Since the election of the Labour Government in the United Kingdom in the 1990s on the platform of 'what matters is what works', the notion that policy should be evidence-based has gained significant popularity. While in theory, no one would suggest that policy should be based on anything other than robust evidence, this paper critically examines this concept of evidence-based policymaking, exploring the various complexities within it. Specifically, it questions the political nature of policymaking, the idea of what actually counts as evidence, and highlights the way that evidence can be selectively framed to promote a particular agenda. This paper examines evidence-based policy within the realm of Indigenous policymaking in Australia. It concludes that the practice of evidence-based policymaking is not necessarily a guarantee of more robust, effective or successful policy, highlighting implications for future policymaking.

The prevalence of dermatological disease and skin conditions is a significant issue facing refugees and migrants in the WHO European Region. Displaced populations in particular are vulnerable to dermatological diseases, due to the often poor conditions in which they live and transit through at different stages of their journey. Exposure to adverse weather conditions and heightened risk for injuries and violence are also potential causes for skin conditions and abnormalities. Through a review of published literature focusing on refugee and migrant health, this paper outlines the prevalence of skin conditions and dermatological diseases among these populations, and the impact of migration and displacement on susceptibility for them. It then discusses some of the challenges associated with managing skin conditions and highlights key opportunities to strengthen the integration of skin health within health care for migrants and refugees in the WHO European Region.

ObjectiveOwing to its potential human, social and economic costs, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is frequently referred to as a threat to health security. Simultaneously, health security and the preservation of antimicrobials are often described as a global public good. However, how the term ‘public good’ is used in the context of health security, and the values that underpin it, remains ambiguous. Policymaking is never value-free, and a better examination of such values is critical to understanding how issues such as AMR are problematised and how policy decisions are informed.DesignWe used McDougall’s version of critical interpretive synthesis to capture the recurring concepts and arguments within public policy, political science and applied ethics literature on AMR. Articles were analysed by identifying recurring ideas and developing themes across the literature.ResultsA total of 77 papers were included in our review. In the context of health security and AMR, the concept of ‘public good’ appears to be used interchangeably with ‘common good’, reflecting confusion, but sometimes meaningful differences, regarding how antimicrobials, as a good, are conceived. Main approaches to addressing AMR are statism, globalism and regionalism, which appeal to different values in guiding policymakers. Common justificatory values underpinning preservation of antimicrobials as a public good were prevention of harm, solidarity, justice and rights.ConclusionThe findings suggest that within the literature there is a lack of conceptual clarity as to whether antimicrobials constitute a public good or a common good. Moreover, the way in which antimicrobials are conceived and the approaches through which AMR as a threat to health security is addressed appear to be grounded in values that are often implicit. Being explicit about the values that underpin AMR and health security is not simply an intellectual exercise but has very real policy and programmatic implications.

Since 9/11 there has been an increasing movement toward the securitisation of development aid. That is, the tendency for donor governments to view security and development as interconnected within a 'security-development nexus'. It reflects the growing concern toward so-called 'failed' or 'fragile' states where underdevelopment has come to be seen as dangerous, especially in light of new wars, refugee crises, migration and terrorism. This paper is concerned with how the securitisation of aid poses risks for development work, specifically within the human development and human security agenda that emerged in the 1990s as an alternative framework to the traditional models of economic development. This paper finds that both in terms of where aid is located and the way in which it is delivered on the ground, the securitisation of aid poses significant risk to the human security and human agenda insofar as it fails to address the underlying causes of insecurity and underdevelopment. It concludes that the associated risks to the human security agenda can be seen by questioning whose security interests are being served through the securitisation of aid. International aid is one of the most powerful weapons in the war against poverty. Today, that weapon is underused and badly targeted … and much of what is provided is weakly linked to human development. 1