8887

Transcript

1 March 2014 Getting real about politics From thinking politically to working differently Alina Rocha Menocal  One of the most important lesson s to emerge in international development over the past two decades is that institutions matter, and that behind institutions lie politics. But making this operational has proven much more difficult. t also to work  bu What is needed is a shift not only to think politically . This means asking hard - hitting questions about how change differently happens; the role external actors play in supporting that change; and what sorts of programme approaches, funding and staffing are needed as a result.  There are encouragi ng signs that suggest that progress is possible – as long as development actors are willing to radically rethink the way they work. Shaping policy for development odi.org

2 Table of contents 2 1 Why politics matter 2 What does taking politics seriously mean? 3 3 Getting better at ‘thinking’ politically 4 4 From thinking politically to working differently? 6 5 How can the thinking politically and working differently agenda be scaled up? 7 5.1 ‘Thinking politically and working differently’ needs to move beyond governance advisors and teams 8 5.2 There is a need to open up and share the use of PEA 8 5.3 8 Some shared characteristics of ‘what works’ when working politically are emerging 6 Where to from here? Changing understandings of what ‘development assistance’ can mean 11 References 12 Boxes Box 1: Evolution of political economy analysis within the international community 4 7 Box 2: Constraints to thinking politically and working differently in donor policy and practice ODI Report 1 Getting real about politics 1

3 1 Why politics matter Perhaps the single most important lesson to emerge in international development thinking and practice over the past two decades is that institutions matter for development, and that behind institutions lie politics. Despite vast amounts of support from the international assistance community, increased resourcing and improved policies and/or formal systems (Foresti et al., 2013), many states and governments across the developing world have remained unable to provide adequately for the well-being of their populations at large. This has helped crystallise the fact that the challenge of development lies not so much in what needs to be done (be this building schools or providing vaccinations) and identifying the right ‘technical fix’, bu t rather, more fundamentally, in how it is done (processes that facilitate or obstruct change). Getting to the ‘how’ requires a solid understanding of the institutional dynamics at work, both formal and informal, and the kinds of incentives they generate (Fritz et al., 2014). At least conceptually, the (gradual) evolution that different international development actors have undergone to come to grips with the politics of development and the institutional dynamics of change has been remarkable – what Carothers and de Gramont (2013) have described as an ‘ almost revolution ’ . As the myriad of donor statements, policy guidance notes, joint documents, forums and principles of engagement reflects, starting with context and tailoring policies and strategies accordingly is the new mantra of development assistance. However, as Carothers and de Gramont (2013) suggest, the revolution is not yet complete. How to make the concept ‘politics matter’ operational remains hard. There is a growing acceptance of the importance of taking context into account, and a growing acknowledgement of the need to work in more iterative, adaptive and flexible ways. Yet making a jump from more technical approaches, based on standardised one-size-fits-all models of change, to more politically aware programming, grounded in local realities, has proven considerably from arguments over more challenging in practice. What is needed now is to shift the focus of the debate – analytical frameworks and their relative effectiveness in helping understand the institutional dynamics and politics at play to a much bigger agenda on ways of working for development. This will mean turning the lens back onto donors and other development actors and asking the hard-headed questions of whether and how they to-day) practice. can become fit for the purpose of working with and through the politics in (day- ODI Report 2 Getting real about politics 2

4 2 What does taking politics seriously mean? political At one level, worki ng more politically can involve focusing on goals and objectives that are explicitly – in nature for example efforts to improve governance or promote democracy , both of which have increased considerably since the end of the Cold War and donors’ (re)discovery of the state as central to the fight against ) poverty (Fritz and Rocha Menocal , 2007 . However, these examples also illustrate that it is possible, and also rather common among donors, to pursue these aims through technical approaches that are often normative , that based on idealised models of change take politics and the local context into account. This is o ne of do not emerged from sustained donor engagement with the good governance agenda and the key insights that has different forms of democracy assistance (including elections, citizens, voice and account ability and support to Rakner et al. ; , 2007 ; (Grindle , 2007 parliaments and political parties) over the past two decades Rocha Menocal Wild et al and O’Neil , 2012 ; Rocha Menocal and Sharma, 2009; ., 2011 ). seriously needs to be about thinking and working At a more fundamental level, then, taking politics differently (like in ways that are politically aware/savvy, whether the objective is to pursue more explicitly political goals (like health and education). ones building) or more traditional socioeconomic This has been the focus of a state that has explicitly sought to understand how the Overseas Development Institute ( ODI ) programme of work at me chronic politics and governance shape the delivery of public goods and services. It asks, why do so bottlenecks persist, despite greater funding and better systems? Where and how have political strategies and networks constrained and enabled better service provision? How can relationships between users, service rengthened? providers and policymakers be st ODI Report 3 3 Getting real about politics

