Policy Processes - Background Resources
Understanding policy processes in agriculture – or any other area – is not straightforward. It means rejecting the linear, rational policy model and embracing the complex and messy processes by which policy is understood, formulated and implemented, and the range of actors involved. It means asking how problems and policy solutions come to be defined, by whom, and with what effects? These are important questions when considering policy change in any context. Policy process approaches involve understanding the mechanics of decision-making and implementation pathways – and just as importantly understanding underlying practices of policy framing. Questions asked might include: why is it that particular views about the nature and causes of ‘problems’ stick with such tenacity in policy debate; how do particular perspectives, and the interests they represent, find their way into policy; why is there so often a gulf in analysis and aspiration between the perspectives of diverse farmers and those underlying and driving policy; and how might policy processes be changed to encourage a greater inclusion of otherwise excluded voices?
Policy process analysis is increasingly recognised as critical to any
study of development process. It is central to the work of the Future
Agricultures consortium. A major concern of the consortium is how future
scenarios of agriculture interact with policy process to constrain or
enable different options in different places. A consortium working paper
has been prepared which outlines some of the approaches to scenario analysis.
'Envisioning futures of African
agriculture: representation, power, and socially constituted time',
Aaron deGrassi
Further reading on Frameworks and Approaches
States, Politics and Development in Africa
A key challenge for the consortium’s work is to help develop policy responses attuned to local contexts. Politics are central to understanding context. As a consortium review paper discusses, a variety of different approaches to understanding African political systems have emerged over time. None of these alone are enough to explain current dynamics and their impact on agricultural policy formulation. As Adebayo Olukushi argues simple, technical measures of good governance are inadequate; instead a new political economy understanding of agricultural growth is required. As Kojo Amanor argues for West Africa, this needs to understand the interest group politics associated with new commercial elites who have profited from processes of liberalisation and adjustment, and their close, often clientelistic, relationship with political elites. Such neo-patrimonial politics is one often ignored factor explaining current crises in agriculture, food security and development more generally, as Cromwell and Chintedza argue in the case of Malawi. In considering new policy frameworks, the consortium partners are asking how new forms of developmentalism can be fostered in Africa, and how this might result in an Africa-style ‘developmental state’.
This issue is highlighted by former advocacy and policy head at Actionaid
and Christian Aid, Matthew Lockwood, in a recent issue of Prospect
magazine. He argues that “the conditions for developmental states
cannot be created through technical governance interventions”. Instead,
politics matters, and this is often dominated by forms of patronage fostered
by elite networks. Lockwood goes on to speculate on what he regards as
“the (largely corrupt) privatisation process” – a process
of course encouraged and sometimes financed by development aid and loans
– will result in. He comments: “even if a new commercial elite
does emerge, it is unclear whether it will be committed to investment
and accumulation or whether it will milk the acquired businesses for resources
to spend on political careers”. Containing patronage and ensuring
a developmental vision of a reformed state he argues may have the best
chance of emerging in “de facto one-party states”, as perhaps,
he suggests, is the case in Botswana, Uganda and Tanzania. In conclusion
he argues that “the primacy of politics over policy” is essential
to recognise, and “one of the most useful things the international
community could do for Africa is to stop trying to micro-manage policymaking
and simply support anti-patronage politicians who have a clear development
agenda”.
Further reading on States, Politics and Development in Africa
Further Reading
Frameworks and Approaches - Further Resources:
Resources from IDS:
Keeley, J. and Scoones, I. (2003) Understanding
Environmental Policy Processes: Cases from Africa, London: Earthscan
Keeley, J. (2001) Influencing
Policy Processes for Sustainable Livelihoods: Strategies for Change,
Lessons for Change Series, 1, Brighton: IDS
Keeley, J. and Scoones, I. (1999) Understanding
Environmental Policy Processes: A Review, IDS Working Paper 89, Brighton:
IDS
Resources from ODI:
Research
and Policy in Development (RAPID) website
Start, D. and Hovland, I. (2004) Tools
for Policy Impact: A Handbook for Researchers, London: ODI
Resources from IIED:
Power Tools
for Policy Influence in Natural Resource Management
Resources from GDNet:
Bridging
Research and Policy
Resources from the Chronic Poverty Research Centre:
Methods Toolbox
Resources from the African Union's Institutional and Policy Support
Team:
AU/IBAR
Policy Briefing Papers
States, Politics and Development in Africa
- Further Resources:
Olukoshi, A. (2005) Investing in
Africa: The Political Economy of Agricultural Growth, IDS Bulletin,
36(2): 13-17.
Amanor, K. S. (2005) Agricultural Markets
in West Africa: Frontiers, Agribusiness and Social Differentiation,
IDS Bulletin, 36(2): 58-63.
Cromwell, E. and Chintedza, A. (2005) Neo-patrimonialism
and Policy Processes: Lessons from the Southern African Food Crisis,
IDS Bulletin, 36(2): 103-109.
Lockwood, M. 2005. States
of Development, Prospect, November: 24-28
