TWP CoP February-March 2024 Newsletter
Bringing you the latest news and updates on all things TWP!
Dear Friends and fellow travellers on all things TWP,
Welcome to our February-March 2024 edition, which is filled with lots of exciting content to catch up on since our last Newsletter in December.
We’d like to kick off by giving a warm welcome two new staff members of the TWP CoP Secretariat: Lyndsey Hand, who is our new Programme Manager, and Sithandiwe Mujuru, who joins us as our Programme and Communications Officer. Lyndsey brings a wealth of experience in the development and humanitarian sectors, having led and managed large FCDO-funded governance and security sector reform programmes in Pakistan, Nepal, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, and Zambia, while she is also Deputy Director of Operations and Programme Manager of the Serious Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Evidence (SOC ACE) research programme at the University of Birmingham. Originally from Zimbabwe, Thandie worked for the Governance and Social Development Research Centre (GSDRC) prior to joining the TWP CoP Secretariat, and she is the 2018 recipient of the Mo Ibrahim Scholarship for Governance and State Building. She maintains a strong interest on issues related to democratisation, human rights, political economy, social development and Governance. We are thrilled to have them both on board! We are also very grateful to The Policy Practice’s Alex Scoines for all the support she has provided to tie us over in the course of the past few months — it has been a pleasure to work with her.
And now for a brief overview of what you will find in this February 2024 edition:
Our feature interview focuses on the work that the Institute for Integrated Transitions (IFIT)’s Colombia team is doing to encourage dialogue and collaboration in Congress across party lines in what is a highly polarised political context.
To hear about exciting work and initiatives in the TWP space, check out the “What we are working on” section of the Newsletter. Peter Evans shares an idea he is developing to integrate political economy further into the mainstream of growth and development thinking and practice. In that section, you can also learn more about the TWP case study competition that USAID has launched.
If you are curious about “What we are reading”, take a look at Flor Guerzovich’s review of a report about how far learning has come (or not) in the development sector.
Last but not least, as always, we bring you the latest publications, events, resources and other news of interest from a TWP perspective!
If there is anything you would like to share with us, including items for future newsletters, please get in touch by email at: info@twpcommunity.org. And please share with your network, and subscribe if you haven’t already!
Oh and please remember: If you are able to, it is better to open the newsletter directly on your browser (click on the ‘TWP CoP February-March 2024 Newsletter’ header, at the top of this page) so that you can get full access to all our content.
With best wishes,
Alina & Graham
Highlight feature
Conversation with IFIT Latin America’s Maria José Daza Bohórquez and Martha Maya
For this highlight feature, Alina had the pleasure of speaking with IFIT’s Maria José Daza Bohórquez (Research Associate and Lead of the Regional Programme for Latin America and the Caribbean and Martha Maya (Senior Associate and Head of the Latin America Regional Office). IFIT is an international organisation based in Barcelona that works with fragile and conflict-affected states to achieve more sustainable transitions out of war, crisis or authoritarianism. IFIT has an innovative model of engagement that is anchored in networks of experts in-country as well as practice groups of global thematic experts. The work of IFIT Colombia focuses on accompanying and promoting current peace building initiatives drawing on an extensive body of research and evidence that have emerged from decades of peace negotiation and transitional justice efforts in the country. In this conversation, Maria José and Martha share reflections and lessons from IFIT Colombia’s experience in brokering spaces for collaboration and engagement among young congressmen and women across political divides within a country that remains deeply polarised in the aftermath of decades of armed conflict and the historic peace agreements that were reached in 2016.
Watch the video here:
Alternatively, you can listen to the podcast version here:
Episode 10: Alina Rocha Menocal in conversation with IFIT’s Martha Maya and Maria José Daza Bohórquez on their efforts to foster peace and reconciliation in Colombia.
What we are working on
USAID TWP Case Study Competition
USAID’s Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance has launched a Thinking and Working Politically Case Study Competition to capture real-life case studies of USAID staff and implementing partners using a TWP approach for organisational learning and more effective development outcomes. Winning cases will be selected by a panel of judges who are all veterans in the TWP, including close friends and collaborators of the TWP CoP, as well as a few members of our Steering Committee. Watch this space for more news once we know who the winners are!
