Part II of this paper will
Objectives
1. Key terms and concepts: training, capacity building and capacity development
From training
...to capacity building
Capacity building refers to human resources development as well as organizational development, generally understood as "institution building" or "organizational engineering". Capacity building therefore encompasses activities aimed at acquisition of knowledge, technical skills and attitudinal changes as well as activities related to management skills and effective and efficient functioning of organizations. It goes beyond "training" as it represents a shift from focusing on individuals' abilities only, to individuals in organizational settings as well as a shift in the concept and practice of knowledge acquisition. In "training", knowledge is transferred through transmission techniques, such as lectures and assigned readings and through a series of events. In capacity building, learning occurs through experiential techniques, i.e. discussion, workshops, problem solving, field experience and on-the-job learning, very frequently through group activities.
...to capacity development
The term capacity development is used more and more replacing the term 'capacity building'. Capacity development underlines that each society has capacities, that external agents acknowledge these and contribute to their improvement and enhancement through an endogenously led process (in contrast with capacity building which could have a connotation of building from scratch).
Institution building and capacity development may involve reviewing the organizational set up of public sector institutions in agriculture both at the central and subnational level, supporting information management systems or data bases, introducing new ways of working, creating guidelines, implementing in-service training programmes or other types of activities, etc., as it will be illustrated later on in section 4 on experiences.
2. Food and agriculture policy analysis functions and domains
'Policy analysts' versus policy researchers
It is generally understood that policy analysts differ from policy researchers, the two being driven by a different set of incentives[32], policy analysts being more closely tied to public policy. That is why policy analysis is often referred to as a "craft". As opposed to policy researchers, who view themselves as part of an academic community, specialised in a particular discipline and pursuing knowledge-building and disciplinary excellence, policy analysts have to 'craft' policy options for decision-makers. They translate research findings into policies that can be directly implemented, thus acting as interface between researchers and decision-makers. The concern with implementation means paying attention to many practical considerations in addition to, or beyond, the pursuit of disciplinary excellence as well as attention to the practicability of the options proposed in the country's political context at a given time. Policy analysts' work, furthermore, is usually characterised by deadlines, at times very tight, scarce financial resources and difficult access to information sources, be they formal (e.g. libraries) or informal (web-based). Policy analysts in public administrations are therefore similar to practitioners in that they contribute to the adoption and implementation of policies.
Institutional locus of policies
...in various ministries
It should be added that, rarely in government settings, does one find officers whose only task is to conduct policy analysis, whatever their label. Usually, policy analysts come under some combination of the words 'policy', 'planning', 'administration', 'evaluation', 'research', 'studies'. The questionnaires received from the participants in the Workshop reported the following variety of titles: Director of Planning and Policies Administration; Coordinator of Research and Economic Studies; Director of Studies; Agricultural Economist; Senior Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment Officer; Director of Agricultural Economic Policy Department; Head of Policy and Agricultural Price Analysis Division of the Ministry of Agriculture; Food, Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Information Management Policy Unit; Department of Economic Studies and Statistics.
As mentioned earlier in this document, for the food and agriculture sector, policy analysis work at the national level can be found in the mandate of Ministries in the agriculture and rural sector (Agriculture, Rural Development, Irrigation, Natural Resources, Forestry, etc.) or in the Ministries of Environment, Industry, Trade, Planning and Finance, whose decisions impinge on agriculture, and in some cases, also under the purview of subnational authorities. In many countries, policy analysis is outsourced to research and academic institutes[33] and to consulting companies.
...in specially created institutions
In other cases it is mandated to specially created institutions and units, such as the National Agricultural Policy Center in Syria, the newly established Agricultural Information and Policy Unit of the Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry in Afghanistan or the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) Monitoring and Food Security Unit in the Ministry of Agriculture in Tajikistan.
...in regional organizations
Increasingly, with the trend towards regional integration, some policy analysis related to agriculture, particularly in relation to natural resources and environmental threats (such as desertification, pollution and transboundary plant and animal diseases), infrastructures, marketing information and trade facilitation, is also conducted at the regional level by regional economic organizations (e.g. European Union, Council of Arab Economic Unity, the Arab Maghreb Union, the Gulf Cooperation Council, etc.).
Policy development and analysis functions
For the sake of capturing the diversity of tasks subsumed under the terms policy development and analysis, a summary classification is sketched in Box 1. Policy analysis functions are grouped under "Desk Officer" function, which involves general observatory and monitoring functions in a particular policy area; "Policy Development" refers to initiating and promoting policy analysis work; "Policy Analysis (Research and Oversight)" covers actual analytical work or supervision of work subcontracted to outside agencies or universities. This is the area where most capacity development efforts are directed, as reported in section 4. The last category, referred to as 'Firefighting', is meant to take into account the myriad of diverse tasks policy analysts may be called on to provide, usually at short notice, drawing on analytical work done or information gathered.
..methods and values
Thus, policy analysis capacity entails methods for designing and predicting the consequences of alternative policies - so that informed choices can be made - and for participating effectively in the political process - so that the choices can be actually implemented. It involves problem setting, provision of technical standards for the analyses and use of persuasive arguments for public discourse, through various media.[34] Communication to engage citizens in support of policies for agriculture, rural development and food security is considered a core element of good governance, a challenging task, made more complex to implement by the emerging information and communication technologies (OECD, 2001). Finally, policy analysis capacity also implies the acquisition and professional practice of values such as analytical integrity (pursuing objectivity), accountability towards the organization, which requests the analysis, and adherence to, and making explicit, the underlying policy paradigm[35].
As mentioned earlier in this document and as reported in the background document on Food and Agricultural Policies in the Near East Region, the scope of food and agriculture policies is very broad, encompassing a wide array of policies including: policies for managing natural resources; trade policies in the context of regional and multilateral trade negotiations; rural development policies for increasing incomes and human capital through investments in physical and social infrastructure; institutional reform policies related to decentralization of agricultural services through the public sector, privatization or transfer to non-governmental organizations, to support and development of rural financial institutions, to monitoring and enforcing food safety, plant and animal hygiene standards, etc.
