This paper examines the ways in which different donor agencies and implementing organisations are addressing the challenges of political programming. It uses the term ‘political programming’ to describe the recent attempts by donor agencies to apply more political forms of analysis (such as ‘drivers of change’) in the design, delivery and implementation of projects to achieve ‘political’ outcomes; that is, where donors and implementers are seeking to engage with political incentives and structures to achieve change, rather than relying on technical support.
It draws on interviews with staff from agencies and implementing partners as well as a number of independent consultants working on the design, delivery and evaluation of party and parliamentary projects. It also includes an analysis of strategy papers and planning documents from a variety of organisations and an in-depth examination of political programmes with parties and parliaments in four countries.
The paper suggests that while there is a degree of consensus at the strategic level, donors are struggling to translate their strategic insights into project design on the ground. It argues that the dynamics of the aid effectiveness agenda are pulling in a different direction to the logic of political economy analysis. Ultimately, the way donors are ‘managing for results’ may be undermining both the long-term quality and impact of political programmes.
Key Findings:
- The most successful projects are those which first allow for significant flexibility in project implementation; and, second, establish realistic political objectives.
- Political programming still relies on specific activities and interventions, which means that there is a tenuous link between some of the techniques used and the hoped-for outcomes. Political change is not linear, but messy, haphazard and unpredictable. Yet there is almost no strategy for managing these activities towards particular outcomes. Political programmes need a strategy which is not just based on an integrated analysis, but has an integrated strategy to achieve change.
- Greater effectiveness and integration in party and parliamentary support depends on donors changing their role. It means altering the way in which projects are delivered, with a better translation of political analysis into project design, and greater flexibility in the way they are implemented. However, the ‘aid effectiveness’ agenda, in particular its emphasis on ‘results’, appears to be pulling programmes away from this approach. This is generally being interpreted by donor agencies as the need for a ‘return on investment’ with tangible signs of change, but this risks distorting the way in which such projects are delivered.
- The emphasis on ‘results’ runs the risk of reducing the effectiveness of such political programmes, as the desire for quantitative data means that projects end up with the wrong indicators, which in turn means that they end up doing the wrong things.
Recommendations:
- Projects should be driven by outcomes rather than process.
- The logic of programmes must reflect the fact that political change is an internally driven exercise.
- A more effective approach requires flexibility so that programmes evolve and adapt to changing political circumstances. A flexible and genuinely outcome-oriented form of programming would mean that donors take greater responsibility for the results of their interventions, but ultimately exercise less control over the way they are implemented.
