Are you a Policy
Entrepreneur?
How to promote pro-poor
policy & practice?
An ODI Workshop
London, 16th March 2004
John Young & Julius Court
Research and Policy in Development Programme
www.odi.org.uk/rapid/
WS Purpose
• Share experiences;
• Learn about evidence-based policy and practice in
the UK and Developing Countries;
• Try out some simple tools for policy analysis and
action;
• Learn about other tools and approaches which
have been used elsewhere, and about where to
access further information and resources;
• Develop a personal action-plan to improve the
impact of your own work.
WS Outline
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Share experiences about your own work;
The RAPID analytical framework;
Try it out out!
The RAPID action framework;
Try it out!
The policy entrepreneur questionnaire results;
Some useful tools;
Action planning;
Evaluation & sources of further information.
RAPID Programme
• Desk-based literature reviews
• GDN project:
– 50 preliminary case studies
– Phase II studies (25 projects)
• ODI project:
– 4 detailed case studies
– HIV/AIDS
• Advisory work
• Workshops and seminars
www.odi.org.uk/rapid
Existing theory
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Linear model
Percolation model, Weiss
Tipping point model, Gladwell
‘Context, evidence, links’ framework, ODI
Policy narratives, Roe
Systems model (NSI)
External forces, Lindquist
‘Room for manoeuvre’, Clay & Schaffer
‘Street level bureaucrats’, Lipsky
Policy as social experiments, Rondinelli
Policy Streams & Windows, Kingdon
Disjointed incrementalism, Lindquist
The ‘tipping point’, Gladwell
Crisis model, Kuhn
‘Framework of possible thought’,
Chomsky
16. Variables for Credibility, Beach
17. The source is as important as content,
Gladwell
18. Linear model of communication, Shannon
19. Interactive model,
20. Simple and surprising stories,
Communication Theory
21. Provide solutions, Marketing Theory I
22. Find the right packaging, Marketing II
23. Elicit a response, Kottler
24. Translation of technology, Volkow
25. Epistemic communities
26. Policy communities
27. Advocacy coalitions etc, Pross
28. Negotiation through networks, Sebattier
29. Shadow networks, Klickert
30. Chains of accountability, Fine
31. Communication for social change,
Rockefeller
32. Wheels and webs, Chapman & Fisher
www.odi.org.uk/rapid/lessons/theory
Existing theory – a short list
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Policy narratives, Roe
Systems of Innovation Model, (NSI)
‘Room for manoeuvre’, Clay & Schaffer
‘Street level bureaucrats’, Lipsky
Policy as social experiments, Rondene
Policy streams and policy windows, Kingdon
Disjointed Incrementalism, Lindblom
Social Epidemics, Gladwell
ODI working paper 174, 2002, Hovland, de Vibe and Young
Bridging Research and Policy: An Annotated Bibliography.
Reality
• Linear logical → dynamic, complex, two-way.
• “The whole life of policy is a chaos of purposes and
accidents. It is not at all a matter of the rational
implementation of the so-called decisions through selected
strategies 1”
• “Most policy research on African agriculture is irrelevant to
agricultural and overall economic policy in Africa2”
1
- Clay & Schaffer (1984), Room for Manoeuvre; An Exploration of Public Policy in
Agricultural and Rural Development, Heineman Educational Books, London
2 – Omamo (2003), Policy Research on African Agriculture: Trends, Gaps, and Challenges,
International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) Research Report No 21
Group Task 1
• Discuss your own work - identify the main
policy objectives & what you do to achieve
them.
• Appoint a secretary to take notes!
Definitions
• Research: “any systematic effort to increase the
stock of knowledge” (NB: focus on science)
• Policy: a “purposive course of action followed by an
actor or set of actors”
– Agendas / policy horizons
– Official statements documents
– Patterns of spending
– Implementation processes
– Activities on the ground
The Analytical Framework
External Influences
Socio-economic and
cultural influences,
donor policies etc
The links between policy
and research communities –
networks, relationships, power,
competing discourses, trust,
knowledge etc.
The political context –
political and economic structures
and processes, culture, institutional
pressures, incremental vs radical
change etc.
The evidence – credibility, the
degree it challenges received
wisdom, research approaches
and methodology, simplicity of
the message, how it is packaged
etc
Other models
Some Key Questions
• The external environment: What are the major external
influences (war on terror; EU accession)? Who are the key
international donors & what impact do their policies have?
What impact do donor research policies have?
• The political context: What is the nature of governance
and democracy? What is the current policy narrative? Is
there political interest in change? What is the capacity of
and incentives in the bureaucracy (to use research)?