Box 1. Policy Development and Analysis Functions
Type of Policy Work |
What it entails |
Outputs/ Products |
Required Abilities |
Policy Desk Officer or Contact Officer |
Coordinating policy in a particular area; 'watchdog' for 'strategic watch' function: 'staying on top of issues'; reaching out to various stakeholders for problem identification, including international organizations (IFPRI, CGIAR, FAO, etc.); monitoring policy implementation through various media; holding national fora or seminars; evaluating and managing information and existing research; disseminating policy research results and devising communication flows to obtain feedback |
Briefs; papers on policy issues; synthesis papers; information systems; data bases; web-pages |
- Gather and organize information from various sources, including key informants, previously accumulated studies. - Review critically the high or low quality standard of available research done by others; assess relevance and ability to absorb it. - Develop strategies to understand quickly the nature of the policy problems and the range of possible solutions and communicate such assessment. |
Policy Development |
Initiating policy work to develop a position on sectoral policy issues; to defend the sector in internal discussions within government; calling on task forces or other bodies to participate and define the policy issue to be investigated; to defend the country's position in international negotiations |
Policy papers on policy options; pieces of legislation |
- Put perceived problem in context and identify need for public intervention. - Understand political and organizational behaviour. |
Policy Analysis (Research & Oversight)[36] |
Conducting analyses directly or supervising and guiding analytical work subcontracted; conducting: (a) routine studies on the agricultural sector; (b) in-depth studies of areas, sectors or commodities; (c) studies on new research directions. |
Studies; policy option papers |
- Conduct analyses: predict the economic, social, environmental impact of alternative policy options. present findings in both a technical and non-technical form |
Firefighting |
Meeting various requests from Minister's or Prime Minister's office or other offices |
Policy briefings for Parliament/ Radio/TV/Press Releases; speeches; web content, etc. |
- communicate convincingly, both orally and in writing, for different audiences using different media |
Adapted from Weimer and Vining (1999:38)
3. The need and scope for regional and international cooperation in developing a food and agriculture policy analysis capacity
Are human resources:
...sufficient in number
...qualified
...operational
...up to date?
Many countries lack sufficient staff with appropriate basic and updated qualifications - such as economists, agricultural economists, agronomists with specialised technical knowledge in various technical domains, rural development specialists, rural sociologists or political economists. In other countries, such staff may be available, and yet there may still be the need to strengthen and to continue to develop such capacity, because of a number of coexisting factors. The international development context changes rapidly and there are high risk of obsolescence and technical 'deskilling' through too much routine and firefighting work. Holding higher level degrees (MSc or PhD) in itself does not guarantee that the academically acquired knowledge and skills are transformed into applied operational policy analysis. Changes of attitudes may be required from a command, control and administrative type of behaviour to more developmental and research-oriented behaviour. Policy reforms underway in most economies imply knowledge and analysis of complex processes of political and economic changes in a given institutional environment, away from the uncritical adoption of pre-packaged policy paradigms and recipes, as well as knowledge and understanding of how the international and regional regulatory context impinge on domestic policy making (e.g. in areas such as food safety or phytosanitary standards, multilateral or bilateral trade agreements, biotechnology developments, etc.).
Are there enough 'research editors' and outreach specialists?
Furthermore, the vast quantity of policy research available world-wide, and made easily accessible particularly through Internet, calls for 'research editors' with critical abilities in recognising the high or low quality standard of research and in assessing its relevance and usefulness. Increasing importance is also given to enhancing the qualifications of qualified intermediaries between policy analysts and the general public, such as financial journalists, the press and other media specialists; or other stakeholders (producers' associations, NGOs) to enable them to become informed constituencies in problem setting, analysis and coalition building.
Policy analysis capacity implies concern with ensuring that such capacity, as it exists or when built or strengthened, be put to use, i.e. that the organizational units charged with policy analysis can actually access and manage information and data, produce and communicate the analyses through the appropriate channels and that the staff be not overstretched performing too many 'firefighting' functions, to the detriment of sound analytical work.
The needs according to the questionnaire respondents
All the questionnaires received indicate training as one activity that appears to be a regular feature of the institutions to which the respondents belong (Question 5.1) and is also a point repeated in the recommendations on suggested improvements at national, regional and international level (Question 7.7).
The questionnaires received emphasize (Question 7.5) organizational restructuring as the most needed capacity development element towards their institution's policy performance and delivery. Acquisition of skills is ranked as needed by all countries, followed by altering of incentives and attitudinal changes.
All questionnaire respondents (except three) indicate that they have international relationships and support (Question 5.4.1) and that they participate in national and international networks (Question 5.4.2.). All have answered positively about having relations with other research institutions.
The recommendations (Question 7.7) point to the desirability of continuing to be involved in, and enhancing:
At the country level
At the regional level
With the cooperation of the international community
"Funding of activities at national and regional level;
networking and regional research;
enhancing relations with civil society and rural households with the aim of collecting correct and reliable information to be used in policy analysis and policy recommendations;
establishing information centres;
training;
implementation of tools and methods for follow up and evaluation;
assisting countries in improving the institutional setting and providing training".
4. Selected capacity development experiences and approaches
There is ample experience illustrating various modalities through which the broad notion of capacity development - encompassing building individuals' abilities, functioning organizations in both the public and non-public sector, enabling procedures and practices for making policy choices, and for implementing such choices - is transformed into activities.
Following are a few examples drawn from FAO's experience. For FAO, as for other UN agencies, capacity development is an explicit goal of its technical assistance[37]. For the sake of illustration, the examples have been singled out and categorised. While they could represent individual capacity development models, often they are part of a package of interventions aimed at strengthening both individuals' knowledge and skills in the areas of policy analysis (research and oversight) and policy development as well as organizational settings. They are:
a) Institution building, where the focus is on establishing a new organization or unit, as a locus of policy for the agriculture sector in a country and enhancing its human resources, with focus on policy research and oversight functions (such as the National Agricultural Policy Center in Syria or the policy units in the Ministries of Agriculture of Afghanistan and Tajikistan).
b) Specific various capacity development activities
At national level: on-the-job training, courses and seminars to address the knowledge and skills gaps of individuals in organizational units with policy tasks mandate.
At regional level: workshops, study tours and networking, strengthening regional economic organizations, to learn from experience, to analyse relevance and applicability of prevailing policy paradigms and to work on policy issues with a regional dimension.
At international level: workshops, fora, expert consultations to favour countries' participation in the global governance regulatory and development process (e.g. multilateral trade negotiations on agriculture, international standard setting on food safety or phytosanitary standards, conventions and codes of conduct, etc.).
