Watch 2 minute video clip on influencing local government and policy-makers: WMV (588kb)

Can you begin by giving a brief overview of what your organisation does?
The SMERU research institute is a research institute doing objective, timely research. We provide the findings of the research to different kinds of stakeholders. We mostly work on poverty issues, social economic issues and on decentralisation, because this is a big issue in our country. We also do research on public services, such as health and education, as well as social security programmes.

What kind of research does the centre do? Are most of your researchers economists?
We have economists, but we use both qualitative and quantitative approaches to research because we cannot separate them.

What kind of products does your centre produce? How do you disseminate your research findings to the people you want to influence?
First, after returning from the field, we have field notes. Some of the field notes are very good so we publish them as a report. We also have reports on our research findings and we have working papers based on the major findings that we have accumulated along the way. We also produce newspapers, policy briefs and of course, our annual report.

Which of those products do you think is most influential in shaping the opinions of government officials or parliamentarians?
The research report is definitely the most influential. However, the research report could be far too long, so that government officials or parliamentarians do not have the time to see the main findings, so we also send memoranda to relevant agencies, visit them, and give presentations. We also invite people to come to our seminars and workshops and of course, we have our mailing list of almost 2000 members. We distribute our newsletter free of charge. We also have an NGO partnership programme so once in a while we invite them to have discussions. Sometimes we also invite resource persons to come and talk about really new issues that are of interest to the NGOs. By doing that, we were able to engage in indirect advocacy.

Can you give us a few examples of a particular topic where you have done all these types of things, and maybe some thoughts on why it worked or did not work particularly well?
One example that I can think of is the result of the school assistance programme. Based on our findings, we provided memoranda to different agencies, especially to government agencies, as they were the bodies who were going to make most use of the findings to improve the programme. We received very good feedback from them and this is something that was not really expected.

So they are not resistant to research that might be critical of their policies?
I might say that since they know that SMERU has a reputation for quality research based on solid methodology, I do not think that they object to our findings. All we have to say is 'A', and the finding is 'A'. Sometimes it is not very easy to do that, but in order to maintain our reputation we have to stick to our point of view a bit. All of our recommendations are based on our research findings.

How do you go about translating your research into recommendations for policy-makers?
That is not easy. In our memoranda for example, we provide policy-makers with research findings, but we also provide them with things that they can do, and we make it as simple as possible. We believe that the figures do say something, so they make it easier for policy-makers to understand and, somehow, it seems to work.

Do you find that they are more persuaded by statistics or by people's voices?
Both are equally persuasive, because we always combine our qualitative and quantitative research, which means that we always give policy-makers some exposure to examples of what is happening and then the figures we provide also say something about that.

Do you also try to engage with parliamentarians?
Yes, we provide training for the parliamentary secretariat in pro-poor budgeting and in legal drafting. The problem is that it is not always easy for us to negotiate the time that we need for training programmes, or to conduct quality research. We still need to find the right balance.

Do you think that there is a need for training for parliamentarians so that they can better use research themselves?
Yes. Actually, one of our training programmes for the parliamentary secretariat staff is about how to conduct proper research - or in other words, we provide them with training in research methodology. I think that they found this very interesting and it refreshed their memories, and I think that perhaps they realised that, although they have to work very quickly, this is the best approach, and the basic principles of research methodology are now being applied to their analysis of a number of issues.

Do you think that there is a difference between the kind of methods or strategies you might use to influence national level policy-makers compared to local or regional level policy-makers?
Our research on decentralisation issues, for example, is currently mostly focused on the business climate because of the regulatory environment that is developing now. As a result of deregulation and the authorities being dispersed, the local governments now feel that they have the right to decide everything by themselves. There are so many new regulations, especially tax regulations and at the end of the day, this is not very helpful for the business climate. These changes also have various impacts on the environment and on natural resources. SMERU have been trying to do quite a lot of work on decentralisation since its very beginning, even before the decentralisation regulations were brought in. SMERU has been looking at the preparedness of the local government in adapting to the new regulations: whether they are ready or not, whether the new regulations are in place, and whether they have sufficient human resources. After that, when the new regulations are applied, we look at how they are being applied by the local government and what kind of impact this has on the public services they provide, especially in education and health. Later on, we also look at what kind of impact decentralisation has on economic growth.

Have you found that the evidence you are generating is helping to persuade local governments?
In part, because most of them are suddenly in power and finding themselves with a lot of power in their hands. We keep sending them the results of our research and then after each research output, we have workshop or seminar with them, or a regional workshop, so they can discuss amongst themselves what is happening. In poverty reduction efforts, for example, we have Participatory Poverty Assessment (PPAs) and we involve several local governments as well as the community, so that we have something like a community base involved in the system. It is a good way to let the community decide for themselves who amongst that community is eligible for government assistance, for example.

Do parliamentarians need capacity building and training more than they need research?
Yes and no. SMERU uses multiple strategies. We work with Members of Parliament, for example, but not too frequently, because there are limited opportunities to do that. For the preparation of proper pro-poor budgeting bills, for example, we lobbied them, we met with them and we asked their opinion. We had a kind of coalition with other NGOs and we held discussions with them to try to influence the government's bills, but it is not an easy undertaking and we do not know whether it will be successful or not. Nonetheless, that is what we are doing.

One thing that we are trying to work hard on is getting the attention of the high-ranking decision-makers. That is probably easier for us than doing advocacy work, because SMERU is a research institute. We do indirect advocacy, but our main concern is to get across our research findings to those who have the power to make decisions. This means that getting in touch with a minister, for example, and being able to present our research findings to certain ministries, together with all the relevant agents in charge of research programmes, is really important.

What are some of the challenges of being a research organisation trying to influence policy-makers?
The greatest challenge is probably that, most of the time, we are out of the political context and that, as a result, the political context is not always understood by research institutes, or it is beyond our control. Sometimes policies are really based on political decisions. That is when our research findings, even though they may be well received, have little impact because the policy decisions have already been made.

In October, for example, the government launched a cash transfer programme. Before the launch, SMERU was asked to do some of the design and give some insights about what all this stuff is about. We were asked because we have done several pieces of research on similar government assistance programmes, starting with the JPS (Jaring Pengaman Sosial) or SSN (Social Safety Net) Program during the economic crisis in 1997-1998. In our experience, programme assistance like the cash transfer programme (which is money to provide a kind of subsidy for poor people due to high fuel prices) will not work; it is bound to fail. The government thinks that it has to do this kind of programme and yet so many people suffer as a result of that policy.

SMERU immediately conducted a rapid appraisal of the impact of the programme, including the targeting - or mis-targeting - of the programme, the distribution, how it should be done, what the right amount would be, whether it was sufficient, and who should implement it. We carried out rapid appraisal in five districts and we covered lots of issues. We presented the results to several ministries that were involved in that programme and our input was well received. Instead of cash transfers, we proposed that the government should change the programme slightly into a conditional cash transfer programme. In the next strand of the programme, cash transfers were replaced by conditional cash transfers and some of the mechanisms were also improved. Of course, we cannot take all of the credit and we do not pretend that this policy change was based only on SMERU's work, but we are happy that at one point, part of our community were able to have different perspective about what should be done and how, so that the final result was better.

Back to interview list