A three-tier approach

For implementing INSPIRED and delivering its key results – namely the Participatory Policy Assessment, the and the Roadmap for Reform and the Policy Network –, practitioners of policy-dialogue must first consider the interplay of the three interconnected dimensions that conform its three-tier approach: policy, process and partnership.

Policy

… i.e. linked to a concrete policy reform effort.

Policy can be conceptualised as a middle ground between the political and the technical that allows stakeholders to structure their discussion along commonly shared concepts, methods and evidence. Indeed, one of the key lessons that we learned when we conducted the first INSPIRED processes was how important it is to structure dialogue around concrete policy issues, to provide otherwise confronted stakeholders with an opportunity to develop a common understanding of the challenges at stake and then propose concrete solutions to those challenges.

To this end, the promotion of a culture of evidence-based policy-making among the largest possible number of stakeholders is crucial for the success of the dialogue process, as it forces the incumbent government to increase the transparency of its inner workings, which represents a first step towards creating mechanisms of accountability. Moreover, basing discussions on knowledge and reliable data is the best way to ensure that the impact of the reform initiatives resulting from the dialogue process can be measured adequately and that any changes in the policy at stake are based on informed decisions.

All this may explain why the EU has recently adopted a ‘Policy First’ approach in the programming of its external action. Aware of the huge potential of working at the policy level, the EU’s own development policy currently calls its EU delegations across the world to adopt a multi-stakeholder approach and base the programming of EU funded support on policy dialogue.

As policy has progressively come into focus in international development circles, the notion of policy dialogue has gained traction too, including in the EU aid system. Given that the greatest chunk of aid is being mobilised through sector reform, budget support and other financial instruments such as blending, donors have been progressively realising that they need to move beyond the classical “project approach”. Instead, they are increasingly focused on influencing domestic policies and, in this framework, need to identify policy indicators that can determine if the reform processes that they are supporting stay on the right track. For the sake of objectivity and in order to promote transparency, the measurement of these policy indicators cannot be done exclusively with the government, but needs to involve other domestic stakeholders such as civil society organisations, think tanks or subnational governments so as to ensure that the datasets provided by the government are accurate and reliable instead of presenting the donor with a rosy picture ensuring the disbursement of the next financial tranche.

Process

… i.e. conceived as a dynamic and flexible process.

In any dialogue, the means are as important as the end and compromises, or even consensus can only be achieved progressively, taking one step at a time and ensuring that none of the key institutions or stakeholders that are willing to participate are left behind.

Indeed, one of the main potential advantages of inclusive and participatory policy dialogue is that it paves the way for mutual recognition among otherwise confronted stakeholders. For this to happen, these actors need to feel that they are being listened to and that their insight and inputs are taken on board by the other dialogue participants and as well as the facilitators of the process. Involvement leads to engagement, which is the basis upon which real ownership over policy reform must be built in order for such reform to yield fruit in the medium to long term.

Besides, policy work is seldom static, as circumstances change and priorities are frequently redefined – mainly by the official policy-makers, which makes it even more important for policy dialogue projects to focus on the many overlapping processes that unfold simultaneously during policy formulation and implementation. Not to speak of those other processes –political, electoral, budgetary, etc. – that are shaping policy to a great extent and that are crucial for understanding the positions and interests of the different stakeholders involved in policy-making.

In such a complex system, where most elements are closely interconnected, the success of any given reform depends entirely on the capacity of dialogue facilitators to understand how and when each of the key stakeholders can influence the policy process. And this is arguably one of the main advantages of adopting a multi-stakeholder approach, as it allows the different types of actors to influence through dialogue those aspects of their respective agendas or mandates that would otherwise fall out of their reach. Moreover, the exchange of views fostered through dialogue becomes a way of improving policy coordination and promoting a division of labour where specific tasks are taken care of by those actors who are best placed to do so.

Aware of the growing importance of civil society in the policy process, some years ago – coinciding with the implementation of INSPIRED – the EU delegations have been defining their Country Roadmaps for Engagement with Civil Society, consecrating its approach towards the role of civil society organisations in development by moving its focus beyond service providers and watchdogs to full-fledged partners in policy dialogue.

Partnership

… i.e. oriented towards brokering long-standing partnerships.

Putting a strong focus on both the specificities of a given policy (policy orientation) and the inner dynamics of the dialogue process (process orientation) is arguably the most effective way of building solid and long-standing partnerships. In most cases, policy decisions are the result of the interplay amongst the many different actors that conform to what is known as “policy networks”, which bring together more or less powerful players belonging to different working areas that remain, nonetheless, strongly interconnected. Government officials, policy analysts, lobbyists, activists, private companies, think-tankers, scholars, and entrepreneurs may all have different mandates and respond to different incentives, but all tend to know each other and share a common basic understanding of how that given policy works. Actually, many of them may switch positions along with their professional careers, moving from civil society to government, or from government to the private sector, sometimes abusing their position and giving way to the phenomenon known as “revolving doors”.

However outrageous this change of sides may appear to external observers, it actually showcases the many communicating vessels that underlie any given policy field and bind together the different policy actors. Managed through open dialogue, these relationships can be mobilised into a force for positive change and broadened to include usually side-lined players. When information is shared on a regular basis – which is what dialogue is about – and the resulting knowledge stems from a collective endeavour, those who partake in it are keener to identify with each other and attain a better understanding of the policy as a whole.

This shared vision is essential for the sustainability of policy reform and the creation of long-standing policy partnerships based on a rational and fair division of labour towards the achievement of a collective goal. Once aware of being in the same boat, the different stakeholders will be less inclined to row in different directions and may proceed to a better distribution of the necessary tasks to achieve policy reform, avoiding overlaps and fostering the kind of synergies that are necessary when resources are limited. More importantly, after working together in the dialogue process and getting to know their respective strengths and constraints, the key stakeholders will have progressively developed the kind of operational partnership that is sought in most development actions but seldom sees the light for lack of mutual understanding.

Ever since the preparatory works of the Agenda 2030, multi-stakeholder partnerships have emerged as a crucial instrument for the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as they are likely the only means to align the efforts of a wide and often disparate array of actors towards the attainment of such complex objectives.