Agricultural Extension and RD

Policy Analysis (EXT34102)

Lecture 3: Policy process and analysis

Extension Department

Frank Tchuwa, PhD

Gabriel D. Chilumpha
Orientations to policy analysis
❑Policy analysis involves collecting and interpreting information that clarifies
the causes and effects of public problems, and how to address them.

❑There are diverse ways in which policy scholars conceptualize and categorize
policy analysis.

❑To help make sense of the diversity, 3 broad orientations to policy analysis
exist (Bowne et al., 2018):
i. Traditional
ii. Mainstream
iii. Interpretive

❑The orientations basically differ in their analytical focus.

Orientations to policy analysis
i. Traditional:
• Policy analysis involves deploying a rational comprehensive approach.
• The focus is exclusively on scientific “facts” to identify the best solution through
objective analyses, not politics.

ii. Mainstream:
• Embodies studies of agenda-setting, policy processes, policy networks, and
governance.
• Broadly seen as an interaction of values, interests, and resources mediated
through politics. The focus is on policy “texts”.

iii. Interpretive:
• The focus of interpretive policy analysis is on problem representation, and how
the framing of the policy problems shapes the array of possible policy
responses.
Theoretical frameworks to policy analysis
❑Several frameworks for policy analysis exist under the main broad
orientations:
i. Advocacy coalition framework:
• Analyses policy change and stability over time focusing on how different
advocacy coalitions come together in particular policy subsystems.

ii. Institutionalism:
• Institutional analysis is predicated upon the idea that institutions matter,
in the sense that institutions such as family, church, government, and
legal systems can be relatively stable over time, and exert an influence
over the ways interests may be structured and the processes by which
issues may be responded to
Theoretical frameworks to policy analysis
iii. Multiple streams theory:
• Assumes that problem identification, policy solutions, and political
processes are relatively independent streams of policy activity.

iv. Policy network analysis:

• Network analysis is based on the idea that a policy is framed within a
context of relationships and dependencies.

v. Policy triangle:
• Assumes that an understanding of policy should be informed by an
analysis of policy context, content, process, and actors, equally focusing
on all.
Theoretical frameworks to policy analysis
vi. Punctuated equilibrium:
• Based on the assumption that policies are relatively stable over time unless
disturbed by external factors.

vii. Narrative policy analysis:

• Draws on insights from literary theory. The approach is underpinned by the
objectives to: ‘underscore the important and necessary role that policy
narratives have in public policy’ and ‘establish the usefulness of narrative
analytical techniques’ in ‘reformulating intractable policy problems’.

viii. Frame reflexive policy analysis:

• Framing is a way of selecting, organizing, interpreting, and making sense of a
complex reality to provide goal posts for knowing, analyzing persuading, and
acting.
Theoretical frameworks to policy analysis
ix. Argumentative discourse analysis:
• Based upon the assumption that language profoundly shapes our view of
the world and reality, instead of merely being a neutral medium mirroring
it. The analyst therefore should examine how the definition of the political
problems relates to the particular narrative in which it is discussed.

x. Governmentality:
• A way of thinking about the nature and practice of government. What is
governing, who can govern and who is being governed and how?
Steps in policy analysis
❑The review process involves the following steps:

i. Determining the boundary/scope of the analysis

ii. Selection of policy and legal framework documents

iii. Review and analysis of the policy and legal framework

documents.
 1. Determining boundary/scope of analysis
❑Understanding
• the sphere of operation
• interest of the Group
❑How far and deep should we go with the analysis?
❑Ensures that analysis stays relevant to the intended objectives
❑Enables efficient resource allocation

Below are examples of scoping your analysis on policy issues related to soil health and
agroecology related
 The Harsh Reality of Smallholder Agriculture in
Sub-Sahara Africa-So much to analyse about soil
health
• Farmers Operate in complex contexts Pests and
diseases
• Diverse socio-economic, political, cultural, and
biophysical contexts Weak
institutions
• Face “wicked problems” which are
• Unstructured-no clear cause and effect
Poor
• Crosscutting soils
• Relentless- cannot be solved “once and for all” Social
injustice
Poor
markets

Climate
• (Weber and Khademian, 2008) variability
 13 principles of agroecology

HLPE AE principle (2019): Biodiversity. Maintain and enhance diversity of species, functional diversity and genetic
resources and thereby maintain overall agroecosystem biodiversity in time and space at field, farm & landscape scales
Navigating Diversity. Diversification is key
to agroecological transitions to
soil health ensure food security and
nutrition while conserving,
complexities protecting and enhancing
natural resources.
whilst caring
for nature and
people

FAO 10 AGROECOLOGY ELEMENTS, Barrios et al (2020)

2. Selection of policy and legal framework
documents
❑Guiding question to select policy and regulation documents for
analysis is as follows:

• Which policies and laws are influencing your area of interest?

