understanding actor networks for nutrition policy: findings from a network analysis study in india
TRANSCRIPT
Understanding actor networks for nutrition policy: Findings from a network analysis study in India
NEHA KOHLI1, SHRUTHI CYRIAC2, NOORA-LISA ABERMAN3, MAMATA PRADHAN4, RASMI AVULA1 , PURNIMA MENON1
1Poverty, Health and Nutrition Division, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), New Delhi, India; 2St. John’s Medical College, Bangalore, India; 3IFPRI, Lilongwe, Malawi; 4University of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K
INTRODUCTION SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS
CONTACT INFORMATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
METHODS
RESULTS
AIMS
REFERENCES
In India, child nutrition outcomes continue to be disappointing: in2013, close to 30% of children were underweight (RSOC 2015). Inorder to address this, there is a need to improve policy and programdecisions; key actors are important in the shaping of these policies(see global health literature such as Shiffman (2010) and Pelletier etal., (2011)). In India, a complex set of actors influence policy agendasetting, framing and implementation, likely due to the diversity offormal and informal interactions and information flows acrosssectors, including government, development partners, NGOs andCivil Society Organizations.
The aim of this study was to understand the policy landscape fornutrition and identify stakeholders who play a role in shapingmaternal and child policy and program decisions related to nutritionat national level and in four states in India: Uttar Pradesh, Bihar,Madhya Pradesh and Odisha. The overarching question for thestudy was: “Who is influential in shaping policy and programdecisions for nutrition at the national and state level in India?” Wetried to understand: 1) What is the nature of information flowsbetween actors? 2) Who are the most influential actors?, and 3)Which actors are supportive of nutrition in the network?
Net Map toolbox was used to understand the policy landscapeand actor engagement for nutrition. Net Map is a participatoryinterview method (https://netmap.wordpress.com/about/), resultsof which are based on perceptions of interviewees in the group.
We invited those knowledgeable about the nutrition landscape forinterviews, and divided them into groups: 1) National level: 3group interviews in 3 days with 30 interviewees 2) State level: onegroup interview in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha andBihar with 10, 15, 10 and 16 interviewees respectively.
Net Map interviews conducted by two trained facilitators. They 1)Wrote on a sheet of paper the overarching question: “Who isinfluential in shaping policy and program decisions for nutrition?”2) Placed actors on name tags 3) Drew links between actors,marking influence scores and support levels based on discussionwithin the group 4) Took notes of discussions.
Links, along with influence scores and support levels, were fedinto Visualyzer via an excel sheet for analysis.
Quantitative data from Visualyzer was analysed along withqualitative data from notes
Commonalities across networks
1) Diversity of type of actors engaged in the network.2) Only a few actors have a high number of links
while the majority have only a few.
Differences across networks
1) The most highly linked actor varies. For example,while at the national level the government is themost highly linked actor, at the state level, it is theRTF in MP and Development Partner (UNICEF) inUP and Bihar.
1) The nature of information flows varies at thenational and state level. At the national level themost highly linked actor mostly receivesinformation and at the state level the most highlylinked actor reaches out more to other actors in thenetwork. Only in Odisha was the government foundto be an equal recipient and provider ofinformation.
2) The nature of information flows and support andinfluence levels of actors varies across networks.
For each case, the study helped identify a distinct setof actors in the policy network who could be engagedwith to mobilize knowledge and evidence aboutnutrition at both the national and state level
At least 40 actors were identified in each network (in MP thisnumber was as high as 87).
At both national and state level: Specific government departmentswere major influencers but at state level, other groups such ascivil society organizations and development partners were almostas influential as government actors.
The analysis helped identify stakeholders who supported nutritionbut were not influential, and vice versa.
At the national level, technical evidence appeared to influencepolicy decisions, a substantial disconnect was seen betweenresearch organizations and policy makers
State-level findings: (1) extensive mutual exchange of informationbetween actors in Odisha; (2) extensive provision of technicalinformation by actors in MP.
Neha Kohli ([email protected]), Senior ResearchAnalyst, Poverty Health and Nutrition Division, IFPRI
Purnima Menon ([email protected]), Senior Research Fellow, Poverty, Health and Nutrition Division, IFPRI
Save the Children and Public Health Foundation of India for organizing and assisting the Net Map interviews in UP and MP, respectively.
Department of Women and Child Development for hosting and DFID-TMST, Bhubaneswar for assisting the Net Map interview in Odisha.
Alive & Thrive and Gates Foundation for hosting the Net Map interview in Bihar.
Financial support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, through Partnerships and Opportunities to Strengthen and Harmonize Actions for Nutrition in India (POSHAN), managed by the International Food Policy Research Institute.
RSOC 2015, Rapid Survey on Children. UNICEF: New Delhi
Shiffman, J 2010. Issue attention in global health: the case of newborn survival. Viewpoint. Lancet. 375, 2045-49
Pelletier, D.L; Frongillo, A.E; Gervais, G; Hoey, L; Menon,P; Ngo, T; Stoltzfus, J.R; Ahmed, A.M.S; and Ahmed, T 2011. Nutrition agenda setting, policy formulationmand implementation: lessons from them Mainstreaming Nutrition Initiative. Health Policy and Planning 2012;27:19–31
Aberman, N.L; Pradhan, M; Cyriac, S; Singh, K; Kadiyala, S; and Menon, P. 2013. Nutrition Stakeholders in India: Insights From a Network and Influence Mapping Exercise. POSHAN Research Note 3. New Delhi: IFPRI. http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15738coll2/id/128089
Kohli, N; Pradhan, M and Menon, P. 2013. The landscape of nutrition stakeholders in Odisha. POSHAN Research Note 5. New Delhi: IFPRI.http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15738coll2/id/128178
STUDY LIMITATIONS
Potential selection bias of interviewees was mitigated by careful selection.
Possible power play among interviewees was minimized by careful facilitation.
The Net Maps are not decisive maps of all the actors. Yet, they provide a snapshot of important and commonly perceived actors and interactions.
Results may not be relevant in the current context. If the map were to be drawn today it may look different.
Network No. of Actors
Types of Links Most highly linked actors
India 56 Technical InformationAdvocacy
Ministry of Women and Child Development, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
Uttar Pradesh
55 ResearchAdvocacy
UNICEF
Madhya Pradesh
87 Technical support Funding
Right to Food Network (RTF)
Odisha 55 Technical InformationFunding
UNICEFDepartment of Women & Child Development
Bihar 79 Research Advocacy
UNICEFCARE
Key findings - national level: MWCD is a recipient of both information and advocacy Supreme Court has high influence but is not significantly linked Strong evidence source: A diverse advocacy group Indian Council of Medical Research: trustworthy source of data Link disconnect between research organizations and policy makers.
RESULTS
Key findings - Uttar Pradesh: Government officials are recipients of both research and advocacy Type of Information reaching government: field based evidence; not
reaching government: implementing interventions on large scale State Principal Secretaries: Highly influential; not supportive of nutrition State’ s Chief Secretary: Highly Influential & supportive, not highly linked
Key findings - Madhya Pradesh: RTF (a group of civil society organizations and activists) and Government
are mostly recipients of technical information Civil society and government staff are of high influence but more
knowledge flow needed from government to grassroots
Key findings - Odisha: Recipient and provider of technical information: UNICEF and government Mutual exchange of information between actors Majority supportive of nutrition including government who is also influential
Key findings - Bihar: UNICEF and CARE are at the core of the research and advocacy flow Most actors are largely supportive of nutrition but have low levels of
influence in the network Media and RTF are strong advocates of nutrition