across different types of tax reform in Pakistan, such as tariff reform, property taxation or digital tax administration. Using a comparative qualitative design, the research examines how various political and institutional factors shape evidence uptake in fiscal policymaking. This study seeks to provide actionable lessons on strengthening evidence use in politically sensitive revenue reforms in South Asia.
Lead Institution: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT)
Partners: Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute
Compares evidence use in seed and grain trade policymaking in Zambia, two closely related domains with contrasting policy trajectories. Using a mixed-methods comparative design, the research examines how evidence characteristics, actor networks and political economy incentives shape policy uptake. The findings aim to generate insights into why similar evidence achieves different levels of influence across policy areas and offer lessons for strengthening evidence use in agricultural trade policymaking.
Lead Institution: Growth Teams
Examines whether and how Growth Diagnostics influence economic policymaking in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Using retrospective comparative case studies in Cote d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Tanzania and Sri Lanka, the research traces pathways from diagnostic production to policy design and implementation. The study intends to identify conditions under which diagnostic evidence informs reform agendas, as well as instances of symbolic or selective use, generating lessons for governments, donors and researchers seeking to improve the policy impact of growth diagnostics.
Lead Institution: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
Partners: Institute of Public Opinion and Research (IPOR - Malawi) | Policy Studies Institute (PSI - Ethiopia)
Explores how research evidence has informed flagship agricultural commercialisation initiatives in Ethiopia and Malawi. Using comparative qualitative analysis, the research assesses evidence use across policy design, implementation and adaptation stages. By comparing two similar reform agendas in distinct political contexts, the study seeks to generate lessons on how evidence can more effectively inform agricultural and economic transformation strategies in Africa.
Lead Institution: Mettalytics
Partners: National Development Planning Commission (NDPC), Ghana | National Planning Commission (NPC), Malawi
Investigates how research evidence is used in the formulation of National Development Plans in Ghana and Malawi. Using comparative qualitative methods, the research examines where evidence enters decision-making processes, which actors and relationships confer credibility, and how political economy dynamics shape evidence uptake. The study aims to provide actionable recommendations for strengthening evidence-informed national economic planning.
Lead Institution: PoliSync Centre for International Policy Engagement
Partners: African Migration and Development Policy Centre (AMADPOC) | International Institute of Migration and Development (IIMAD)
Examines how evidence on the economic value of international migration is used—or sidelined—in policymaking in Kenya, Kerala (India) and Sri Lanka. Using a mixed-methods comparative design, the research analyses evidence use across remittances, labour migration and diaspora engagement policies. The study seeks to generate insights into how migration evidence can be more effectively embedded in economic decision-making in politically sensitive policy areas.
Lead Institution: Tegemeo Institute of Agricultural Policy and Development, Egerton University
Partners: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)| Michigan State University
Explores how evidence has shaped agricultural policy reforms in Kenya, focusing on fertiliser subsidies and coffee marketing reforms. Using a comparative qualitative design, the research analyses how policy visibility, complexity and interest group dynamics influence evidence uptake. The findings aim to generate lessons for strengthening evidence use in agricultural and economic reforms in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Interventions to influence the use of evidence
Another set of projects evaluates interventions designed to strengthen evidence-informed policymaking. These studies employ experimental designs and small-n evaluation approaches to assess the effect of interventions such as embedded policy labs, leadership training, behavioural interventions and AI-enabled evidence intermediaries on evidence use outcomes.
The research will examine:
- whether interventions increase evidence use in practice
- the mechanisms through which change occurs
- costs, scalability and prospects for institutionalisation
Awarded projects
Lead Institution: Center for Evaluation and Development (C4ED)
Partners: Ethiopian Economic Association (EEA)
Evaluates an 18-month intervention to strengthen evidence use in Ethiopian trade policymaking during a major reform period linked to WTO accession and AfCFTA integration. Using a cluster randomised controlled trial across 60 directorates, it compares training-only approaches with researcher–policymaker co-production and mentoring. The study plans to measure changes in skills, attitudes, and observable evidence use, generating actionable lessons for Ethiopia and global EIPM practice.
Lead Institution: DevelopMetrics
Partners: United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (UNU-MERIT) | University of Moratuwa | Ministry of Finance | Ministry of Digital Economy
Tests whether a generative-AI evidence platform improves research use in Sri Lanka’s economic policymaking. In a randomised controlled trial in the Ministries of Finance and Digital Economy, policy documents will be drafted with or without AI assistance. Planned outcomes include the quality, traceability, and timeliness of evidence use, offering the first causal evidence on AI-enabled evidence intermediation in live policy processes.