• The evidence: What is the quantity, quality and relevance of
research? Are the concepts familiar or new? How are
findings packaged and communicated? Does it matter?
• Links: What are the existing networks & intermediaries? Are
links formal or informal; open or closed? How important are
legitimacy and trust?
Political Context: Key Areas
• The macro political context (democracy, governance, media
freedom; academic freedom)
• The sector / issue process (Policy uptake = demand –
contestation) [NB Demand: political and societal]
• Policy implementation and practice (bureaucracies,
incentives, street level, participatory approaches)
• How policymakers think (narratives & policy streams)
• Decisive moments in the policy process (policy processes,
votes, policy windows and crises)
• Context is crucial, but you can maximize your chances
Evidence: Relevance and credibility
• Key factor – did it provide a solution to a problem?
• Relevance:
– Topical relevance – What to do?
– Operational usefulness – How to do it? :
• Credibility:
– Research approach
– Of researcher > of evidence itself
• Strenuous advocacy efforts are often needed
• Communication – interactive.
Links: Feedback and Networks
• Feedback processes often prominent in successful
cases.
• Trust & legitimacy
• Networks:
– Epistemic communities
– Policy networks
– Advocacy coalitions
• The role of individuals: connectors, mavens and
salesmen
(NB: our understanding remains limited)
External Influence
• Big “incentives” can spur evidence-based policy –
e.g. EU accession, PRSP processes.
• And some interesting examples of donors trying
new things regarding supporting research
• But, we really don’t know whether and how donors
can best promote use of evidence in policymaking
(credibility vs backlash)
Group Task 2
• Choose one of your own, or one of the
teaching case studies, apply the framework
and “identify the key factors in each
dimension of the framework and what else
may matter – and what you might want to
know more about.
• Appoint a secretary to take notes!
The Analytical Framework
External Influences
Socio-economic and
cultural influences,
donor policies etc
The links between policy
and research communities –
networks, relationships, power,
competing discourses, trust,
knowledge etc.
The political context –
political and economic structures
and processes, culture, institutional
pressures, incremental vs radical
change etc.
The evidence – credibility, the
degree it challenges received
wisdom, research approaches
and methodology, simplicity of
the message, how it is packaged
etc
A Practical Framework
External Influences
Politics and
Policymaking
Campaigning,
Lobbying
Scientific
information
exchange &
validation
political context
Media,
Advertising,
Networking
links
Policy analysis, &
research
Research,
learning &
thinking
evidence
Using the framework
• The external environment: Who are the key actors? What
is their agenda? How do they influence the political context?
• The political context: Is there political interest in change?
Is there room for manoeuvre? How do they perceive the
problem?
• The evidence: Is it there? Is it relevant? Is it practically
useful? Are the concepts familiar or new? Does it need repackaging?
• Links: Who are the key individuals? Are there existing
networks to use? How best to transfer the information? The
media? Campaigns?
Putting it into practice
What researchers
need to know
What researchers
need to do
Political Context:
• Get to know the policymakers. • Work with them – seek
commissions
• Identify friends and foes.
• Strategic opportunism –
• Prepare for policy
prepare for known events
opportunities.
+ resources for others
• Look out for policy windows.
• Who are the policymakers?
• Is there demand for ideas?
• What is the policy process?
Evidence
• What is the current theory?
• What are the narratives?
• How divergent is it?
Links
• Who are the stakeholders?
• What networks exist?
• Who are the connectors,
mavens and salesmen?
•
•
•
•
•
Establish credibility
Provide practical solutions
Establish legitimacy.
Present clear options
Use familiar narratives.
• Get to know the others
• Work through existing
networks.
• Build coalitions.
• Build new policy networks.
How to do it
• Build a reputation
• Action-research
• Pilot projects to generate
legitimacy
• Good communication
• Build partnerships.
• Identify key networkers,
mavens and salesmen.
• Use informal contacts
Paravets in Kenya
1970s - Professionalisation of Public Services.
- Structural Adjustment → collapse.
- Paravet projects emerge.
1980s - ITDG projects.
- Privatisation.
- ITDG Paravet network.
1990s
- Rapid spread in North.
- KVB letter (January 1998).
- Multistakeholder WSs → new policies.
2000s
- Still not approved / passed!
Paravets in Kenya - Political Context
1970s - Professionalisation of Public Services.
- Structural Adjustment → collapse of services.
- Paravet projects emerge.
1980s - ITDG projects.
- Privatisation
Privatisation.
- ITDG Paravet network
network.and change of DVS.
1990s
- Rapid spread in North.
- KVB letter (January 1998).
- Multistakeholder WSs → new policies.
2000s
- Still not approved / passed!
