KINGS COLLEGE LONDON
KINGS COLLEGE LONDON
SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY
POSTGRADUATE
20162017
7SPP007: MA Public Policy Internship
FINAL REPORT
Candidate number: [redacted]Word count: 3801
Introduction
As part of the masters programme for my MA in Public Policy, I did an internship, to gain experience and exposure into the working of policy analysts and researchers in their bid to influence policy. I have thus spent the last five months working as a policy research intern at the Africa Research Institute (ARI). This internship placement enabled me to engage intimately with the politics and intricacies of the policy process. It also gave me a chance to relate the policy theories with actual policy in practice. Of most significance perhaps is my discovery of evidence-based policymaking (EBPM), which although is a new concept in Africa, is increasingly gaining importance in the continent. As many of these countries are currently implementing essential reforms expected to trigger economic growth and development, many are keen to use evidence to inform their policies. A number of think tanks, like the ARI are therefore working to produce well-researched and highly accessible evidence, which could be used to inform policymaking. I was able to engage with this process, to understand the benefits and the limits of evidence-based policymaking. I was also able to identify the areas where the ARIs evidence would matter the most in this often-complex process, as well as the challenges inhibiting the institute from effectively reaching its optimum potential. Finally, I was able to recommend solutions that could help ensure the ARI evidence has a better chance of getting into policy.
This report gives both a summary of my experience at the ARI, as well as an analysis of evidence-based policymaking. The first section is a personal account of the internship, as well as an account of the ARI, and its working in the policy arena. The second section is a critical analysis of a policy issue in this case evidence-based policymaking. My analysis will draw from both theory as well as my personal experience. The next section is a policy recommendation, where I use Kingdons Multiple Streams theory, to argue, that by targeting policy windows, think tanks like the ARI would stand a better chance of having their evidence used to inform policies. The final section concludes.
Account of the Organisation
My internship was undertaken at the Africa Research Institute (ARI), a public policy think tank based in Westminster, London. The ARI was founded in 2007, with the aim to promote evidence-based policymaking in Africa. It does this by carrying out policy research and analyses, as well as organising policy dialogues and engagements about and on Africa, with a view to informing policymaking. The ARI works on a wide-ranging policy issues affecting the continent. The key thematic areas of interest are governance, elections, economics and finance, health, cities and urbanisation, law and justice, culture as well as agriculture and land. The research findings produced by the ARI are often presented in highly accessible and readable formats, like policy briefs, bulletins, counterpoints, blog articles as well as opinion pieces, which are published in various African and international media.
The key strength of the ARI, is that unlike many think tanks that often produce highly technical research that may not be understood by a non-expert or technical audiences, ARI strives to produce research devoid of jargon and vagaries. The research is then widely disseminated through regular interactive events and policy dialogues with policy actors in London and in specific African countries. The ARI also has expansive networks including its website, mailing lists as well as popular social media sites - which it uses to disseminate research findings to its far-reaching audiences.
Although the ARI has a relatively lean staff, it works closely with researchers and partner institutions like SOAS University of London, Chatham House Africa Programme, the Firoz Lalji Centre for Africa at the LSE, the Royal African Society (RAS), African Leadership Centre (ALC) at Kings College London, Overseas Development Institute (ODI) among others. It also works closely with other partners, think tanks and NGOs based in Africa, as well as individual researchers, who share in its vision of informed policymaking. In terms of funding, the ARI is fully funded by a single benefactor.
Personal account of the placement
During the five months of my eight-month policy research internship contract, I was assigned a number of tasks, working under the direct supervision of the Executive Director. The first task was to prepare an Expert Briefing on Kenyas 2017 elections. This briefing traces Kenyas electoral history from independence, to the last general elections held in 2013. It is meant to provide background information for any policy actor interested in following Kenyas upcoming August elections, and the debates that will ensue.