• E.g., Biodiversity
 2. Selection of policy and legal framework
documents
❑Criteria to select documents for
analysis
1. Public narratives/ Public
interest
• Policies and legal frameworks that
are being talked about (positively or
negatively) or trending in the public “The Kenyan government's decision to authorize the
discourse. import of genetically modified maize, after a ten-year
ban, has triggered a wave of misinformation in this
East African country, fueled by sweeping statements
• E.g., policies which have resulted by rival politicians”.
in a public outcry when [Link]
announced. …..Malawi Seed Policy ion-pollutes-debate-on-gmos-in-kenya//
2018???
 2. Selection of policy and legal framework
documents
❑ Criteria to select documents for
analysis
2. Focus area
• Those focusing on areas of interest
to the group/analysts.
• Examples:
• Agriculture and environment.
• How best to boost productivity and how
this goal affects biodiversity.
• Food and nutrition.
• Food and nutrition security are
important, but we need biodiversity to
achieve them.
 2. Selection of policy and legal framework
documents
❑Criteria to select documents for
analysis

3. Impact (enhancing or constraining)

• Policies and legal frameworks that
impact (positive/negative) the
goal/interests of the group.
• E.g., Thin plastics,
industrialization, and Turpie, J., Letley, G., Ng’oma, Y. & Moore, K. 2019. The case for
environmental degradation in banning single-use plastics in Malawi. Report prepared for
Malawi. UNDP on behalf of the Government of Malawi by Anchor
Environmental Consultants in collaboration with Lilongwe
Wildlife Trust. Anchor Environmental Consultants Report No.
AEC/1836/1. 64pp
3. Review and analysis of the policy and
legal framework documents
❑Four main components involved
• Cardno, 2018: Policy document analysis: A practical educational leadership tool
and a qualitative research method. [Link] ([Link])

i. the purpose of the policy;

ii. how the policy was constructed

iii. issues related to its implementation

iv. actual outcomes and impact

3. Review and analysis of the policy and
legal framework documents
i. Policy purpose analysis
National Agriculture Policy
❑Closely read your policy document and
identify words or phrases that refer to: (2016)
• The purpose of the policy/ What is the policy “Policy Goal: To achieve
about? sustainable agricultural
• Aim/goal and objectives transformation that will result in
• What are the values that underpin or guide significant growth of the
the policy? (To help explore this refer to the
language that is used in the background and agricultural sector, expanding
objectives of the policy?) incomes for farm households,
❑Questions improved food and nutrition
• Why was this policy formulated? security for all Malawians, and
• How is the policy justified? increased agricultural exports”.
• What local or national strategic and quality Pp 10
issues does it aim to address?
 3. Review and analysis of the policy and
legal framework documents
ii. Policy construction analysis
❑Closely read your policy and identify sections, words, or phrases that provide
evidence of:
• How the policy is constructed e.g. Which frameworks were used?
• The component elements of the policy (check compliance with legal or
regulatory requirements)/ Strategies
• Are there any gaps or inconsistencies within the policy?
• Responsibility for policy development/ Who are the framers of the policy?
• What dominant ideas/concepts are the framers using?
• The way in which constituents/stakeholders participated in development
Policy framers: Influence of the Neuchâtel group
on Malawi’s extension policy (2000)
Agricultural Extension in the New Millennium:
Neuchâtel group (common framework on Towards Pluralistic and Demand-driven
extension 1996-2007 Services-2000

