Uganda is widely recognised as a country that has made significant achievements in implementing policy reform over the past decade. Is this because Uganda ‘owned’ the policy reforms? What does ownership mean? This paper from Nottingham and Sheffield Universities aims to clarify the notion of ownership of policy reform through analysing ‘pro-poor’ policies in Uganda. It argues that ownership may be desirable, but it is not essential.
The potential for implementing poverty reduction policies is conditioned by the policy environment in developing countries. Of central importance are government preferences for pro-poor policies and the political capacity to promote a pro-poor agenda. Taken together these create commitment. Persuasive economic arguments supported by relevant research can shape preferences while technical and financial support can enhance political capacity. Through such interventions donors can help to establish commitment to poverty-reduction strategies. Whether this influence is consistent with government ownership depends on the nature of policy learning.
- If policy-makers engage in pure learning by doing, policy choices are based solely on information relating to the policy. Ownership is clear as the government considers only its own beliefs and experiences.
- Social learning is where policy-makers acquire information on alternatives and expand policy options by observing those chosen by other governments. Here the policy is not owned, but tailoring and adapting to local conditions confers ownership of the content.
- While policy experimentation is generally desirable, there is no guarantee that the best policy is chosen.
- In principle, external agents can assist by increasing the quality of information on alternative policies. Assuming the chosen policy is appropriate, success will depend more on commitment than on any notion of ownership.
- Most studies of conditionality and policy reform in developing countries focus on a model of hierarchical social learning, where an external agent signals which policy should be chosen and has some mechanism to encourage adoption of that choice.
- So, if the hierarchical choice is not the government’s preferred option, commitment will be weak and sustained effective implementation unlikely. However, governments can be committed if it is their preferred option, irrespective of ownership.
Thus, a sufficient condition for commitment to policy reform is that a government selects a policy that can be implemented and is believed to be superior to the current policy. The chosen policy need not be the optimal policy, although it is desirable that it is if implementation is to be successful and sustained. The weakness of hierarchical social learning is that it encourages herding on a policy that is not optimal. In general:
- It is commitment that matters, not ownership.
- Donors can influence the process of policy learning.
- A sufficient condition for policy reform is that a government has available to it a policy alternative that can be implemented and is believed to be superior to the current policy.