The End of Evidence‐Based Everything at the Close of the Global Chapter: Plotting the Next Step on the Spiral

• Published date: 01 November 2021
• Author: Jeremy L. Hall
• Date: 01 November 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13444

The End of Evidence-Based Everything at the Close of the Global Chapter: Plotting the Next Step on the Spiral 997

I

appreciate each of you taking the time to read the

editorials at the beginning of each issue. At the risk

of sounding like a broken record, in this editorial

I tackle two trends I see evolving as the pandemic

response plays out. For those of you who are patient,

I promise to abandon this soapbox in the new volume

year in favor of other challenging topics that I think

also deserve our scholarly attention. I have invested a

lot of thought in these topics, and the brevity of the

editorial exercise does not always offer sufficient space

to explore every notion to its logical conclusion. Take

this for what it is—my meandering reflection on the

challenges facing society, and their implications for

our discipline. As always, all thoughts are my own.

The onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic brought

the global economy to a screeching halt. That all-stop

moment was necessary to flatten the curve and bring

a stop to the global pandemic, we were told. That

notion turned out to be false; but, it was based on

sound scientific evidence that restricting movement

would prevent the spread of the virus. In truth,

COVID-19 had been circulating widely well before

it was identified, named, and traced to its source. We

now know the disease had reached the United States

even before it was publicly announced in China;

antibodies have been detected in blood samples

collected before the disease had supposedly reached

our shores (Basavariju et al. 2021). And, science has

taught us that the infection could spread even before

the carrier became symptomatic. Mutations to the

virus are occurring naturally, and with each variant

comes potential for new waves of infection. The delta

variant, in particular, has proven quite efficient at

infecting even vaccinated individuals.

Nonetheless, at each turn we are admonished to

“follow the science.” But, which science? And who

decides which science is appropriate, timely, and

sufficiently complete to warrant action? Indeed, this

global pandemic has rattled the very foundations of

the established evidence movement. Evidence-based

everything (EBE)—which I will now use as shorthand

for evidence-based policy, practice, management, and

any other tagalong concepts—has been revealed for the

sham it is, or at the very least, the sham it is capable

of being. Perhaps the most significant victims of the

pandemic to date are globalization and the evidence

movement, whose untimely deaths are rewriting social,

political, and economic agendas the world over. They

will be the focus of my attention in this editorial.

Officials have been so caught up in the scientific

evidence about the virus, its treatment, and public

health policies, that other kinds of science have fallen

by the wayside. Free market economics, in particular,

seems to be on the chopping block these days. During

the pandemic the U.S. federal government enacted a

number of policies that were intended to bolster the

economy. It might be said we moved from a tradition

of government to one of “giverment.” Instead, those

policies upended every corner of society into a new

state of disequilibrium. Let us consider the labor

market for starters. The beginning of the pandemic was

the impetus needed for many to voluntarily leave the

labor market. Others left due to illness, death, or to care

for family members in need. Millions more were left

without employment due to mandatory or voluntary

closure of factories and businesses. Government

policies increased and extended unemployment

benefits, leading many frontline workers to simply

stay home. As things re-opened, the competition for

workers artificially drove up wages on the low end of

the spectrum. The stock market boomed as consumer

spending continued unabated. Many, through

government programs such as the paycheck protection

program and others, suddenly found themselves with

more discretionary income than before the pandemic.

This demand resulted in shortages of things like

swimming pools and pool chemicals—things that

would not ordinarily be on the top of the household

priority list during a global catastrophe. Reduced

production of natural gas meant reduced supply of an

important byproduct—carbon dioxide—which is used

in various industries, but especially soft drinks. And, of

course, there were runs on products like toilet paper.

Jeremy L. Hall

University of Central Florida

The End of Evidence-Based Everything at the Close of the

Global Chapter: Plotting the Next Step on the Spiral

Editorial

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 81, Iss. 6, pp. 997–1002. © 2021 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13444.