Political Economy Analysis Update

Reporting Template for a Political Economy Analysis Update (SLP Political Engagement Strategy)

Xxxxx State, Month, 20XX

A Joint Report by SPARC, ESSPIN, PATHS2 and SAVI

------

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 2 1.0 Introduction 2 2.0 The Political & Economic History of Xxxxx State 2 2.1 Power Relations at the State Level and their Origins 2 2.2 Federal/National (& International) Level Influences 2 2.3 Means Used for Achieving & Sustaining Power in the State 2 2.4 Implications for Use of Institutions & Governance in the State2 3.0 Key Structural Features, Institutions (Formal & Informal) & Agents Presently Shaping the State 3 3.1 At the State Level (Within & Outside of Government) 3 3.2 In the Health, Education and Other Key Sectors 3 3.3 At the Local Government Level and in Key LGAs for the SLPs 3 3.4 In Key Areas of Planned Governance Reform & Service Delivery Improvement 3 4.0 Implications for Change 4 4.1 The Climate for Reform in the State 4 4.2 Key Human & Infrastructure Development Issues 4 4.3 Space, Voice, Security, Accountability & Legitimacy Issues 4 5.0 Strategic Alignment of Political Agents for Change 5 5.1 Opportunities & Strategies in the Health Sector 5 5.2 Opportunities & Strategies in the Education Sector 5 5.3 Opportunities Identified in Other Key Sectors 5 5.4 Key Risks, Assumptions & Warnings 5 6.0 State Level Programme Planning & Development 7 6.1 Implications for SLP Co-ordination 7 6.2 Implications for SPARC 7 6.3 Implications for ESSPIN 7 6.4 Implications for PATHS2 7 6.5 Implications for SAVI 7 6.6 Implications for other DFID programmes 7 7.0 Conclusions & Way Forward 7

1 Executive Summary

This should be a headline summary of the key findings from the analysis, of the key engage ment strategies agreed and of any significant implications for programme design or planning. Ideally, this summary should be no more than 2 pages, since the whole report aims to be no more than 20 pages.

This whole report is itself a summary, summarising the comprehensive findings of previous st udies, their extensive update to cover a number of programmes (at least 4 SLPs) operating a t a number of levels (state, sector, LG and project/issue), out of which a number of detailed st rategies (targeting common areas of governance reform and service delivery impact) should emerge, with a number of implications for the design and/or plans of each programmes, and f or other programmes.

As a summary report it should have no annexes or appendices but should make reference th roughout to key supporting documents generated by the programmes that detail and evidenc e the findings of the analysis, agreed strategies, etc.

1.0 Introduction

This section should serve as a readers guide to what’s in the report, who the intended audien ce are, and what purpose it is intended to serve. This need be no more than half a page. It sh ould make reference to other useful documents that can explain in more detail the rationale a nd methodology for the analysis, e.g. DFID’s 20XX How To Note on PE Analysis, SPARC an d SAVI’s 20XX PE Analysis and/or State Drivers-of-Change reports, the SLP’s 20XX PE Anal ysis Update Discussion Paper and Facilitation Guide?

The intended audience for this report is internal to DFID covering: DFID, IMEP, and other DF ID-funded programmes. Given DFID’s present transparency obligations, this document is like ly to be made accessible to the public thereafter, and open to scrutiny and use by a wider au dience, including the citizens of the states they report on.

2.0 The Political & Economic History of Xxxxx State

2.1 Power Relations at the State Level and their Origins

2.2 Federal/National (& International) Level Influences

2.3 Means Used for Achieving & Sustaining Power in the State

2.4 Implications for Use of Institutions & Governance in the State

Building on previous PE studies undertaken by SPARC & SAVI, 2.1 provides a balanced hist orical and present day understanding of the politics and economics of the state in terms of ‘p ower relations’ at the state level, affecting each sector, each LG and each area of present an d planned programme activity governing the use of public resources through control of: i) res ources, ii) ideology, iii) govt policy, iv) physical force and/or v) threat (whether real or perceiv ed) of collective action at each level.

Some reference may also need to be made to pertinent power relations at the Federal/ Natio nal level, and even International level, that have a bearing on those of the state.

2 Several programmes have conducted studies on the political economy of Nigeria or of the se ctors they work in at the federal level. These could be made reference to here, along with the work currently being undertaken by DFID’s Federal Public Administration Reform Programm e (FEPAR) through use of the same consultants guiding and quality assuring the SLP’s latest PE Analysis Update.

This section should include an analysis of the present political systems and incentives in the post-election period, an drawing on the recent elections: try to answer the question – what m ust politicians (not just those who hold office but also those who stand to gain directly from a particular victory through resulting pay-backs at different levels) do in order to achieve elector al success? What mechanisms were actually used in the recent elections to achieve this resu lt, and what are the ensuing implications (for example through commitments by elected politic ians to those who supported them) for the way in which governance has been and may now be expected to be conducted?

The whole of this section should be no more than 4 pages, roughly 1 page for each.