These examples all refer to endeavours where a specific effort is made to adapt and contextualise capacity development modalities and content to the countries or to a region. This explains the reason for leaving out in this paper, the supply of courses-workshops run by universities or other organizations, available on the market, particularly in industrialised countries.
a) Institution Building
The NAPC in Syria as an example of a policy assistance package
The experience to date shows that international assistance can be instrumental in promoting the creation of new organizations in the public sector with a mandate for applied policy analysis work. The example of the NAPC, summarised in Box 2., shows a 'package' of elements that are constitutive of a food and agriculture policy analysis capacity: an organization which is a locus for policy analysis work in the agriculture sector in the country and a source of information and data on agriculture; a number of staff being trained to be 'policy analysts'; policy studies prepared, both in response to requests or initiated autonomously and a series of activities to disseminate and discuss the results of policy analysis work at the national level. The NAPC experience is reported in detail in the paper by Mr El Hindi and Mr Fiorillo (Section 5.3).
Box 2 The National Agricultural Policy Centre (NAPC) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform (MAAR). The Syrian economy, characterized for many decades as centrally planned, has witnessed an evolution in strategic thinking and policy regime towards domestic liberalization, greater reliance on market forces and increased compliance with, and integration into the international economic system. A policy of gradual reform has been taking place since the mid-1980s; with regard to agriculture, this has meant a shift of emphasis from food self-sufficiency to self-reliance by adjusting domestic prices toward international prices, redistributing state farms' land to private owners, downsizing price control mechanisms and Government involvement in marketing inputs and outputs while promoting the role of private agents. In light of the pursued policy reforms, the Government of Syria requested assistance to strengthen its technical and institutional capacity to analyse, formulate, and monitor sustainable agricultural policies under an open market economy scenario. The Government of Italy through FAO provided such assistance, starting as early as 1995 and continuing today. The studies promoted on restructuring of public institutions in agriculture in the new market-oriented scenario led to the establishment of the National Agricultural Policy Center (NAPC), a Center to become specialized in the area of applied economic analysis for agricultural policy. The NAPC was created and assistance was directed towards:
|
Effectiveness and sustainability factors
The example of the National Agricultural Policy Centre (NAPC) in Syria is emblematic of the long-term nature of the assistance required for building a fully functioning policy analysis capability[38] as well as of the issues surrounding the effectiveness and sustainability of such an organization:
the modalities and channels for the relevant agriculture-related institutions to commission policy work and, inversely, the modalities and channels of the NAPC for alerting such institutions on a policy problem;
the ways for communicating and disseminating policy research results and for obtaining feedback on the research needs of the users;
the ability of an organization such as the NAPC to maintain a system for its own policy research as well as for evaluating the relevance and usefulness of research done by other organizations, both national and international;
its degree of autonomy in decision-making and in managing financial resources;
its ability to retain qualified staff, to provide incentives to staff in order to remain motivated and professionally updated and
its ability to network professionally with research and academic institutions in the country and at international level.
The Agricultural Information and Policy Unit in Afghanistan
The choice of locating policy analysis work in a single unit has also been made this year by the Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry (MAAH) in Afghanistan. The Ministry has established an Agriculture Information and Policy Unit (FAAHM, which means "knowledge" in the Afghan language), directly under the supervision and guidance of the Ministry's top management (Minister and Deputy Ministers). The mandate of this unit comprises: analysis of information; formulation and analysis of policies and strategies; cooperation/liaison with other Ministries, provincial administrations, NGOs and other stakeholders within its mandate. A long-term capacity building programme is being formulated for the eight staff of the Policy Unit as well as for staff of the other Ministries in the agriculture and rural sector. Initial training activities have started comprising knowledge of economics, basic agricultural policy concepts and tools of analysis and communication skills (English, use of computers).
The PRSP Monitoring and Food Security Unit in Tajikistan
In Tajikistan the Ministry of Agriculture has recently established a Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) Monitoring and Food Security Unit (PMFSU). Training activities are being formulated in food and agriculture policies and in project formulation.
In addition to enabling staff to be more focused on policy research work, the advantage of having a locus for food and agricultural policies is that such organizations or units may have the potential of creating 'policy entrepreneurship' style of research. They can encourage a corollary set of activities aimed at marketing knowledge and popularising research through a variety of training, information and other mediatic activities. They have thus the potential of setting the agenda and the power to create "consensual knowledge, i.e. a shared understanding and interpretation of the problems and solutions" (Stone, 2003).
b. Specific various capacity development activities
At the National Level
Capacity development in response to specific needs
Capacity in agricultural policy analysis can be developed according to various modalities, in response to individual countries' specific needs concerning policy issues and products (e.g. the formulation of an agricultural strategy, the production of a particular study, as shown by the examples provided in Boxes 3 and 4).
On-the-job training aims at imparting knowledge and skills to enable people to perform better in their profession. As the expression implies, training is given with minimum disruption of people's work and is geared to help them in their actual policy tasks. The end product of such capacity development is on the one hand the acquisition of knowledge, skills and new behaviours of the trainees and, on the other, actual policy products, e.g. an agricultural strategy or a policy study. Box 3 provides an example of a training programme, developed following a request for assistance from Armenia to FAO.
Box 4. shows another example of on-the-job training related to the production of an annual report on trade in Syria, as part of the functions of the National Agricultural Policy Center (NAPC).
Box 3 Armenia: Strategy for Sustainable Agricultural Development The Government of Armenia requested FAO assistance in formulating a national strategy for sustainable agricultural development. The assistance provided consisted of technical guidance and on-the-job training to national teams from the Ministry of Agriculture over a period of two years. The end product has been a National Strategy covering the following aspects on which methodological guidance and training was given: Macroeconomic situation of the country:. Macroeconomic stabilisation and GDP structure; population and per capita GDP; employment, unemployment and wages; poverty and food security; state budget and fiscal system; agricultural policies and budgetary support to agriculture; WTO negotiations for the agricultural sector. GDP growth, poverty, food demand and food security: simulations. GDP projections; final consumption and poverty projections; domestic food demand projections, per capita food consumption and food security; agricultural/food import and export projections; total agricultural/food demand. Analysis of the competitiveness of selected sub-sectors: wheat, flour production. fruit and fruit processing, milk, butter and meat. Farming systems in Armenia. Prevailing farming systems; SWOT analysis; farming systems and the expansion of the cropping areas: simulations
|
Box 4 Syria: On-the-job Training Preparation of a Study on Syrian Agricultural Trade The objective was to acquaint staff of the National Agricultural Policy Center (NAPC) in Syria with rigorous policy analysis work. This is a strategic action in supporting the staff/trainees in switching focus and attitudes from "attending training" to "actively contributing" to research activities. Accordingly, it was decided to let trainees experiment how to prepare a policy analysis paper on a specific issue of relevance for Syrian agricultural policy decision making. The duration was six months. The method: five trainees were organized into a team. The team counted on the technical guidance of an international consultant, working with the trainees during three missions of one week each and providing advice over E-mail during the entire period. Moreover, the team included two staff members of the NAPC to assist the international consultant and to support and coordinate trainees' activities. The Project Agricultural Economist ensured overall co-ordination and continuity of the supervision, providing daily assistance to the teams and facilitating remote interaction with the international consultants. Study content: the Report presents a picture of Syrian agricultural trade, providing an updated and enhanced picture of the agricultural trade situation, including monitoring the undergoing changes in the related policies. More specifically, it deals with:
|
issues for consideration
Such cases of on-the-job training are generally considered very effective for learning. The outputs produced through iterations with experts' support, methodological workshops and distance backstopping represent what the trainees can produce and are definitely 'owned' by them. Critical issues for consideration in these cases include the stability of trained cadre and ensuring that the acquired knowledge and skills remain with the individuals (e.g. through refresher training) but also with the organization in a given country. Usually, the association of national academic/research institutes in such on-the-job training endeavours is particularly important as such institutes are professionally interested and tend to retain and consolidate the knowledge in their own curricula and programmes. In addition to the studies themselves, ways of consolidating the acquired knowledge include turning the policy studies carried out into 'case studies' for teaching purposes and preparing training and resource materials that are then incorporated in the regular curriculum of the academic or training institutions of the country.