PEA, PER, and an idea: ‘Our World in Data… for Political Economy Research’ - Practical Politics Platform
By Peter Evans
I’m drumming up support for a new initiative which I hope will get political economy further into the mainstream of growth and development. The idea focuses on Political Economy Research (PER), but I hope it will also excite the PEA crowd.
The idea
Here is the summary version:
Elevator pitch: ‘Our World in Data – for political economy research’.
The Practical Politics Platform will find, summarise, and explain high quality political economy research, across countries and sectors. As an open access public good, it will support any actor in growth and development to better understand, and address, political constraints, thereby unlocking effectiveness across sectors.
The platform aims to normalise and de-risk politically informed approaches and public policy debate, building demand for PER and ‘open PEA’, and increasing overall funding, particularly for experts in the global south. It aims to make technocratic approaches less and less tenable.
The ‘wireframe’ would look something like this:
Below is more explanation of where the ideas come from.
Please get in touch if you want to hear more – I can share the latest concept note, more graphics, and I actively seek your challenge, ideas, engagement. Help!
Where has this come from?
Political constraints are like a rusty cable running through my career – maybe the shadow of Cameron’s golden thread. (The photo is of me after literally swimming into a rusty cable). But there has been unexpected political opportunity too – my zenith was in Bihar when service delivery and tackling graft became a re-election strategy for the Chief Minister, and DFID India’s Governance Team (which I led) was ideally placed to help.
Bihar also jump-started the Anti-Corruption Evidence (ACE) programme. UK Minister Justine Greening had said a firm no to the business case (‘my policy team say they know what to do and you say we need more research?’). She relented when I reminded her of the unlikely success she had seen on a visit to Patna. We promised her ‘more like that’ – with research telling us how to repeat it. ACE is now ten years old.
I am a PEA and TWP fellow traveller. My career began in health research, and ‘PER’ (the R is for Big R Research) is more my thing. Leading DFID’s Governance, Conflict, Inclusion and Humanitarian Research Team gave me a grip on ‘practical political economy’ research with a ‘political settlements’ framing – learning from programmes such as ESID and SLRC, and developing a next wave – ACE, African Cities. I get a thrill when this research goes mainstream and informs big spend in growth, health, education, climate. ESID’s book on the politics of education and ACE’s work on drug leakage, absenteeism are examples of breakthrough, but very large mainstream spending is still undisturbed by any variant of PER or PEA.
PEA versus PER
When I say ‘PER’ people often hear ‘PEA’. In simple terms, this is how I distinguish between them – with some strengths and weaknesses in the supply of both.
PEA can be deployed quickly, address a priority problem, and help shape strategy that is more likely to be effective. But PEA is often a private service – not public, so may only inform the actor that commissioned it. Quality is not always baked in (no one in the TWP CoP does bad PEA, but there is some bad stuff out there).
PER may be more anchored in theory and existing evidence. The academic publishing system incentivises quality (through peer review) and delivers a public good – published, for all to use, not just the ‘buyer’.
But there are problems – publication may take years, be paywalled, hidden in niche journals, written in impenetrable jargon, with no clear ‘so what?’s. The traditional research funding system incentivises novelty over utility, though expert research funders – like my old team in DFID/FCDO – can tackle these constraints. When I say ‘practical’ political research I mean plain language, policy relevant, action oriented, and public.
PER and PEA operate in a mutually beneficial system – PEA builds on published research, and many experts do a mix of both. Both PEA and PER can be criticised for being better at ‘breaking’ (criticism) than at ‘making’ (how to do better).
If we want PEA and PER to have greater uptake and be more influential, there are also clear demand-side challenges (which the TWP CoP tackles): mainstream knowledge, skills, tools, risk appetite, norms. There is little sanction for technocrats that deliver repeated disappointment. Blame lack of political will and all that…
The ‘P’ in Anti Corruption
In my time as Director of the U4 anti-corruption resource centre, these supply and demand problems kept cropping up – donor staff asking if we could find usable political research on problem x in country y; how to commission PEAs; how to raise issues from a PEA with partners that were unaware of the PEA. Or the subject of it.
