This paper argues that a more interactive and flexible approach to Political economy analysis (PEA) is required if it is to realise its full potential. This involves combining analysis of the macro-politics of recipient country interests with the micro-politics of stakeholder relations, including more self-reflection on the part of donors and consultants. The paper situates PEA within an action-learning framework.
Development practice involves operating in increasingly complex and uncertain contexts to build and sustain relationships between stakeholders who often have sharp differences in commitment, capacity and outlook. Increasingly, PEA is being used by development agencies to respond to this challenge.
However, the potential of PEA to inform more radical reform has yet to be realised in full. Doing so entails converting detailed analysis into concrete action at the same time as being more open about the political economy of how development agencies and practitioners themselves operate. This paper sets out a framework to address this challenge. While informed by a growing literature on the practice of PEA and extensive discussions with colleagues, the framework needs further empirical testing.
The framework involves learning and feedback as an overarching process, and the following elements:
- Scoping to identify a specific problem and to indicate for whom the analysis of the problem is intended.
- PEA and technical analysis
- Reflection on our own strengths and weaknesses in relation to the problem
- Scanning the horizon
- Planning
- Events (and outcomes)
Locating PEA within an action-learning framework acknowledges that development practice is a process of interaction and discovery and highlights three ways of making more effective use of PEA:
- To be more specific about the scope of analysis, who it is being done for, and why
- To be more reflexive by combining a PEA analysis with more explicit self-assessment
- To be more agile by adapting analysis and its use to feedback and new events.
If PEA is regarded solely as a technocratic means to better understanding of the commitment and capacity of others, without opening up opportunities for internal learning and adjustment, then its role in enhancing reforms will be small. There seems to be scope for combining the complex and still developing art and science of PEA with more explicit analysis of the relationships and processes within which it takes place.