Box 5 Information Management for Agricultural Policy Analysis An eight-week course was given to officials from the Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform (MAAR) covering:
|
Capacity development to:
...customise knowledge
Courses, seminars, in-service training and workshops at national level, are particularly suitable for sensitizing/training on new topics or for customising knowledge with respect to a particular country, as shown in Box 6, where trade policy issues have been presented, discussed and developed with specific reference to Jordan's agricultural sector.
...update knowledge and skills
They are also a good vehicle for imparting general skills on information management, data search and communication, as done recently for staff of the Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform in Syria (Box 6), or on basic economics and statistics.
Box 6 Jordan: Course on Trade Policy and Agriculture (10 days)
|
Policy makers and policy analysts are usually supported by staff who carry out basic research work and assist in the finalization and presentation of reports. Basic research work involves evaluating and managing information and results of existing research (both nationally and internationally), searching and presenting data and information, synthesizing results of policy work in simple convincing language and/or in tabular format. Updating such skills periodically is important for ensuring that the policy analysts and their support staff have full command of the 'nuts and bolts' for policy analysis work.
The critical issues for consideration in the case of customised courses are how to ensure that their elaboration is not done in isolation either by public sector organizations or by academic and research institutions and how to promote communication and collaboration between the two on a regular basis. Possibilities could be sabbaticals of academics in government to enable them to acquire a minimum experience in policy formulation and, vice-versa, 'sabbaticals' for government officials in research and academic institutes, or attendance of conferences or at a minimum, giving them time to read journals.
Scope of regional cooperation
At regional level cooperation through workshops, study tours and networking and strengthening regional economic organizations. This is an area where international and regional organizations can play an important role in relation to policy harmonization (FAO, 2003): e.g. policy studies on measures for promoting intra-regional trade and for removing trade barriers; common standardization of food safety control systems and standards, and of phytosanitary and zoosanitary standards; development of a coordinated international trade policy stance in WTO agricultural negotiations; coordination of fiscal incentives to encourage foreign investment; establishing a common framework for the protection of intellectual property; management of national resources and preparing regional programmes for food security[39]. Regional cooperation is also important to promote sharing of information[40] and for creation of knowledge (e.g. the production of knowledge in Arabic language, both in terms of translations and production of resource and training materials).
... and development of regional policies
Box 7 provides an example of a regional workshop on water policy analysis and management. The benefit stems from the different countries' participation, water management being in their case a trans-national policy issue. Such workshops are particularly suitable for discussing, sharing information and experiences, working in groups to review a policy topic and to foster the formation of regional policy views and recommendations.
Other forms of regional cooperation for capacity development are study tours in relation to a specific policy issue and joint formulation of programmes where domestic policies are considered in a regional policy context.
Issues for consideration:
...capitalization
...link with academia
...role of REOs
In order to avoid that these types of regional activities are ad hoc, or only carried out once, it is important to consider at their formulation stage how to disseminate their results, the knowledge accumulated or common positions built, at the national level, i.e. how to continue the communication established among policy-analysts or policy makers of the participating countries. As for the other types of capacity development activities, the link with academic and research institutes on a sustained basis is also crucial. A particularly important role could also be played by the Regional Economic Organizations (REO) or Regional Development Banks.
Box 7 Kazakhstan, Regional Training Course on Water Policy Analysis and Management for Agriculture (10 days)
|
Learning from international experience
...and deriving best practices
At international level. It is in the mandate of international agencies to promote the participation of developing countries in the global governance regulatory and development process, thereby to encourage multiplicity of views, spreading of ideas, sharing and discussing the prevailing policy paradigms, promoting policy debate and facilitating access to information and to alternative views on food and agriculture policies. In particular, in the area of food and agriculture policies, there is a demand from countries to know which policy reform measures have worked or not worked in other countries and the conditions for their success and reasons for failure; in other words, there is a demand for learning from, and sharing, experiences among countries. Such activities are initiated by the agencies themselves on request of their governing bodies. These initiatives result in the formation of loose networks of professionals involved or interested in food and agriculture policy analysis.
Box 8 illustrates the example of a programme launched and carried out by FAO to enable developing countries' participation in the multilateral trade negotiations on agriculture.
Box 8 Capacity building on the Multilateral Trade Negotiations on Agriculture FAO launched in 1999 a programme of capacity building to improve the developing and transition countries' understanding of the WTO agreements of direct relevance to agriculture (AoA, SPS & TBT, TRIPS)* and of new issues likely to arise in the negotiation process. The FAO Technical Cooperation Programme was catalytic in eliciting donors' support (Caribbean Development Bank, Czech Republic, European Commission, France, Germany, Sweden). Fourteen sub-regional workshops were organized of one week duration covering:
Eight hundred and forty six (846) specialists (21.5% women) participated from 151 countries. Africa, 4 workshops for 269 officials; Asia, 2 workshops reaching 132 officials; Central and Eastern Europe, 2 workshops for 143 persons; Latin America and the Caribbean, 3 workshops for 170 officials and the Near East and North Africa, 2 workshops for 132 officials. Approximately 63% of the participants were from the agriculture ministries, 21.8% in ministries or departments dealing with trade, economics, industry and standards, and 10% from universities, independent research institutions and the private sector; foreign affairs and, public health ministries.
|
issues for consideration:
...cost effectiveness
...distance learning
...networks
These types of activities are particularly effective for sensitizing and informing about emerging international issues, for enabling communication and exchange of information among countries as well as among agriculture-related organizations within the country. Because of the high costs involved and the limited number of participants from each country, they can only be the seeds of further country-based activities. Ways of reducing costs and reaching a higher number of persons are being explored; for example, FAO is running distance learning courses (via Internet) on food, agriculture and rural development policies courses in Latin America and has built a formal network of academic and research institutes on food and agriculture policies in the region[41]. A critical consideration is how such networking among individuals, public sector and academic institutes can be continued on a sustained basis.
