From Policy to Research and Back AgainEvidence from the South

Dr. Julio A. Berdegué

Dr. Ignacia Fernández

Rimisp – Latin American Center for Rural Development

First Annual Rural Workshop 2011, Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation, Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Ottawa, Canada, 5 May 2011

Contents

1. Problem statement

2. The policy process

3. Development issues and the policy-research interaction

4. What to do? The policy side

5. What to do? The research side

Problem statement

How to break away from these constraints, in a way that does not require that researchers become politicians or politicians become philosophers?

2. The policy process

2. The policy process

Decision-making styles

Level of agreement regarding objectives and values

Strong Weak

Level of

certainty

regarding the

means, facts

and knowledge

Strong

Programmed Process

Routines.

Dependence on technical

aspects

Bureaucratization

Planning

Negotiated Process

Ideological debates

Turning to experience

and tradition

Official controversies

and hidden

commitments

Weak

Programmatic Process

Turning to the experts

Empiricism (the best

possible), search for strategic

variants

Chaotic Process

Prevention

Decentralization

Turning to authority

or the “lucky man”

3. Development issues

Commission on Education

o 81 members

o 32% researchers and technical experts

o 64% civil society constituencies

Commission on Labor and Equity

o 48 members

o 75% were researchers and technical experts

o 29% represented civil society sectors

Commission on Social Security

o 15 members

o 87% researchers and technical experts

o 13% represented civil society

5. What to do?

5. What to do? The researchers’ side

Strategies to fit the context (F. Carden)

1. Clear government demand

2. Government interested in research, but leadership absent

3. Government interested in research, but with a capacity shortfall

4. A new or emerging issue activates research, but leaves policymakers uninterested

5. Government treats research with disinterest, or hostility

For example:

Progress Markers

Opportunities and

Threats timeline

Policy Objectives

AIIM

Force Field

Analysis

For example:

Strategy Map

Force Field Analysis

For example:

Policy entrepreneur questionnaire

SWOT

Internal performance frameworks

For example:

Log Frame (flexible)

Outcome Mapping

Journals or impact logs

Internal monitoring tools

Start by defining your policy objectives –

constantly review them during the

process

For example:

•AIIM

•Stakeholder analysis

•Influence Mapping

•Social Network Analysis

•Force Field Analysis

For example:

Publications, public relations

Media and events

Negotiation and advice

Develop a network or coalition

Research

For example:

RAPID Framework

Drivers of Change

Power Analysis

SWOT

Influence Mapping

Force Field Analysis

ROMA process, Young and Mendizabal, ODI

5. What to do? The researchers’ side

Rimisp’s experience

1. Nurture credibility

2. Formulate policy-relevant research questions

3. Stay close to decision-makers throughout the research process

4. Communicate effectively

In conclusion, one message

Get organized

From Policy to Research and Back AgainEvidence from the South

Dr. Julio A. Berdegué, jberdegue@rimisp.org

Dr. Ignacia Fernández, ifernandez@rimisp.org

Rimisp – Latin American Center for Rural Development

www.rimisp.org

First Annual Rural Workshop 2011, Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation, Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Ottawa, Canada, 5 May 2011