The second task assigned to me was to prepare a report on the Democracy in Africa event, held earlier in the year. This event served as a primer to debates on elections in Africa, to assess whether or not the continent is making gains on democracy. Indeed, by the end of the year, seven countries would have gone to the polls, and the continent would be having at least three new presidents. This is because the Liberian president Ellen-Johnson Sirleafs constitutional term limit has come to an end, Somalis former president Silanyo lost the elections to a newcomer, and Angolas Jos Eduardo dos Santos will be stepping down after 38 years in power. This report, together with Kenyas Expert Briefing, are available on ARI the website.
The third and perhaps the biggest task assigned to me - was a research on the State of Kenyas Devolution. This study traces the progress and gains made since Kenya transitioned to a devolved system of governance in 2013.
Kenya inherited a highly centralised unitary state with an imperial president after independence in 1963 (Steeves, 2015), where resources failed to trickle down to the grassroots. The new constitution promulgated in 2010 however sought to rectify this imbalance through devolution. By establishing 47 counties, it is believed that resources would reach the local levels and that devolution would bring government closer to the people (Steeves, 2015). Kenyans then voted for the governors and county assemblies of these devolved governments in 2013.
Although initially received with optimism and hope, devolution has drawn mixed feelings amongst majority of the citizens, with many still not feeling its impact. As Kenyans go to the general elections in August, to once again elect their national as well as gubernatorial candidates, many voters will be keen to make informed choices, on whether or not their governors have delivered on the promises of devolution. International organisations, which have supported devolution since its inception - especially the World Bank, DFID as well as USAID among others - will also be keen to evaluate the impact of devolution over the last five years. This Research Briefing therefore will give insight to the voters, the donors, as well as the policymakers, on the successes, failures as well as opportunities of devolved governance in Kenya. The findings of this study will be published as a Research Briefing, and will be launched in Nairobi in July, just before the elections.
Although this is still an on-going research, a couple of trends that are worth mentioning are emerging. First of all, in terms of public finance, counties have consistently failed to meet their revenue collection targets, since the implementation of devolution commenced in 2013. This means that they have to rely on the central government to meet the difference. However, it is worth emphasising that revenue collection has been increasing over the last 3 years (2014/2015 to 2016/2017) from 49% to 69% in average (IBP, 2017). This however is still sub-par, especially, as counties are expected to be self-sufficient, and to fund the core functions which were devolved to the counties - for example, the county health services, transport, and agriculture among others. Second, over the last four years, the media has been awash with news of corruption and massive wastage of public funds by the counties. The annual Auditor-Generals reports confirm this, indicating that billions cant be accounted for in all the counties. The counties also failed to fully use their development budget (65% absorption rate in 2016/2017), which they hoard while almost entirely depleting the budgets planned for recurrent expenditure (IBP, 2017). This hoarding of funds meant for development, indicates misuse of funds, which often ends up in corruption.
Third, although devolution sought to involve the public in governance, as granted by the Kenyan Constitution (art. 10, art. 174(c), and art. 184(c)(1)), counties have failed to promote public participation in the decision making process (Lakin, J. et al. (2014). A quick analysis of the numerous testimonies of citizens who made attempts to take part in local hearings or county public meetings, shows that in some cases, county officials deliberately barred citizens from accessing information and participating in these events. This is a cause for concern, as there is no other better way of ensuring public or social accountability, if the public is not allowed to engage in this process. Finally, although devolution sought to provide for better and more targeted policymaking and implementation of policies at the grassroots levels, several counties still lack the capacity to make their own policies. They therefore have to rely on the central government as well as international organisations, like the World Bank and DFID, for technical support. This last point raises concern about the ability of counties to be fully autonomous, should the development partners pull out.