5 3 Getting better at ‘thinking’ politically Over the past decade, development actors have developed a number of tools and activities in an attempt to support programming that works with politics. One of the most significant areas of engagement has entailed efforts to improve the analysis of institutional and political dynamics on the ground (supporting what some have termed ‘thinking politically’), including the development of different tools and frameworks of political economy see Box 1). This has been accompanied by increased interest in (governance and political analysis (PEA) ( economy) training, not only within particular donor agencies but also, for example, of non - governmental organisations (NGOs) and the media. Box 1: cal economy analysis within the international community Evolution of politi Political economy is a discipline with a long tradition in the social sciences. I t is relatively newer in international development circles, was still first pioneered by the UK Department for International Development ( DFID ) but 10 over Drivers of Change (DoCs). PEA has since proliferated as one of the leading its years ago with used by donors to better understand contextual realities and to try to identify opport unities for instruments leveraging policy change and supporting reforms that benefit the poor more effectively (see, for example, Bjuremalm , 2006 ; DEVCO , 2011 ; DFID , 2009 ; Leftwich , 2006 ; Fritz et al., 2009). As applied in the development field, PEA tools and methods have evolved considerably over the past decade. Earlier frameworks, like DFID ’s DoCs and the Dutch Strategic Governance and Corruption Analyses (SGACA) , focused on the systemic level and were considerably broad in scope ; they tended to aim for breadth rather than 2008). These first - generation studies lost favour as concerns grew within different depth of analysis (Unsworth , agencies that the analysis tended to be overly focused on underlying constraints (e.g. patronage or deeply rooted patterns of inequ being considerably less helpful in tackling more operational ‘so what?’ ality), while ; questions ( 2013 ; Fisher and Marquette , 2013 , Wild et al., 2013 ). Carothers and de Gramont drill PEA seek to ‘ down Partly in response to these concerns, newer generations of ’ and focus on specific questions or problems often, but not exclusively, at the sectoral or local level. The logic behind this ‘problem - – driven’ approach is that, to be of practical use, PEA – whether applied to the country or the sector level – need s to start with a diagnosis of a particular, unresolved development challenge or the assessment of a specific opportunity to be seized. This type of approach is seen as more likely to lead to specific implications of the ways of political and governance const raints affect development outcomes and the political risks and dynamics within ; and between different sectors, to help identify actionable recommendations ( 2014 Harris and Wild, Fritz et al. , 2013; Harris et al., 2013). have made important contributions to the advancement of ‘thinking politically’, and These kinds of activities they represent an important step forward. A series of interesting research and case studies illustrating the kind of difference this kind of approach can make is emerging ( e.g . Booth, 2014; Fritz et al. , 2014; The Asia Foundation, 2011; Wild et al. , 2013 ). Yet, while PEA is a useful tool of analysis that can offer a different angle on a problem or issue, it is not meant not a magic bullet and cannot provide quick fixes or readymade answers to to be more or less than that. It is and the validity Moreover, there is no uniformity here – what are essentially complex development problems. subject of debate (see going Fisher and and utility of different approaches and forms of PEA are an on - 2013). , Marquette ODI Report 4 4 Getting real about politics

6 10 years of experimentation with PEA among a growing number of More fundamentally, after more than international development agencies, it has become increasingly clear that taking politics seriously involves more than doing a And while (at least some) donor agencies are investing significant resources in good piece of PEA. frameworks tailored to their own specificities, there seems to be much less investment in understanding how such analysis can be put to use, and whether and how different forms of applied analysis can make a difference to policy processes in different countries. Indeed, and there have been growing concerns about some PEA has developed into a veritable cottage industry, of the ways PEA has come to be practise d . In some instances, there has been a problematic tendency to view PEA as a comfort blanket – a bounded activity donors carry out to tick a box and move on – rather than as an or 2012) , Hout ger of depoliticising ( process of thinking and reflection . In this sense, there is a real dan on - going ‘fetishising’ PEA, stripping it of its very purpose. As Wild et al. (2013) have put it, ‘rather than being way of thinking, or an analytical approach capable of helping development practitioners to understood as a [...] understand complex issues of power, incentives and relationships when engaging seriously with the politics of development, it has increasingly been interpreted in a more limited way, as another tool to help donors achieve their programming goals.’ broad acceptance that politics matter, this is not an agenda emblematic of a deeper issue. While there is a This is that has been embraced evenly or broadly within and across different development agencies and organisations (including NGOs), but rather one that ha to a ‘vanguard’ (Wild and Foresti, 2011). s remained confined Even within governance cadres there is still considerable scepticism about how useful and valuable a move towards more politically aware approaches can be. As some observers have suggested, the notion of thinking of development as a technical problem that requires a (relatively) straightforward technical solution is deeply engrained in the way many development actors work. While donors may be paying more attention to politics, in many cases insisting they have internalised the importance of thinking politic ally and are working accordingly, 2009). , ’ (Unsworth ‘the default position is still technocratic ODI Report 5 Getting real about politics 5