I also met development funders – old multilaterals as well as newer foundations - that were oblivious, or allergic, to talk of politics. However, change was visible – senior leaders had read Stefan Dercon’s book, taken a PEA course, and been energised -- but expressed that they lacked the tools to truly ‘mainstream’ a more political effort, or were cautious about being ‘first movers’ in their sector in case this backfired.
Building a practical political platform
On stepping down as U4 Director, I floated some ideas in a podcast and blogs, and I have been working hard on this since. I’m talking to researchers (Brian Levy was the first to get in touch and offer support), PEA experts, platform builders, AI experts, prospective users (bilaterals, multi laterals, foundations, global programmes), and potential funders. I’ve learned a lot: each consultation actively improves the plan. The latest blog is here.
The platform would address supply and demand sides in PER and PEA - including advocating (to funders and experts) that all new PEA has a public summary (views?!).
Overall, the ‘use case’ is clear – ‘if this existed, we would use it’.
Funding is tougher.
The dream would be a public good investment in an open access platform, with the aim of unlocking effectiveness across sectors, whatever the actor or source of funds. I’m particularly focused on trying to persuade foundations with this logic.
The reality might be building up from smaller country pilots, funded by those with a particular interest in that place and sector, and building up a common programme with a range of funders. We’ll see!
I’m optimistic – though solitary hustling is exhausting. Fancy shaping/joining/co-hosting/funding a bold new effort?
I’m sure that you have a host of questions and challenges – who will ‘own’ the platform? Is there really enough research out there to search and summarise? Is this out of step with localisation and decolonisation? Does it risk gobbling up the fixed resources already used for this kind of work?’
Let’s talk!
Peter
Get in touch with Peter on Twitter, LinkedIn, and/or Substack
What we are reading
Cohen, A., Ramandani, D., and Cheney-Coker (2023) With All of Our Hearts: Demand- Driven Learning in International Development Sector. Ignited World LLC.
By Florencia Guerzovich
Key findings at a glance
This report starts with a premise that members of the TWP CoP likely agree with: that learning is central to address complex development challenges. The report focuses on the people who are expected to lead on learning in development organisations.
It adds interesting data by analysing job descriptions of 19 recent job postings for Monitoring Evaluation and Learning (MEL) specialists and 60 postings for evaluation consultants published in Devex, LinkedIn, and EvalCommunity as a proxy for organisational learning priorities, and complements this with interviews and consultations with other experts.
The report concludes that, in the international development field, many organisations are not only ‘talking the talk’ but also ‘walking the walk’ on learning, and this goes beyond the number of well-known examples that are usually showcased. Yet, there is still a long way to go to make learning an internal driving force in practice. Firstly, there seems to be a substantial disconnect between i) the skills that are needed to enable internal learning and reflection, and ii) those highlighted in the job postings. In addition, there is little clear and explicit emphasis on the need to foster an organisational culture that encourages learning.
Putting findings and recommendations in context
The report’s data collection and analysis open the possibility to go deeper into other issues that deserve attention:
Soft skills
According to the authors, soft skills – including experience and expertise facilitating learning, capacity building, innovation, adaptability, enhancing participation, influencing others, managing change, finding creative solutions, and building partnerships across teams and organisations – are critical to managing MEL activities, processes, and systems. These resonate with USAID Learning Lab’s focus on curiosity, communication and listening skills, critical thinking, and comfort with uncertainty and change to enable adaptive management. Other desired qualifications are near and dear to the TWP community as well, such as the ability to uncover and navigate complex, non-linear change processes, unequal power relations, structures, and norms; and experience with gender analysis, political economy analysis, and programmes’ theories of change.
Yet, looking at the qualifications sections in job descriptions, it appears that development organisations do not signal explicitly that they will hire people with these kinds of skills. Instead, from the sample the authors looked at, most applicant requirements/qualifications remain focused on traditional M&E and project management skills (e.g. software competencies; experience with data collection, research, and analysis; and communications/reporting skills). The report does not make suggestions on possible ideas to craft job postings that are more responsive to learning needs, but this is something that USAID’s Monalisa Salib has been thinking about. According to her, the posting may signal competencies which include taking and managing risk and political acumen and/or decision quality, among others. Her guidance includes advice on prioritising competencies which are relevant for different roles and questions that might be asked in a job interview.
