By Fréjus Thoto
How can the ecosystem of evidence use in policy and practice work better in Global South countries such as Benin?
Here I provide six lessons drawn from activities undertaken by the African Center for Equitable Development (ACED), a non-profit think-and-do tank, located in Benin, West Africa. Our focus has been on the food and nutrition security sector.
Lesson 1: Access to policy-relevant evidence is still a big challenge
There is still much work to do in order to ensure that timely and policy-relevant evidence is produced and accessible to users. We have developed a national platform to consolidate and display the available statistical data, research findings, and evaluation findings. However, a platform alone is not enough, and research agenda setting, research-policy dialogues and other strategic activities are required.
Lesson 2: Involve governments at all levels in evidence-informed policymaking processes
Initially, our work was focused on local governments to foster policy decisions that would directly impact local communities. However, over the years, we learned that our work on evidence-informed policymaking should explicitly involve both the local and central governments because the policymaking cycle involves both levels. Although municipalities are independent, they are influenced by strategic directions and policy processes of the central government.
Lesson 3: Navigating unclear authorities is challenging
It is often challenging to identify the main stakeholders to work with to positively influence the evidence-informed policymaking processes. It is important to understand the “game of power.” For government stakeholders, we identified three types of authorities (although these are not necessarily distinct):
- apparent decision-makers – they act as if they have the decision power (and are believed by others to have it), but it is not the case. Instead, power is held by “hidden authorities,” such as technical advisors to the apparent decision makers, with those advisors having the power to shape decisions based on their perspectives.
- constrained decision-makers – they hold power but cannot use it. In this case there are institutional barriers that prevent the decision maker from controlling the whole decision-making process. An example is when decisions have to be vetted by another authority, such as when local government decisions have to be approved by central government actors.
- unwilling decision-makers – they have the power to make decisions but do not want to inform decisions with evidence or embed evidence into the policymaking process. This may result from lack of accountability, corruption, or political incentives, where political interests conflict with what the evidence would point to.
Moreover, beyond policymakers, other actors (eg., civil society, development partners) are involved in the policymaking processes and influence the outcomes. It is essential to work closely with stakeholders to understand the power games in place and develop strategic partnerships.
Lesson 4: Implementers are also important in the evidence ecosystem
Implementers (practitioners) such as non-governmental organisations (NGOs) also play a critical role in the ecosystem, as brokers, evidence producers, or evidence users. For example, they can strategically play a brokering role or foster demand for evidence from policymakers. The NGOs need evidence to either demonstrate the magnitude of the policy problems they are raising or support the policy options they are proposing to contribute to the policy processes.
Lesson 5: Institutionalization of evidence-informed policymaking is not an easy task
Institutionalizing evidence is a long-term objective. We learned that while we are working on getting formal signals towards institutionalization, we should also support decision-makers in routine use of evidence to show the added value of the approach and make it more intuitive in the process of decision making. Our hypothesis is that continued efforts to support evidence use will create opportunities for establishing institutional rules that would govern and provide orientation to the process, even beyond the current decision-makers.
Lesson 6: Focus on how policies are made to improve evidence use
We need to understand what our stakeholders, especially policymakers, are trying to achieve and how the wider context impacts it, then identify opportunities for evidence use. This lesson has enabled us to improve how we engage stakeholders on evidence-informed policymaking.
Conclusion
As an organisation, we have found that improving evidence use is a continuous learning experience, and it is important to acknowledge that and be flexible and innovative to adapt.
How do our lessons resonate with your experience? Are there other lessons that you would add based on your country context? Are there lessons that are not relevant to your country context?