7 4 From thinking politically to working differently? Frustration with some of these efforts to think in a more politically aware manner has led to a gre ater acknowledgement that there is a need to connect this much more explicitly to understandings of (new) ways of working. This entails asking more searching questions about how decisions are taken ; how projects and and what programmes are funded what kinds of mod alities are used ; how success is monitored and evaluated ; ; sorts of relationships and networks are needed to deliver on this. M oving away from a focus on reports and specific tools towards a more organic engaged culture of analysis, politically thinking ’ understanding and, crucially, action seems essential to give real substance not only to the ‘ but also differently to the ‘ working , critically, ’ side of this a genda (Slotin et al., 2010 ; Williams and Copestake, 1 politically’ and ‘working differently’ calls for: 2011). Among other things, ‘ thinking Developing in - depth knowledge of the context and the multiple dynamics at work;  Approaching an issue or challenge from a different perspective  – one that recognises that development is a complex and inherently political process in which multiple contending actors seek to assert their interests in diverse societal arenas; Engaging with a diverse array of relevant actors (including those that may be outside donors’ more  traditional comfort zone), trying to reconcile them into shared positive outcomes; alities Focusing on more strategic policy formulation and programming grounded in contextual re  – (shifting from ‘best practice’ to ‘best fit’ though what this actually looks like needs to become much more fully specified);  Moving beyond being purveyors of funds towards enhancing policy dialogue and facilitating/brokering domestic processes of change; Identifying entry points to support reform efforts, even ‘against the odds’.  Part of this effort should also entail further reflection on how operat ing in a manner that is politically savvy relates to other on - going ideas, discussions and ways o f working that are gaining purchase , including, for example, comple ). The imperative to think politically and xity and complex systems (see Ramalingam, 2013 work differently approaches to can also be productively combined with other efforts to reshape development growing interest in impact assessments can be helpful in identifying achieve better outcomes. For example, the 2014). missing links , related to political economy drivers (Fritz et al. Clearly, donors agencies and other development actors are likely to have limited power to influence the fundamental politics of a country, and , as has by now been amply discussed, the momentum for change and reform must be driven from within . However, whether international actors behave in a politically smart way or not can make an important difference (Bird , 2008). 1 To add a twist to ractice that has recently come together under the leadership of and the ‘thinking and working politically’ phrase from a c ommunity of p (DLP) and The Asia with support from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) , the Developmental Leadership Programme Foundation . (TAF) ODI Report 6 6 Getting real about politics

8 How can the thinking politically 5 and working differently agenda be scaled up? E need to engage with the political economy of the aid architecture and the to take politics seriously also fforts incenti ve structures that govern the funding, commissioning, design and implementation of development (see Box 2) assistance . These suggest that what is needed to get traction on the agenda on thinking politically ipally about building more evidence or generating more is not only or even princ and working differently analysis as to why it is important to take politics seriously. Rather, it is about altering the way international development actors engage in developing settings, in some cases quite fundamentally. B Constraints to thinking politically ox 2: and work ing differently in donor policy and practice Bureaucratic and organisational incentives within agencies can mitigate their abilities to think politically and work differently a narrow concern for quick and visible results (which development . Pressure to disburse aid and actors tend to emphasise so they can be accountable to their home publics) do not always provide the foundations to engage with contextual realities and institutional dynamics of change, and instead tend to encourage a focus on (short - term) outcomes that are least transformational or substantive (e.g. holding x number of workshops in a year without concern as to their actual effect) 2010). In addition, (Natsios , prove its value by generating consistently high returns may not be will expectations that development assistance in line with how improved practice is actually achieved. As some have argued, innovation which inevitably – entails risk cannot happen without allowing for (some) failure, and some investments may not pay off (at least – not immediately or directly) (Rocha Menocal, 2013). Moreover, standard procedures are often slow and inflexible, and may be becoming more so. Among other th ings, the complex and elaborate bureaucratic procedures and reporting requirements – presumably to avoid wastefulness and corruption and enhance upward accountability – can dampen innovation and, eventually, enhanced effectiveness (Natsios, 2010). Staff ma y be spending too much time meeting such bureaucratic and operational requirements, whereas more encouragement, trust and, crucially, authority to work in a more politically aware manner are needed . Staff may also be reluctant to take risks because this ca n affect career prospects, while continuous staff fluctuation and rapid turnover rates, especially in terms of presence in the field, pose considerable challenges to building and sustaining long - country partners and the - term relationships with in ce of institutional memory (see Ostrom et al., 2002; Rocha Menocal and O’Neil, 2012). maintenan How can this be done? Despite the different challenges outlined, over the past decade going there has been on - engagement from a variety of stakeholders, including donor representatives, policymakers, development experts and consultants and civil society actors (including NGOs, activists and academics) on how to advance the task of nto account in both thinking and practice. Dedicated communities of practice taking politics more seriously i to refine understandings of what not only ’ differently but also ‘working politically’ have emerged thinking ‘ 2 ht be realised. on This is also an might mean and how the potential embedded in this kind of approach mig - ODI, in collaboration with other partners. While, as the and expanding area of engagement within going 2 Like the ‘Thinking and Working Politically’ community of practice mentioned earlier spearheaded by DFAT, DLP and TAF, as well as one housed nd another led by The Policy Practice, among others. within the World Bank, a ODI Report 7 7 Getting real about politics

