Research increasingly emphasises that what works in development depends on country-specific realities and opportunities. Donors need to recognise that politics is central to the development process so that they make the necessary investment in understanding local political dynamics. This paper from the 2008 Development Studies Association Conference finds that while political analysis is influencing specific aspects of donor activity, its impact is fragmented and donors’ default position remains technocratic. Strong, visionary leadership is needed to enable donors to make major changes in their thinking, organisation and culture.
Political analysis shows that political context and process shape the incentives of politicians and policymakers for or against progressive change. This directly challenges conventional donor approaches that assume the problems are primarily financial and technical, and that the political behaviour of their ‘partners’ can be influenced by ‘dialogue’ and conditionality. While donors are doing good quality political analysis, it is not changing the underlying assumptions, organisational priorities or operational approaches of any major donor agency.
Work in different sectors of donor activity – including fragile states, governance and growth, the political economy of sector reform, and global drivers of bad governance – emphasises the importance of informal political processes and relationships, and the interdependence of political, social and economic pressures for change. It is making some impact – occasionally at a strategic level where policymakers face a clear crisis; more often in shaping project design and aid modalities. However there are powerful intellectual and institutional barriers that make it difficult for donors to take on board the lessons emerging from political analysis. Three factors seem to be at work:
- Political analysis is seen as too academic, offering little guidance about operational implications.
- There are strong institutional incentives within aid agencies (and development NGOs) that reinforce the status quo.
- These interact with conceptual/intellectual barriers, such as the difficulty of acknowledging the limited scope of external influence in the short to medium-term.
Political analysis implies a more limited direct role for donors, but it offers new opportunities for more effective, indirect strategies. Donors should change their structures and procedures in order to prioritise country knowledge and invest much more in the generation and dissemination of good quality, accessible local data and related policy analysis. They should also:
- Act urgently to expand action at a global level to limit the damaging impact of rich country governments and businesses on the quality of governance in poor countries. Some important measures are already on the OECD agenda.
- Do much more to limit the potential damage of donor behaviour on local incentives for progressive change. More realistic expectations of general budget support, for example, and more predictable funding via government systems could improve both a government’s policy-making ability, and incentives for groups to organise to influence policy and demand greater accountability.
- Reassess the way they support civil society by: (a) engaging with a broader range of groups (not just NGOs but also membership-based local organisations); and (b) focusing on state-civil society interaction (by looking, for example, at how action by the state – to make tax regimes fairer, budget processes more predictable and transparent, policy processes more consultative – could stimulate the organisation of citizens).
- Prioritise issues of taxation and public expenditure management. Tax in particular is a highly strategic issue, with the potential to mobilise taxpayer groups.