Paravets in Kenya - Research
1970s -
International Research
Professionalisation of Public Services.
Structural Adjustment → collapse of services.
Paravet projects emerge.
ITDG projects
projects.– collaborative action research.
1980s - Privatisation
Privatisation.
- ITDG Paravet network
network.and change of DVS.
1990s
- Rapid spread in North. The Hubl Study
- KVB letter (January 1998).
- Multistakeholder WSs → new policies.
2000s
- Still not approved / passed!
Paravets in Kenya - Links
1970s -
International Research
Professionalisation of Public Services.
Structural Adjustment → collapse of services.
Paravet projects emerge.
ITDG projects
projects.– collaborative action research.
1980s - Privatisation
Privatisation.
- ITDG Paravet network
network.and change of DVS.
1990s
- Rapid spread in North. The Hubl Study
Dr Kajume
- KVB letter (January 1998).
- Multistakeholder WSs → new policies.
2000s
- Still not approved / passed!
Paravets in Kenya - Lessons
• Political stagnation, professional
protectionism
• Practical evidence invisible to policy makers
• Powerful individuals, “professional” interests
• Bad timing - ITDG missed the boat – twice!
• A “Tipping Point”
• New champions
• Collaborative policy-research
What should ITDG have done
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Learned more about the political context
Involved more policy makers earlier
Collected more empirical data & used it better
Seized the chance in 1989
Involved non-livestock policy makers
Controlled the “club”
Looked for champions
Involved bilaterals and multilaterals
Towards a Policy Entrepreneurs Toolkit
• Toolkit for promoting evidence-based and propoor policy.
• The RAPID framework itself
• Useful tools for your work
• Approaches to organisational development
• Some examples of things we do?
• Discussion:
– What tools do you know that work?
– Examples of when they have been used?
Tools for applying the framework
Overarching Tools
- The RAPID Framework
- Using the Framework
Communication Tools
- Communications Strategy
- SWOT analysis
- Message Design
- Making use of the media
Policy Influence Tools
- Influence Mapping & Power Mapping
- Lobbying and Advocacy
- Campaigning: A Simple Guide
- Coalitions
Context Assessment Tools
- Stakeholder Analysis
- Forcefield Analysis
- Writeshops
- Policy Mapping
- Political Context Mapping
Research Tools
- Case Studies
- Episode Studies
- Surveys
- Bibliometric Analysis
- Focus Group Discussion
Introduction – The Policy Process
1. Problem Definition/
Agenda Setting
2. Constructing the Policy
Alternatives/ Policy Formulation
6. Evaluation
The Policy Cycle
5. Policy Implementation
and Monitoring
3.Choice of Solution/
Selection of Preferred Policy Option
4. Policy Design
Mapping the Policy Process
• Aim:
•
•
•
•
Describe: Who makes decisions? How? What
ways, formal and informal, are policies made?
Analyse: What are the different interests?
When: Need a comprehensive understanding. General.
Give you: Where are decisions made? Who are the
Stakeholders? (NB: link to stakeholder analysis)
– Arena: government, parliament, civil society, judiciary,
private sector.
– Level: local, national, international.
Steps: Process description (formal & informal) + political
influence ratings.
Based on: Experience, literature, interviews, focus groups.
[Sources: M. Grindle / J. Court ]
Mapping Policy Processes
Agendas
Central
Government
Parliament
Bureaucrats
Civil Society
State
Government
Implementation
Civil Society
Formulation
Implementation
Stakeholder Analysis
High
Why:
Keep
Satisfied
• Understand who gain or
lose from a policy or
project.
Engage
Closely
Power
• Help Build Consensus.
Monitor
(minimum
effort)
Steps:
Keep
Informed
• Identify Stakeholders.
•Analysis Workshop.
Low
Low
High
Interest
• (Develop Strategies)
Forcefield Analysis
• Specific Change
• Identify Forces
• (Identify Priorities)
• (Develop Strategies)
Political Context Assessment Tool
Best for:
• Systematically comparing national
contexts
• Thinking through political context issues
Covers:
• The macro political context
• The sector / issue process
• Policy implementation and
practice
• Decisive moments in the policy
process
• How policymakers think
How to:
• Representative from cross-section of
experts
• Individual – for thinking through
(e.g. from Middle East)
Interests
Extent of Interests of Policymakers
High
Medium
Low
Public Interests
1
3
6
Personal Interests
5
4
1
Special Interests
6
1
3
Communications strategy
• Identify the audience(s)
– Assess specific information needs, likes and channels
• Official / unofficial
• Personal / impersonal
• Identify the message(s)
• Promotion
– Develop and test material and media
• Printed, AV, web, CD / Multi-use, multimedia, multichannel
– Implement
• Evaluate impact and change as necessary
Writing Effective Policy Papers I
Providing a solution to a policy problem
Targeting a policy community
• Structural elements of a paper
– Problem description
– Policy options (& criteria for assessment)
– Conclusion & Recommendations
• Key issues: Problem oriented, targeted, multidisciplinary,
applied, clear, jargon-free.
