Agus Wahyudi

Evidence-based policymaking (EBP) relies on an epistemological assumption that evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is the finest evidence for policy formulation, while expert testimony is the poorest one. This paper argues that while RCTs are a valuable source of empirical evidence for policy interventions, they are not sufficient on their own to support evidence-based policy formulation. Through the lens of the INUS framework of causation, we demonstrate that the effectiveness of a policy is influenced by a complex interplay of contextual factors, which RCTs alone cannot capture. We advocate for the integration of contextual and qualitative knowledge, including testimonies from experts and community members, to supplement RCT findings. This additional knowledge provides insights into the social, cultural, and subjective dimensions of the target population, addressing motivations, preferences, and other factors that can significantly impact policy success. By comparing reductionist and non-reductionist perspectives on the use of testimony in evidence-based policy, we argue for a balanced approach that values credible testimonies as essential to understanding context. Ultimately, this paper underscores the importance of a multifaceted evidence approach in crafting effective, context-sensitive public policies.

The following book Social Justice: A Sketch of the West and Islamic World Experiences contains a collection of articles that may be read individually, each concerned with the same issues of social justice. The writers in this book originate from the Western and Islamic World’s countries. All have agreed to explore and contribute to understanding social justice in each pertinent countries’ experiences. The problems being addressed are either descriptive or valuational and, in most cases, are the combination of both. All articles presented in this collection are mainly a reexamination of social justice ideals from the authors’ viewpoints and experiences and how the ideals may be applicable and considered relevant to a particular problem faced by the respective countries. As its generic meaning is commonly recognized, all authors see that social justice is the most fundamental virtue, crucially providential, to be the basis of interpersonal relations ordering and establishing and maintaining a stable political society. While the nature, origin, and legitimate application of social justice are a thing that may be debatable, all authors in this book concur with the notion that there is a need to struggle for a just society. This idea may be best developed to respect persons as free, rational agents without ignoring the particularities of its communities’ challenges, characters, and identities.

Justoce has dominated contemporary debates in the Western political philosophy for the last couple of decades. The book writtern by Will Kymlicka, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction is a clear example of this development. The book is worth appreciating as this provides deep and extensive discussions of theories of justice. This essay examines Kymlicka's argument, that is even through modern political theories such Ultilitarianism, Liberal Equality, Libertarianism, Marxism, Communitarianism, and Feminism seem to appeal to conflicting values, they have no different foundational values, as they are all egalitarian theories, which is understood in terms of treating people as equals. This essay suggets that there is a truth in this notion and thus such kinds of theory need to be thoroughly studied, even though there is also a need to develop a theory that is roored in a particular context.

The article consisted of controversial discussion on the status Pancasila. Its main problem is whther Pancasila maybe understood as an ideology or not. In this article, the solution in solving the controversial probelm is also offered. The transquality of the controversial status of Pancasila is actually easy to be carried out thourgh ideology and history of thought perspectives. Since the beginning of its history, such concept of ideology has interpreted into two forms of explanations; as a neutral or as a critical concept. The controversy of Pancasila's status, in the other sense is describing another aspect because of such two notions recommended a something a new perspective in elaborating. Pancasila is necessarily needed. It is argued in this article as separation between Pancasila's meaning as comprehensive doctrine with its meaning as a political conception. Finally, in this article, the benefit in expand Pancasila as a political conception is shown more than Pancasila as a comprehensive doctrine.