| Main barriers
to policy influence
Regardless of their differences, most research policy networks
in Peru face similar barriers to policy influence. In general, it
can be said that they fall within three categories: First, the complexity
or unfriendliness of the policy context; second, the shortcomings
of the networks themselves; and third, the challenges of the means.
Click on the links below for more about each issue.
High turnover of policy makers
'It is difficult to establish long lasting relations', CONVEAGRO
All networks interviewed agreed that the main problem for policy
impact in Peru was the high turnover and instability of public office.
Policy makers' time in office is not long (in average, there is
a new Minister of Agriculture every 6 months in Peru, according
to CONVEAGRO). This means that researchers or policy entrepreneurs
need to re-educate them and re-introduce themselves; something that
has often taken a great deal of time and resources the first time
around.
Participa Peru and CONVEAGRO have similar experiences in this respect.
In 2003, Participa Peru formalised an advisory relationship with
the Decentralisation Commission of the Peruvian Congress. They had
been invited by the then president of the commission, who had become
a 'champion' for their cause. His local government and civil society
experience was a key factor in his interest in the network's advice.
In 2004, however, the formal agreement was lost and replaced by
an informal relation through the same Congressman, who was no longer
the commission's president. By 2005, unfortunately, the new President
was no longer a 'friend' of Participa Peru and they lost access.
CONVEAGRO relates to this through many similar stories. The impact
of research, they agree, greatly depends on the Minister in office.
In the last few years they have experienced many positive and negative
administrations: while one former Minister was actively seeking
new research and evidence (and even created a research programme
within the Ministry), his predecessor showed little or no interest
in any type of research. Similarly, the former president of the
Agrarian Commission used to attend the network's Tuesday Steering
Committee meetings where some of the key issues and policies are
discussed by the members and invited experts. The new president,
however, does not consider these meetings a priority and does not
participate of them.
High turnover, and the importance of individuals in the policy
process in Peru, also means that bridging initiatives or participatory
spaces often disappear along with departing ministers or progressive
policymakers and advisors. As a consequence, networks have little
incentives to invest in developing long term relations with any
particular policymaker or his or her institution. This is coupled
with the reality that successful engagement in new participatory
spaces implies overcoming a often costly learning curve.
The government is still relatively
closed to participation
'Receptivity depends of the individuals in charge (typical,
key minister or president of a congress commission)', Participa
Perú
The best examples of this are found in the newly created participatory
institutions such as national and regional decentralisation and
participatory budgeting processes. The National Health Congress,
for instance, has 13 members but only one of them represents civil
society. Similarly, regional participatory budgeting processes include
not only a civil society minority but also the requirement that
participants be formal institutions of 3 or more years of existence
(which reduces the number of eligible participants) and their decisions
are not binding to the regional authorities.
Informal mechanisms of engagement, mostly private relations with
authorities, are also relatively limited and uncertain. According
to Participa Peru, policymakers with local or regional government
and civil society experience are more likely to use research based
evidence provided by CSOs than those coming form the private sector
or through party ranks. Politicians considered to be 'left wingers'
have stronger links to grassroots and CSOs and are therefore more
likely to make use of those relations when they hold office. Unfortunately,
'left-wingers' are yet to be awarded the broad credibility they
enjoyed in the 1970s in Peru.
These barriers to participation plus the lack of incentives for
policy impact induce researchers to a more academic stance. Although
the barriers are gradually being removed, a top-down approach still
lingers in the policymaking arena.
Lack of understanding or interest
of the key issues among the media
'Difficult to use the media to raise awareness and communicate
a complex issue with a clear message', Foro
Educativo
For Foro Educativo, media coverage of key policy issues is limited
to the most negative and shocking stories. According to them 'they
are looking for the teacher who raped the student, not for an analysis
of the government's education policies'. The use of the main stream
media as a means of communication is therefore conditioned to a
trade-off with the quality of the message.
As an alternative, some networks like Participa Peru, Peru2021
and CONVEAGRO have developed their own supplements to be distributed
through national or regional newspapers. Others have invested a
great deal of time in mentoring and supporting individual influential
journalists or news editors. Unfortunately, this means that often
it is only a few researchers or institutions that have access to
them. In response, CIES has recently launched an initiative to train
journalists on development issues in preparation for the 2006 presidential
elections. This will hopefully help create new spaces for research-media
engagement.