These findings indeed seem gloom. However, it is important to point out that devolution is still a new concept in Kenya. As is the case with any new policy programme or idea, there are often steep learning curves and missteps. This explains why the central government and county governments are still muddling through this process. Five years is also not enough time to give a definite analysis on whether or not devolution has met its objectives. These findings however, illuminate the progress made thus far, and highlight areas that could be improved upon, as the country elects a new set of leaders in August. These new leaders unlike their predecessors who had no template will know how to improve upon the progress, as well as the pitfalls to avoid. Secondly, Kenyas devolution was both a radical and an ambitious policy for the small economy. Indeed, established countries like the United Kingdom adopted devolution in an incremental manner, starting with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The fact that Kenya adopted 47 counties all at once, was an expensive gamble, especially bearing in mind that it would have a huge financial strain on the economy. This, unfortunately, will persist until the counties will be able to effectively raise their own revenues and to be self-sufficient.
This research is in line with ARIs aim to promote evidence-based policymaking. It is especially vital that this Briefing will be launched just in time for the general elections. The availability of a policy window elections gives a chance for the policy recommendations to be used in policy deliberations during the campaigns, and to be used by the new governments to make changes after the elections.
POLICY ANALYSIS: Evidence-Based Policy Making
The remaining section of this essay will focus specifically on evidence-based policymaking (EBPM). This is because EBPM was the overriding theme around the work carried out by the Africa Research Institute.
Evidence based policymaking (EBPM) is based on the premise that policymaking needs to be informed by the best available research evidence (Sutcliff and Court, 2005; Kay, 2011). Evidence in this case, is defined as the result of systematic investigation, towards increasing the sum of knowledge (Davies, Nutley and Smith, 2004, p3). The demand for decision makers to use accurate, robust and rigorous evidence of what works, reached its apotheosis in the UK during the Blair and New Labour era, towards the end of the 20C (Cabinet Office, 1999). This new move sought to replace ideologically driven politics with rational decision making, grounded on sound evidence (Davies, Nutley and Smith, 2004, Pawson, 2009). Although still in its infancy, evidence-based policymaking is increasingly gaining momentum in Africa. It has specifically been promoted by international development organisations like UKs Department for International Development (DFID), Canadas International Development Research Centre (IDRC) as well as the World Bank (Sutcliff and Court, 2005) among others. Indeed, with the rapidly changing and complex societal needs, coupled with intractable policy problems and increasingly calamitous policy disasters, there is a rising need for governments to adopt new ways of designing policies, and the use of evidence of what works could be instrumental in designing successful policies. This need becomes even more vital, in contexts where there is intense pressure for the frugal use of limited available resources as is the case in many African countries. This need for the use of evidence in policymaking may be of great importance, as governments would be keen to ensure that they use resources on policies that not only work, but also those that have the best chance of achieving impact.
Numerous researchers however have critiqued this evidence-based approach, with some arguing that evidence is often never objective, but developed in different social contexts, which biases the evidence (Clarence, 2002). Others stressed that politics can pervert the initial nature of evidence and undermine attempts to introduce a more deliberative process (Leicester, 1999; Clarence, 2002 and Parson, 2002). Finally Weiss (1979) argues that policymakers often use evidence selectively, to ground an already designed policy, which initially wasnt informed by evidence. It is also important to note that many things are often at play in the design and implementation of policies and evidence is just one of them. Although these arguments are valid, they still come to the agreement that evidence is inherently vital for the success of a policy.
Evidence-based policymaking is grounded on the comprehensive rational theory, which assumes that policymakers are rational utility maximisers. This means that they have all the relevant information about a problem, investigate its possible causes and solutions, then weigh these alternative solutions, to come up with the most beneficial, cost-effective option that best addresses the problem (Birkland, 2011; Peters, 2015). The reality of policymaking however makes this rationalist ideal very difficult to achieve. Indeed, the complexity and uncertainty of the policy making process, which is filled with multiple actors with vested interests, and a process that emerges from a maelstrom of political bargains (Banks, 2009), is both challenging and not as straight-forward as rationalists may want to think of it. This complexity makes it even difficult for actors to agree on basic things like the definition of a problem, its causal theory and its potential solutions. As comprehensive rationalism seems almost utopian, it is often set as a straw man against which decisions are compared (Peters, 2015), to identify deviations from the ideal. Also, policymakers are usually limited by resources like time and information, as well as their own human cognitive capacity, which hinders them from being comprehensively rational (Simon, 1947). In such cases, the policymaker rather than being a rational utility maximiser, decides to satisfice. This is explained by Simon (1947) as bounded rationality. Bounded rationality explains decision makers attempt to act as rationally as possible, within certain bounds like time, financial, technological and cognitive limitations (Simon, 1947; Birkland, 2011).