In addition to job postings, With all of our Hearts investigated a few “positive deviants” which provide another important clue about the type of MEL staff organisations should hire. The report argues that intrinsically motivated mavericks (individuals or teams) who can advance change against the odds without the need for external incentives seem to be critical to ensure that ‘positive deviants’ do not only ‘talk the talk’ but also ‘walk the walk’. Shall we call them mission-driven staff and consultants? I would also call them jugglers because the picture below only covers some of the ways in which they spend time at work and the skillsets they need.
The report’s authors argue that those tasked with mission-driven MEL ‘juggling’ require not only strategic and technical brains, but also emotional intelligence and the opportunity to nurture relationships. While acknowledging that there isn't necessarily a trade-off between emotional intelligence and other forms of expertise, I wonder whether the report's heavy focus on the emotional aspect ("whole hearts") might dilute the chance of the strategic and operational message being taken up.
Connecting the dots to other conversations
The authors acknowledge that North-South dynamics matter. Yet, it also misses an opportunity to help readers link the report to a broader ongoing dialogue on shifting power towards the Global South in MEL.
If the focus on learning continues to grow, we are likely to face a critical gap in the pipeline of skilled human resources that can fill those new jobs. If no pipeline of well-networked, ‘unicorn or miracle’ maverick-jugglers is available, you cannot assume that they will come to these roles and be able to implement the report’s recommendations.
A question this report does not ask, but perhaps should, is: given the attention that learning currently enjoys across organisations, at least in principle, what is needed to capture this window of opportunity before it tapers down and closes? Is it time to invest in nurturing a group of networked mavericks who can embed learning within a broader set of organisations, especially across the Global South? And how can this be done more effectively?
PS: If tapping into this window to advance complex-minded MEL is an issue you are interested in, including to figure out the value of TWP in the context of localisation, reach out. We would love to hear your emerging thoughts and practices on this!
Bulletin Board
Course on PEA and climate action
The Policy Practice is running the popular online course on Political Economy Analysis of Climate Action. This course explains how political economy analysis can be used to understand the challenge of action on climate change and to design more effective interventions. The course consists of 8 online sessions running from 5 March to 9 April 2024. Visit this link for more information.
Call for systematic or rapid reviews
FCDO invites tenders to conduct a systematic review of the effects of climate change and environmental degradation on children's learning in low- and middle-income countries. Email your proposal to uk_evidence_fund_administration@pwc.com by 15 March 2024.
FCDO invites bids by 1 March 2024 to conduct secondary research on the effectiveness of feeding children at school in low and middle income countries. Email your proposal to uk_evidence_fund_administration@pwc.com by 1 March 2024.
Recent Publications
Academic books, Journals, and Articles
Aston, T., Roche, C., Schaaf, M., & Cant, S. (2022) Monitoring and evaluation for thinking and working politically. Evaluation 28(1): 36-57.
This article explores the challenges of monitoring and evaluating politically informed and adaptive programmes in the international development field, analysing specific evaluation methodologies. Based on scholarly literature and practical experience, the article suggests that methods that assume generative causality are well-suited. The authors argue that factoring in uncertainty and evidence generation and use is important in order to value diverse experiential knowledge, integrate understandings of the local context, accommodate adaptation and grapple with power dynamics.
Cheeseman, N., Swedlund, H. J., and O’Brien-Udry, C. (2024). Foreign aid withdrawals and suspensions: Why, when and are they effective?, World Development (178)
In this article, the authors argue that aid withdrawals and suspensions are qualitatively different from giving no aid and thus are a unique aspect of the political economy of aid. These strategies are used rarely, in part because there is limited evidence that they are effective. The article highlights both the challenges and the opportunities of unpacking the complex decision-making behind aid suspensions and withdrawals. Further research is needed on the political calculations and options used by aid-receiving states to discipline donors. The authors emphasise the need for new forms of data collection and verification to go hand in hand with more systematic and nuanced approaches to understanding donor and recipient country choices.
This article is the introduction to a special issue that contains five other papers that look at different aspects of this story, including how recipient states respond, the significance of public opinion, and the impact of aid volatility. The whole issue can be downloaded here.
Freeman, M. and Afako, B. (2024). Negotiating with Criminal Groups: A Guidance Note for Good-Faith Promoters. Barcelona: IFIT.
