Tools to understand the political and policy context & engage with policy makersKent Buse, PhD

John Young

Oxford, November 2006

Overview• What is policy?

• What explains policy change?

• What is the relationship between researchers and policy makers?

• Tools to understand the political context of policy change

• Tools to influence the policy process

What is Policy?

Policy – some meanings• Label for field of activity/space

• Expression of general intent

• Specific proposals

• Decisions of government

• Formal authority/legislation

• Program

• Output or outcome

• Model or theoryHogwood & Gunn, 1984

According to Peter John -

‘the interplay between institutions, interests and ideas.’

John P (1998) Analysing Public Policy. London: Cassell.

Two types of policy research1. Research ‘for’ policy – about policy

content (what should be done) and outcomes (policy evaluation)

2. Research ‘on’ policy – about the policy process (explanatory, usually not evaluative, focuses on ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions)

Research ‘on’ policy‘Research on policy seeks to understand how the machinery of the state and political actors interact to produce public actions. ...The main tasks … are to explain how policy-making works and to explore the variety and complexity of the decision-making processes.’

(John, 1998, p1)

Context • Situational factors• Structural factors• Cultural factors• Global factors

Actors

• The state• The market• Civil society

Content

• Objectives & aims • Assumptions • Values• Distributional impact

• Why do issues reach the agenda?• Who formulates policy?• How is policy implemented?• What makes policies change?

Process

Walt & Gilson’s framework

Political Situation AnalysisSystematically gather political intelligence

associated with any policy reform on:• Content – the what of policy• Context – the social, cultural, temporal

environment in which decisions taken• Process – how decisions are made – the

rules of the game – how we do business• Actors – those who affect and are affected

by decisions

Bangladesh Case Study

• Learn lessons from poor performance to inform 2005-2010 strategy• Proposed Policy

– Integration of two wings of ministry responsible for family planning & health services

– Substantial body of research supported integration: cost-effectiveness, management, service delivery

– Agreed by key health officials and subject of donor conditionality • Context:

– Political volatility and partisan confrontation– Limited government ownership of health policy

• Superficial analysis identified two loosing groups but did not anticipate opposition – no plan to

– Alter costs by offering to change elements of policy– Modify perceptions of costs– Compensate losers

• Partial implementation reversed after affected FP managers mobilized many groups

• Donors – Confronted deep-rooted interests involved in distributing rents– Strategy relied on ‘sensitizing’ opponents of evidence-based virtues, failed to

mobilize potential allies or shift dialogue to new forum, and took ‘non-negotiable’ stance

– Suspended disbursements for a few months and then backed down

Unanticipated opposition to ‘no-brainer’ reform

Health Policy Reform History• ‘Conventional’ evidence ‘for’ policy

necessary but insufficient for change– Policy failure– Losses fall on organized & powerful groups– Gains distributed among marginalize

• Analysis of political-economy dimensions of change important determinant of success

• Requires more systematic approaches to understanding political dimensions & influencing change

Policy content

Substance which details its constituent parts:

• Aims and strategies of the policy

• Empirical basis of the policy (evidence)

• Underlying values and paradigms

• Technical content (evidence informed)

• Administrative feasibility of the policy

Policy ConsequencesDistribution of benefits and costs in

terms of:

• Stakeholders

• Scale

• Characteristics

• Intensity

• Timing, etc

Actors/Stakeholders• Individuals or groups with interest in the

issue– Some role in making or implementing decision– Affected by policy decision– Specific to each policy reform and context

• Stakeholder analysis– Identify stakeholder groups– Looking for independent groups/individuals with

some influence or potential influence – Break down categories as far as feasible

Bangladesh Integration Example:

• Ministry of Finance• Planning Commission• Prime Minister• Minister of Health• Secretary of Min of Health • Deputy Secretary Ministry of Health• Health reformers in Ministry• Cadre of Family Planning Officials• Medical Association• Donors• Press• Academics• Select service delivery NGOs

Assessing Stakeholder Power:

• Tangible– Votes– Finance– Infrastructure– Members

• Intangible– Expertise– Charisma– Legitimacy– Access to media &

decision makers

Political Assets:

Interests, Position & Commitment

• Interests – what would a stakeholder gain or lose from the proposed reform?

• Interests determine position: supportive, neutral, opposed

• Commitment – importance attached by stakeholder to issue

LEVEL OF INFLUENCE

POSITION

Opposed Neutral Supportive

High

Medium

Low

Position Map

LEVEL OF INFLUENCE

POSITION

Opposed Neutral Supportive

High DG FP Min of FinancePlanning CommissionPrime MinisterMinister of Health

Secretary of HealthBMASome DPs (WB, DFID, EC, USAID)

Medium Admin cadreFP cadreClass III/IV employeesPrint press

DGHHealth cadreReformers in MOHFW Secretariat

Low Additional Secretary

Health NGOsFP NGOsAcademia

Some DPs (WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, CIDA, SIDA, GTZ, Dutch Co-operation)

Bangladesh Integration: Pre-2001

LEVEL OF INFLUENCE

POSITION

Opposed Neutral Supportive

High Secretary DG FPFP cadreClass III/IV workersMinistry of FinancePrime MinisterPlanning CommissionMinister of Health

BMA

Medium FP NGOsAdmin cadre? Press?