• From technology transfer to • Demand-driven extension services

facilitation’s • Accountability
• From beneficiaries to clients • Equalisation (poor, women, youths,
• Market demands drive extensions disabled)
services • “Those who benefit pay”(Service at cost)
• Reformed financing of extension- • Resources sustainability
public and private
• Promotion of pluralism
• Pluralism and decentralisation
• Decentralised co-ordination
3. Review and analysis of the policy and
legal framework documents
iii. Practice implementation of National Agriculture Policy (2016)
anticipated outcomes and impact Policy Outcomes
1. Increased agricultural production and productivity.
2. Increased diversification of agricultural production
❑Closely read your policy and and marketed surpluses.
identify words or phrases that relate 3. Increased use of irrigation in crop production.
to its anticipated implementation to 4. Increased mechanisation of farming and
comment on: agroprocessing activities.
5. Increased agroprocessing and value addition of
• Its overall impact agricultural products, particularly by women and
• What actions are expected for the youth.
policy to be implemented? 6. Increased access by producers and consumers to
• What outcomes and impacts are well-functioning agricultural markets – input,
expected from the policy? output, and consumer retail markets.
7. Increased engagement by women, youth and
vulnerable groups in agriculture policy processes
and programs.
 3. Review and analysis of the policy and
legal framework documents
iv. Practice implementation/actual outcomes and impact

❑Closely reflect on the policy and its actual implementation using your
experience and from others involved in or affected by its implementation to
consider:
• Current strengths and positive aspects of the policy in practice
• Current concerns and negative aspects of the policy in practice
• To what extent is the policy or law aligned with your work or practices?
• What is the actual impact of the policy or law
• What is the actual impact of the policy or law on your area of work?
 Case of Seed Act and Neglected and Underutilized Species in Malawi
Seed Act, 2022
55. Prohibition against sale of uncertified seed Any person who— (a)
(b) sells as certified seed any seed which is not certified under this
Act; or for the purposes of sell, uses, in the description or name of any
• How is the new seed Act seed, the word "certified" or any cognate word in relation to seed
which is not certified under this Act, shall be guilty of an offence.
applied in practices?

• How does it affect

distribution of seed for
local/indigenous crops?

EU/FAO Kulima programme

focus on amarunthus in Malawi
(source: Sefasi, LUANAR)
3. Review and analysis of the policy and
legal framework documents
❑Other
• What is the policy context? (e.g. Political environment when policy was
made)
• What language is used in the background of the policy?

• The reference of certain words in recent policy documents:

• Participation, empowerment
• Inclusive, equality, equity, diversity
• Democratic, demand-driven
• Decentralization
• Governance, transparency, accountability
Alternative steps in policy analysis
❑Policy analysis is a complex and fluid process with no clear
convention on the number of steps taken when doing analysis.
❑It involves a series of analytical steps that may sometimes be
repeated or overlap.
❑ Here is another simple and common guide for quick policy
analysis as suggested by many authors:
i. Define the problem
ii. Decide on evaluating criteria
iii. Identify alternative policies
iv. Analyze the alternative policies
v. Select the preferred policy
vi. Implement, monitor, and evaluate the results
Policy analysis process
Policy analysis process
i. Problem definition:
• What is the problem? Where does it exist? Who is affected? Causes?
ii. Evaluation criteria:
• Consequences of a policy that can be estimated (quantitatively or qualitatively)
and that are directly related to the objectives.
iii. Identify alternative options:
• Brainstorm a range of potential policy solutions to the problem.
iv. Evaluate each alternative:
• Analyse the potential consequences of each alternative policy, positive and
negative
v. Select an alternative:
• Choose the most suitable option based on the desired outcome.
vi. Implement, monitor, and evaluate:
• Put the policy into action and continuously track if it’s making desired progress.
THANK YOU
Evidence-Based Policy
Agricultural Extension and RD
Policy Analysis (EXT34102)
Lecture 4: Evidence-Based Policy Analysis

Extension Department

Frank Tchuwa, PhD

Gabriel D. Chilumpha
Evidence-Based Policy (EBP)
❑Method of policy development that consults facts and
credible, relevant evidence to make decisions, over political
opinion or theory
❖Transparently uses rigorous and tested evidence in the design,
implementation, and refinement of policy to meet intended objectives
• evidence should be broad, tested, rigorous, and ideally capable of
replication;
• evidence should be robust and avoid common methodological
pitfalls; and
• the entire process should be transparent and contestable.
Types of evidence for policy making
Quantitative
evidence e.g. cost-
benefit-analysis, GE
modeling, statistics,
surveys,
performance
measures
Qualitative
evidence e.g. Descriptive
qualitative evidence e.g.
Evidence for expert opinion,
research, Policy
observational anecdote
studies
Existing
Experimental
evidence e.g.
evidence e.g.
meta- analysis,
randomized policy
systematic
trials, quasi-
review,
experimental
confirmed
studies
theories
Why is evidence-based policy important?
❑Conventional wisdom is often wrong. Policies can be ineffective or have unintended
and perverse outcomes.