9 great deal of work remains to be done, there have been important areas of progress, and very discussed, a meaningful insights and lessons have emerged that may yet help further this agenda . 5.1 ‘Thinking politically and working differently ’ needs to move beyond governance advisors and teams has been confined Until very recently, engagement with the agenda to think politically and work differ ently - minded set of stakeholders. There is also a perception that there is limited overlap between high - within a like level thinking about politics and on - the - ground renditions. Those who see the importance of taking politics seriously are still mostly talking to one another. This has resulted in siloed thinking and a lack of shar ed . knowledge and lessons This means it is essential to reach out to others from different traditions and perspectives, including sector specialists, other gov ernment departments, domestic policymakers and organisations outside the state. In particular, t he need to create demand for engaging with politics more fully from sectors and for building bridges across more technical and politically aware approaches betw een and within sectors has begun to be explored – the ODI, for example, has started to do some interesting work on this in countries like Malawi and Nepal with support from DFID (Wild et al., 2013). The World Bank is also exploring ways of combining sector al and country approaches and knowledge in a more systematic manner (Fritz et al., 2014). Interestingly, given this kind of environment, questions arise as to whether projects or programmes that have a political agenda should be explicitly labelled as suc , or whether the task of thinking and working in a more h Clearly , the answer to this will depend on the context . politically aware manner is better done under the radar , , 2014). But and the issue at hand (Green as some developmental practitioners have sugg ested in different forums and conversations, openly stating that an initiative is intended to be politically smart or to grapple with political dynamics may be counterproductive, given the sensitivities or resistance likely to be involved in sses of change. Instead, a project or programme that is ‘technical’, at least on the surface, can proposed proce provide cover for more politically aware activities. Indeed, recent research suggests a wholesale separation of ificial. Rather, ‘the technical is political’, in that technical from political approaches is too art technical decisions , changes on the technical side will have implications for incentives, behaviour and power relationships. Thus , might also help shift the politics (Harris et al. 2013). 5.2 There is a ne ed to open up and share the use of PEA on Another important concern surrounding PEA centres who does the analysis and how widely it is shared. Opinions vary on the extent to which international experts/consultants should be involved in undertaking PEAs. rtainly, they can play an important role – at the very least in terms of providing the analysis with needed Ce distance and autonomy from the commissioning agency, which is essential to give it credibility (Harris and Booth , 2013). nce suggests that , staff on the ground take in order to get traction, it is beneficial if On the other hand, experie part the analysis, creating a sense of ownership and responsibility in terms of seeing through its implications. in T takes this approach, with - supported State Accountability and Voice Project (SAVI) in Nigeria he DFID EU operational staff directly involved in carrying out and acting on PEA (DFID, 2013). The European Union ( ) recently announced that instead would it would no longer commission nternational experts and PEAs from i in carry them out - house. This is a positive development – but only in the measure that staff in - country are supported and given sufficient time and resources to be able to do it . 5.3 works’ when working politically are emerging Some shared characteristics of ‘what There is a growing interest among different stakeholders (especially within the different communities of practice that have emerged) in building up the existing body of evidence of more/less successful efforts t o think politically and work differently . T his is still in early stage s. However, there is a range of ideas and plans to identify case studies (both historical and on - going , although methodologies for case selection still need to be the quality of understanding identify more robustly that links between thought through) that can help of development actors have political contexts, and their ability to make a positive contribution to development ODI Report 8 8 Getting real about politics

10 outcomes. Building this kind of knowledge is impor uptake of changed tant to increase the acceptance and – ant t here are already some emerging insights into ‘what works’ in this respect approaches (see, for example, Fritz et al., 2014, Power and Coleman, 2011, Rocha Menocal et al. 2008, Rocha Menocal and O’Neil , 2012 , , The Asia Foundation, 2011, and Wild et al. , 2013, among others) . Developing a compelling narrative Given the constraints identified and some on - going scepticism about embracing politics, it is essential to develop a compelling narrative on ho w engaging in a more politically aware manner enables the development community to do lead to work differently or better (or both) , and, conversely, ho w neglecting the politics can its - user more it needs to be dly and accessible, and to resonate across frien failure. The language used is important : different audiences. As one commentator has put it, the terminology of ‘ thinking and working in a more politically aware manner ’ (as well as other terms that have become increasingly popular in the development putting and com munity, like ‘isomorphic mimicry’ and ‘ problem - driven iterative adaptation’ , - might be off can complicate rather than enlighten (Green, 2014) . While this suggests a need to simplify language , it does not mean the underlying messages about the challenges of promoting development should be simplified too. In effect, it is high time for a more mature engagement with the public, especially in donor countries, about development as a complex and deeply political process, and the implications this has for more effective support. More and better public communication and discussion is needed to bring public opinion progressively towards a more realistic understanding of development and the ways aid can con tribute to it. This may involve some risk to the breadth of the public commitment to aid spending, but , depth of commitment (Wild and Foresti 2011). A s recent research from the with compensating gains in terms of earch (IPPR) suggests, in the case of the UK, the public may have a ODI and the Institute for Public Policy Res greater tolerance risk than is commonly thought (Glennie et al., 2012). with regard to Adopting flexible and adaptable approaches Engaging in a more politically aware way implies tailoring , adaptation and informed experimentation. As Andrews et al. (2012) have argued, an important implication of this is the need to create an authoris ing environment for decision making that en courages ‘positive deviance’ and creative innovation (as opposed t o designing projects and program mes and then requiring agents to implement them exactly as designed). As a variety of emerging case studies on successful approaches to thinking orking differently politically and w suggest, including that of SAVI in Nigeria - donor programme to support democratic deepening in and the multi Uganda (Power and Coleman, 2011), traditional logframe approaches with detailed output and outcome indicators set in advance do not lend themselves so easily to this agenda, which is more abo ut flexibility, iteration and on - going learning. On the other hand , the relationship between flexibility and accountability needs to be managed and monitored. Feedback loops that facilitate rapid experiential learning and the assessment of intermediate mi lestones or ’ ) can be evaluation ‘ incremental changes (as opposed to enduring long lag times in learning from ex - post important in this respect (Andrews ). This should enable greater emphasis on innovation and piloting et al., 2012 ls have had only limited impact. of new approaches where tr and tested mode The ODI is undertaking new ied work with The Asia Foundation to explore these types of approaches. This will include closely accompanying a number of country programmes that are intended to work in ‘politically smart’ and adaptive ways, over an 18 - month period, as part of an action research approach to document and learn from evolving practice. Other cases in Africa will be explored too, where ‘business as usual’ approaches have been rejected in favour of more responsive and adaptive programming. Developing greate r risk tolerance a higher appetite for risk Working in a smarter and more politically aware manner calls for developing being willing to innovate ( requires 2012). It including contextual, institutional and programmatic risk) (OECD , d repertoire of and risk untested and un certain new approaches , rather than the standar d evelopment responses, the International For example, Institute for even when it is unclear whether the investment will bear fruit. rrently working in Latin America on a project to Democracy and Electoral Assistance International IDEA) is cu ( protect politics from drug trafficking, the seeds for which were planted over 10 years ago without yielding requires appr Taking appropriate risks also results for some time (Rocha Menocal and O’Neil, 2012). opriate organisational backing, the right incentive structures, sufficient staff capacity and appropriate institutional ODI Report 9 9 Getting real about politics

11 processes and control measures. It means striking a balance between different tensions and dilemmas, and being flexible and adaptable in order to take advantage of sometimes narrow windows of opportunity (Rocha Menocal, 2013). Identifying and supporting the right staff A running theme in discussions about thinking politically and working differently is that engaging with politics and the l ocal context effectively may call for a particular kind of person – someone who is comfortable with the uncertainty and ambiguity of political processes and the dilemmas and trade - offs they may present. These have and are seen , been variously called ‘ champions ’ ‘ entrep reneurs ’ , ‘ mavericks ’ and e ven ‘big men’ (Green, 2014 ) as being able to spot opportunities as they open up, to t hink on their feet, to build relationships . Whether being politically savvy is something that is innate or something that can be ta ught remains an open question. What is on the ground for long periods of clear is that there is a need for skilled and experienced staff , that have operated . can act as brokers and coalition builders that time and This was certainly one of the central elements in the success of, for example, DFID’s work to support more accountable and representative political systems in the Andean region in Latin America (Rocha Menocal et al., 2008). However, the focus should not b e only on , through, among other individuals or agents, but also on improving the systems within which they operate things, adequate capacity development, hands - on engagement and, crucially, incentive structures. Brokering spaces for enhanced collaboration It is now becoming increasingly clear that some of the biggest constraints to improving development practice at all levels, from bottom to top, take the form of unresolved processes of contestation and (failed) collaboration. aligned. For or because incentives are not Often, cooperation proves impo ssible because there is a lack of trust instance, the short be developmental leaders in poor - termism that electoral politics generate among would - tends to countries – especially those that are ethnically fragmented and hav e weak and ineffective institutions – contribute to a focus on narrow interests (e.g. winning elections), rather than to greater accountability or a concern for the broader public good over the long term. ct not simply those providing support to a This requires bringing together domestic as providers of funds or implementers, but also as facilitators and conveners – stakeholders, supporting them in identifying problems and encouraging them to work collaboratively in finding Rocha Menocal et al., 2008; potential solutions (Powe r and Coleman, 2011; Rocha Menocal and O’Neil, 2012; akoli et al., 2013). Tav ODI Report 10 10 G etting real about politics