[Source: Young and Quinn, 2002]
Writing Effective Policy Papers II
Criteria for Assessing Policy Options
Option A
Option B
Option C
Effectiveness
Very Positive
Positive
No impact
Flexibility
Very Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Negative
Political Feasibility
High
Medium
Low
Administrative
Feasibility
High
Medium
Low
Time
Short
Medium
Long
Cost
High
Medium
Low
Sustainability
Lobbying Elected Officials (General)
• Targeting Officials:
– Champions – Allies –Fence Sitters – Mellow Opponents
– Hard Core Opponents
• Inside vs Outside Lobbying:
– Inside: Meetings – Analysis – Committees – Negotiating
– Outside: Media – Constituency – Coalitions –
Campaigns
• Practical Tips
See: www.odi.org/rapid/
See: www.wilder.org/
More / Other Sources
• RAPID:
http://www.odi.org/rapid/
• Strategy Unit's Policy Tools section
http://www.policyhub.gov.uk/tools/index.asp
• Mind Tools:
http://www.mindtools.com/
• DFID (Development Tools):
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/
• Wilder Foundation (lobbying & advocacy for NPOs)
http://www.wilder.org/
• CEDPA (advocacy & networking for NGOs)
http://www.cedpa.org/
Task 3 – as Individuals
• Focusing on a specific piece of work where you
are trying to influence policy or practice - do a
Force-Field Analysis.
• Specify policy change
• Identify forces for & against
• Assess weightings
• Assess points of possible impact
• Identify ways of achieving impact
Organisational development tools
• Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices:
– The entrepreneurship questionnaire
– Training & mentoring etc
• Knowledge Management
• Organisational development
– Finance, admin & personnel systems
– Strategic (action & business) planning
– Fundraising & reporting
• Building an organisational profile
– Communications, Public Affairs and the Media
Policy entrepreneurs
Storytellers
Engineers
Networkers
Fixers
Building policy entrepreneurs
Ashley Parashram
Bernard Lawer Tetteh-Dumanya
Dan Start
David Redhouse
Enrique Mendizabal
Gerry Power
Harinder Janjua
Karen Iles
Lydia Richardson
Marta Foresti
Michael Majale
Mike Albu
Monica Blagescu
Patrick Watt
Richard Graham
Average
45
36
26
39
40
39
22
41
39
42
36
41
38
31
37
37
25
27
34
36
29
35
38
37
36
30
36
32
37
41
26
33
35
37
43
39
37
35
43
40
39
38
37
32
35
41
37
38
45
50
47
36
44
41
47
32
36
40
41
45
40
37
48
42
>44 = Low
<30 = High
<23 = V.High
Policy process workshops
• Looking at internal policy processes in
organizations and role of policy
documents. (What works in DFID?)
• How: (i) Small, informal workshop – 7 staff;
(ii) Identify processes for assessment - 8;
(iii) participatory pair-wise ranking of
factors influencing the success.
• Worked quite well.
• In DFID - agendas and processes rather
than documents are key.
ODI’s Knowledge Management Strategy
• Building on existing processes:
–
–
–
–
Project management
Financial Systems
Web/Intranet
Tuesday Trading / Research Retreats
• Specific new actions:
– To improve learning – AARs, Peer-Assists etc
– To improve information systems – Intranet-linked
databases & financial systems
– Building KM into HR systems
– Obtaining & applying resources for KM
Action Planning
• An Action Plan is a sequenced plan of specific
actions to deliver defined objectives.
• It involves thinking through a series of questions:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
What are your policy objectives?
What are the major forces?
Which ones can you engage with?
Who are the key players?
What resources do you have?
Are there any other issues?
How will you engage with the key players and what will
you do?
Task 4 – as individuals
• Build on the force-field analysis you have already
completed, to develop an action plan to deliver your
policy objectives.
RAPID - Next steps
• Further research:
– GDN Phase II studies
– HIV/AIDS
– How CSOs use research-based evidence
– Action-research (does it work?)
• “Institutionalisation” within ODI
• Promotion, partnerships and capacity-building
Other sources of information:
http://www.odi.org.uk/rapid
How you can help us
•
•
•
•
Fill in the evaluation form
Survey of other useful tools
Opportunities for Action-Research
Keep in touch