❑Evidence can improve clarity when dealing with complex interventions that act on
complex social systems.

❑Evidence is persuasive. It can shape the policy debate and overcome sectoral and
special interest arguments vying to influence policy.

❑It encourages transparency and accountability by clearly stating the goals of

policies and programs.

❑Evidence-based policymaking also encourages a virtuous cycle of knowledge

building.
Principles of evidence-based policymaking
1. Build and compile rigorous evidence about what works, including
costs and benefits.

2. Monitor program delivery and use impact evaluation to measure

program effectiveness.

3. Use rigorous evidence to improve programs, scale what works,

and redirect funds away from consistently ineffective programs.

4. Encourage innovation and test new approaches.

Evolution of EBP (Knowledge/power
relationship)
❑ The proposition that reliable knowledge is a powerful instrument
for advising decision-makers and for achieving political success is
an ancient doctrine,
• linked to the exercise of effective statecraft and efficient governance
❑Early modern Europe.
• Doctrine associated with the rise of the empirical social sciences –
sociology, economics, political science, social psychology, etc.
– which emerged in the 19th century and expanded very rapidly in the
20th century.
 Evolution of EBP (Knowledge/power
relationship)
❑1940-50s
❖Social scientists involved in grand programs of social welfare, educational
reform, and urban renewal in North America, Europe, and Australia
❖However, results were often disappointing, and some of the blame fell on
• inadequacies of social research
• poor implementation and coordination capacities of government
agencies
❑For example, in the field of prisons and corrections policy,
Martinson (1974) concluded that ‘nothing works’
• It was considered that the research base was too thin to suggest reliable
approaches.
• How could the social sciences become more precise and reliable?
Evolution of EBP (Knowledge/power
relationship)
❑1960s
❖Doctrine championing rigorous behavioral methodologies emerged,
• Insisting that social sciences should raise their ‘scientific’ standards.
• Use of quantitative data and experimental methods was strongly advocated as a
means of providing more precise and reliable evidence for decision-makers
• Thus, in these decades, a focus emerged on the potential benefits of greater
rigor and greater use of analytical methods.
❖Many of the recent debates within the social sciences about the
prospects for EBP stem from the controversy about the centrality of
rigorous quantitative methodologies
 Evolution of EBP (Knowledge/power
relationship)
❑Demand and supply factors
❖Demand
• demand for rigorous social and economic research stems largely from government
agencies and legislative bodies which seek for information to report on performance and
meet the needs of decision-makers.
• Government-funded research has become, directly and indirectly, the most important
source of social science input to government.
• The perceived preferences of government bodies for certain types of research have a large
impact on how research is conducted.
❖supply
• social and economic researchers have developed research capacities that enable them
to provide research findings on topics of interest to government.
• The topics and formats are usually influenced by funders’ priorities.
• These research capacities have been consolidated over time in substantial research
centres.
• There are several organizational types in the research sector including universities,
consultancy firms, private sector think tanks e.g., MWAPATA
 Capabilities and conditions required for EBP
❑primacy of gathering and analysing good information from several
sources

• “This Government’s declaration that ‘what counts is what works’ is the

basis for the present heightened interest in the part played by evidence in
policy making... . ... policy decisions should be based on sound evidence.
The raw ingredient of evidence is information. Good quality policymaking
depends on high-quality information, derived from a variety of sources—
expert knowledge; existing domestic and international research; existing
statistics; stakeholder consultation; evaluation of previous policies; new
research, if appropriate; or secondary sources, including the internet”.
(UK Cabinet Office, 1999b: ch. 7)
 Capabilities and conditions required for EBP
❑Creating more systematic linkages between rigorous research
and the processes of policy-making would require long and
complex effort at many levels. This reconsideration concludes
that varieties of evidence can inform policy rather than constitute
a systematic foundation for the policy process.
❑Why?
❖Issues:
1. a strong research base, with rigorous research findings on key issues, is
simply not yet available in many areas for informing policy and program
managers.
Capabilities and conditions required for EBP