DGH Some DPs (WB, DFID, EC, USAID)

Low UNFPA CIDASIDAGTZAcademiaHealth NGOs

Some DPs (WHO, UNICEF, Dutch Co-operation)

Positions Oct 2001-May 2003

Policy process

• Agenda setting – why some issues considered by policy makers

• Formulation – which policy alternatives and evidence is considered, why evidence ignored

• Adoption – who is involved in deciding, formal or informal decision-making

• Implementation – who will implement, how will implementers change policy to suit their aims, are implementers involved in decision-making

• Evaluation – whether and why policies achieve their aims

The way policy is initiated, developed, negotiated, communicated, implemented

Policy context

• Situational: change of leadership, focusing events, new evidence, etc.

• Structural: resource allocation to intervention, organization of service delivery – public private mix, etc.

• Cultural: prevailing attitudes to situation of women, technology, equity, tradition, etc.

• International: place of intervention on international agenda, aid dependency, levels and modalities, migration of staff, ideas and paradigms, etc.

Systemic factors which effect policy

Political Context Analysis • Systematically gather political intelligence

associated with any policy reform– Contextual opportunities & constraints– Formal & informal processes through which

decisions made– Identify stakeholder groups– Assess political resources of groups– Understand interests, positions and

commitments of groups

• Systematically assess political palatability of specific policy alternatives

Content

Context Actors Process

ContextPositions Power Players Perspectives

Strategies to change

Successful formulation & implementation of policy

Political situational analysis

Policy Engagement Framework

Research-practice gap model

A gap that needs to be spanned

The two communities model

Researchers & policy makers: separate communities?

Advocacy coalition model

Or allied across apparent divides?

Strategies for Policy EngagementDevelop political strategies to change• Position: deals to make to change – alter

policy, horse trading, promises, threats• Power: provide supporters with funds,

personnel, access to media & officials• Players: change number of actors by

mobilizing and demobilising, venue shifting• Perceptions: use data and arguments to

question to alter perspectives of problem/solution, use associations, invoke symbols, emphasise doability

Policy Process Mapping

Policy Process Mapping• General Context issues – domestic and

international.• Specific Policy Issues (i.e. the policy cycle)• Stakeholder analysis

– Arena: government, parliament, civil society, judiciary, private sector.

– Level: local, national, international • What is their Interest and Influence?• Process matrix + political matrix• Political and administrative feasibility assessment

[Sources: M. Grindle / J. Court ]

Policy Process MappingFormulation Implementation

Politicians

Cabinet

Government

Bureaucrats

Civil Society

International

Other Policy Mapping Tools

• Policy Process Mapping

• RAPID Framework

• Stakeholder Analysis

• Force-Field Analysis

• Outcome Mapping

• More complex tools:– Drivers of Change– Power Analysis– World Governance Assessment

RAPID Framework

Stakeholder Analysis

Why:• To understand who

gains or lose from a policy or project.

• To help Build Consensus.

Steps:1. Identify Stakeholders

2. Analysis Workshop

3. Develop Strategies

Keep Satisfied

Engage Closely

Monitor (minimum effort)

Keep Informed

High

Power

Low

Low HighInterest

Forcefield Analysis

• Identify what you want to achieve

• Identify forces for and against change

• Identify which are most important

• Develop strategies to reinforce those for and overcome those against

Policy Process Workshops• Looking at internal policy

processes – what works in DFID. • Small, informal workshop with 7

staff.• Participatory pair-wise ranking of

factors influencing the success of 8 policy processes.

• Worked quite well.• In DFID - agendas and processes

rather than documents are key

Outcome Mapping

OUTCOME MAPPING:Building Learning and Reflection into Development ProgramsSarah Earl, Fred Carden, and Terry Smutylo

http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-9330-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html

More Complex Tools• Civil Society Index (CIVICUS) • Country Policy & Institutional

Assessment (World Bank)• Democracy and Governance

Assessment (USAID) • Drivers of Change (DFID) • Governance Questionnaire (GTZ) • Governance Matters (World Bank Institute) • Power Analysis (Sida) • World Governance Assessment

Summary– Evidence-informed policy challenging– Policy about interests, institutions & ideas– Variety of tools to understand these factors -

range in sophistication/complexity and ease of use

– Tools to use the understanding to engage in policy processes – less well developed

– Extent to which the tools are helpful depends on creativity, tenacity, inside knowledge – advocacy coalitions useful

– You can get more info at …

Further InformationMapping Political Contexts:http://www.odi.org.uk/RAPID/Publications/Tools_Political_Context.html

Tools for Policy Impact:http://www.odi.org.uk/RAPID/Publications/Tools_Policy_Impact.html

Best Practice in Policy Making:http://www.policyhub.gov.uk/policy_tools/

Understanding Policy Process: