Marrakech, Morocco December 2003

Transcription

1 Introduction Bridging Research and Policy: A Workshop for Researchers, at the 10th Annual ERF Conference Marrakech, Morocco December 2003 This is a brief report on the Bridging Research and Policy Workshop in Marrakech on 15 December 2003, held just prior to the Economics Research Forum for Arab Countries, Iran and Turkey (ERF) Annual Conference in December The purpose was to improve participants' capacity to analyse the context within which they work, develop strategies, and use some simple approaches and tools to improve the policy impact of their work. The workshop was designed for researchers from government research departments, universities or research institutes, think tanks or NGOs. There were 12 participants selected by ERF. Most were researchers but with some experience of influencing policy. The aims were that participants': Share experiences about policy-research processes in the MENA Region; Learn about the GDN Bridging Research and Policy Project; Learn about the "Context, Evidence, Links" framework for analysing the context within which they work, and apply it to selected case studies; Share experiences about approaches to strengthen research-policy links which work in the MENA Region; Learn about other tools and approaches which have been used elsewhere, and about where to access further information and resources; Develop a strategy to improve the policy impact of their own work. Prior to the workshop, some of the participants had (i) completed a policy entrepreneur questionnaire; and (ii) provided some information based on their own work. The programme included the following sessions: 1. Opening address and introductions 2. Discussion about research-policy links in the MENA Region 3. Presentation of the lessons from the GDN BR&P Project 4. How to put these lessons into practice: o A framework for action o Policy entrepreneurship o Teaching case studies o Other tools o Policy context questionnaire 5. Conclusions and evaluation of the workshop 6. Comments after the plenary presentation

2 Opening Address and Introductions John Young opened the workshop and invited participants to introduce themselves and describe why they were interested in the workshop. Research-Policy Links in the MENA Region The first session focused on the participants' own examples of where research has influenced policy and where it has not. This was followed by group work to discuss and generate lists of the key factors they think affect research-policy linkages in their regions, and then feedback. The discussion generated the following map of the topic: It was noted that the different groups (researchers and policy-makers) have different incentives and culture. It seemed that there were gaps in priorities. From Researchers' perspectives, issues were discussed around: Challenges with peer review / research quality Incentives / funding / knowledge gaps (what incentive do researchers have to do policy relevant research?) Research methodology Data available Independence Weak research infrastructure Possibility of publications Critical mass Training for policy entrepreneurship should be encouraged while remembering that it is not just a technical issue. Context matters and effort should be made towards creating a culture conducive to policy entrepreneurship. From Policy-makers' perspectives, issues were discussed around: Research is not seen as relevant (not policy oriented) Institutional vs. individual research

3 More attention was given to foreign experts over local experts Simplification of issues and outcome The session also generated discussion around a number of other interesting issues: Politics / Policy processes o Personal agendas on the part of policy-makers interested in research o Certain results of research are not encouraged by government o Issues of political risk / lack of legitimacy o Policy-makers were seen as conservative and not bold o Specificity / case by case External influences o Donors may influence agendas, or maybe not Communication o Academic o Civil Society o Policy-maker o Media role as multiplier o There are communication challenges in the region People o It is noticeable that researchers often become policy-makers in the region o Individuals often have multiple roles o Institutions vs. Groups vs. Individuals - and issues of credibility and legitimacy Timing / Crises / Moments Importance of Comparing to and Learning from other contexts Some indications into the challenges to Bridging Research and Policy in the MENA region are suggested by the findings of the Political context assessment questionnaire and the information some participants provided beforehand. Lessons from the Bridging Research and Policy project so far The presentation of the "Context, Evidence, Links" framework and some of the theory behind it, as well as the findings from Phase 1 of the GDN project provoked a lively discussion on a number of issues. Key points included: How to operationalise capacity or measure it? How to measure the gap between policy and research: are there any indicators? Have we quantified any of these issues? Every situation is unique. Different organisations have different objectives. Most are looking for ideas they can operationalise. Government policy research units find research which will have a high policy impact. Should all research be policy-relevant? Probably not all, or we will just all become consultants. Is it the bridge that causes the problem or is there a lack of supply or a lack of demand? In Morocco there is little practically useful research going on.