Another theory born out of the dissatisfaction with the rational model is incrementalism, fronted by Lindblom (1959). He (Lindblom) argues that policies cannot be made according to this rationalist/positivist prescription, but rather in a disjointed and piecemeal manner, with policymakers muddling through, as they make small incremental and iterative, rather than radical and sweeping changes (Lindblom, 1959; Davies, Nutley and Smith 2004; Birkland, 2011; Peters, 2015). Although such decisions may not fully solve a problem, they reduce their intensity, thus serving as satisficing. This allows the decision makers to keep making adjustments to a previous decision if, and when new knowledge becomes available, or when new actors with better knowledge and expertise join the process (Peters, 2015). The boundedness of policymakers, means that majority may still rely on non-evidentiary approaches to making policy, like intuition, common sense, personal experiences and anecdotes (Jewel and Bero, 2008; Banks, 2009). In spite of this, the policymakers are still able to access and use evidence to inform their decisions.
EBPM and ARI in the policy process
With the understanding that policymakers work with certain bounds, and in as much as policymaking is an incremental process, there is still a diffused role of evidence throughout the six stages of the policy process - problem identification, agenda setting, policy formulation, legislation, implementation and evaluation. The ARI, as a producer of evidence, is alive to the fact that its evidence has the potential to be used in three stages of the policy process. Specifically the problem identification stage where policymakers define the problem they seek to address; the policy formulation stage - where they identify possible set of policy instruments that would be best suited to achieve the desired outcome; and at the evaluation stage, where policy actors assess whether or not the policy is addressing the challenges it was meant to. In as much as the ARI evidence could be used throughout the six stages, the ARI doesnt have financial and human capacity to be involved in all the six stages, especially those which are politically charged, like agenda setting, legislation and implementation.
The ARI like many think tanks and knowledge producers - faces a number of challenges in its attempt to effectively reach and inform policymaking. Indeed, although the ARI makes great strides to produce highly readable and accessible research outputs, including hosting several relevant policy engagement events, it cannot tell for sure, whether or not its evidence would be used to inform policymaking. It therefore needs to develop different strategies to ensure its evidence is more relevant, timely and visible to the policy actors it targets. One weakness of the ARI, is that it often fails to involve policymakers throughout the research design process, only bringing them to the fold once a research is complete and ready for dissemination. These policymakers would be great policy entrepreneurs for the ARI, but unfortunately are not fully involved. This failure to involve policymakers, also points to the fact that ARI evidence is supply-driven and not demand-driven. This raises the question about whose interests ARI may be serving. Indeed, the fact that the ARI has a single benefactor who perhaps has personal interests in Africa, may be a cause of concern to some African policymakers. This fact may hinder policymakers from using ARI evidence. In order to fully gain the trust of African policymakers, the ARI would need to fully involve these policy actors, right from the research inception stage, through to the research dissemination.
The main challenge however, is that the ARI is unable to fully access and take advantage of policy windows if and when they open. This is an idea, which is grounded on Kingdons (1995) multiple streams theory. According to Kingdom (1995), there are several issues that require policymakers attention. There are equally several solutions and policy recommendations to these problems, floating about in the policy subsystem. However, very few reach the political agenda. Kingdon argues that for a policy change to happen, three sets of strands - the problem stream, policy stream as well as the politics stream - flowing concurrently within the policy subsystem, have to couple at critical moments when a policy window opens. The problem stream refers to the policy issues that require policymakers attention and action. The policy stream are the proposals and policy recommendations developed as solutions to certain problems - like the evidence produced by think tanks like the ARI. The politics stream is the political process like elections, changes in government, public mood or demands from pressure groups, which tend to swing politics.
