European Policy Analysis Volume 1, Number 1, Spring 2015 | Page 4

European Policy Analysis

rational choices; whereas they see gender
politics as an expression of the so-called
“second modernity” characterized by the
recognition of diversity and reflexive rationality (for a critical view on evidence-based
policymaking see e.g., Rüb and Strassheim
2012).

One goal of this paper is to build
bridges between the two camps by theorizing and tracing the role that evidence can
play in the making of laws with strong impacts on gender equity. We start by briefly
outlining what we understand by gender
equity, and by delineating how specific social transfer and tax policies provide (dis)
incentives for specific family models (single
breadwinner/single caretaker model versus
dual breadwinner/dual caretaker model).
Furthermore, we lay out our generic understanding of evidence as systematically generated substantive policy knowledge that
is used to support certain policy goals and
specific policy measures. In the theoretical
part of the article, we introduce three analytic frameworks: Rational Policy Cycle
(RPC), Advocacy Coalition Framework
(ACF), and Multiple Streams Approach
(MSA).These are used to theorize potential
pathways and roles through which certain
kinds of evidence can be used to enhance
gender equity when family and tax policies are reformed. Within the context of
RPC, evidence is used to diagnose existing
deficits in a policy field and for evaluating
the efficiency of policy measures to reduce
these deficits. Within ACF, evidence is used
by coalitions to legitimize policy goals as
congruent with fundamental social values
and to justify specific policy measures as
adequate for fulfilling these goals. Finally,
MSA assumes that the primary roles of evidence are to signal the current priority/urgency of specific socioeconomic challenges
and to bolster the claim that measures from
a distinct policy field are relevant to meet-

ing these challenges. The three frameworks
show that the concept of evidence-based
policymaking is compatible with rationalist, normative-cognitive, and discursive
theories of collective decisionmaking.

In the empirical section we apply
the theoretical frameworks to four cases in
order to empirically trace the role of evidence in divergent policymaking processes.
We look at two processes focusing on the
provision and the financing of day care facilities and two processes in which tax deductions for family-external and family-internal childcare have been debated. The first
case study, in the Fribourg canton, reveals
the process corresponds strongly to the Rational Policy Cycle in situations where there
is a normative consensus on policy goals.
Here evidence is used extensively and productively for delineating the deficits and for
specifying effective measures. In the canton
of canton, by contrast, the discussion about
day care facilities was embedded in an ideological struggle between advocacy coalitions with divergent belief systems. In the
end, the proposed law failed in the parliament. This was partly because the progressive coalition bolstered their proposals with
scant and inappropriate evidence. However,
most of the explanation can be identified
with the MSA, since the FDP faction in parliament adjusted its position in accordance
with the “problem of the day” and switched
from supporting to undermining the public
provision of day care facilities.

The discussion about tax deductions
for family-internal and family-external
childcare in the canton of Uri also corresponded strongly with the ACF; conservatives mounted a strong challenge against
the progressive measures put forward by the
government by proposing that family-internal child care should be tax-deductible.
The government prevailed by referring to
evidence provided by legal authorities and
4