|
Influence Mapping identifies the individuals and groups with the
power to effect a key decision. It further investigates the position
and motives of each player and the best channels through which to
communicate with them. The approach is also known as Stakeholder
Influence Mapping, Power Mapping or the Arena of Influence. In the
business sector it is similar to the Market Segmentation which analyses
the structure of the market and details consumer interests and behaviours.
By its careful application, think tanks can tune their messages
and arguments to different audiences, and better understand how
to channel their efforts.
Detailed Outline of the Process
Influence Mapping builds naturally on Stakeholder
Analysis (and, to a degree, has similarities with the drivers
or influences identified in Force
Field Analysis). Be clear over the policy issue or change being
analysed and single out those in high positions of power. First
differentiate between the decision-makers who have the actual responsibility
to make the decisions in a specific policy area, and their opinion-leaders
who can influence them or lead their opinion, and who are generally
more accessible. Remember, absolute power is a myth. Every executive
depends on a group of advisors or with whom they cannot operate.
They are accountable to, a wide group of interest groups, constituencies
and lobbies.Further they may be influenced by the nature of the
information and research they receive, how it is reported in the
media, the political regime, not to mention their own beliefs and
ideologies. It is often helpful to map the information as a pyramid
of actors and influences (see example).
The construction of this interest map or 'pyramid' brings about
rich discussion. The distance from the bottom represents how influential
the factor is and, critically, the route by which this influence
reaches the decision-maker. It's worth trying to detail the key
individuals and institutions that carry the influence - whether
they be specific people, newspapers, churches or so forth. This
allows the group to analyse possible Influence Channels - entry
points to effect change.
Once key channels have been identified the group should analyse
their position on the topic, their key motives and their accessibility.
Are they a supporter, an ally or an uncommitted 'fence sitter'?
Sometimes they can have a different status on different issues.
What are their interests and motives for a particular position on
the issue? What is their agenda, either stated or implicit? What
drives them to take this position, and what constraints do they
face that might make it difficult for them to move from this position.
This may be ideological or personal (e.g. a belief in the primacy
of the market), it could be cultural or social (e.g. the belief
that alcohol is bad and should not be legal), it might be financial
(e.g. for monetary gain) or it may be political, based on the views
of their interest groups, supporters, patrons and voters, the constituents
who give them their position of power. Finally assesses how easy
it will be to gain access and present the evidence or case.
A Good Example
The British Parliament is a good example of a government body that
actually has very little actual control over the decisions that
are made, but has a high degree of influence over Ministers (the
main decision makers) through debates, questions, select committees
or high status and well-connected individuals. A think tank can
therefore justify targeting parliament in order to influence the
appropriate Minister, because the influence will be carried through
the influence pyramid to the decision-maker. On some issues, and
at certain points in the policy process, Parliament does have real
decision-making power. Their influence channels might be public
opinion (particularly in their constituency) or media editorials.
A think tank might then decide to focus its energies on informing
the media or the public.
DFID's policy processes during the making of the 1997 White Paper
on Poverty and International Development illustrate these key influences
at work. Clare Short, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and the writer David
Batt were highly influential. Within DFID, economists were the most
influential of the DFID advisers. The OECD/DAC had a major influence
through the International Development Targets. The very low influence
of poor people remained, and developing country governments were
less influential than those in developed countries. Public opinion
in the UK remained much less influential than commercial interests.
Some key moments were noted in the period, such as Clare Short recognising
the need to 'ride the dragon' of economic growth. Economists were
strong in the years before the first White Paper - then shrunk into
the background only to return centre-stage with the second White
Paper's emphasis on well- channelled growth.
Further Information
View this as pdf
(
135kb)
Back to Tools for Policy Impact index
|
