Bridging Research, Policy and Practice

1. Bridging Research, Policy and Practice John Young: ODI, London j.young@odi.org.uk Sudarno Sumarto: SMERU, Indonesia ssumarto@smeru.or.id Addressing Poverty: Pro-Poor Growth and Financial Inclusion in Asia Pacific

2. Overview • Introduction to ODI, RAPID & SMERU • Group work: Policy influence stories • Some theory • How SMERU does it • Some tools for researchers • Group work: Using the tools • Tools for organisations • How SMERU does it • Sources of further information.

3. ODI, UK • Development Think Tank • 60 researchers • Research / Advice / Public Debate • Rural / Humanitarian / Poverty & Aid / Economics / Policy Processes • DFID, Parliament, WB, EC • Civil Society For more information see: www.odi.org.uk

4. RAPID Group • Promoting the use of research-based evidence in development policy • Research / Advice / Public Affairs & Capacity-building • Programmes: • Research for Policy • Progressive Policymakers • Parliamentarians • Southern Think Tanks for further information see: www.odi.org.uk/rapid

5. SMERU, Indonesia • Independent research and policy studies on • the impact of government programs and policies, • poverty, health, education, gender, labour, fuel costs labour market conditions etc • decentralization and impact on services etc. • Publications and public affairs. • NGO unit: • provides research-based evidence to and facilitates NGO interaction • capacity building: research methodology.

6. Civil Society Programme • More use of research-based evidence for policy and practice through: • A Network of Think Tanks. • Capacity-development for the network and other CSOs. • Research and learning from practical experience. • Global and national action-research projects. for further information see: www.odi.org.uk/cspp

7. End of slide show, click to exit Group work: Stories of evidence and Policy Change

8. Stories of evidence and policy • Refresh your memory about your story • Find someone you don’t know and tell each other your stories • Don’t write anything down! • 2½ minutes each! • Use the story templates to interview and write each others story down • Make sure your images and messages are clear. • 5 minutes each! • Tell your partner’s story to everyone else at your table • 2½ minutes each! • Discuss among yourselves and identify 5 concrete actions emerging from these stories. • How might you apply these? • 10 minutes!

9. The theory and practice of bridging research and policy

10. Definitions • Research: “any systematic effort to increase the stock of knowledge” • Policy:a “purposive course of action followed by an actor or set of actors” • Evidence: “the available information supporting or otherwise a belief or proposition” • Evidence-based Policy: “public policy informed by rigorously established evidence”.

11. Commission research Analyse the results Choose the best option Establish the policy Implement the policy Evaluation Policy Processes Identify the problem

12. Cabinet Donors Policy Formulation Parliament Agenda Setting Decision Making Civil Society Ministries Monitoring and Evaluation Policy Implementation Private Sector Policy Processes

13. Chronic Poverty in Uganda Kate Bird et al, Fracture Points in Social Policies for Chronic Poverty Reduction, ODI WP242, 2004 (http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/working_papers/wp242.pdf)

14. …in reality… • “The whole life of policy is a chaos of purposes and accidents. It is not at all a matter of the rational implementation of the so-called decisions through selected strategies1” • “Most policy research on African agriculture is irrelevant to agricultural and overall economic policy in Africa2” • “Research is more often regarded as the opposite of action rather than a response to ignorance”3 1 Clay & Schaffer (1984), Room for Manoeuvre; An Exploration of Public Policy in Agricultural and Rural Development, Heineman Educational Books, London 2 Omamo (2003), Policy Research on African Agriculture: Trends, Gaps, and Challenges, International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) Research Report No 21 3Surr (2003), DFID Research Review

15. But Policy makers are… …practically incapable of using research-based evidence because of the 5 Ss… • Speed • Superficiality • Spin • Secrecy • Scientific Ignorance Vincent Cable – Lib. Democrat MP & Shadow Minister of Finance More at: www.odi.org.uk/RAPID/Meetings/Evidence

16. Experience & Expertise Pragmatics & Contingencies Judgement Lobbyists & Pressure Groups Evidence Resources Values and Policy Context Habits & Tradition Factors influencing policy making Source: Phil Davies Impact to Insight Meeting, ODI, 2005

17. Policy Makers’ Evidence Researchers’ Evidence • ‘Scientific’ (Context free) • Proven empirically • Theoretically driven • As long as it takes • Caveats and qualifications • Colloquial (Contextual) • Anything that seems reasonable • Policy relevant • Timely • Clear Message Different Notions of Evidence Source: Phil Davies Impact to Insight Meeting, ODI, 2005