Each of these processes, though independent, come together at the same time when a policy window opens, moving an issue up the political agenda. These policy windows could be a change in government, elections or referendums or a disaster. The policy windows also close as rapidly as they open (John, 2012). This means policy actors have to be ready with their policy recommendations, prepared to access the policy windows when they open. The ARIs inability to seize these policy windows is due to its limited capacity both financial and human. It also due to the fact that most of its research agenda is planned earlier in the year, and as the political processes in different countries are very unpredictable, they cannot foresee all the potential policy windows that they would need to target. This is even worsened by the fact that ARI is based in the UK, with a lean core staff, making it extremely difficult to be fully embedded in the politics and policy process in Africa. ARIs policy entrepreneurs in this case researchers, analysts and the Executive Director - would also be required to be both active in the problem stream as well as the policy stream, to increase the chances of these recommendations getting into the agenda. The entrepreneurs would then be required to act swiftly when policy windows open before the chance passes by (Zahariadis, 2007). The Research Briefing on the State of Kenyas Devolution, which I have been working on, is a good example of the harmony between a research topic, targeting policy entrepreneurs back in Kenya and an open policy window, in this case the upcoming Kenyan general elections in August 2017. There are very high chances, that by targeting the upcoming elections, the ARI research findings will inform debates during the campaign period as well as the period that follows as the new national and county leaders settle into their roles.
Conclusion
In this essay, I described my internship experience at the Africa Research Institute over the last five months. Using this internship experience, I provide an analysis of evidence-based policymaking, grounding it in both theory and practice. I found that the ARI faces challenges in having its evidence used to inform policy. This is attributed to the fact that it cannot ensure that the evidence it produces will be used by policymakers to design their policies. In order to maximise the chances for organisations like ARI to have their work reach policy actors, I first argue that there is a need to target policy windows, which the ARI is still unable to do. I also recommend that policy think tanks working outside of Africa like the ARI - need to engage more deeply with policymakers and policy research organisations in Africa, throughout the research process. This will ensure their evidence produced is not just supply-driven, but also demand-driven, thus addressing the critical needs of those countries. This for sure, would promote the use of evidence. Implementing such strategies could significantly enhance the impact the ARI has on African policies.
REFERENCES
Banks, G. (2009).Evidence-based policy making. 1st ed. Melbourne, Vic.: Australia. Productivity Commission.
Birkland, T. (2011).An introduction to the policy process. 1st ed. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.
Cairney, P. (2012).Understanding public policy. 1st ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Clarence, E. (2002). Technocracy reinvented: the new evidence based policy movement.Public Policy and Administration,17(3), 1-11.
Cabinet Office (1999).Modernising government. 1st ed. London: Cabinet Office. CM4310
Davies, H., Nutley, S. and Smith, P. (2004).What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services. 1st ed. Bristol: Policy Press.
IBP (2017) Glass Half Full? Kenyas County Budget Implementation in 2015/16. International Budget Partnership (IBP) Paper.
JEWELL, C. and BERO, L. (2008). "Developing Good Taste in Evidence": Facilitators of and Hindrances to Evidence-Informed Health Policymaking in State Government.The Milbank Quarterly, 86(2), pp.177-208.
John, P. (2012).Analysing public policy. 1st ed. London: Routledge.
Kay, A. (2011). Evidence-Based Policy-Making: The Elusive Search for Rational Public Administration.Australian Journal of Public Administration, 70(3), pp.236-245.
Kingdon, John W. (1995). Agenda, alternatives and public policy. Boston: Little, Brown.
Lakin, J. et al. (2014). County Budget and Economic Forums (CBEFs) and Public Participation in Kenya. International Budget Partnership (IBP) Paper.
Leicester, G. (1999). Viewpoint: The Seven Enemies of Evidence-Based Policy.
Lindblom, C. (1959). The Science of "Muddling Through".Public Administration Review, 19(2), p.79.
Pawson, R. (2009). Evidence-based policy: A realist perspective. 1st ed. London: SAGE.
