Previous
Mercedes Araoz served as an advisor on OTT’s learning partnership on government engagement. She is a Professor of International Economics and Public Policy at Universidad del Pacifico, Lima, Peru. Currently, she is a member of the Executive Board of the Global Crop Trust, Commissioner of the BroadBand Commission for Sustainable Development (ITU-UNESCO) and member of the Board at Compartamos Financiera, a microfinance institution. She has been a member of the Parliament, Vice-President and Prime Minister of Peru. Previous government positions held were Minister of Economy and Finance, Minister of Production and Minister of International Trade and Tourism, Executive Director of the Competitiveness Council and Member of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duties Committee at INDECOPI. She has also been a Representative of the Inter-American Development Bank in Mexico.
1. Tell us about your role
As politicians, we have an idea about the needs of the people. However, we have to make sure that everything works out for the people. Evidence is a key element to make sure that we understand that there is a public problem, and that we can solve it. When we started in the Ministry of Foreign Trade & Tourism, we had a programme of multiple free trade agreements (FTAs). We created in the Ministry a ‘study buddy’, a Directorate of Economic Studies. Every FTA had a basis for feasibility based on evidence. We used the statistics to show the spaces in which we would like to have more trade; for imports and exports, we identified our red lines in some issues and also identified which are our objectives, for instance, where are the possibilities of having better exports of fruit and vegetables. Also where we could improve policies, for example, in terms of investment protection.
The studies we made really helped us to approach our future trade partners showing that we can build a better future for both countries.
Now that I am a professor, after more than 10 years of these FTAs, I worked as a consultant for the Swiss Cooperation for the Ministry and produced a document showing their impact and how to improve them. It’s a good example of international cooperation: the Ministry and academic experts working together to use evidence as an instrument for development.
2. What type of evidence, and who provided it?
We used different types of evidence. For example, for consultation processes, we interviewed people, conducted focus groups, or conducted surveys. Surveys are very important for collecting data—not only numbers but also qualitative information. Focus groups show us how different stakeholders feel about public policies.
We did that, for example, on policies related to creating a brand for Peru in tourism. We worked a lot with that type of evidence from focus groups to build a Peruvian identity that the people inside Peru can relate to and to understand how people outside the country would see us.
I am not an expert in branding, but I learned about the branding of my country from experts in the field. They brought me ideas I would never think of, and which satisfied the public in the end. That helped us very much at that time, the position of Peru in tourism has been consolidated.
3. What are the main challenges and opportunities you see for embedding evidence systematically into the policymaking process?
Sometimes, there is no clear information that can help us make better policies. Recently, I was asked to work on a programme on global value chains focusing, among other things, on how to involve Peru. The amount of information on the topic is very low.
National statistics institutes must work more efficiently if we want to comply with common information, for example, from the OECD. Universities are pushed to be very scientific in terms of doing sophisticated research but not applied research. I would like to see a better combination of both.
On the other hand, the political environment is too polarised, so any idea that comes with evidence that is not connected to ‘my thinking’ is rejected without listening. This environment is damaging the possibilities of creating value. That is a big problem. They make assumptions based on no evidence. People who approach topics in a populist manner think they can do policy without thinking about who they are affecting with their decisions. That is sad to see—populism around the world means many decisions are made without evidence.
Of course, this creates a lot of problems later. It is tough, and it’s getting worse than before. We [in the previous government] were really involved in evidence use. We were connected with several social and academic institutions that offered us their services. However, I now see that many people are making decisions without doing that.
4. What advice would you have for researchers hoping to see their work inform policy?
People in academia and NGOs need to advocate for evidence-based policymaking and show with evidence that we can help improve it. It is time for think tanks, multilateral organisations, and academia to work together to show that making policy without good information results in poor policy.
5. What advice would you have for policymakers wanting to improve the use of evidence?
Policymakers need to learn from others: Don’t think you have all the ideas. Open your mind to better things.
If we have a better institutional framework that builds good rules of engagement between think tanks, the intellectual community, and people on the political side, it will help. Parties, for example, often prepare a government plan without talking with important intellectual groups that can help them model what they are offering to the people. There is a need to talk with parties, the executive branch, and the Congress.
South-South cooperation can help a lot because what is done in the North may not apply to the South.
In some countries, like Peru, the situation has been deteriorating. I have been working in the School of Government to create programmes between academia and government to cooperate in areas that are not high-level but related to bureaucracy. The public servants have the ability to listen and work with us to use evidence in their work. We have to prepare the public servants for that kind of bureaucratic work. We also need to have better careers for public servants to avoid the deterioration in public policy.