Five questions for considering political context

Edited by Gabriele Bammer

How can researchers rapidly assess the political and institutional environment in which they are trying to exert influence? Why does understanding context matter?

Developing a rich, detailed understanding of the political environment in which a problem needs to be addressed can be a never-ending research project, not only because of the depth of scholarship that can be brought to bear, but also because political environments are often unstable and rapidly-changing. Few research projects have the luxury of large budgets and long time horizons in which to fully comprehend the environments that they seek to influence. Instead, practical rapid assessment tools can be valuable and improve the effectiveness of research input and actions.

One such tool for rapidly assessing political context was published in 2014 as part of the Rapid Outcome Mapping Approach: A Guide to Policy Engagement and Influence by John Young and colleagues and a modified version is reproduced here.

The five questions produced by Young and colleagues can stimulate thinking about the political and institutional environment, especially:

• How it affects the persistence of a particular problem
• Where reform is most likely to come from
• How knowledge, policy and power relations interact with each other
• And the implications of all of these for the use of research-based evidence.

The five questions are.

1. Which branch of government holds the key to change?
   This involves understanding how relevant governments work, what checks and balances are in place and where blockages to change are likely to be. In many democracies, for example, checks and balances result from government being divided into three branches: the parliament, the civil (or public) service and the judiciary, which vary in their policy making roles.
2. Where and how does political debate occur?
   This involves understanding the extent to which political debate occurs in the open or behind closed doors, and also how much it is influenced by strong vested interests. This affects which actions will most likely be effective in introducing research-based evidence. Where political debate happens out in the open, it may be most effective to actively engage in it. Where debate happens behind closed doors, or where there are strong vested interests involved, it will be difficult for researchers to engage and they may need to work through intermediaries.
3. What role do informal politics play?
   Informal politics is the term used to describe influence exerted by strong personalities or groups, or by patronage. In order to undertake effective action, it is important to understand the relationship between informal politics and formal policy making procedures. Where informal politics are strong, they can override formal policy-making procedures and block change from happening.
4. Is there really capacity to make change happen?
   This involves reviewing factors such as:

   • How effective is the civil service?
   • How strong is the hold on power for the governing political party?
   • Do those affected by the proposed change vote?

   Governments in the Global South may have limited capacity to make change happen. Civil servants may be ineffective, political parties may have such a tenuous hold on power that they find it hard to implement substantive change or voting patterns may be so entrenched that change becomes unlikely – particularly if the change is designed to benefit marginalised groups who are less likely to vote.

5. How do external forces influence change?
   This involves considering, where relevant, the influence of international trading partners, donors, and various international dialogues and processes.

How does this sit with your experience? Are there other key questions that you would add? Do you have examples to share of how considering (or maybe not considering) these questions affected your ability to influence policy?

Reference:

This i2Insights contribution is a partly modified version of one of the steps “Systemic factors: the political and institutional environment” described in Young, J., Shaxson, L., Jones, H., Hearn, S., Datta, A. and Cassidy, C. (2014). Rapid Outcome Mapping Approach: A Guide to Policy Engagement and Influence. Overseas Development Institute (ODI), London, UK. See the report’s interactive website at: (Online) https://www.odi.org/features/roma/home

A description of “Editor’s additions” is available in https://i2insights.org/index/integration-and-implementation-sciences-vocabulary/. This editor’s addition was produced by Gabriele Bammer using the reference above.

Biography: Gabriele Bammer PhD is Professor of Integration and Implementation Sciences (i2S) at the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health at The Australian National University in Canberra. i2S provides theory and methods for tackling complex societal and environmental problems, especially for developing a more comprehensive understanding in order to generate fresh insights and ideas for action, supporting improved policy and practice responses by government, business and civil society, and effective interactions between disciplinary and stakeholder experts. She is the inaugural President of the Global Alliance for Inter- and Transdisciplinarity (2023-25).