Presentation on theme: "Enhancing CSO Influence on Policy CIVICUS Workshop Glasgow, June 2006 Julius Court & Vanessa Weyrauch."— Presentation transcript:
Enhancing CSO Influence on Policy CIVICUS Workshop Glasgow, June 2006 Julius Court & Vanessa Weyrauch
Why this matters? CSOs are important players in development … … but, acting alone, their impact is limited in scope, scale and sustainability. There is more potential for partnership. Many development challenges remain. CSOs increasingly involved in policy engagement. The credibility and legitimacy of CSO involvement is questioned.
Workshop Outline Introduction Case Study from Argentina Discussion: CSOs and policy influence – challenges and opportunities. CSOs and Policy Influence: Recent Evidence Discussion: How to do it - experiences & lessons. Close
Influencing the Educational Budget: CIPPEC´s work in a Southern province in Argentina Vanesa Weyrauch Av. Callao 25, 1° C1022AAA Buenos Aires, Argentina - Tel: (54 11) 4384-9009 Fax: (54 11) 4371-1221 email@example.com www.cippec.org
CIPPEC as organisation CIPPEC as an organisation in evolution: hybrid between focus on research, advocacy, monitoring and implementation. Initial institutional funding enabled the selection of the research topic and methodology. Multidisciplinary team with clear and legitimised leadership. Experience from the civil society standpoint: capacity building, monitoring and influence through alliances with CSOs. Experience from the politics standpoint: advice and implementation with provincial governments.
Research at CIPPEC Project The educational provinces: a comparative analysis of the implementation of the Federal Education Law in the 24 jurisdictions. Creation of an external international Advisory Council to ensure quality and reputation. Selection of a differential focus (provincial level) and based on a milestone of the policy under study (10 years after implementation). Participatory approach: engagement of all stakeholders. Consensus building to identify potential reforms.
Research at CIPPEC Intensive follow up of media coverage to assess prevailing discourses. Detection and analysis of all related policy proposals. Translation of findings into a clear and simple format (rankings, indexes, etc.) Use of language of policymakers: get to understand them. Face to face interaction.
The context Argentina as a federal country: the double level of decision making processes. Political rationality in the provinces: education perceived by policymakers as a weight and a problem. Lack of social participation in the educational policies. Different political settings derived from a federal system that required diverse intervention strategies.
Influence strategies Legitimisation: the risk of the foreigner: the comparative look and academic rigour as key endorsements. Capacity building: two handbooks on how to influence the educational budget and the social investment in children. Policy debate: active participation in the diverse stages of the discussion and sanction of the Education Financing Law.
Influence strategies Media campaign: dissemination of the provincial report through local media and partnership with a local CSO. Combined and staged process: a window of opportunity with the change of a government accused of corruption and arrival of fresh air. Complexity of the measure: TDF is the province with higher investment on education per student and lower budgetary effort for education (paradox of the coparticipation).
The impact High impact in media, policymakers and educational sectors: awareness of the urgent need to adddress budgetary issues. Hired by the new Minister of Education to provide advice. Draft of a law for investment in education. Governor refuses to committ. Mingled actors and steps. The initiative is welcome by part of the oposition in the provincial Congress (ARI). Unpredictable alliances: changes in power. Sanction of a law to increase investment in education (reach 25% increase in 4 years).
Some lessons… Influencing public policies implies interrupting chaotic, complex, unpredictable processes. The double thrust of interrupting and walking along the forces in the decision making processes. Work with a double perspective: the comparison brought by a foreigner and alliances with organisations with local knowledge. Dialogue with all stakeholders, find a niche in discourse. Challenge: fulfilment of laws in unstable legal domains. Secure long term funding: processes are long and unexpected opportunities arise.
Discussion: CSO and Policy Group work –What are the main enabling factors? –What are the main barriers?
CSOs & Policy: Literature www.odi.org.uk/rapid/lessons/theory 1.Linear model 2.Too close for comfort, Edwards 3.Impact & Effectiveness, Fowler 4.Context, evidence, links, RAPID 5.Policy narratives, Roe 6.CSO legitimacy, L. David Brown 7.Links and Learning, Gaventa 8.Room for manoeuvre, Clay & Schaffer 9.Street level bureaucrats, Lipsky 10.Policy as experiments, Rondinelli 11.Policy Streams & Windows, Kingdon 12.Disjointed incrementalism, Lindquist 13.Tipping point model, Gladwell 14.Mercenaries, missionaries and revolutionaries, Malena 15.Non-Western?, Lewis 16.Global Civil Society, Salamon, Kaldor 17.Types of Engagement, Coston 18.Linear model of communication, Shannon 19.Space for thought & action, Howell 20.Simple and surprising stories, Communication Theory 21.Provide solutions, Marketing Theory I 22.Find the right packaging, Marketing II 23.Global Civil Society?, Keane 24.Global Legitimacy, van Rooy 25.Epistemic communities, Haas 26.Policy entrepreneurs, Najam 27.Advocacy coalitions, Keck & Sikkink 28.Negotiation through networks, Sabattier 29.Social capital, Coleman 30.Accountability, OneWorld Trust 31.Communication for social change, Rockefeller Foundation 32.Wheels and webs, Chapman & Fisher
Main Barriers to Engagement CSOs Capacity (62%) Funding (57%) Process kn (48%) (CSO evidence not seen as credible) Policy Processes Not open (47%) Corrupt No capacity to use evidence
Discussion: Support for CSOs What more can CSOs do to influence policy processes? What kind of support would help you influence policy more?
Problems and Solutions Adverse political contexts (external). Campaigns Boomerangs Pilot projects. Limited understanding of policy processes. Rigorous assessments of policy processes and political contexts (key issues & simple approaches). Weak strategies for policy engagement. Match approaches to critical policy stages – agenda setting, formulation and/or implementation. Inadequate use of evidence. Ensure that evidence is relevant, objective, generalisable and practical. Weak communications.Engage in two-way communication. Use existing tools for planning, packaging, targeting and monitoring communication efforts. Isolation / fragmentation. Apply network approaches (key roles of networks and 10 keys to network success. Limited capacity.Develop or access range of technical capacities (systemic capacity).
Needs for Effective Policy Engagement Training (59%) Latest thinking (55%) More research (52%)
Specific Tools Overarching Tools - The RAPID Framework - Using the Framework - The Entrepreneurship Questionnaire Context Assessment Tools - Stakeholder Analysis - Forcefield Analysis - Writeshops - Policy Mapping - Political Context Mapping Communication Tools - Communications Strategy - SWOT analysis - Message Design - Making use of the media Research Tools - Case Studies - Episode Studies - Surveys - Bibliometric Analysis - Focus Group Discussion Policy Influence Tools - Influence Mapping & Power Mapping - Lobbying and Advocacy - Campaigning: A Simple Guide - Competency self-assessment
Further Information www.odi.org.uk/rapid www.cippec.org Julius Court firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com Vanessa Weyrauch firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.