This publication offers guidance directed towards what the authors describe as good-faith promoters of formal negotiation with one or more violent criminal groups (be they mafias, cartels, gangs, pirates and other violent crime groups) when the proposed endgame of the negotiation is to reduce or end the criminal violence in question.
Raja Mohan, C. (2023) Is there Such a Thing as a Global South? Foreign Policy (9 December).
This article delves into the concept of the ‘Global South’, exploring its definition and the countries it encompasses. The article emphasises the importance of recognising the nuances and diversity within the Global South to effectively address its development challenges.
Sen, K., and Hickey, S. (2024) Pathways to Development: From Politics to Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
This open access book explores the complex dynamics between politics and developmental outcomes. Through a multidisciplinary lens, the book delves into how various political structures, institutions, and actors shape the trajectory of development in different contexts. It analyses case studies across countries and regions, shedding light on the role of governance, democracy, corruption, and social movements in driving or hindering development efforts. Emphasising the importance of inclusive and participatory approaches, the book offers insights into how power relations, both domestic and international, influence development outcomes.
Van Doodewaard, M. and Prentice, A. P. (2023) Back to Basics: Solidarity, Trust and Adaptability for Revitalised Development Collaboration. Global Policy Journal (8 November).
The article advocates for a return to foundational principles of solidarity, trust, and adaptability in revitalising development collaboration. It highlights the erosion of these values in favour of transactional relationships, and the need to rebuild trust and solidarity among development actors. By prioritising genuine partnerships and adapting to changing contexts, the article argues for a more effective and sustainable approach to development cooperation. It calls for a shift from top-down approaches towards more inclusive and adaptive models that prioritise local knowledge and ownership, which are essential to foster more equitable and impactful development outcomes.
Reports, Briefs, Working Papers and other Policy Publications
Guerzovich, F. and Wadeson, A. (2024) Scaling Up Collaborative Social Accountability in Complex Governance Systems: A Relational Approach for Evidencing Sustainability. Washington, D.C: World Bank Group.
In this report, the authors argue that a key challenge in Monitoring, Evaluation & Learning (MEL) is assessing whether and how scaling up complex interventions can contribute to long-term sustainability and system change. Without a crystal ball of the future, the monitoring and evaluation of programmes can only offer a partial view — yet, evaluators are asked to make meaningful assessments about the long-term sustainability of benefits, including scale-up. In this paper, the authors develop and test a prospective and relational rubric to square this circle.
See also their blog here.
Guerzovich, F. and Keevill, L. (2023) Systems-Aware Social Accountability - Harnessing Practitioner Insights for More Responsive Governance. Pact.
This report explores the integration of systems-thinking in social accountability practices to enhance development outcomes. Drawing on practitioner insights, it emphasises the importance of understanding complex systems dynamics in implementing responsive interventions. By adopting a systems-aware approach, organisations can better navigate the interconnected factors influencing social change. The article highlights strategies such as stakeholder mapping, adaptive learning, and collaborative partnerships to foster more effective social accountability initiatives. Through case studies and analysis, it underscores the significance of contextually informed interventions that address power dynamics, leverage local knowledge, and promote inclusive decision-making for sustainable development impact.
Medinilla, A. and Byiers, B. (2023). The political economy of green industrialisation in Africa. ECDPM Discussion Paper No. 363.
This paper discusses the complex landscape of green industrialisation in African countries, outlining a political economy framework to analyse available opportunities and risks for emerging economies. As major industrial economies adopt 'green growth' policies and narratives, African governments must navigate pre-existing challenges in economic diversification as well as global climate commitments. The paper emphasises the intricate relationship between technical considerations, political complexities and the diverse interests and capabilities between and within African countries in the promotion of green industrialisation efforts.
Vanheukelom, J. (2023) Two years into South Africa’s Just Energy Transition Partnership: How real is the deal? ECDPM Briefing Note No 174.
This brief assesses the effectiveness of South Africa's Just Energy Transition Partnership in promoting a fair transition to clean energy. Through stakeholder interviews and analysis, it evaluates the Partnership's impact on policy, investment, and social inclusion in the energy sector. The briefing note discusses challenges such as policy coherence and financial sustainability while highlighting achievements in stakeholder engagement and capacity building. It emphasises the importance of continued collaboration and adaptive management for realising the partnership's goals.