3.0 Key Structural Features, Institutions (Formal & Informal) & Agents Presently Shaping the State

3.1 At the State Level (Within & Outside of Government)

3.2 In the Health, Education and Other Key Sectors

3.3 At the Local Government Level and in Key LGAs for the SLPs

3.4 In Key Areas of Planned Governance Reform & Service Delivery I mprovement

An assessment of the key ‘players’ (individuals, groups of individuals, organisations), inside a nd outside of government, currently shaping the ‘rules of the game’ (institutions and processe s) governing the use of public resources at each level, thereby reinforcing or challenging the status quo of power relations (key structural features) of the state. Recognising that these sa me power relations are simultaneously reinforcing (or in some cases challenging) these sam e rules and shaping the actions of these same players. This is the field of play: the battlegrou nd for forces for and against change that the programmes have chosen to enter in the name of ‘political engagement’.

This should also reflect both formal and informal ‘rules of the game’ or ways of doing things: t ake care not to assume that things are always done in the way they are supposed to be done according to the written rules. Just because an individual holds a particular senior position do es not necessarily mean that they exert the influence that might be expected to accrue from t hat post. Power is often derived through less formal means. Money may be said to flow in a p articular way (in the accounts for example) but is it actually used in this way? In this context, f or example, what is the evidence that recent pieces of legislation such as fiscal responsibility, public procurement and freedom of information laws (if passed in the state, or influenced by f ederal/national level laws) are actually leading to a change in behaviour, or that they are bein g used by activists to alter the conditions in which politicians seek to “govern” the state.

This analysis needs to then focus in of the specific sectors the SLPs are working in, and cons ider the how the key players, rules (formal and informal) and power relations at the state leve l affect each sector, and the key players, rules and power relations within those sectors. Like wise, at LG level, and in relation to the SLP’s key areas of planned governance reform and s ervice delivery improvement.

3 In some states, the Health and Education sectors are the primary focus of the SLPs. In other s, where GEMS is also operating, other sectors may require similar assessment. Likewise, w here any of the SLPs are partnering with other donor-funded programmes working in other k ey sectors (e.g. Water in Kano & Enugu, Environment in Lagos).

4 In some states, all SLPs may be working in the same LGs while in others they may be workin g in different LGs. Thus, states may want to create their own state-specific sub-sections here if required (e.g. Conditional Grant Scheme LGs, PATHS2 specific LGs, ESSPIN specific LG s). Alternatively, they may want to present a common analysis across all the LGs to be cover ed and highlight the key individual differences.

The final sub-section on ‘key areas of planned governance reform and service delivery impro vement’ needs to focus on the SLPs’ common areas of concern – i.e. projects, issues, or are as of activity aimed at influencing specific governance reform outcomes (e.g. budget realism, MTSS, corporate planning, LG funding, etc.) and specific service delivery impacts (e.g. reduc ed maternal and new-born child mortality, improved access to education, better quality of tea ching in primary schools, improved water supply and sanitation, etc.).

The whole of this section should be no more than 4 pages, roughly 1 page for each.

4.0 Implications for Change

4.1 The Climate for Reform in the State

4.2 Key Human & Infrastructure Development Issues

4.3 Space, Voice, Security, Accountability & Legitimacy Issues

A broad assessment of the state, in terms of the potential for governance reform and service delivery improvement based on a range of contributory factors.

While most of these factors are well understood the term ‘space’ may be misinterpreted In thi s context it should be read to men the following: the accommodation or extent of accommoda tion of a plurality of views and the extent to which this gives room for the exploration and/or e mergence of new possibilities or just good old change. SPACE can seriously enhance VOIC E.

One of the most important aspects of the studies will be the view as to the reform prospects in the state. This will require evidence to back any conclusions. Such evidence should be things that have been done against the interests of the status quo, e.g. more transparent procurement processes and more realistic budgets and releases (i.e. efforts to break down barriers identified in previous political engagement work).

This potential, or these prospects, need to be seen in the context of the SLPs’ own ‘theories of change’ and vice-versa:

. ACROSS SLPs – that change requires a shift from the present political and economic elite’s maintenance of power and access to resources through political pay off (legitimi sation strategy 1: maintaining the status quo or shaping it in their favour) to their formin g the beginnings of a social contract with the public secured through service delivery (l egitimisation strategy 2: challenging the status quo).

. SPARC – technical support to: visioning of state development > strengthening of centr al government management systems/processes (primarily public finances and human resources) > complementary provision of federal/national incentives, mechanisms for s tepped support to the state, and society based political pressure through (separately m anaged) voice and accountability initiatives.

5 . PATHS2, ESSPIN (& PRRINN-MNCH) – technical support to: visioning of sector refor m > pilot demonstration (by programme staff and state partners) of sustainable and re plicable approaches to policy-making and implementation in key areas of reform > leve raging of resources for continuation, replication and scale-up of piloted approaches by the state > complementary policy advocacy (by programme staff and state partners) fo r both incremental and radical change.

. SAVI – technical support to: non-state actors in strengthening their capacity for repres entation of public interests, visioning, and collective action > strengthening their relatio ns with other non-state and state actors > pilot demonstration (by non-state and state actors) of sustainable and replicable approaches to policy advocacy and monitoring an d public involvement in state budgeting processes > leveraging of resources for contin uation, replication and scale-up of approaches by the state (through non-state actor pa rticipation) > garnering critical mass (across projects/issues, LGs and sectors) for chan ge at state level.