Lead Institution: Global Health Economics
Partners: Makerere University School of Public Health | Makerere University School of Economics | Mbarara University of Science and Technology | ACE Policy Research Institute | Forum for Women in Democracy (FOWODE)
Evaluates behavioural and institutional strategies to increase evidence use among senior policymakers in Uganda during a key reform window. A 2×2 factorial RCT will test evidence framing and messenger credibility across trade, fiscal, and energy sectors. The study aims to measure observable evidence use in policy documents and budgets, generating new causal evidence on behavioural mechanisms for strengthening EIPM in low-income settings.
Lead Institution: Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA)
Partners: University of Warwick | Stanford Graduate School of Business | Ministry of Education, Côte d'Ivoire | Ministry of Education, Ghana | Ministry of Education, Kenya | Central Bank of Nigeria; Nigerian Communications Commission | Ministry of Education, Rwanda | Ministry of Education and Sports, Uganda | Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development, Uganda | Early Childhood Development Agency, Colombia | Environment Agency, Peru | Market regulator, Peru | Department of Education, The Philippines
Multi-country study that evaluates whether Embedded Evidence Labs improve policymakers’ capacity, motivation, and practice of using evidence. Using an encouragement-based cluster RCT across 12 government agencies in Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia, the study examines changes in knowledge, skills, and observable evidence use. Findings will provide some of the first causal evidence on the effectiveness and sustainability of embedded evidence models.
Lead Institution: International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT)
Partners: Policy Studies Institute (PSI - Ethiopia) | Tegemeo Institute of Agricultural Policy and Development, Egerton University
Evaluates Evidence-to-Policy Sprints as a tool to strengthen evidence use in policymaking on informal food-system enterprises in Kenya and Ethiopia. Using a mixed-methods, quasi-experimental design, it plans to assess changes in policymakers’ knowledge, attitudes, and intentions following participation. The research fills a key evidence gap on whether short, collaborative policy engagement models can improve evidence uptake in contested policy areas.
Lead Institution: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
Partners: Policy Studies Institute (PSI - Ethiopia), African Leadership Excellence Academy (AFLEX)
Tests whether leadership-focused capacity building and evidence intermediation can improve evidence use among senior policymakers in Ethiopia. Embedded within national leadership programmes, an individual-level RCT will compare training alone with enhanced evidence-use support and on-demand synthesis. The evaluation measures changes in demand for, trust in, and observable use of evidence, generating lessons for institutionalising EIPM at senior levels.
Lead Institution: Laboratoire d’Economie Publique (LEP)
Partners: Directorate of Research and Strategic Studies (DRES), Ministry of Economy and Finance, Directorate General of Evaluation (DG-OCS), Ministry of Planning and Development, Benin
Uses mixed methods to examine whether Benin’s first embedded policy lab—the Directorate of Research and Strategic Studies—strengthens evidence use in economic policymaking. Combining quasi-experimental methods, an RCT, and in-depth qualitative analysis, it aims to assess impacts on policymakers’ skills, demand for evidence, and policy practices. The study offers rare causal evidence on policy labs in Francophone West Africa.
Lead Institution: RAND Europe
Partners: Center for Rapid Evidence Synthesis (ACRES)
Evaluates how ACRES, a long-standing Ugandan knowledge brokering institution, supports evidence use by convening stakeholders and prioritising policy-relevant research questions. Using theory-based mixed methods, it examines changes in access to evidence, trust, relationships, and observable policy influence. The evaluation seeks to generate transferable lessons for strengthening knowledge brokering in economic policymaking.
Lead Institution: South African Medical Research Council
Partners: Evidence-to-Decision Initiative
Evaluates how and at what cost the Evidence-to-Decision initiative embeds systematic evidence use in South Africa’s health and social policymaking. Using nested case studies, process tracing, and cost–consequence analysis, it examines institutional pathways from evidence to policy influence. The findings aim to provide actionable insights on designing sustainable evidence-to-decision systems in complex governance contexts.
Learn more
Get more information and related resources on the Evidence-Informed Policymaking programme.
Relevant Stories
- New FCDO Research Commissioning Centre funding round to understand evidence use in policymaking
- Walking the talk on evidence use in policymaking: Reflections from the FCDO Research Commissioning Centre
- What does evidence-informed policymaking look like? A framework for conceptualising and measuring EIPM
See more
Report analysing Ghana’s health sector transformation over three decades, focusing on the evolving role of UK aid.
Every year, around 25 million people die from conditions that could be treated with medical oxygen, an essential medicine still out of reach for most patients in low- and middle-income countries.
The Global Education Evidence Advisory Panel (GEEAP) unveiled its latest report, “Effective Reading Instructions in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: What the Evidence Shows.” This report highlights that literacy is the cornerstone of all learning.
Your starting point for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) funded research and development.
Quick links
All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated.
