This paper argues that the process of political economy analysis (PEA) is not fundamentally flawed and indeed agrees with PEA advocates that success in future development programmes requires a wholesale re-thinking of the relationship between politics and international development. However, the paper argues that PEA has today become a tool or product ‘sold’ to donors and ‘done’ externally, and it is no longer fit for purpose.
The authors use the term ‘PEA™’ to refer to this understanding of political economy analysis as an external product. They trace the evolution of PEA from a transformative approach to policy-making to a discrete instrument that is applied to specific ‘problems’, usually by external consultants. They draw attention to the consistently faulty and introspective methodology that has informed the undertaking and application of PEA™.
This research is based on:
- textual analysis of PEA frameworks, reports, ‘how-to guides’ and evaluations;
- semi-structured interviews with donor staff at a number of agencies, and with consultants and academics working on PEA;
- participant observation of PEA debate and training in a number of settings, including in PEA-focused donor workshops, PEA training at donor events (both as participants and as trainers), PEA ‘community of practice’ meetings bringing together donors and consultants, and in conducting PEA in-country.
The authors suggest some new ways of doing political economy analysis to replace the PEA™ approach:
- Joint donor-recipient studies – though not necessarily solving the problem of getting donor staff to ‘think politically’ – may be one way to overcome some of the limitations of current PEA frameworks regarding ownership.
- Donors might look at using existing patronage structures, identified by PEA in recipient states, to achieve development objectives. PEA could also be used to help local reform coalitions to open ‘windows of opportunity’ in the reform process, as suggested by the World Bank Institute.
- For PEA to lead to behaviour change within donor agencies – where donor staff begin to ‘think politically’ – PEA would need to be done by donor staff themselves, and not just by governance or public sector specialists. PEA™ frameworks are far too complicated to be used in this way. This means they are not fit for purpose, if the purpose is ‘thinking politically’.
- PEA needs to move beyond the PEA™ approach to finally help donor staff ‘think politically’ in the contexts in which they find themselves – quickly, simply and intuitively. This is clearly what donor staff themselves want.