Conclusions and proposed leading questions for discussion
The conclusions from the needs, experiences and approaches reviewed point to the following proposed issues which were discussed and on which participants made their recommendations (Section 4. of this document).
the long term nature of institution building and capacity development requiring sustained on-the-job learning;
how to ensure that the units/organizations entrusted with policy analysis function effectively and efficiently (retaining qualified staff, evaluating its own research, linking with government and other research institutions, having resources to access data and information, etc.);
for both institution building and different capacity development approaches, how to foster, promote and maintain in a sustained manner the link with academic/research institutions at national, regional and international level, and how to build and disseminate knowledge created through policy research;
the usefulness of networking and participating in regional and international activities on policy domains of relevance to several countries or emerging policy issues.
At national level there is a demand for improving the capacity for food and agriculture policy analysis in the countries of the Near East Region:
what is the need at the national level which is unmet by domestic efforts? Are the units/organizations in charge of policy analysis adequately staffed in terms of number and in terms of qualified human resources including both specialists and support staff? How are they organized? Do they have access to information resources and data bases? Can they carry out policy analysis? Can the communicate the results of policy analysis with reports, briefs, press releases and other media? If not, why? Is it due to inadequate knowledge and skills? Is there a need for developing the capacity of other stakeholders?
What type of capacity development activity would be required? For whom?
In which critical and priority policy functions and policy domains?
Can such capacity be built or strengthened by national or regional academic/research institutes? Is there a need to develop also the capacity of the academic and research institutes?
At international and regional level: while acknowledging that policy analysis is to be carried out taking into account each particular country's economic and political context, it is also true that there is ample experience world-wide from which to learn and methodologies to draw from. Developing capacity for policy analysis can benefit from such experience.
How can the existing experience, both in applied policy analysis and in capacity development, be best capitalised on, shared and further disseminated between governments and academic and research institutes, both within countries and regionally?
There is scope for country-based activities complemented by regional and international capacity development endeavours; this requires identification of what can be done by the countries themselves and identification of the gaps to be filled by regional and international assistance. Which organizations/institutes with a regional scope can assist? In which emerging policy domains would regional and international capacity development activities be required?
The newly established Near East and North Africa Network for Agricultural Policies (NENARNAP) will be a forum where institutional and capacity development issues will continue to be discussed and communication and cooperation will be fostered among governments in the Region and regional and international organizations.
Bibliography
Barbero G. 2000. Establishment of the National Agricultural Policy Center, Project GCP/SYR/006/ITA, Damascus Syria.
Blandford D. 1990. "The costs of agricultural protection and the difference free trade would make" in Agricultural protectionism ed. F. Sanderson, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C., USA.
Brock A., S. N. Durlauf, and K. N. West. 2003. "Policy Evaluation in Uncertain Economic Environments", Working Paper 10025, NBER, Cambridge (MA), USA.
Byerlee D. 1998. "The search for a new paradigm for the development of national agricultural research systems", World Development, 26.
Carden F. and S. Neilson. 2002. IDRC-supported research in the public policy process: a strategic evaluation of the influence of research on public policy, International Development Research Center (IDRC) Evaluation Unit, Ottawa, Canada.
De Benedictis M. 2000. A Framework on the Elaboration of an Agricultural Development Strategy for Syria, Project GCP/SYR/006/ITA, Damascus, Syria.
Echeverria R. G., E. J. Trigo, and D. Byerlee. 1996. Institutional Change and Effective Financing of Agricultural Research in Latin America, World Bank Technical Paper 330.
FAO. 2003. Regional Integration and Food Security in Developing Countries by A. Matthews, Rome (TMAP 45).
FAO. 2002. Report of the Twenty-Sixth FAO Regional Conference for the Near East, Teheran, Islamic Republic of Iran, 9-13 March 2002.
Fuglie K., N. Ballenger, K. Day, C. Klotz, M. Ollinger, J. Reilly, U. Vasavada and J. Yee. 1997. Agriculture Research and Development. Public and Private Investments Under Aletrnative Markets and Institutions, AER-735, USDA-ERS.
Gardner B. L. 1999. Returns to policy-related social science research in agriculture, Impact Assessment Discussion Paper n. 9, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington DC, USA.
Gardner B. L. and W. Lesser. 2003. International Agricultural Research as a Global Public Good, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(3).
Hajer M. 2003. Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void, Policy Sciences, 36.
Harberger A. C. 1954. "Monopoly and resource allocation", American Economic Review 44.
Hirshleifer J. and J. G. Riley. 1992. The analytics of uncertainty and information, Cambridge University Press, USA.
Hopkins J.W and M. A. Taylor. 2001. Are U.S. Farm Programmes Good Public Policy? Taking Policy Performance Seriously, paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, USA.
Majone, G. 1989. Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process, Yale University Press, Haven and London.
Maxwell S. and R. H. Percy. 2001. "New trends in development thinking and implications for agriculture" in Food, Agriculture and Rural Development ed. K. G. Stamoulis, FAO Roma, Italy.
Maxwell S. and R. Slater. 2003. "Food Policy Old and New", Development Policy Review, 21 (5-6).
Neilson S. 2001. Knowledge Utilization and Public Policy Processes: A Literature Review, International Development Research Center (IDRC) Evaluation Unit, Ottawa, Canada.
Norton R. D. 2003. Agricultural Development Policy: Concepts and Experiences, FAO and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
OECD. 2001. Citizens as Partners. Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making, Paris.
Ryan J. G. and J. L. Garrett. 2003. The Impact of Economic Policy Research: Lessons on Attribution and Evaluation From IFPRI, Impact Assessment Discussion Paper 20, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C.
Sandiford F. and E. Rossmiller. 1997. "Many a slip: studying policy delivery systems" in The Political economy of the common market in milk and dairy products in the European Union, FAO Economic and Social Development Paper 142.