4 Some basic research leads to policy-relevant research by challenging existing narratives. Research vs. Policy - Demand vs. Supply. Comparative research is needed. The quality of supply and demand are both lacking but so is the quality of the research itself. Also researchers do not make sufficient efforts to communicate the results to policy-makers. There is a tendency to produce too theoretical models. A cultural gap exists between researchers and policymakers- they live in different worlds. There are a wide range of factors which influence the uptake of knowledge and there are interest groups which influence the policy process. Policy-makers in Morocco are very conservative and very reluctant to shift from existing paradigms. Academics sometimes become Ministers. They are often well-respected academics, but when they get into politics they are neither politicians nor academics. Most policy is set by the Head of State, who likes to have academics as Ministers to validate his policy initiatives. This needs to be studied more. Who makes policy - Ministers or the Head of State? It is very difficult to characterise Coalitions and Networks. Arabs are excellent networkers - how does this translate into policy impact? Language is extremely important. A lot of academic work is not translated from English into French, and even less into Arabic, so it is not available to policy-makers. Researchers don't have the time to do this. It is not just a language issue, it's also a discourse issue. Academics and policy-makers use different sorts of language. Policy-makers need simpler, shorter material. They do not have time for complicated models. There is also need to consider the role of research at different stages in the policy cycle. More research is needed into policy implementation. There is a need to know how to influence the street-level bureaucrats - what are the obstacles to implementation? Academics have low social status in this part of the world. They are also too focused on academia rather than practical issues. There is a need to get policy-makers, practitioners and academics together to find solutions to problems. In many countries, Ministries have their own research departments which play an important role translating research results into policy relevant materials. Many are staffed by part-time academics. However, often their advice is ignored, or they are co-opted to produce evidence that supports the policies that have already been chosen. Advisers often become frustrated. People may be employed for the wrong reason. For example, an Iraqi was employed to head up a think tank in Jordan because the Board felt that an Iraqi would be more impervious to government pressure. Articles in the media are useful for raising issues more generally. The media has an important role to play. Many participants were interested in comparisons - how the MENA region compared to others.

5 How to put it into Practice How researchers can achieve greater policy impact - a framework for action The next presentation focused on how these lessons can be put into practice. Discussion focused on whether these suggestions make sense in MENA: Theoretical perfection is important for academics. How long does it take for a think tank to influence a policy? If this is what we have to do and how to do it - how can we build teams to do this? How does this differ with coalitions supporting political parties? An interesting example from Morocco relates to a research centre in Morocco that identified the need for a new political party in the country, so they then turned themselves into one. There was some discussion (and tension identified) regarding where research ends and advocacy starts. People are always moving across from research to policy, and advisers to policy-makers often "steal" other researchers. It is important to use the right language and concepts for specific policymakers. Policy Entrepreneurship Questionnaire Clearly policy researchers need a broad range of skills if they want to achieve policy impact. The policy entrepreneurship questionnaire is designed to assess personal skills and aptitudes. The presentation of the results of the policy entrepreneurship questionnaire filled in by the participants generated some interesting discussion: Most researchers scored well as "fixers". Should researchers be policy entrepreneurs and have all the skills - or be aware of their own capacities and work with people who may be better at other aspects? Does the questionnaire relate to peoples' actual abilities or their preferences or aspirations? The nature of the questionnaire is relative - some people might be better at all of them, but this would not be captured by the questionnaire. Teaching Case studies For the next session, participants were divided into three groups. Each discussed a different teaching case study developed from the BR&P Phase I summary: Paravets in Kenya - how to accelerate uptake in a trouble context; Rice production in Kerala - how to respond to a new policy based on shoddy analysis; Fiscal policy in Chile - how to respond to a crisis and generate legitimacy for an important development policy. The groups focused on: (a) using the framework to analyse the situation; (b) planning what could be done; (c) discussing what actually happened; and (d) discussing what this tells us about the topic of bridging research and policy. This was followed by feedback.