❖Issues:
2. policy managers and political leaders are often motivated and influenced
by many factors besides research evidence,
• E.g., Political leaders are often preoccupied with maintaining support among allies,
responding to media commentary, polishing leadership credentials, and managing
risks.
3. even where reliable evidence has been documented, there is often a
poor ‘fit’ between how this information has been assembled by researchers
(e.g. scientific reports) and the practical needs of policy and program
managers
• Poor packaging and communication of findings
Capabilities and conditions required for EBP
❖Issues:
4. The value of professional knowledge, as distinct from experimental
research-based knowledge, is increasingly being recognized as crucial.
• How should policymakers rely on the merits of findings of systematic/scientific
research and practical experience of professional service providers?
5. EBP seems to have less standing and relevance in those areas where the
issues are turbulent or subject to rapid change.
• research findings are widely used as weapons in strongly emotive debates e.g.,
biotechnology, climate change, pesticides
Capabilities and conditions required for EBP

❑Enabling factors for EBP

1. High-quality information based on relevant topic areas.
• The principle of transparency reinforces the need to invest in high-quality
and accessible information.
2. Cohorts of professionals with skills in data analysis and policy
evaluation.
• Inhouse staff of consultants vs think tanks?
• Statistics, qualitative, multidisciplinary research, or systematic reviews?
 Capabilities and conditions required for EBP
3. Political and organizational incentives for utilizing evidence-based
analysis and advice.
❖Politicians e.g., reformists and civil service should institutionalize the culture of
evaluating policies based on evidence no matter their popularity –which means
being open to good and bad news about their favored policy
4. Substantial mutual understanding between the roles of policy
professionals, researchers, and decision-makers.
❖Researchers need to
• ask the right questions, and provide relevant findings in a well-written and accessible way.
• Provide implications of research for policy and practice.
❖policy managers need to
• become more aware of the value of relevant research,
• become more adept at accessing and using such research,
• understand both the strengths and limitations of the evidence base, and
• know how to balance the competing perspectives of research, politics, and management
 Forms of knowledge and evidence
❑Some specialists consider quantitative information as important. But
other voices in the EBP debates, argue that the circle of relevant
evidence needs to be broadened to reflect other important types of
knowledge and information.
❖significance of ‘qualitative’ evidence,
• e.g. evidence concerning the values, attitudes, and perceptions of stakeholders and
decision-makers.
❖Provides meanings, motives, contexts
• rather than seeking behavioral generalizations drawn from quantitative methods

❑Mixed methods are increasingly championed by analysts and

evaluators who are attempting to explain complex problems and
assess complex interventions
Forms of knowledge and evidence
❑Policy decisions in the real world are not deduced from empirical-
analytical models,
• but from politics and practical judgement.
• There is an interplay of facts, norms, and preferred courses of action.
❑In the real world of policy-making,
• what counts as ‘evidence’ is diverse and contestable.
• The policy-making process in democratic countries uses the rhetoric
of rational problem-solving and managerial effectiveness, but the
policy process itself is fuzzy, political, and conflictual.
 Forms of knowledge and evidence
❑“Instead of reaching ‘solutions’ that can be judged by standards of
rationality, policy-making reaches settlements, reconciliations,
adjustments, and agreements that one can evaluate only
inconclusively by such standards as fairness, acceptability,
openness to reconsideration, and responsiveness to a variety of
interests. Analysis in large part is transformed from an evaluative
technique into a method of exerting influence, control, and
power which we call partisan analysis”. (Lindblom, 1980: 122)
Forms of knowledge and evidence
❑rigorous scientific analysis in this sense constitutes only one set
of voices in the larger world of policy and program debate.
❑Several other types of knowledge and expertise have legitimate
voices in a democratic society.
❑Including:
1. political knowledge,
• strategies, tactics, and agenda-setting of political leaders and their organizations set
the ‘big picture’ of priorities and approaches.
• Ideas, arguments, and values are instead mobilized to support political objectives
and to build coalitions of support;
• ‘Spin’ may become more important than objective tests of effectiveness and
accountability.
 Forms of knowledge and evidence
2. Professional knowledge
❖of service delivery practitioners and the technical knowledge of program managers
and coordinators
❖vital for advising on feasibility and effectiveness.
• They wrestle with everyday problems of effectiveness and implementation, develop
practical understandings of what works (and under what conditions), and sometimes
improvise to meet local challenges
3. Others, including institutional sources of expertise, the experiential
knowledge of service users and stakeholders
❖vital for ‘client-focused’ service delivery.
❖Ordinary citizens may have different perspectives from those of service providers
and program designers;
• their views are increasingly seen as important for program evaluation to ensure that
services are appropriately responsive to clients’ needs and choices or that standards
are set realistically
Criticisms, reservations and challenges
1. EBP seen as ‘technocratic’
• owing to its implicit preference for quantitative precision and technical
expertise over other forms of professional knowledge, and
• It appears to oppose inclusive deliberation as a basis for reform (e.g.,
stakeholders' engagement and dialogue)