Schimmelpfenning D. E. and G. W. Norton. 2003. What is the value of agricultural economics research? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(1).
Smith L., J. Gray and E. Chapman. 1999. Institutional Analysis for Food and Agricultural Policies, TCAS Working Document, FAO Roma, Italy.
Stone D., S. Maxwell and M. Keating. 2001. Bridging Research and Policy, paper prepared for an international workshop at Warwick University, United Kingdom.
Sutton R. 1999. The Policy Process: an Overview, Overseas Development Institute Working Paper 118, London United Kingdom.
Timmer C. P. 2003. Food Policy in the Era of Supermarkets: What's Different?, for a Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Scientific Workshop on "Globalization, urbanization and the food systems of developing countries: Assessing the impacts on poverty, food and nutrition security," October 8-10 Rome, Italy.
Tyers R. and K. Anderson. 1992. Disarray in world food markets, New York Cambridge University Press.
World Bank. 1986. World development report, New York Oxford University Press.
Weimer, D.L. and A.R. Vining. 1999. Policy Analysis. Concepts and Practice, Prentice Hall, N.J.07458
Appendix 1 The use of policy analysis results to revise beliefs
An analytical framework
For an evaluation of the information generated by policy research, in this section we follow the approach used by Gardner (1999). He assumes that policymakers take into account all the effects of what they do and can use the research or not as they see fit. The valuation of policy research requires estimation of the difference the research makes in policymakers' actions and its value. Policy research is an intermediate product,[42] an input into a political decision. It is helpful to think of the product of policy research as twofold: information as knowledge and information as news. Following Hirshleifer and Riley (1992, Chapter 5), knowledge is a stock magnitude - an accumulated body of data or evidence about the world. But information is not only a stock of certain knowledge, but also a flow or increment of "news" or "messages" of uncertain reliability about a state of affairs that is itself uncertain. This characterization of policy research output lends itself naturally to a treatment of policy actors as Bayesian decision-makers under uncertainty.
The flow-chart of a Bayesian political-economy model, drawing on Schimmelpfenning and Norton (2003), for assessing the contribution of policy analysis is provided in Figure 1. A variety of feasible actions are assumed open to decision makers. The consequences of those actions depend on the prior probabilities of different states of nature occurring. If additional information becomes available from policy analysis, policy makers and interest groups may revise their prior probabilities (knowing the probability of the research message being true) and reassess the available actions. The value of the new information is the difference between the maximum value of the policy action with and without the information. To see how this characterization works analytically, Appendix 1 provides a graphical analysis and small numerical example.
Figure 1. Bayesian political-economic model for impacts of social science research
Source: Schimmelpfenning and Norton (2003, p. 83)
Information requirements of the Bayesian approach
The model has demanding requirements for information. One needs not only the probabilities of true states of the world given researchers' estimates, but also the ex ante probabilities of the accuracy of researchers' findings. Moreover, establishing causality between policy analysis results and specific decisions or institutional changes is a challenge, as these results are only one of the many inputs in a decision-making process involving political decisions, strategic behaviour, and other factors. Accordingly, Schimmelpfenning and Norton (2003) argue that "the theoretical framework for agricultural economics research evaluation should be cast as a political-economic model that allows for multiple interactions among interest groups, policy centers, and research centers" (p. 82). More importantly, it is also necessary to assume that policy makers can carry out a professional evaluation of the research findings they use, at least sufficiently to determine their expected value.
This model, with the value of any policy outcome measured by producers' and consumers' surpluses, is consistent with the welfare-maximising theory of public choice. However, an approach based on ex ante consideration of the research programme in the Bayesian context is also able to take into account the fact that much of policy-related social science research is oppositional and used by policymakers and interest groups against each other. A research programme, for example, may consist of a range of studies that raise doubts about the policies proposed by the government, increasing uncertainty about the state of the world. Even in this case, though, there would be a social gain if the new results show that the previous research is of lower quality than thought and there was too much confidence placed on it: "one of the beauties of the Bayesian approach is that it takes into account the likelihood that the research gives the wrong answer" (Gardner, 1999, p. 21).
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
1. Identification (name of the institution involved in policy analysis; name and position of the respondent)
1.1 |
Name of the institutions........................................................................ |
1.2 |
Name of respondent (title and official
position):..................................... |
2. Institutional features
2.1 The Institution is located:
|
within the government |
|
outside the government |
2.2 Which actors are directly involved through contact officers or participation in permanent bodies (e.g., management board or scientific committee) or associated (e.g., providing/receiving information or participating in some phases of the work) in the activities of your Institution (D = direct involvement - A = association):
Governmental
institutions (specify)
.............................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................
Non-governmental
institutions (specify)
.............................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................
2.3 To whom is the Institution supposed to deliver services?
|
Government bodies (specify) |
|
|
Consumers |
|
|
Producers |
|
|
General public |
|
|
International organizations |
|
|
Others (specify) |
|
2.4 What is the scope of authority by the "supervisory
body" (e.g., taking decisions about the programme of work and budget, about
cooperation arrangements with third parties, purchase of expensive equipment,
recruitment and
appointments)?
.............................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................
2.4.1 How many members does it have?..............................................................
2.4.2 If the supervising body is a collective body (e.g.,
management board), how are its members
designated?
.............................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................
2.5 What are the sources of finance of the Institution (for each source indicate the percentage weight: be sure that percentages add up to 100):
|
|
% |
|
Affiliated Ministry |
|
|
Other governmental institutions (specify) |
|
|
Participation in projects financed or co-financed by international agencies |
|
|
Paid services |
|
|
Other (specifiy) |
|
3. Human resources
3.1 How many professional staff and specialists in policy
analysis are there in the institution? Please state a
figure.
.............................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................