The media, hence, is seen as much as a barrier to policy influence
as a potential ally..
Lack of policy analysis
'Too much thematic research but little policy analysis. Research
is also often fragmented into so many areas that it is difficult
to reach consensus proposals', Foro
Salud
Researchers recognise that there are insufficient incentives for
policy analysis. Research thrives in the economic, social and scientific
arenas but is relatively absent in political and policy issues.
Foro Educativo, for instance, demands more research on why education
policies do not work -or simply what is it that they do. In CIES'
view, it is a struggle to motivate the researchers of their network
to carryout policy-relevant research. The Mesa, considers that the
little research that does exist in their sector is focused on medical
or geriatric issues and has almost entirely abandoned the option
of policy research or analysis.
Even Peru2021, a network made up of corporative partners whose
decisions one would expect would be widely based on clear-cut evidence,
lacks the most basic research-based evidence on the costs and benefits
of corporate social responsibility. There seems to be no culture
of meta-analysis or systematic evaluations of public or private
policies and practices. And the few that do exist are not sufficient
to support a reliable balanced debate.
This might respond to a combination of factor among which it is
safe to highlight the incentives of donor's policies and researchers'
own interests.
Fragmentation of research themes is another important barrier.
Foro Salud, for example, has 15 different thematic discussion spaces.
With knowledge management skills and resources lacking or widely
unknown among the networks they are unable to aggregate the evidence
and lessons held by the different members: they have no (or only
short term) institutional memory. This fragmented structure is then
replicated at the policy level (the National Health Forum has a
similar number of thematic groups) making it relatively more expensive
for researcher to engage on broad issues since they would have to
simultaneously participate in multiple policy processes and engage
with several policymakers.
As a consequence, it is very difficult for the networks, in particular
for those with no centralised research or communication strategies,
to develop and advance a policy position on any given subject. This
makes it even harder for them to prepare for possible windows of
opportunity; such as invitations to budget negotiations or changes
in the cabinet.
CSOs have no institutional memory
One of the main concerns raised by all networks interviewed was
that they 'do not know what they know'. They could tell that some
of their strategies had been successful and that some of their publications
had been extremely well received; but could not always say why.
In large networks such as CIES, is it clear that there are excellent
examples of best practices or researchers who are systematically
successful in their policy influence initiatives; however, their
know-how remains with them. The rest do not know about it or, if
they do, they cannot learn from it.
CSOs carryout mostly ad-hoc policy
influence activities
'And they lack the capacity to plan ahead and be ready for windows
of opportunity as funds are not widely available for this', the
Mesa
The less resource-rich networks like Foro Educativo, Foro Salud
and, in particular, the Mesa, lack the time, funds and, sometimes,
skills necessary to develop efficient policy impact strategies and
respond to windows of opportunity.
Networks depend of project funding; little of which is allocated
to communications and policy impact strategies or initiatives. Programmatic
funding is still very difficult to obtain and core public funding
is not widely available, in particular in the development sector.
Additionally, high turnover in the policy context also means that
networks cannot afford to invest in long term research and policy
influencing agendas. Authorities have different policy interests
and priorities and therefore evidence that might have been valued
by one could very easily be dismissed by another, as CONVEAGRO's
experience shows.
As a consequence, their ability to develop and implement systematic
policy influence strategies is also limited. They recognise that
a more systematic approach would allow them to maximise their chances
of impact as well as save valuable resources by means of more efficient
strategies. However, the initial investment is in some cases prohibitive.
A systematic approach would involve, first, an assessment of what
they have learned over the years about the policy context and how
to influence it. They would also need to identify and acquire new
research, communications and management skills that in most cases
they do not have. And even then it is difficult to guarantee any
immediate results.
Networks therefore, react to policy and, specially, funding opportunities.
CIES' recent approach to the media responds to an IDRC funded project
with aims to contribute to the policy debate over the upcoming electoral
process. Similarly, Foro Salud's appointment of a researcher to
help develop the network's arguments and position for the budget
negotiations at the Ministry of Economy is a reaction to first,
them being invited to participate of the process but, also, their
failure to capitalise on the opportunity in 2004.
The key challenge that they face is aggregating their activities
into a long term strategy; away form ad-hoc and unrelated activities.
Back to Networks Study index
|
