LogoLogo
English
English
  • INSPIRED: Where policy meets dialogue
  • Who is this website for?
    • Civil society and domestic stakeholders
    • Development practitioners and EU representatives
    • Government officials
  • Guide
    • What is INSPIRED?
    • Why does INSPIRED make a difference?
      • A three-tier approach
    • How does INSPIRED work in practice?
      • A dialogue process in three phases
        • Collective Assessment Phase
          • The Participatory Policy Analysis (PPA)
        • Consensus Building Phase
          • The Roadmap for Reform
            • Balancing priorities and trade-offs
            • Considering the policy cycle
            • Structure
            • Types of Roadmaps for Reform
            • Unlocking the black box of “political will”
        • Monitoring and Donor Alignment Phase
          • Monitoring the recommendations of the Roadmap for Reforms
          • Ensuring the alignment of donor support to the priorities outlined in the Roadmap
          • The Policy Network Strategy
            • The Joint Analysis of the Policy Network
            • The network graph
            • The exercise of strategic foresight
      • Measuring progress: The Integrated Support Framework (ISF)
    • Who is involved?
      • The Donor(s)
        • Opening the space for dialogue‌
        • Building incentives through conditionality
        • Providing actors with access to decision-makers
        • Promoting the adoption of international standards
        • Bringing in experiences and good practices to feed deliberation
      • The Partner Government
        • Appointing the right person(s)
        • Providing access to government data
        • Coordinating the participation of the concerned public actors
        • Honouring the commitments collectively agreed through dialogue
        • Allocating resources for the implementation of the roadmap
      • The Dialogue Host
        • Convening the key stakeholders
        • Facilitating the dialogue sessions
        • Promoting knowledge-sharing among stakeholders
        • Coordinating the division of labour
        • Acting as the main hub of the resulting policy network
        • Reporting and keeping track of the collective progress
      • The Stakeholders
        • Civil Society Organisations
        • Political parties
        • Public administration
        • Parliaments
        • Media
        • Social agents
        • National Human Rights institutions
        • Academia
        • Democracy support organisations
    • What change can INSPIRED bring?
      • Types of change
      • Harvesting INSPIRED outcomes
  • The INSPIRED Toolkit
    • Results-orientation
    • Three categories
    • The tools
      • 1. Scoping the policy landscape
      • 2. Determining the stage of the policy cycle
      • 3. Stakeholder mapping
      • 4. Set-up and follow-up of indicators
      • 5. Deliberation around evaluative criteria
      • 6. Joint Research
      • 7. Workshops and focus groups
      • 8. Public events & campaigning
      • 9. Bilateral meetings
      • 10. Working groups
      • 11. High-level missions
      • 12. Workshops on multi-party dialogue
      • 13. Study visits
      • 14. Online consultations
      • 15. Grant schemes
      • 16. Training courses
      • 17. Coaching
      • 18. Network mapping
      • 19. International Peer to Peer support
  • Resources
    • Library
      • Policy dialogue: General
      • Policy analysis for dialogue facilitation
      • Dialogue stakeholders
      • Trust-building
      • Policy dialogue in thematic policies
      • EU democracy support
    • Track record
    • Contact us
  • LEGAL NOTICE
Powered by GitBook
LogoLogo
On this page
  1. Guide
  2. Who is involved?
  3. The Dialogue Host

Reporting and keeping track of the collective progress

Being donor-sponsored policy dialogues, the INSPIRED processes need to keep track of their progress so as to inform the EU and its Member States on the changes that are taking place, both at the level of agency (changes in the behaviours, attitudes and capacities of the actors involved) and at the level of structure (institutional and/or legislative changes in the policy domain that can be related to the dialogue process). This reporting has obvious accountability purposes –donors need to know where their taxpayers’ money is going– as well as political and diplomatic implications –it also provides them with first-hand intelligence on the political economy of the policy reforms that they are supporting.

This latter aspect is especially relevant, as most donors often struggle to understand why certain policy reforms that appear to enjoy enough “political will” and to be technically robust nevertheless get stuck and fail to deliver the expected outcomes. Unfortunately, budget support programmes often have to suspend or postpone their disbursement tranches due to discrepancies between the targets and the actual value of the policy indicators agreed upon between the partner government and the donor. In such an event, the viewpoint of other stakeholders working in the policy domain can contribute to explaining why the reform is not working as expected and even propose potential solutions to unlock the situation.

Beyond providing donors with valuable insider information that is otherwise very hard to access, the reporting mechanism of the INSPIRED approach is also foreseen as a trust-building technique, as it allows the stakeholders to realise their collective progress and increase their own self-confidence as a group. Indeed, taking stock of any improvements resulting from cooperation is one of the most effective ways of consolidating the collaborative dynamics brought about through dialogue, as the parties involved in the exchange become aware of what they are achieving together as opposed to what they would accomplish if acting single-handedly.

This is one of the reasons why the INSPIRED method is strongly results-oriented despite avoiding the use of “expected results” or the predefinition of outcomes (see the section above on INSPIRED’s three-tier approach), as results are not an end in themselves, but also a means of cementing trust among the different stakeholders involved. This is also why the approach avoids determining the results in advance, as dialogue is conceived as the main means to progressively adjust the individual objectives of the participants and realign them into an overall purpose or shared vision about the goals and instruments of the policy at stake.

PreviousActing as the main hub of the resulting policy networkNextThe Stakeholders

Last updated 1 year ago