3.2 What is their academic background?
|
Number |
Postgraduate |
|
University Graduate |
|
High School Graduate |
|
3.3 What is the system of incentives for adjusting work resources to workload?
|
Monetary |
|
Career |
|
Reputation |
|
Command and control |
|
Other (specify) |
3.4 Is there exchange of staff (secondments) to other institutions?
Yes |
No |
3.5 If Yes specify whether the secondments are:
locally |
or abroad |
or both locally and abroad
|
3.6 Have there been cases of sabbaticals and exchange of staff in other national or international institutions?
Yes |
No |
3.7 If yes what is the Intensity of these sabbaticals and exchanges:
|
Average number of cases in 1 year |
|
Average length of the weeks spent in other institutions |
3.8 Have there been cases of staff who are members on boards of academic and other research institutions?
Yes |
No |
4. Mandate
4.1 What are the mandate and objectives of the institution?
|
Produce critical reviews of policy impact assessment nature |
|
Strengthen professional capacities of researchers and research institutions to produce high quality, policy relevant research |
|
Enhance capacities of decision-makers to absorb and use sound policy research |
|
Improve capacity of civil society and organizations to participate in policy processes |
|
Disseminate research outputs to enhance the understanding of economic concepts and policy issues among agents and agencies concerned with the development of a modern agro-food sector |
|
Facilitate/strengthen policy dialogue between researchers, policymakers, and other stakeholders |
|
Analyze and evaluate options for alternative policies and modes of intervention for the agricultural sector and rural areas |
|
Others (specify):...................................................................................... |
4.2 Rank the previous objectives according to their actual relevance (1 being the most relevant):
1) |
............................................................................................................................. |
|
............................................................................................................................. |
2) |
............................................................................................................................. |
|
............................................................................................................................. |
3) |
............................................................................................................................. |
|
............................................................................................................................. |
4.3 Rank the following statements according to the mission of the institution:
|
Most |
|
Least |
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
The mission of the institution is to build capacities of researchers to conduct policy inquiry and to influence policymakers |
|
|
|
The mission of the institution is to build the capacity of policy makers to use research in the policy process |
|
|
|
The mission of the institution is to build consensus on specific policies between stakeholders |
|
|
|
4.4 How is the programme of work determined?
autonomously
(specify
modalities)
..............................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................
through supervisory
bodies (specify
modalities)
..............................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................
decided with main
partners (specify
modalities)
...............................................................................................................................
4.5 What are the major policy domains of the work programme? (for each relevant domain indicate a percentage weight: be sure that percentages add up to 100):
|
|
% |
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Forestry |
|
|
Irrigation |
|
|
Rural development |
|
|
Food security |
|
|
Food safety |
|
|
Environment |
|
|
Credit and rural financial services |
|
|
Poverty reduction |
|
|
Other (specify) |
|
4.6 Which main policy areas bearing upon food and agricultural performance are outside the mandate?
Trade |
|
|
|
completely |
|
|
partially |
|
Industry |
|
|
|
completely |
|
|
partially |
|
Other (specify): |
|
|
|
completely |
|
|
partially |
|
4.7 In order to outline the different functions research might play in policy, the traditional way of understanding the 'policy cycle' is to divide it into different stages: problem definition and agenda-setting (i.e., items that are commonly perceived as meriting public attention), formal decision-making (i.e., discussion between authoritative decision makers through the legislative process or within the government), policy implementation (i.e., what actually happens at the point of policy delivery), monitoring and evaluation (i.e., ex-post account for the use of funds and the efficiency/effectiveness of the policy instruments). In which phase of the policy cycle is the institution involved (for each stage indicate a percentage weight: be sure that percentages add up to 100):
|
|
% |
|
Agenda setting |
|
|
Decision-making |
|
|
Implementation |
|
|
Monitoring and evaluation |
|
5. Activities
5.1 Capacity building
5.1.1 What have been the main activities?
|
Training (e.g. short courses) |
|
Competitive grants |
|
Counselling |
|
Other (specify) |
5.2 Research
5.2.1 What have been the main activities (please rank):
|
Planning and implementing research programmes for policy analysis (e.g., in-depth studies on specific issues of particular relevance for agricultural policy reviews) |
|
Producing policy reports aimed at contributing to the formulation of sound agricultural policies (e.g., studies performed on a routine basis on policy issues demanding systematic studies) |
|
Assessment and methodological studies (e.g., feasibility studies, investment proposals, policy analysis models) |
|
Other |
5.3 Dissemination of information/knowledge
5.3.1 What are the main strategies?
|
Maximising press and media exposure |
|
Immediate advertising of research results |
|
Increasing the use of internet and other electronic means of dissemination |
|
Publishing research papers |
|
Organizing workshops, conferences and other public or professionals events |
|
Holding open seminar presentations or other forum |
|
Other (specify) |
5.3.2 What have been the main achievements for the last five years? Please indicate the number:
Reports |
Working papers |
Newsletters |
Briefs |
Seminars |
Meetings |
Round-tables |
Database & web- sites development* |
Other** |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Indicate the database and websites that you normally manage
.............................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................
**
Specify
.............................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................
5.3.3 Limitations in disseminating research results:
Does the institution need clearance from the government before dissemination (e.g., publishing, website editing, etc.)? |
yes |
no |
Does the institution guarantee public access to the research results (publications, databases, etc.)? |
yes |
no |
Other
(specify)...................................................................................................... |
5.3.4 Has the institution been involved in "participatory analysis"[43]?
Yes |
No |
5.4 Networking
5.4.1 Are there international relationships and support?
Yes |
No |
If yes (specify)'
5.4.2 Participation in national and international networks?
Yes |
No |
If yes
(specify)
..........................................................................................................................................
5.4.3 Are there relations with other research institutions (e.g. universities)?
Yes |
No |
5.4.4 Have there been cases of contracting out research work?
Yes |
No |
If the answer is yes, what is the (average) annual number of contracts signed with?
Average Number
|
Private consultants |
|
|
University professors |
|
|
University departments |
|
|
Civil society think tanks |
|
|
International organizations |
|
6. Bridging research and policy
6.1 Which actors are considered as the main end-users of the services provided by the Institution? (please rank)
|
Supervising authority |
|
Other government bodies (specify) |
|
Consumers |
|
Farmers |
|
Agro-industrial and marketing firms |
|
General public |
|
University |
|
International organizations |
|
Others (specify) |
6.2 Targeting research requires different presentation and dissemination strategies, as well as different mediums to make research policy relevant and publicly accessible. Has there been a strategy of targeting particular research-user groups with different dissemination strategies and/or different versions of research findings suited to different target audiences?
Yes |
No |
If yes
(specify)
...................................................................................................
6.3 Types of policy influence achieved (for each type of results indicate a percentage weight: be sure that percentages add up to 100):
|
|
% |
|
Contributions to advancing policy relevant knowledge |
|
|
Significant increase in capacity of researchers, organizations, civil society, policymakers |
|
|
Successful dissemination of research outputs |
|
|
Use of research results as inputs into policies, programmes |
|
|
Changes in attitudes and approaches of policy/decision-makers and other stakeholders |
|
|
Researchers acting as advisors to government or taking important government positions and playing active role in policy design at various levels |
|
|
Contributions to the development of policy alternatives and proposals |
|
|
Other (specify) |
|
6.4. At what level, or levels (if more than one level is addressed, provide a ranking), is policy influence targeted?
|
International |
|
National |
|
Local (local/municipal, provincial, regional) |
|
Communities |
|
Households |
6.5 What are the main decision-makers using the research results (provide percentage weights, checking that percentages add up to 100):
|
|
% |
|
politicians |
|
|
senior civil servants and appointed officials |
|
|
middle ranking bureaucrats |
|
|
government appointed experts, specialists and advisors on advisory panels |
|
6.6 Have there been any attempts to involve decision makers in implementing, monitoring and interpreting the policy analysis?