12 6 Where to from here? Changing understandings of what ‘development assistance’ can mean has become so widespread as to seem (almost) self T he acknowledgement that ‘ politics matter ’ evident, at least - at the level of high rhetoric and commitment. No international development actor today would argue that understanding the domestic context is not an absolute precondition for engagement. Yet grappling with the politics at play in actual practice remains a much harder and even contested matter. The response from the international community thus far has been largely to try to work around the politics. But We are going t o borrow from former ODI Director Alison Evans’ twist on Michael Rosen’s children’s classic ‘ W in relation to politics on a bear hunt’ , ‘ we’ll have to go through [...] e can’t go around it, we can’t go over it ing some questions about i) how Goin g through or working with the politics will mean ask it’. hard - hitting change happens ; ii) the role external actors can play in supporting that change and iii) what sorts of programme ; and approaches, funding staffing will be needed to get there. A central message emerging from more than a decade of experimentation is that a radical rethinking of the way much of the aid system currently works is – made answers to this, there are some encouraging signs as long as needed. While there are no easy or ready - ke on the challenge. development actors are willing to ta ODI Report 11 11 Getting real about politics

13 References Andrews, M . , Pritchett, L . and driven Iterative . (2012) ‘Escaping Capability Traps throug h Problem - Woolcock, M Washington Adaptation (PDIA) ’. Working Paper 299. , D C: CGD. Briefing Paper - poor Growth’ . ‘The Political Economy of Pro Bird, K. (2008) 35, London: ODI. Democracy and Bjuremalm, H. (2006) ‘ Power Analysis: Experiences and Challenges ’. Concept Note. Department for Social Development. Stockholm: Sida. Booth, D. (2013) . London: ODI. ‘Facilitating Development: An Arm’s Length Approach to Aid’ B ooth, D. (2014) ‘Aiding Institutional Reform in D evelopin g C ountrie s: Lessons from Philippines on What Works, What Doesn’t and Why’ . London: ODI. Carothers, T. and de Gramont, D. (2013) Development Aid Confronts Politics: The Almost Revolution. New York: Carneg ie Endowment for International Peace . DEVCO (2011) ‘Using Political Economy Analysis to Improve EU Development Effect iveness’ . Concept Paper . Brussels: EC . DFID (Department for International Development) ( 2010) ‘Building Peaceful States and Societies: A DFID Practice Paper’ . London: DFID. ( 2013) pporting citizen engagement ‘Thinking and Acting Politically: Su (Department for International Development) DFID . London: DFID. in governance: The experience of the State Accountability and Voice Initiative in Nigeria’ Duncan, G. (2012) ‘Making Development Assistance More Effective Through Using Political - economy and Williams, A. : What Has Been Done and What Have We Learned?’ 30 (2): 133 - 148. Analysis Development Policy Review Fisher, J. and Marquette, H. (2013) ‘Donors Doing Political Economy Analysis™: From Process to Product (and Back Again?)’. Birmingham : Developmental Leadership Progra m, University of Birmingham. Foresti, M., O’Neil, T. and Wild, L. (2013) ‘Making Sense of the Politics of Delivery: Our Findings So Far’ . London: ODI. Fritz, V. and Rocha Menocal , A. (2007) ‘ Developmental States in the New Millennium: Concepts and Challenges for a New Aid Agenda’ . Development Policy Review 25 ( 5 ): 531 - 552 . : Good Practice Problem driven Governance and Political Economy Analysis Fritz, V., Kaiser, K. and Levy, B. (2009) - Framework Washington, DC: World Bank. . Problem driven Political Economy Analysis: The World Bank’s Experience Fritz, V., Levy, B. and Ort, R. (eds) (2014) . - Washington, DC: World Bank. Glennie, A., Straw, W. and Wild, L. (2012) ‘Understanding public attitudes to aid and development’ . London: IPPR and . ODI Green, D. (2014) nking, and the ‘Can Aid Donors Really “think and work politically”? Plus the Dangers of “Big Man” Thi Horrors of Political Science - Oxfam From Poverty to Power blog post, 30 January, speak’ . 574 Grindle, M.S. (2007) ‘ Good Enoug h Governance Revisited’ . Development Policy Review 25(5) : 533 - . London: ODI. ‘Applied Political Economy Analysis: Five Practical Issues’ , D. (2013) Harris, D. and Booth ODI Report 12 12 Getting real about politics

