Analysis of the Relationship between Revocations and the Formulation of Evidence-Based Public Policies

The revocations presented in the decree of January 20, 2025 reflect an explicit attempt to redirect the formulation of public policies, breaking with agendas associated with social and ideological movements, often grouped under the term "woke". This decision has significant implications for the promotion of evidence-based public policies.

Evidence-Based Policies vs. Woke Ideologies

Criticism of the Woke Agendas: the decree mentions that policies such as "diversity, equity, and inclusion" (DEI) have replaced "hard work, merit, and equality" with preferential hierarchies. While inclusion is important, the effectiveness of these policies needs to be assessed in the light of evidence, such as real impacts on productivity, social well-being and cohesion.

The Role of Evidence: The focus on merit-based policies can be more closely aligned with proven approaches to effectiveness, as long as it is grounded in empirical data and not just cultural assumptions. For example, the prioritization of meritocratic approaches in education and employment should be accompanied by robust impact assessments. Heinrich (2007) discusses the use of rigorous information to improve government effectiveness, highlighting how empirical data can guide decisions about the design, implementation, and management of public programs. Rogers (2010) emphasizes that evidence-based policy must adapt to each situation and include transparent processes for generating and using evidence, ensuring its internal and external validity. Head (2008) highlights the importance of integrating different types of evidence (scientific, practical and political) in the formulation of public policies, promoting the efficiency and effectiveness of decisions. Gade (2023) explores when it is justifiable to claim that a practice or policy is evidence-based, proposing clear conditions to support such a claim, such as the comparison of evidence and explanations of the preferences that underlie decisions.

Impact on Key Policy Areas

Climate Change and the Economy: repeals such as EO 13990 (Protection of Public Health and the Environment) and EO 14008 (Climate Crisis) may seem contrary to sustainable goals. However, if overregulation is stifling innovation or increasing unnecessary costs, reviewing these policies based on evidence can result in greater economic and environmental efficiency. For example, encouraging clean technologies without burdening industries with onerous regulations can balance economic growth and sustainability. Zhang & Vigne (2021) shows that innovation efficiency can significantly improve economic and environmental productivity but points out that financial constraints can limit these benefits. The findings suggest that rather than continually expanding inputs for innovation, policymakers should focus on improving the efficiency of innovation for more sustainable outcomes. Zhang et al., (2020) analyze how different types of environmental regulations impact the efficiency of green innovation. It concludes that market-based and voluntary regulations are more effective than command-and-control regulations in stimulating green innovation, suggesting that policy review can improve economic and environmental efficiency.

Public Health and Pandemic: the repeal of orders such as EO 13987 (response to COVID-19) may raise questions about the commitment to science. However, if actions are revised to be based on up-to-date data and risk ratio, the approach can be more targeted and effective.

Education and Inclusion: orders that promoted educational inclusion, such as EO 14045 (equity for Hispanics) and EO 14050 (equity for blacks), were repealed. The justification could be that universal and meritocratic policies promote inclusion more effectively, if the evidence demonstrates a positive impact on educational outcomes for vulnerable groups.

Connection with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The SDGs represent a global framework for addressing challenges such as inequality, poverty, climate change, and sustainable development. The relationship of these repeals with the SDGs depends on the alignment of the new guidelines with specific goals.

SDG 13 (Action against Global Climate Change): the repeal of environmental policies may seem like a step backwards. However, if replaced by less regulatory, but more innovative and evidence-based strategies (e.g., competitive renewables), the impact can be positive.

SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy): policies that reduce regulatory barriers can accelerate the transition to cleaner energy, as long as they are aligned with data-driven incentives.

SDG 10 (Reduce Inequalities): DEI policies were repealed on the premise that they created divisions. To align with SDG 10, it is essential that new policies promote equal opportunities in a measurable way, combating discrimination without generating inverted inequality.

SDG 4 (Quality Education): the repeal of initiatives aimed at specific groups can negatively affect universal access to education. The challenge will be to demonstrate that merit-based policies are effective for all.

SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): an emphasis on merit and the elimination of excessive regulation can boost economic growth and productivity. However, it is necessary to measure the impact of policies on vulnerable segments to avoid economic exclusion.

Conclusion: Paradigm Shift and the Need for Transparency

The repeals indicate a paradigm shift, with a greater focus on "economic realism" and the contestation of policies considered ideological. For this transition to promote positive impacts:

·????? Prioritize clear data and metrics: New policies should be evaluated through measurable benchmarks, such as economic, environmental, and social impacts.

·????? SDG-aligned review: ensure that new efforts integrate goals such as inclusion, sustainability, and growth.

·????? Avoid polarization: When rejecting "woke" agendas, it is critical that policymaking does not ignore robust evidence in areas such as health, education, and the environment.

This more harmonious approach can ensure that the transition actually contributes to long-term goals and collective well-being. In addition, the change in approach to the formulation and implementation of public policies by the United States may influence a change in the behavior of other countries.

Will such changes have repercussions on the way Brazil formulates and implements its public policies?