Peters, B. (2015).Advanced Introduction to Public Policy. 1st ed. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Simon, H. A. (1947).Administrative Behaviour. New York: Macmillan.
Steeves, J. (2015). Devolution in Kenya: Derailed or on track?.Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, 53(4), pp.457-474.
Sutcliffe, S. and Court, J. (2005). Evidence-Based Policymaking: What is it? How does it work? What relevance for developing countries. London: Overseas Development Institute.
Weiss C. (1979) The many meanings of research utilization. Public Admin Rev., 39: 426-431.
Zahariadis, Nikolaos. (2007). The multiple streams framework: Structure, limitations, prospects. Theories of the policy process, 2, 65-92.
Things to mention in the assignment:
GLOBAL INSTITUTE FOR WOMENS LEADERSHIP is the organisation name. Talk about their history (find info on their website)
I applied for this internship as I have had past background of working with the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology back in India, where my focus was to work under the government schemes that cater specifically to grassroot women in peripheral or rural india and how to uplift them/ empower them through Digital India Project. I had also previously interned with organisation like Prayas in Mumbai who deal with rehabilitation of women discrimated under criminal justice.
Dr. Aleida Borges was who I was placed to be superivised by
Dr. Minna Cowper-Coles was assigned as my mentor under who I had worked under for the months I was working at the organisation
I was first assigned task by Aleida where I had to research on women leaders from third world countries who, especially south Asian, south east Asian or sub-saharan, who have worked their ways to the cabinets in their countries or have been a pillar of justice for women in their country or community, which empowered their women.
Then I was assigned under Dr. Minna Cowper Coles under an ongoing project where I had to research on women cabinet ministers in South-Asian countries. I had to look at how women in these countries where politics is mostly driven by patriarchy and men occupy authoritative position were still able to break the generalised barriers.
I then had to create statistical data on these countries and women cabinet ministers and compare how even though women were able to secure the top position in politics in countries such as India with Indira Gandhi or Pakistan with Bhutto, they still came from political background and had men in their family who were in politics for decades
POLICY ANAYSIS: I had to look at Substantive and descriptive politics in the south Asian countries where women have held cabinet politics and through statistics and literature review.
CONCLUSION OF MY RESEARCH: While conducting my research I could gather that women who have held important positions overtime in South Asian countries, majority of them have been able to do so because of prominent family positions. While some women in India through the gender reservation quota have been able to hold position in the political institutions, have however either had stagnated roles over time or failed to emulate the profile of those who entered politics through family connections.
We can also see that there is a huge absence of women coming from minority classes to represent women in parliamentary levels. There is infact a huge divide that exists in countries like India between female politicians who hold higher official status and female representative in panchayati raj. We can see that religion has also played an important factor even amongst women on who holds higher position in political institution. You can rarely expect a muslim women in countries like India to take on important positions.
Also in a patriarchal society women can only operate within the parameters of its framework. Hence, women who are children of male political leaders were often chosen for higher positions because to a certain extent she will carry on the familys reputation even when the political party she is attached to might not be on the right side of history. But it would be easier to influence her than someone who comes from no political connection. This is why Indira Gandhi in her earlier days was called as dumb doll
EXTRA POINTS TO BE ADDED TO CONCLUSION:
Descriptive representation is however important because they introduce us role models and for democracy to be a fully functioning one, we need broad range of women involved in formation of laws. Increasing participation of women has the possibility of affecting substantial positive changes at all levels of society.
Reservation for women indeed affects policy decisions and has the possibility for development in policies catering towards womens issues or atleast creating a dialogue.
Some scholars are of the idea that through behavioural studies it was indicated that women are more honest and less selfish have greater integrity while making economic decisions. So there is a probability that higher participation of women in politics can lead to lesser corruption. However, this has not been justified by bigger datas.
I conclude the presentation by stating that fleeting glimpses of political power held by women has created history in several South Asian countries, yet it is not enough indication for overall empowerment because there has been huge gaps post those women in power when not much change happened.