For this assessment, and for the purpose of subsequent strategizing, these various theories of change need to be aligned both with each other (through some accommodation on all side s) and with the evidence on ground from the analysis.

The whole of this section should be no more than 3 pages.

5.0 Strategic Alignment of Political Agents for Change

5.1 Opportunities & Strategies in the Health Sector

5.2 Opportunities & Strategies in the Education Sector

5.3 Opportunities Identified in Other Key Sectors

5.4 Key Risks, Assumptions & Warnings

An analysis of how the interests or agendas of key players at all levels align when considerin g different ‘issues’ of public interest identified/prioritised by the programmes as potential trigg ers of governance reform and service delivery improvement.

This will need to summarise the output of the 2-day (minimum) political stakeholder analysis and engagement strategy workshop, supported or moderated by the SLPs’ external lead con sultants on PE analysis: which looks at who the key political stakeholders are, what the links between them area, and what their levels of interest and influence (structural and agent-base d) are on the SLPs’ common areas of concern, i.e. those key areas of planned governance r eform and service delivery improvement.

This needs to include an outline of the agreed strategy for subsequent engagement of the ke y players to align these interests in favour of a positive change for each area of concern/activ ity. Each could be presented here in summary visual or tabular form, e.g.:

6 POTENTIAL high THREAT low

SH 2 SH 4maker-or-breakers key supporters high (engage cautiously (engage at outset) and wisely) SH 1 POTENTIALSH 7 FOR CO-OPSH 6 SH 3 low key opponents by-standers (guard against) (monitor potential)

… and/or …

7 Issue/Project/Area Xxxxx State Budget Process ? of Activity: Targeted development policy for … ? Institutional MTSS planning for … ? Reforms: budget releases for … ? t t r e p s a e

Key Political c Reasons Reasons Broad Detailed Key Co-ord o e e - w n r r o

Stakeholders e Strategy Strategy: Key Messages Lead o e h t C u P T

(Agents) n Messengers f r I r n o o I f f

l l a a i i t t n n e e t t o o P P

1. Name of SH to be ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? strategically engaged hi hi hi high high engage at engage directly, what is their which first in sequence outset as key indirectly, who interest, how SLP/s md md md med med supporter will be the would we lo lo lo low low messenger, present our engage who can interest in cautiously and influence them relation to wisely as to align with our theirs, ours as a maker-or- interest solution to their breaker problem. defend against as key opponent monitor as by- stander

8 Etc.

9 The analysis would be incomplete without considering the risks involved in pursuit of these strategies on each common areas of concern/activity in each sector. There is a natural tendency for each state team to place an optimistic gloss on the assessment of their own state, their own sector and their own projects. The whole exercise is aimed at providing practical solutions, and so the process (and this report) draws the analysis towards this conclusion – that there must be practical solutions: positive options to pursue. This should not, however, prevent the state teams from including an analysis of the key risks involved in their proposed actions, declaring any key assumptions on which they rest, and the possibility of a negative assessment of some issues/projects and even some sectors in some states, and a limited number of positive options.

Where there are few options, or where the options available are risky, the assessment needs to highlight this, and serve as a warning signal. The PE analysis is not a tool for producing a positive argument as to why we should expect positive results from our strategies. It needs to be very realistic about the prospects also of their failure.

By adding this risk assessment, our analysis should serve to form a more rounded view of the state. For example, if things are working well in health and education but not on wider governance issues, the risk is that what’s working well now will be unsustainable. A rounded view of the state, however, could be that, while unsustainable, there may be an opportunity to focus on humanitarian-type interventions (i.e. direct service delivery interventions) that can accelerate the achievement of the MDGs. This may be an acceptable approach to take for some programmes (or components of them) in some sectors in some states. Also, if there are concrete positive examples of how certain things have worked well in the past, and there is a real prospect that it may do so again if certain conditions are fulfilled, there is no harm in saying so too.

The whole of this section should be no more than 4 pages.

6.0 State Level Programme Planning & Development

6.1 Implications for SLP Co-ordination

6.2 Implications for SPARC

6.3 Implications for ESSPIN

6.4 Implications for PATHS2

6.5 Implications for SAVI

6.6 Implications for other DFID programmes

Assessment of the sectors, LGs, projects/issues presently covered by the programmes in terms of which do and which don’t have the potential to leverage sufficient support st rategic alignment of agents for change, and agreement/options on what to do about tho se that don’t – e.g. place greater emphasis on a ‘direct’ service delivery approach but e nsure routine monitoring to check if and when they start to gain political traction.

Key implications for all the programmes and their respective strategies – any significant changes required to present or planned areas of activity or general programme design.

10 The whole of this section should be no more than 2 pages.

7.0 Conclusions & Way Forward

This should summarise how each state plans to take this work forward – hopefully not t hrough regular updating of the report and related reference documents but by keeping t he analysis in collective view and using it as a basis for opportunistic and pre-emptive s trategic planning and monitoring. This should take no more than half a page.