To find out more:
This i2Insights contribution is based on Thoto, F. (2021). Connecting evidence to policy and practice in Benin: Lessons and perspectives. African Center for Equitable Development (ACED) blog. (Online): https://www.acedafrica.org/en/connecting-evidence-to-policy-and-practice-in-benin-lessons-and-perspectives/, with additional information taken from:
Gbedomon, C. and Thoto, F. (2020). Navigating unclear authorities to improve evidence-informed policymaking. African Center for Equitable Development (ACED) blog. (Online): https://www.acedafrica.org/en/navigating-unclear-authorities-to-improve-evidence-informed-policymaking/
and
Thoto, F., Mas Aparisi, A. and Derlagen, C. (2023). An ecosystemic framework for analysing evidence-informed policy systems for agricultural transformation – Case study of Benin. FAO Agricultural Development Economics Working Paper 23-01: Rome, Italy. (Online – open access) (DOI): https://doi.org/10.4060/cc4288en
Biography: Fréjus Thoto PhD is the Executive Director of the African Center for Equitable Development (ACED) based in Abomey-Calavi, Benin, West Africa. He contributes to defining the strategic direction of the organization and coordinates the implementation of activities.
Dear Fréjus, thank you so much for sharing these tips! Our experience in Brazil is very much similar and we like to focus on mid-level public servants that work for the government and really meet their needs and follow them throughout their policymaker journey as a way to strengthen routine use of evidence. We also understand the importance of going back and forth between city-level government and federal government, because they are, at the same time, independent and intertwined. Will share your text with our community here 🙂 Best! Laura Boeira
Hello Laura. It’s good to hear from you! I recall our meeting in South Africa at the AEN Evidence conference. I appreciate your approach of focusing on mid-level public servants to support the institutionalization and routine use of evidence. Let us keep sharing our lessons.
Best,
Dear Dr. Fréjus,
You asked – How can the ecosystem of evidence used in policy and practice work better in the countries of the Global South? To add new lessons to those that you have described, it is necessary to answer the question – what is the difference between the ecosystem of evidence of the countries of the Global South and the ecosystem of evidence of the Global West, East and North? Let’s try to answer this question.
You probably know about the term “deep people”. The deep people are the bearer of the unique culture of the nation. This culture determines the context – the unchanging attitude of the population to the quantitative and qualitative parameters of such basic concepts as needs, benefits, values and goals. Consequently, without taking into account the national characteristics of a country or group of countries, the ecosystem of evidence will demonstrate “the average body temperature of hospital patients.” Politicians intuitively sense this lack of the ecosystem of evidence. This disadvantage allows them to convincingly explain to the population “a decrease in the volume of fish caught by an increase in turbid water in rivers.”
Thus, the lessons you have described turn into common unsolvable problems of the countries of the Global South, West, East and North. Solving these problems can serve as one of the conditions for solving the problem of sustainable development. Today, we can observe an increase in the socio-political activity of the countries of the Global South, the countries of Africa on the world stage. This circumstance contributes to the fact that African countries have a unique opportunity to form a breakthrough concept of substantiating the ecosystem of evidence in the context of the “wisdom of the deep people of the Global South”. The result of this work will allow us to revise the quantitative and qualitative parameters of the ecosystem of evidence, to make this ecosystem more efficient, not only in the countries of the Global South, but also in the countries of the Global North, West and East. If this is not done today, the countries of the new political and economic blocs and unions will necessarily face the problem of effective interpretation of the ecosystem of evidence.
To find out more:
Mokiy, V.S. & Lukyanova T.A. (2019). World Social and Economic Development in the Theory of Ternary Counterpoints. European Scientific Journal. Vol. 15, no 23, ESJ August Edition, pp. 12-27. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.19044/esj.2019.v15n23p12
Mokiy, V. S., & Lukyanova, T. A. (2022). Manifesto for systems transdisciplinarity (2023-2030). Universum: Social sciences. 9(88). https://doi.org/10.32743/UniSoc.2022.88.9.14313
Information letter – Invitation to participate in international systems transdisciplinary projects in the field of higher education and sustainable development (2023-2030). (Online – open access): http://www.td-science.ru/images/kart/Information_letter_2026_2030.pdf
Passport of the international project “Formation of a systems transdisciplinary worldview in the higher education system (2023-2026)”. (Online – open access): http://www.td-science.ru/images/kart/passport_of_the_education_project_2026_eng.pdf
Dear Vladimir,
Thank you for your insightful comment and reflections. I appreciate the concept of the “deep people” that you have introduced here and the importance of recognizing national characteristics and cultural nuances in shaping the context for evidence use in policymaking. Indeed, it’s fundamental to avoid one-size-fits-all approaches.