Youngs, R., Alexopoulou, K., Brudzinska, K., Csaky, Z., Farinha,R., Godfrey, K., Jones, E., Mantoiu, E., Panchulidze, E., and Ventura, E. (2024) European Democracy Support Annual Review 2023. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
This review summarises the contextual factors that influenced European democracy support policies in 2023 and outlines the general evolution of EU and national democracy strategies during that period. The review also provides an assessment of aspects of democracy policy which are related to Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine and its regional fallout. It offers examples of European democracy funding as well as of the use (or not) of sanctions and conditionality. The review examines the relationship between conflict dynamics and the role of democracy support in EU security missions and interventions.
Blogs, Podcasts and other opinion pieces
Dissanayake, R. (2023) ‘What Is the UK’s International Development White Paper For?’. Centre for Global Development (7 December).
In this blog, Ranil Dissanayake points out the value of the White Paper in influencing internal policy debates within the UK government. The author highlights the value that the WP has for the technocrats in FCDO fighting to restore credibility and effectiveness in UK development policy.
Evans, P. (2023) ‘Survival of the fixest’. Not That Peter Evans’s Substack (18 December).
This blog discusses the use of ‘fixers’ in development work, examining and understanding how and why fixers function, and what they mean for TWP in the short and long term, both formally and informally.
Green, D. (2023) ‘Mia Mottley on Slavery, Poverty, George Floyd, Climate and the Future of the World’. From Poverty to Power (14 December)
In this blog, Duncan Green provides insights from a speech that Prime Minister of Barbados Mia Mottley delivered at LSE in December 2023 on the interconnections between slavery, poverty, George Floyd's legacy, and climate change. Advocating for a more equitable and sustainable future, Prime Minister Mottley stressed the need for global cooperation, reparations, and systemic change to address historical injustices and current crises.
Events
Recent event:
21 February 2024: Inside the Political Mind: How the human side of politics shapes behaviour. The Institute for Government hosted this event with Greg Power to mark the publication of his new book exploring how politicians’ personal interests affect the work of government.
Ongoing events:
20-29 February 2024: 2024 DRG Annual Learning Forum. USAID’s DRG (Democracy, Rights and Governance) Learning Forum is an annual event supporting the generation, curation and dissemination of DRG evidence and methods for DRG practitioners. As a third wave of autocratisation has unfurled, key questions remain on how to forestall and reverse democratic backsliding. This year’s Forum, held over eight sessions, focuses on lessons and evidence from the DRG Learning Agenda that can inform programme design and implementation on key topics of interest in the DRG space.
27-29 February 2024: World Bank Fragility Forum 2024 (FF2024), Washington DC. The World Bank is hosting the FF2024, a hybrid event, running under the theme Adapting and Innovating in a Volatile World. This event will provide an opportunity for those working in and on Fragility, Conflict and Violence (FCV), including those in the development, humanitarian, government, civil society, private sector, research, and security communities, to exchange experiences and examine how developmental interventions have worked in countries affected by fragility, conflict and violence. The aim is to share lessons and seek adaptive and innovative approaches that are suited to the fast, evolving global FCV landscape. Register here.
Other Resources
Javier Mejia has released this podcast, Economic and Political History, that intends to introduce the work of the most influential researchers in economic and political history to a wide public via new media.
The CLA Toolkit from the USAID Learning Lab provides curated tools and resources to integrate collaborating, learning and adapting into development work.
The Centre for Elections, Democracy, Accountability and Representation (CEDAR) at the University of Birmingham has launched a podcast on People, Power, Politics which explores key forces influencing and reshaping the current political landscape.
TAI has a new name! While the acronym remains the same, they are now the Trust, Accountability and Inclusion Collaborative – Funders for Participatory Governance. You can sign up to the TAI Weekly to catch up on what is happening in the field of accountability, inclusive participation and trust.
Tell us what you think…we want to hear from you!
Please do not hesitate to get in touch with us for your suggestions and ideas for sections of our newsletter. You can do this via:
- Email: info@twpcommunity.org
- Twitter: @TWP_Community
- Or by leaving a comment down below