Needs an intro…
Draft:
For implementing INSPIRED, practitioners of policy-dialogue should consider three interconnected dimensions to build up its outcomes, namely the Participatory Policy Assessment and the Roadmap for Reform. First, it is about identifying policy area, enabling a dialogue process, and collectively achievable results.
What does it matter, and what does it imply?
Policy can be conceptualised as sort of middle ground between (political ideas?) and (politics/ tactics?) 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 projects 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.
As policy, in particular evidence-based policy-making (??), 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 focus 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.
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 on 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 for civil society organisations in development by moving its focus beyond service providers and watchdogs to full-fledged partners in policy dialogue.
Words are easily blown by the wind and many professionals in the development, human rights and democracy and peacebuilding fields are already suffering from what is known as “dialogue fatigue”, which made us realise how crucial it was to instil the INSPIRED dialogues with a strong sense of purpose. However, striving for concrete and measurable results doesn’t necessarily mean that these results need to be predetermined in advance, especially when aiming at a moving target –which is a central feature of any effort to influence policy.
Indeed, if policy dialogue is dynamic by nature and the result of multiple stakeholders interacting with each other, pretending to define its results from the outset is not only a futile effort but one that risks undermining the broad local ownership that the dialogue aims to build in the first place. Instead, it should always be up to the key domestic stakeholders to determine what their common objectives are and to frame them within the opportunities and constraints presented by the policy at stake. Moreover, such objectives, once set, shouldn’t be cast in stone, as this would limit significantly the dialogue participants’ flexibility and capacity to react to changing dynamics in the policy field.
Avoiding to set preordained objectives does, however, not mean to neglect results; on the contrary, it allows the stakeholders to focus on what the dialogue process is actually achieving while adapting to the ever-changing circumstances in the policy and political landscapes. Instead of stubbornly concentrating on the objectives and indicators of a pre-defined logical frame, the stakeholders are invited to adapt their priorities and objectives to the changing context, as well as to remain open-minded and focus their attention on the most significant outcomes –planned as well as unforeseen– of their deliberations that could be turned into windows of opportunity to push for the desired reforms.
In other words, the orientation towards results is an essential characteristic of the INSPIRED method, but it has been nuanced to prevent dialogue organisers and facilitators from losing sight of other aspects that are equally important. In a dialogue process, results need to be collectively agreed. They don’t need to be established necessarily at the beginning of a project but rather assessed in hindsight so as to showcase the impact of the dialogue participants’ joint work and to encourage them to continue their collective endeavour. This realisation is why the use of the evaluation method known as “outcomes harvesting” has been integrated into the method. It allows the participants in the dialogue process to take stock of the many unforeseen outcomes resulting from their cooperation, thus strengthening their bonds through the realisation of common achievements.
These good intentions all-too-often end up putting the oxen behind the cart, one of the unintended consequences of the Results-Oriented Approach that has become so predominant in the development sector, the need to “deliver” on concrete, pre-defined and thus easily measurable results whose achievement would justify the expenses to the tax-payers in donor countries.
From a donor perspective, this way of understanding results is key to overcoming the logic behind Technical Assistance and the proliferation of Project or Programme Implementation Units (PIUs), i.e. “getting things done” instead of “making things happen”. This explains why almost all of these PIUs left such a dubious legacy once their donor-sponsored programmes came to an end, with the so-called results melting down so easily and without leaving much of a trace. The temptation to address longstanding critical knots and to circumvent bottlenecks by replacing inefficient government structures with newly created ones instead of building the capacities of the former is a perfectly understandable drive when practitioners are confronted with the dire situation of the public sectors in the countries in which they work.