Yes |
No |
If yes
specify
......................................................................................................
7. Evaluation (i.e., review of the main lines of activity, monitoring of the overall performance, assessment of the training needs of the staff, suggestion of possible adjustments)
7.1 Main evaluation mechanisms (specify if they are internal or external):
|
|
internal |
external |
|
Evaluate quality and timeliness of research |
|
|
|
Evaluate contribution of research to policy debates and public policy problems |
|
|
|
Identify critical gaps in policy knowledge |
|
|
|
Engage potential users of the research in defining research questions |
|
|
|
Review the progress of research periodically |
|
|
|
Maintain excellence and research standards |
|
|
|
Other (specify) |
|
|
7.2 What role do the main end-users of the services provided
by the Institution play in monitoring and evaluating its performance? (be as
specific as
possible)
.............................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................
7.3 What factors were found to facilitate policy influence in your experience? (provide percentage weights, checking that percentages add up to 100)
|
|
% |
|
Dissemination of research results to policymakers, in appropriate formats |
|
|
Interaction between researchers and policymakers during the design of the research, dissemination, and/or the research process itself |
|
|
Building long-lasting relationships between researchers and decision-makers |
|
|
Public dissemination and debate of the research results |
|
|
Use of the research results by groups in society to encourage or advocate for change |
|
|
Strengthening organizations in terms of their capacity to carry out policy inquiry |
|
|
Strengthening key individuals within a generation of researchers who will in the future be in a position to implement or encourage policy change |
|
|
Relevant and high quality of research and outputs |
|
|
Visibility, reputation and positioning of researchers and/or the institution itself in policy arenas |
|
|
Novelty of approach used |
|
|
Other (specify) |
|
7.4 What factors were found to inhibit policy influence in your experience? (provide percentage weights, checking that percentages add up to 100)
|
Lack of effective dissemination of results and policy recommendations |
|
Ineffective links to the policy process |
|
Studies are too academic |
|
Too costly institution |
|
The organization sets own priorities with little consultation |
|
Lack of accessibility and poor quality of publications |
|
Doubts about the correctness of the findings and advice |
|
Ineffective capacity strengthening and training |
|
Other (specify) |
|
|
% |
|
Poor relevance, and therefore usefulness, of research to current policy processes |
|
|
Poorly targeted and structured activities |
|
|
Delays in project |
|
|
Resistance of powerful interest groups to policy reforms |
|
|
Misunderstandings and fears by some Government Departments |
|
|
Deteriorating or lack of supportive policy environment and weak governance structures |
|
|
Policy-making processes too slow, complex, and political in nature |
|
|
Week or lack of involvement of stakeholders |
|
|
Other (specify) |
|
7.5 What capability development will be needed to make this institution perform and deliver value over time? Please add ranking in order of priority from most needed (1) to less needed (4).
|
Acquisition of technical skills |
|
|
Attitudinal change |
|
|
Altering incentives |
|
|
Organizational/institutional restructuring |
|
|
Other (specify) |
|
7.6 What are the main problems?(please add ranking in order of importance: most important (1) to (8) least important)
7.7 Do you have recommendations on how food and agriculture policy analysis can be improved?
At the country
level: Please specify in bullet
points
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
With regional
cooperation efforts: Please specify in bullet
points
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
With the cooperation
of the international community of technical agencies and funding organizations.
Please specify in bullet
points
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
8. Other comments or information
Thank you for having filled this questionnaire!
[32] As elaborated by Both
(1988:226) referenced in Neilson (2001:8) social scientists
incentives attach greater weight to knowledge-building as against policy-forming
research; to authoritativeness rather than usefulness; to the pursuit of rigor
as against relevance; to the values of scientific independence as against the
virtues of policy involvement; and to understanding rather than
action. [33] A very common practice in the United States and, to a less extent, in Europe. [34] As pointed out by Majone (1989:1) As politicians know only too well but social scientists too often forget, public policy is made of language. Whether in written or oral form, argument is central in all stages of the policy process. [35] A policy paradigm is understood as a framework of dominant ideas that structure not only the problem-solving process, but the very definition of the problem; often policy paradigms are implicit, taken for granted and not discussed. (Examples of policy paradigms in relation to the agriculture sector, for example, are the developmental or state-assisted paradigm, which arose after World War II, replaced by the primacy of market liberalism in the 1970s and 1980s, and the subsequent managed-markets approach from the 1990s onwards, reflecting the degree of government interventions in the economy). [36] Most capacity development efforts have traditionally focussed on building knowledge and skills related to the policy analysis function, focusing on economic analyses and related communication and information/data analysis and interpretation skills. [37] ...the UN system organizations assist developing countries to develop their capacities for human resources development, including through support for policy development and analyses... in UNGA. 2003. Human Resource Development. Report of the Secretary General, 58th Session of the United Nations General Assembly (A/58/348). [38] In the case of NAPC, the Italian Cooperation has supported its creation. Not many donors, for a variety of political reasons, take such sustained commitment to capacity development. The Swiss Cooperation, through FAO, gave similar support over a ten-year period in the 1980s to an Agricultural Projects Services Centre in Nepal, sharing the view that building of human resources and organizations is a long-term process, a decade-long endeavour. [39] Regional Programmes for Food Security are being prepared in the Near East region, under the aegis of several regional economic organizations, to complement and support national strategies. [40] E.g. the IGAD Marketing Information System Network (www.igadmis.net) [41] Through the Regional Project of Capacity Building on Agricultural Policies FODEPAL (GCP/RLA/138/SPA), funded by the Spanish Cooperation. [42] While pure knowledge is desired for its own sake, policy knowledge can be considered an intermediate good making it possible to produce "good policy outcomes". [43] Participatory Rural Analysis (PRA) addresses implementation and monitoring problems through grass-roots or participatory style of research, building relations between researchers and those whom the research is about or for whom it is intended. Such a focus on personal interaction through participatory and consultative structures allows the utilisation of traditional (informal and common) communicative in disseminating research, as well as in the provision of technical information and training. |