14 Harris, D. and Wild, L. (2013) . London: ODI. ‘Finding Solutions: Making Sense of the Politics of Service Delivery’ ‘The Technical Is Political Harris, D., Mclouglin, L. and Wild, L. (2013) Why Understanding the Political Implications of – Technical Characteristics Can Help Improve Service Delivery’ . London: ODI. Hout, W. (2012) ‘The Anti - politics of Development: Donor Agencies and the Political Economy of G overnance’. Third World Quarterly 33 (3): 405 - 422. Leftwich, A. (2006) ‘ From Drivers of Change to the Politics of Development: Refini ng the Analytical Framework to Understand the Politics of the Places Where We W ork ’ . Part 3: Final Report. London: DFID. CGD . Washington, DC: ‘The Clash of the Counter . Natsios, A. (2010) t’ - Bureaucracy and Developmen OECD. ‘Managing Risks in Fragile and Transitional Context s: The Price of Success?’ Paris : OECD (2011) and Sustainability: An Institutional Ostrom, E., Gibson, C., Shivakumar, S. and Andersson, K. (2001) ‘ Aid, Incentives Analysis of Development Cooperation’ . 02/01:1. Stockholm: Sida. Evaluation Power, G. and Coleman, O. (2011) ‘The Challenges of Political Programming: International Assistance to Parties and . Draft. Stockholm: International IDEA. Parliaments’ World Development Report 2011 Stuck in a Capability Trap?’ Pritchett, L. and de Weijer, F. (2010) ‘Fragile States: Background Paper. d Wave and the Challenges of Democratic Rakner, L., Rocha Menocal, A. and Fritz, V. (2007) ‘Democratisation’s Thir roject . Research P Deepening: Assessing International Democracy Assistance and Lessons Learned’ of the Advisory Board for Irish Aid Working Paper 1. London and Oslo: ODI and CMI. Ramalingam, B. (2013) Aid on the Edge of Chaos . Oxford: Oxford University Press. ‘ frica’ , ODI blog post, Rocha Menocal, A. (2011) Wanted: Smarter Aid to Support Political and Institutional Reform in A 25 July, Rocha Menocal, A. (2 ‘It’s a Risky Business: Aid and New Approaches to Political Risk Management’ . London: ODI. 013) Rocha Menocal, A., Booth, D., Geere, M., Sharma, B., Phillipps, L. and Mendizabal , E. (2008) ‘“ Punching above its Weight”: . London: ODI. An Evaluation of DFID's PSPS, LAMIT and ENLACE Programmes in Latin America’ Rocha Menocal, A. and O’Neil , T. (2012) ‘Mind the Gap: Lessons Learned and Remaining Challenges in Parliamentary – Development Assistance A Pre - Study’ . Stockholm: Sida . Rocha Menocal, A. and Sharma, B. (2009) ‘Joint Evaluation of Citizens’ Voice and Accountability: Synthesis Report’ . London: ODI. Slotin, J., Wyeth, V. and Romita, P. (2010) Power, Politics, and Change: How International Actors Assess Local Context . New York: International Peace Institute. Tavakoli, H., Simson, R. and Tilley, H. , with Booth, D . (2013) ‘Using Aid to Address Governance Constraints in Service Delivery’ . London: ODI. The Asia Foundation (2011) . Makati Built on Dreams, Grounded in Reality: Economic Policy Reform in the Philippines City: The Asia Foundation. Unsworth, S. (2008) ‘Framework for Strategic Governance And Corruption Analysis (SGACA): Designing Strategic Responses Towards Good Governance’ . Prepared for the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Hague: Netherlands Institute for International Relations (Clingendael). cs Got to Do with It? Why Donors Find It So Hard to Come to Terms with Politics, and Unsworth, S. (2009) ‘What’s P oliti - 21: 883 Journal of International Development Why This Matters’. 894. ODI Report 13 13 Getting real about politics

15 , M ‘Politics into Practice: A Dialogue on Governance Strategies and Action in International . (2011) Wild, L. and Foresti Development’ . London: ODI . ‘International Assistance to Political Party and Party System Development: Wild, L., Foresti, M. and Domingo, P. (2011) . Report for DFID and FCO. London: ODI. eport’ Synthesis R ) ‘ Bridging the technical and the political: An applied approach to the 2013 Wild, L., McLoughlin, C. and Harris, D. ( the joint PSA Development Politics Group/International Development .’ Prepared for politics of service delivery Department (IDD) workshop ‘Making Politics Practical II: Development Politics and the Changing Aid Environment’, University of Birmingham, 15th November, 2013 . Political Economy s, R. and Copestake, J. (2011) ‘ William Analysis and the Art of Development Practice ’ . Bath: University of Bath. ODI Report 14 14 Getting real about politics

16 ODI is the UK’s leading independent think tank on international development and humanitarian issues. Our mission is to inspire and inform policy and practice which lead to the reduction of poverty, the alleviation of suffering and the achievement of sustainable livelihoods. We do this by locking together high - quality applied research, - practical policy advice and policy focused dissemination and debate. We work with partners in the public and private sectors, in both developing and developed countries. Acknowledgements: With many thanks to Leni Wild and David Booth, both from ODI, for their comments in revising this paper. d to reproduce Readers are encourage material from ODI Reports for their own publications, as long as they are not being sold commercially. As copyright holder, ODI requests due acknowledgement and a copy of the publication. For online use, we ask readers to link to the origina l resource on the ODI website. The views presented in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of ODI. © Overseas Development Institute 2013. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons NonCommercial L icence Attribution - - NC 3.0). (CC BY - ISSN: 2052 7209 Overseas Development Institute 203 Blackfriars Road London SE1 8NJ Tel +44 (0)20 7922 0300 Fax +44 (0)20 7922 0399

Related documents

u7112 connectplus directories 2019

u7112 connectplus directories 2019

UCare Connect + Medicare Provider and Pharmacy Directory Introduction This Provider and Pharmacy Directory includes information about the provider and pharmacy types in UCare Connect + Medicare and li...