2. EBP is seen as focusing on short-term projects to meet current

political and administrative demands
• Yet, there is a recognition on the importance of long-term or durable
governmental commitments both to program implementation and to
evaluation processes.
Criticisms, reservations and challenges
3. how EBP can deal with large and complex problems or “wicked
problems”
• In relatively simple issues where all the variables can be specified and
controlled, methodological rigor is likely to be tight, with some confidence that
causal factors can be clarified.

• But in programs with multiple objectives, or where the clients/stakeholders are

subjected to many sources of influence beyond the scope of the program, the
challenge of accurate understanding is compounded.

• complex problems are unlikely to be ‘solvable’ through a single policy

instrument or ‘magic bullet’.
• Policy-makers might be wise to adopt multi-layered approaches which may
look ‘clumsy’ rather than elegant
 Enhanced impact through knowledge transfer
and interaction
❑Evidence-based policy requires that research and evaluation findings are
effectively communicated and available to be utilized by policy and
program managers
❑But even where the quality of research is high, the apparent overall level
of impact or utilization by decision-makers is problematic or
disappointing
❖Forms of research influence on policy
• direct (instrumental)
– uses or impacts of research, which may involve the direct adoption/utilization of findings (especially
when research has been tailored to address a specific issue identified by decision-makers);
– E.g., adoption of conservation agriculture
• indirect
– influence via research contributions toward enhanced understanding of social processes or through
new frameworks for re-conceptualizing processes, problems, or solutions
– E.g., understanding of how gender imbalances are leading to failed land restoration programmes
Enhanced impact through knowledge
transfer and interaction
❑Possible contributions of researchers to social policy
1. acting as special government advisers;
2. leading or contributing to major national inquiries, or to the work of various
standing commissions;
3. raising public awareness of key problems and issues;
4. providing the answers to specific questions through, for example, modeling or
evaluations;
5. providing objective analysis of what works and what does not;
6. monitoring and analyzing social trends;
7. providing independent scrutiny of government initiatives and developments;
8. offering solutions to help improve and refine current policy initiatives;
9. enhancing the effective delivery of public services;
10. challenging current paradigms, helping to identify new approaches, concepts and
principles
Enhanced impact through knowledge transfer
and interaction
❑To enhance the utilization of knowledge produced through
research by policymakers there is a need for constructing better
‘learning’ processes, together with establishing new channels and
forums for mutual understanding and influence

❑Shift from knowledge transfer to knowledge transmission

through close interactions between researchers and policymakers
Enhanced impact through knowledge transfer
and interaction
❑Barriers to interaction between researchers and policymakers
1. The politicized context of governmental commitments and decision-
making.
• political leaders and program managers are unlikely to fund, or even notice,
research projects whose findings ‘encourage policy-makers to jettison dearly held
but failing policies in the face of overwhelming evidence’.

• They tend to prioritize studies that support their policies

2. Public officials often have a low awareness of research and evaluation

findings.
 Enhanced impact through knowledge transfer
and interaction
❑Barriers to interaction between researchers and policymakers
3. The research sector lacks an appreciation of decision-makers needs for
well-targeted and well-communicated findings.

• Why do policymakers fail to use information from research? (from a

perception study)
a. research was not highly valued or well communicated within their organization;
b. internally conducted or commissioned research was more likely to be seen as
relevant;
c. research was not timely or relevant to users’ needs;
d. research was less likely to be used when findings were controversial or upset the
status quo;
e. policy-makers might prefer to rely on other sources of information.
THANK YOU