18. Linear model Percolation model, Weiss Tipping point model, Gladwell ‘Context, evidence, links’ framework, ODI Policy narratives, Roe Systems model (NSI) External forces, Lindquist ‘Room for manoeuvre’, Clay & Schaffer ‘Street level bureaucrats’, Lipsky Policy as social experiments, Rondinelli Policy Streams & Windows, Kingdon Disjointed incrementalism, Lindquist The ‘tipping point’, Gladwell Crisis model, Kuhn ‘Framework of possible thought’, Chomsky Variables for Credibility, Beach The source is as important as content, Gladwell Linear model of communication, Shannon Interactive model, Simple and surprising stories, Communication Theory Provide solutions, Marketing I Find the right packaging, Marketing II Elicit a response, Kottler Translation of technology, Volkow Epistemic communities Policy communities Advocacy coalitions etc, Pross Negotiation through networks, Sebattier Shadow networks, Klickert Chains of accountability, Fine Communication for social change, Rockefeller Wheels and webs, Chapman & Fisher X Existing theory

19. Existing theory – a short list • Policy narratives, Roe • Systems of Innovation Model, (NSI) • ‘Room for manoeuvre’, Clay & Schaffer • ‘Street level bureaucrats’, Lipsky • Policy as social experiments, Rondene • Policy streams and policy windows, Kingdon • Disjointed Incrementalism, Lindblom • Social Epidemics, Gladwell • The RAPID Framework

20. External Influences Socio-economic and cultural influences, donor policies etc The political context – political and economic structures and processes, culture, institutional pressures, incremental vs radical change etc. The links between policy and research communities – networks, relationships, power, competing discourses, trust, knowledge etc. The evidence – credibility, the degree it challenges received wisdom, research approaches and methodology, simplicity of the message, how it is packaged etc An Analytical Framework

21. Case Studies • Detailed: • Sustainable Livelihoods • Poverty Reductions Strategy Processes • Ethical Principles in Humanitarian Aid • Animal Health Care in Kenya • Dairy Policy in Kenya • Plant Genetic Resources • Summary • GDN x 50 • CSPP x 20 • Good news case studies x 5 • Mental health in the UK

22. International Research The Hubl Study Animal Healthcare in Kenya 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s Professionalisationof Public Services. Structural Adjustment Privatisation ITDG Paravet networkand change of DVS. KVB letter(January 1998). Multistakeholder WSs →new policies. Professionalisation of Public Services. Structural Adjustment → collapse of services. Paravet projects emerge. ITDG projects. Privatisation. ITDG Paravet network. Rapid spread in North. KVB letter (January 1998). Multistakeholder WSs → new policies. Still not approved / passed! ITDG projects – collaborative research. Dr Kajume

23. External Influences Campaigning, Lobbying Policy analysis, & research Scientific information exchange & validation A Practical Framework political context Politics and Policymaking Media, Advocacy, Networking Research, learning & thinking evidence links

24. What you need to know The external environment: • Who are the key actors? • What is their agenda? • How do they influence the political context? The evidence: • Is it there? • Is it relevant? • Is it practically useful? • Are the concepts new? • Does it need re-packaging? Links: • Who are the key actors? • Are there existing networks? • How best to transfer the information? • The media? • Campaigns? The political context: • Is there political interest in change? • Is there room for manoeuvre? • How do they perceive the problem?

25. What you need to do • Work with them – seek commissions • Strategic opportunism – prepare for known events + resources for others • Get to know the policymakers. • Identify friends and foes. • Prepare for policy opportunities. • Look out for policy windows. • Who are the policymakers? • Is there demand for ideas? • What is the policy process? • Build a reputation • Action-research • Pilot projects to generate legitimacy • Good communication • Establish credibility • Provide practical solutions • Establish legitimacy. • Present clear options • Use familiar narratives. • What is the current theory? • What are the narratives? • How divergent is it? • Build partnerships. • Identify key networkers, mavens and salesmen. • Use informal contacts • Get to know the others • Work through existing networks. • Build coalitions. • Build new policy networks. • Who are the stakeholders? • What networks exist? • Who are the connectors, mavens and salesmen?

26. Policy entrepreneurs Storytellers Networkers Engineers Fixers

27. Conclusions • Clear intent • A thorough understanding of the context • A strategic approach • The right incentives / culture • The right skills in the team • To engage, engage, engage To influence policy you need:

28. End of slide show, click to exit How SMERU influences policy and practice

29. BRIDGING RESEARCH POLICY AND PRACTICE: SMERU’S EXPERIENCEA Case Study of Indonesia’s Unconditional Cash Transfer SUDARNO SUMARTO The SMERU Research Institute Jakarta, Indonesia CSPP Partner’s Workshop 2006 Canberra, Australia 7 December 2006

30. Background • Since the New Order era, domestic retail fuel price in Indonesia has been subsidized. • The fuel subsidy is regressive as consumption of each energy category increases with income. • The subsidy was not pro-poor because the poor benefited less from it, including the kerosene subsidy. • Very high world price of oil in 2005 has made the subsidy balloon out of proportion. The SMERU Research Institute www.smeru.or.id

31. Background • To ease the pressure on the state budget from the ballooning subsidy and to improve spending allocation, GOI has increased the fuel price twice in 2005: • 1 March, by an average of 30%  “compensation” program: free education & healthcare, rice for the poor, rural infrastructure. • 1 October, by an average of 120%  “compensation” program, among others, unconditional cash transfer (UCT) to poor households. The SMERU Research Institute www.smeru.or.id