More info »
U7112 UCARE CONNECT + MEDICARE PROVIDERDIR MAY 2019 DATA.sv

U7112 UCARE CONNECT + MEDICARE PROVIDERDIR MAY 2019 DATA.sv

UCare Connect + Medicare Provider and Pharmacy Directory Introduction This Provider and Pharmacy Directory includes information about the provider and pharmacy types in UCare Connect + Medicare and li...

More info »
Microsoft Word   deg app change.doc

Microsoft Word deg app change.doc

Office of Degree Requirements Western Hemlock 21 503-725-3438 800-547-8887, ext. 3438 Fax: 503-725-5525 [email protected] Degree Application Change if you have a current, active application for an Pleas...

More info »
Microsoft PowerPoint   PRES IP Interactive Dialogue Copyright Update Monkeys, Music, and Much, Much More September 2018 4836 38

Microsoft PowerPoint PRES IP Interactive Dialogue Copyright Update Monkeys, Music, and Much, Much More September 2018 4836 38

Copyright Update: Monkeys, Music, and Much, Much More! Presented by: J. Michael Keyes, Partner, Intellectual Property Litigation Cristofer I. Leffler, Partner, Intellectual Property Litigation Gina Co...

More info »
Microsoft Word   CL final 06 Mar 2003.doc

Microsoft Word CL final 06 Mar 2003.doc

Why is gold different from other assets? An empirical investigation. by Colin Lawrence March 2003 The author is Honorary Visiting Professor of Risk Management, Faculty of Finance, Cass Business School...

More info »
Blueprint for Change

Blueprint for Change

B l u e p r i n t f o r C h a n g e : A C o m p r e h e n s i v e M o d e l f o r t h e I d e n t i f i c a t i o n a n d T r e a t m e n t o f Y o u t h w i t h M e n t a l H e a l t h N e e d s i n ...

More info »
NWCG Airtanker Base Directory, PMS 507 , NFES 002537

NWCG Airtanker Base Directory, PMS 507 , NFES 002537

A publication of the National Wildfire Airtanker NWCG Coordinating Group Base Directory PMS 507 April 2019 NFES 002537

More info »
companiesdotest

companiesdotest

Frequently Asked Questions Why are these companies included on the "Do Test" list? The following companies manufacture products that are tested on animals at some stage of development. Those marked wi...

More info »
2018 MOIL Provider Directory 2 13 18 FA WEB

2018 MOIL Provider Directory 2 13 18 FA WEB

Provider Directory For more information, please contact Essence Healthcare at 866-597-9560, or for TTY users 711, 8 a.m. For more infor to 8 p.m., seven days a week, or visit essencehealthcare.com. Th...

More info »
Large Scale Field Test of Forward Collision Alert and Lane Departure Warning Systems

Large Scale Field Test of Forward Collision Alert and Lane Departure Warning Systems

DOT HS 812 247 uary 2016 Febr Large -Scale Field Test of Forward Collision Alert And Lane Departure Warning Systems

More info »
2016 Standards of Care

2016 Standards of Care

| VOLUME 39 SUPPLEMENT 1 THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND APPLIED RESEARCH AND EDUCATION JANUARY 2016 WWW.DIABETES.ORG/DIABETESCARE E M L P E P N U T S 1 AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION STANDARDS OF MEDICAL ...

More info »
Machine learning: the power and promise of computers that learn by example

Machine learning: the power and promise of computers that learn by example

Machine learning: the power and promise of computers that learn by example MACHINE LEARNING: THE POWER AND PROMISE OF COMPUTERS THAT LEARN BY EXAMPLE 1

More info »
itemlist2009

itemlist2009

OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DATE : 04/22/19 LISTING OF SELECTED ITEMS PAGE : 1 SP ITEM ITEM ITEM ITEM YR NO. DESC UNIT TYPE CLS --------------------------------------------------------------...

More info »
Threads and Threading

Threads and Threading

Machinery's Handbook 27th Edition TABLE OF CONTENTS THREADS AND THREADING METRIC SCREW THREADS SCREW THREAD SYSTEMS 1783 American Standard Metric Screw 1725 Screw Thread Forms V-Thread, Sharp V-thread...

More info »