To add on that, I would mention that while cultural context and national characteristics are important, there are also universal principles of good evidence use that cut across all contexts. These include principles like transparency, rigor, and relevance. It reminds me “The moral case for evidence in policymaking” https://hewlett.org/moral-case-evidence-policymaking/ by Ruth Levine. Therefore, while we should adapt our approach to the local context, we should also adhere to these universal principles.
In moving forward, your idea of forming a “breakthrough concept” for substantiating the ecosystem of evidence in the context of the “wisdom of the deep people of the Global South” is a compelling one. The potential to refine the parameters of the ecosystem of evidence and improve its efficacy not just for the Global South, but also for the North, West, and East is indeed an exciting prospect.
Thank you once again for sharing your valuable insights.
Dear Fréjus,
Thank you for your positive assessment of my initiatives!
We are the heads of non-governmental non-profit organizations. However, this circumstance does not prevent us from applying the universal principles of using reliable evidence in the activities of our organizations: methodological transparency, scientific rigor and practical relevance. Perhaps it’s time to add the principle of “national adequacy” to this group.
In this case, I am interested in your opinion on the practical implementation of this principle in the context of “Lesson 4” and “Lesson 5”:
“Lesson 4: Performers are also important in the evidence ecosystem
Actors (practitioners) such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) also play an important role in the ecosystem as intermediaries, data producers or data users”.
If we approve the idea of “substantiating the ecosystem of evidence in the context of the “wisdom of the deep people of the Global South, North, East and West”, then what will the practical actions of national NGOs look like?
– Should the NGOs of the Global North develop such a justification for the countries of the Global South?
– Should the NGOs of the Global East develop such a justification for the countries of the Global West?
– Should the NGOs of the Global South, North, East and West should organize a joint international project, within the framework of which such a justification will be developed?
“Lesson 5: Institutionalizing evidence-based policy making is no easy task
The institutionalization of evidence is a long-term goal. We learned that while we are working to get official signals towards institutionalization, we must also support decision makers in the routine use of evidence to show the added value of the approach and make it more intuitive in the decision-making process”.
Are we sure that in the absence of a “justification of the ecosystem of evidence in the context of the “wisdom of the Deep people of the Global South, North, East and West”; in the absence of the “principle of national adequacy”, we will be able to help decision makers to correctly intuit the national term “equitable development” of the countries of the Global South, North, East and West?
Dear Vladimir,
Thank you for your further questions and considerations. I completely agree with the principles of methodological transparency, scientific rigor, practical relevance, and the potential addition of the principle of “national adequacy” in the use of reliable evidence.
Regarding “Lesson 4,” the practical actions of national NGOs in substantiating the ecosystem of evidence could include collaboration and knowledge exchange between NGOs from different regions. This could involve NGOs from the Global North collaborating/supporting the countries of the Global South in developing and strengthening their evidence ecosystems, and vice versa. Additionally, as you have mentioned, joint international projects that bring together NGOs from different regions to develop such justifications could be a valuable approach.
In relation to “Lesson 5,” the institutionalization of evidence-based policy making should definitely be backed with justification and efforts to provide the necessary context and relevance for decision-makers to embrace evidence-based approaches.
Thanks, dear Vladimir.
Dear Fréjus Thoto,
thank you so much for these very instructive insights. Particularly lesson 3 is an eye opener to me — to gain a more detailed and sophisticated gaze on how power is distributed. We implemented a series of case-based Mutual Learning Sessions in Colombia, China and Germany and always faced difficulties to collaborate efficiently with authorities (on both local and national level). Your contribution is a stimulus to reflect on our experience from a different perspective!
Thank you,
Ulli Vilsmaier
Dear Ulli Vilsmaier,
Thank you for your feedback. Understanding power dynamics is indeed key for efficient collaboration with authorities. I’m glad that Lesson 3 resonated with your experiences. Reflecting on these nuances could offer solutions to your challenges in Colombia, China, and Germany. I’d be interested in learning about the insights you gather from this process.
Best,