The types of change that INSPIRED processes can deliver follow the three orientations of the approach - policy, process & partnership - although many of them cross several categories and cannot be understood isolated from the other transformations that they bring about.
However, for the sake of conceptual clarity, we are hereby systematising them into three main areas: Policy & institutional improvements (resulting from the orientation to policy), openness to collaboration (resulting from the orientation to process) and joint action (resulting from the orientation to partnerships).
The first type of change that a given INSPIRED process may bring about relates to the policy itself. It would be overly ambitious – and dangerously misleading – to pretend that a dialogue process can be expected to deliver results at the policy level – such as better inclusion of women in the labour market, improved opportunities for PWD workers, improved health services for people without resources, etc. – as these still remain in the responsibility of the government and depend on factors that escape the capacity of the stakeholders involved in the dialogue.
More realistically, the success or failure of the dialogue is to be assessed in terms of policy influence, i.e.: the extent to which the conclusions attained by the participants are being taken on board by the actual decision-makers. A condition of such results is the inclusiveness of the policy-making process and the opening of the institutional framework beyond state bodies and agencies. This will allow for the integration of those other actors – CSOs, think tanks, social agents, etc. – that must also have a say if they are expected to engage in policy implementation.
Below is a list of some of the outcome areas that can be expected along these lines:
Improved policy framing to include multiple and diverse views
Strengthened spaces for policy dialogue and evaluation
Strengthened policy networks between key formal and informal actors
Improved policy knowledge and access to information
Improved enforcement and policy implementation through division of labour
Improved institutional processes through multi-stakeholder coordination
For an approach that aims at promoting a culture of dialogue and mutual understanding among stakeholders, it would be rather short-sighted to focus exclusively on the so-called “tangible” outcomes, as these are very often just the manifestation of deeper and more transformative type change, that which affects the behaviour of the stakeholders themselves. Indeed, what makes the most difference in the long run is the change of attitude on the side of all those who engage in a dialogue process, as government officials and other duty-bearers accept to open their workings to other actors, while civil society organizations and other right-holders adopt a more constructive approach towards policy making, moving beyond naming, blaming and claiming to engage in proactively in policy design and implementation.
Such a change in attitude needs to translate into actual behaviours, which can be appraised because they manifest themselves in concrete actions that can be categorised as follows:
Cooperation or willingness to work with others
Reform or willingness to improve policy/implementation
Transparency or willingness to produce and share information
Monitoring or willingness (and ability) to monitor policy implementation
For improvements in policy and changes in behaviour to become long-standing and sustainable, they need to be based upon actual partnerships in which the different parties involved learn to work together and rely on each other for the sake of the policy at stake. This does not mean that partners need to renounce their original mandate or engage in activities that do not fall under their usual line of work. On the contrary, they are expected to keep specialising in whatever they do best, albeit with an eye on what the other stakeholders, now partners, are also doing in their own areas of competence.
Only through adequate coordination it will be possible to foster the kind of synergies that are needed for a given policy to thrive. Otherwise, unforeseen overlaps and increasingly divergent views will start to emerge, dispersing efforts and giving way to potential conflicts that can jeopardise all the results already achieved. To avoid this, INSPIRED processes focus on creating the conditions for brokering fruitful partnerships all along the way and include a number of tools to deliver the following type of results:
Policy networks identified, mapped and strengthened
Joint projects developed
Joint advocacy initiatives collectively conceived and implemented
Pooling of resources
Improved access to decision-makers by CSOs and other actors
