• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Bulletin
  • Privacy policy

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
    • Public sector management
    • Security & justice
    • Service delivery
    • State-society relations
  • Social Development
    • Gender
    • Inequalities & exclusion
    • Social protection
    • Poverty & wellbeing
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
    • Recovery & reconstruction
    • Refugees/IDPs
    • Risk & resilience
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
    • Peacebuilding
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
    • Migration & diaspora
    • Population growth
    • Urbanisation
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
    • Institutions & social norms
    • PEA / Thinking & working politically
    • Results-based approaches
    • Theories of change
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
    • Multilateral aid
    • Private sector partnerships
    • Technical assistance
  • M&E
    • Indicators
    • Learning
    • M&E approaches
Home»Document Library»Institutions, Power and Policy Outcomes in Africa

Institutions, Power and Policy Outcomes in Africa

Library
Goran Hyden
2008

Summary

In Africa, as elsewhere, the paths to development are dependent on historical institutional context, and cannot be imposed from outside. This paper, from the Africa Power and Politics Programme, argues that in African states informal institutions dominate power relations but are not understood, and so development policies lack any real traction. A model of how formal and informal institutions interact is proposed and linked to an analysis of power itself – its basis, reach, exercise, nature and consequences. This shows that conventional models of development planning cannot work in Africa, where the production and distribution of ‘public goods’ are highly politicised and personalised.

African institutions today come from local values and the remnants of modern values that survived decolonisation. Thus both state and market function along lines that are unpredictable. African countries are in the process of building an institutional backbone that tries to merge values of their own society with norms that are being pressed upon them by the international community. States in Africa are still in a formative – or re-formative – stage in which reform packages which may work in established state contexts do not easily take root.

Formal institutions operate on an impersonal basis, adhere to written rules, are transparent, and execute agreements precisely. In contrast, informal institutions generally operate face-to-face, use unwritten rules, are confidential and take an ambiguous approach to executing agreements.

There are differences in rationale behind political action in conventional models of analysis and policy practice in Africa. Power in Africa rests in the relations between persons. While the positivist focuses on cause and effect and thinks in terms of policy and getting things done, non-positivists think politics first. In Africa actors tend to operate with a dual utility: one’s own narrow interest and the value inherent in the exchange relations with others. For most Africans, the exchange relation usually weighs more heavily than pure self-interest.

In much African policy making, a full understanding of what can or cannot be achieved with a particular intervention is not sought as a precondition for action. Instead, the political decision is made first, often under dramatised circumstances, in order to produce a sense of urgency. Ends are used to justify means. There are five ways in which African policy making differs from the positivist approach:

  • There is often an oversupply of a particular public good because political decisions are made without cost-benefit considerations.
  • The politics behind policy is as much about avoiding negative outcomes as producing positive ones due to the countries in Africa being generally poor and the authorities only having limited control over their destiny.
  • Informal institutions determine the use of power and thus the distribution of goods is politicised to favour those who are connected to the government through ties of dependence with political leaders.
  • A particular policy may be allocated a certain amount of money in the national budget but as it is being implemented various actors may decide to use part of the allocation to either enrich themselves or shift it to another budget post.
  • In terms of the way collective action is organised, the notion that a common good is being provided thanks to only a few actors, the others being ‘free-riders’, is too simplistic. Where patronage dominates policy, ‘free-riding’ tends to disappear, as it is strategic for a ‘Big Man’ to provide goods to others.

Source

Hyden G., 2008, 'Institutions, Power and Policy Outcomes in Africa', Africa Power and Politics Programme (APPP), London

Related Content

Donor Support to Electoral Cycles
Helpdesk Report
2021
Institutions, approaches and lessons for coherent and integrated conflict analysis
Helpdesk Report
2020
Developing More Inclusive Politics Through Sub-national Electoral Processes
Helpdesk Report
2020
Who are the Elite Groups in Iraq and How do they Exercise Power
Helpdesk Report
2018
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2023; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2023; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2023
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2023; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2023; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2023