32. Brief Description of the UCT Program • The largest cash transfer program in the world, targeting more than 15 million households starting in October 2005. • Transfer of Rp 300,000 per beneficiary household per quarter for 1 year. • Eligibility was determined by a household census conducted by BPS using district-specific “proxy means testing” based on 14 indicators of poverty. • Delivery of the UCT is conducted through the post office by way of direct payment. • An additional 2.5 million households were added as eligible recipients after the first tranche. The SMERU Research Institute www.smeru.or.id

33. SMERU's Involvement in Evaluating UCT • SMERU carried out simulations on the likely impact of fuel price increase on poverty (based on Susenas 2004 data): • Baseline: poverty head count (P0) = 16.66% • After oil price increase: P0 = 22.05% • Compensation through cash transfer: • 100% correct targeting: P0 = 17.87% • 80% correct targeting: P0 = 18.73% • 50% correct targeting: P0 = 20.05% The SMERU Research Institute www.smeru.or.id

34. SMERU's Involvement in Evaluating UCT • SMERU conducted a rapid appraisal in Jakarta at the end of October 2005. • The results were then disseminated to policymakers through consultations and presentations of research findings. • Bappenas commissioned SMERU to conduct a larger evaluation, funded by the World Bank. • The larger evaluation was conducted in 5 districts across Indonesia. The SMERU Research Institute www.smeru.or.id

35. SMERU’s Policy Inputs • Convert the UCT to conditional cash transfers (CCT) on education, health, and nutrition • Improve targeting by reformulating criteria, strengthening local cadre, and empowering locally-specific poverty assessments • Develop cash for work or guaranteed employment scheme to improve rural infrastructure • Strengthen the supply sides of social services (health, nutrition, and education facilities) The SMERU Research Institute www.smeru.or.id

36. Results from SMERU's Inputs • The government will pilot test CCT in 2007 • The government intensified its effort to increase the budget allocation for education and health The SMERU Research Institute www.smeru.or.id

37. What Worked? • Stakeholders’ trusted SMERU’s credibility because of its evidence-based recommendations • SMERU’s approach with gov’t and top level officials • Effective linkages and networking with stakeholders • Maintenance of quality of research • Impartiality • Successful presentation of findings through discussions The SMERU Research Institute www.smeru.or.id

38. Constraints Encountered • Political leverage • Lack of tools to understand the political context of policy change • Lack of lobbying skills & opportunities • Lack of resources (human and financial) and time to monitor and follow-up the policy decision-making process • SMERU being associated with donors The SMERU Research Institute www.smeru.or.id

39. Thank You The SMERU Research Institute www.smeru.or.id

40. End of slide show, click to exit Tools for bridging research and policy

41. Introducing some tools • Some simple tools for researchers • RAPID Framework • Outcome Mapping • Problem Situation Analysis (Tree Analysis) • Policy Process Mapping • Stakeholder Analysis • Force field analysis • SWOT analysis • Some examples • Some more complex tools (for donors) • Some tools for policymakers

42. External Influences Campaigning, Lobbying Policy analysis, & research Scientific information exchange & validation A Practical Framework political context Politics and Policymaking Media, Advocacy, Networking Research, learning & thinking evidence links

43. Policy entrepreneurs Storytellers Networkers Engineers Fixers

44. Practical Tools Overarching Tools - The RAPID Framework - Using the Framework - The Entrepreneurship Questionnaire Context Assessment Tools - Stakeholder Analysis - Forcefield Analysis - Writeshops - Policy Mapping - Political Context Mapping Communication Tools - Communications Strategy - SWOT analysis - Message Design - Making use of the media Research Tools - Case Studies - Episode Studies - Surveys - Bibliometric Analysis - Focus Group Discussion Policy Influence Tools - Influence Mapping & Power Mapping - Lobbying and Advocacy - Campaigning: A Simple Guide - Competency self-assessment

45. RAPID Framework

46. OUTCOME MAPPING:Building Learning and Reflection into Development ProgramsSarah Earl, Fred Carden, and Terry Smutylo http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-9330-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html Outcome Mapping

47. Problem Tree Analysis • Discuss and agree the problem or issueto be analysed. • Identify the causes of the focal problem (roots) and then the consequences(branches) NB: The discussion is the most important thing: as issues are debated factors are arranged and re-arranged, often forming sub-dividing roots and branches

48. Policy Process Mapping • General Context issues – domestic and international. • Specific Policy Issues (i.e. the policy cycle) • Stakeholder analysis • Arena: government, parliament, civil society, judiciary, private sector. • Level: local, national, international • What is their Interest and Influence? • Process matrix + political matrix • Political and administrative feasibility assessment [Sources: M. Grindle / J. Court ]

49. Policy Process Mapping

50. High Keep Satisfied Engage Closely Power Monitor (minimum effort) Keep Informed Low Low High Interest Stakeholder Analysis • Why: • To understand who gains or lose from a policy or project. • To help Build Consensus. • Steps: • Identify Stakeholders • Analysis Workshop • Develop Strategies