6 This exercise seemed to work very well. It was interesting how different people thought different issues were important, but that participants very quickly started to think about multidisciplinary research, how to network and the political context (and what to do). However, groups felt they could have used a little bit more information to make the exercise work better. Other Tools for Researchers Some other tools developed from the BR&P project and elsewhere that might be useful were presented. These included participatory workshops; how to assessing the political context; how to map the policy process; and managing think tanks. Discussion concentrated on: How academic papers and policy papers differ (more discussion should be included in the presentation next time); How far should researchers move into the policy realms (researchers vs. activists vs. politicians). It was mentioned that the issue of "fundraising" should be included. Participants were advised to look at the GDN Toolkit: Proposal Writing and Fundraising on the GDNet website: There was also an interesting discussion about some NGOs in the MENA region and whether the culture of immediate gratification had led to a psychology of disillusionment. It was highlighted that you must deal with politics through politics. It was possible to play on the pride and ego of policy-makers. Another discussion focused on the problem of the fluctuating interests and opinions of the ruling elite, how they influence policy-makers, and how to engage with this process. The conclusion was that although there are a wide range of options to use in democratic contexts, there are fewer options in undemocratic contexts. Possibilities could include stimulating international advocacy efforts, engaging in insider influencing, or just doing nothing until they change their minds anyway (apathy). Policy Context Questionnaire Participants completed the political context questionnaire. This was the first time the questionnaire had been tested and a great deal was learnt about how to improve it. Some questions were unclear and there was some misunderstanding about the structure. Even though this is not a rigorous survey, it suggests that the political context provides major challenges regarding the uptake of research into policy in the MENA region. Participants also noted that: Policy-making processes were largely incremental in nature - rather than fundamental or emergent. Participants tended to work with government officials more than any other policy-maker group. They tended mostly to be involved with the Agenda Setting and Policy Formulations aspects of the policy process; rather than Implementation or Evaluation. There was a lack of quality evidence to inform policy-making.

7 That policy-makers tended to be convinced by their own experiences rather than empirical data or moral values. While very preliminary, the exercise suggests that it would be possible to generate systematic information for countries and sectors (and some types of projects) - if a balanced group of relevant respondents could be identified and were willing to complete the questionnaire. It also indicates that such an analysis could also be helpful - in association with other tools - for identifying what types of strategy to pursue in terms of influencing policy. Conclusions and Evaluation of the workshop During the final concluding session participants suggested that some of these tools and approaches would be very helpful and that the ERF should do more on these issues. John Young then thanked the participants for all of their hard work during the workshop, invited them to contact the GDN Bridging Research and Policy Project or ODI if they would like any further information and asked them to fill a workshop evaluation form. Comments/Questions after Plenary Presentation The ERF Annual Meeting had a strong bridging research and policy flavour. Two of the opening keynote speakers were former researchers who were now Ministers (from Egypt and Sudan). ERFs new Director, Samir Radwan, sees bridging research and policy as a critical strategic direction for its work - as demonstrated by the latest ERF newsletter. The GDN Bridging Research and Policy presentation in a Plenary Session during the main ERF conference stimulated many comments and questions: There are problems with both the demand and supply of research in Morocco, and with its quality. There are few researchers in Ministries, so policy-makers lack the capacity to process research-based evidence. Most researchers focus on high-level policy formulation. There is a need to focus more attention on the role of research at different stages in the policy cycle, especially with street-level bureaucrats. IFPRI has done quite a lot of work on these issues over the last few years and has come up with conclusions very similar to these. IFPRI is decentralising - moving researchers closer to the policy-makers who will be involved in uptake. There are conflicting incentives in the policy and academic worlds. There is a need to think more about building research teams with the right combination of skills and/or work more with other intermediaries. There was some concern about the definition of policy as "a course of action". One commentator responsible for coordinating macro-economic policy in Egypt felt there is a need to develop clear, high-level policies within a framework so they can operate together. There is a problem with conflicting evidence - policy-makers need better skills to be able to choose between them. Is the project planning to work with policy-makers to help them with this? Also, in many developing countries

8 many highly skilled people leave the country. If external expertise is required it would be better to use them than foreigners and expatriates who do not understand the country. How will the project take into account the often conflicting interests of policymakers and interest groups? Will the project be looking at the phenomenon of importing experience from abroad? It is vital that researchers understand the political and policy structure and mechanisms in a country if they hope to be able to influence policy.