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.