RAPID Projects - Lessons from CSO Case Studies: Summary

Good News for Troubled Contexts: Lessons learned from case studies on how civil society organisations use evidence to influence policy processes, Enrique Mendizabal

Executive Summary

Since 2004 ODI has embarked in a research-action process to understand the challenges civil society organisations (CSOs) in developing counties face to influence pro-poor policy processes using research based evidence. The objective of this broader initiative is to develop, in consensus with our partners in developing countries, a strategy to support and promote a more systematic use of evidence in policymaking. This particular project has aimed to collect case studies of CSOs attempting to influence policy processes as a means of learning about the challenges that they face and the strategies they follow to overcome them. The lessons learned from these cases can provide excellent examples of the existing practical knowledge of policy influencing strategies held by development researchers and practitioners in developing countries.

Throughout the consultation workshops organised by ODI and its partners in 15 developing countries, participants expressed their frustration at attempting to influence complex policy processes. For many CSOs, policy influence constitutes a part of their work that remains prohibitive to their capacities and resources stocks. It is our opinion, however, that although many contexts are in fact extremely complex and unfriendly and that CSOs are crippled by resource and capacity constraints, there are many things that they can do to be successful in informing and inspiring those policy processes.

What is new?

The cases collected so far have confirmed many of the conclusions arrived at from the consultations with and other analysis of the strategies and practices of CSOs in developing countries. However, they have also highlighted some new issues that have not been given enough attention before.

Invited spaces: Invited spaces constitute an important factor in bridging research and policy. They are spaces in which CSOs have no or little control over the terms of engagement and must therefore often adapt their strategies. We still need to learn more about how CSOs engage in these processes, what strategies they follow, how beneficial they really are and how their as well as other's evidence influences the outcomes.
CSOs do not always think about using evidence: The cases show that not much thought is given to how a particular type of evidence and its products can be used to influence policy. The descriptions of the influence processes were often de-linked from those of the evidence used by CSOs.
International networks: Another factor, highlighted, in many of the cases we have collected is the role of international networks or links. These play an important role in local CSOs capacity to leverage change or access alternative strategies for policy influence.
CSOs do influence policy: Probably the most important conclusion from the cases and from the process of collecting them and writing this report is that CSOs do influence policy. They might not influence policy as much as they would want to; and maybe that influence is harder to achieve than they would desire; but the cases and the proposals suggest that CSOs are influencing policy and that evidence plays a role.

Conclusions

There are some conclusions that can be highlighted and from which individual users might want to consider those that are applicable to their own contexts and circumstances.

Context matters: The policy context in which a CSO exists and works defines its capacity to gather and use evidence. It affects its choice of strategy as well as their chances of success.
Research based evidence is still hard to acquire: The move from service delivery to policy influence of many southern CSOs has not been accompanied by the development of the capacities and skills to research and use evidence in policy processes.
There is not enough thought or effort being placed into choosing and developing research products: CSOs are faced with significant resource constraints; hence research products are often the most common and relatively inexpensive ones: statistics, academic papers or books.
Links are important for CSOs: Small scale CSOs tend to network with institutions closer to them and find it relatively more difficult to find or establish regional, national or international links. These links or networks are more often established to support their own work. Few of the linkages are strategic to actively seek change.
Individuals matter for change: As much as links and networks are important, individuals and their actions seem to have made a difference in many of the cases. Leadership is an important aspect of the personalities of policy entrepreneurs.
The external environment is influential but largely hidden: There is only a limited amount of information regarding the various actors and forces that constitute the external environment of a policy process. In most cases, unfortunately, the external environments where reduced to the existence of international treaties or conferences that might or might not have influenced a particular policymaker's ideas; or external funding sources.
Engagement vs. confrontation: Most successful examples have included some sort of continuous and long term engagement with the government; rather than outright confrontation. In some cases a mix of confrontation to raise the profile of the issue and engagement to provide solutions has proved to be useful.
Evidence matters, after all: In various cases evidence was critical in the decision making process of key policy actors or influences. More importantly, evidence mattered when it was relevant and accurate (to the problem and the audience); and positive. The cases did not all assess whether evidence mattered for good policymaking; although some did acknowledge that the policy changes had brought about positive benefits for those concerned.