ACOMPARATIVE STUDY OF POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES BY MIGUEL BRAUN,MARIANA CHUDNOVSKY,NICOLÁS DUCOTÉ AND VANESA WEYRAUCH This working paper is the CS 2 component of the Phase II of Global Development Network’s Bridging Research and Policy project, carried out by the Center for the Implementation of Policies Promoting Equity and Growth (CIPPEC). We would like to thank the commitment, seriousness and helpful research assistance of Constanza Di Nucci, Julieta Rezával and Lucia Schumacher in different stages of the project. 0 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 2 SECTION 1: BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 4 I. METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................... 4 II. PROPOSED MODEL ............................................................................................................................... 7 SECTION 2: RESULTS OF THE COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PRIS......................................................... 10 III. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PRIS.......................................................................................................10 A) PRIS' ENDOGENOUS VARIABLES COMPARISON......................................................................................14 B) PRIS' EXOGENOUS VARIABLES COMPARISON: ......................................................................................26 SECTION 3: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................... 33 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 33 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................................ 37 BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................................................................... 39 APPENDIX I: METHODOLOGY, RESEARCH TOOLS AND BASIC DEFINITIONS ..................................43 A. METHODOLOGY: ................................................................................................................................. 43 B. DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES:QUESTIONNAIRE AND INTERVIEWS.................................................... 46 C. SOME DEFINITIONS............................................................................................................................. 63 APPENDIX II: CONTENTS OF THE ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK: THE VARIABLES. ............................66 APPENDIX III: GENERAL INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE SURVEY IN LATIN AMERICA, ASIA AND AFRICA .............................................................................................................................................. 70 APPENDIX IV: CASE STUDIES................................................................................................................. 77 APPENDIX V: FURTHER ENDOGENOUS AND EXOGENOUS FACTORS............................................283 1 INTRODUCTION In Thinktankland, policymakers are convinced about the need and value of research to guide their policy decisions and frequently consult with experts about different issues to assure they choose the best among potential policy options. Therefore there are open, institutionalized and public mechanisms for citizens and civil society organizations that produce or possess research and evidence to participate in policymaking processes and engage in a fruitful dialogue with policymakers about pros and cons of policy decisions within a wide and diverse agenda of social, political and economical issues. Policymakers count with a given set of resources (time, money, knowledge, networks, technology, etc.) to tap into whenever a social problem emerges to ensure that they will be able to identify and apply the right solution, backed with the consensus of all affected groups, after extensive debate and analysis have been carried out. Even though policy research institutions (PRIs) in Thinktankland have clear cut opportunities to set forth their proposals, and that they are often sought by decisionmakers to provide them with policy advice, this scenario is not that perfect for them. They still need to convince policymakers, donors and media that they have produced and disseminated research that could yield or has yielded a positive impact in policy. Thus they need to sharpen their internal capacities and focus their efforts on refining tools to enhance the quality and relevance of their research in order to come up with policy proposals that concretely address the problems faced by policymakers. PRIs also have the challenges of devising internal incentives to foster more interaction between their researchers and policymakers, as well as improving the way they disseminate research results through creative, convincing and attractive tools, and by addressing diverse audiences. With so many areas for improvement, are they really in Thinktankland? In fact, PRIs in developing countries would probably still believe so. This comparative study of PRIs in Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe/CIS and Latin America reveals the deep complexity of detecting what these organizations concretely need to do to enhance their policy impact. Faced by contexts characterized by economic, political and social instability, high rotation of policymakers, lack of institutionalized mechanisms for the interaction between civil society and the State, corruption, low demand for research and scarce governmental capacity, they are also challenged by several internal constrains that demand their attention and energy. The need to constantly secure funding to sustain areas of work, the tension of working with the State without losing independence, and the challenge of outliving changing and unstable environments without losing focus and expertise, are some of the issues on their managers´ minds when trying to figure out how to improve the organization´s capacity to influence on public policies. Through a comparative analysis of 18 case studies on PRIs that have demonstrated a certain degree of influence in policymaking, we have attempted to detect which factors prove more important in the difficult, chaotic and long process of bridging the gap between research and policy. The paper is organized as follows: In Section 1 we present the background of the study: we explain the methodology applied, and we present the analytical framework used to study PRIs, including the endogenous and exogenous variables that affect the influence of PRIs on policy. In Section 2 we present the results of our comparative study divided into two sections: endogenous and exogenous variables. Finally, Section 3 concludes and presents recommendations for action. We also include the following annexes: 1) Appendix I where we describe in more detail the methodology, present the questionnaires used for the survey and the guidelines of the interviews used for the assembly of the case studies, and provide some definitions of the basic concepts used in this paper (p. 44); 2) Appendix II where we present a detailed explanation of the analytical framework applied to compare the case studies (p. 67); 3) Appendix III which presents general information of PRIs from Latin America, Asia and Africa that was obtained through a survey1 (p. 71); 4) Appendix IV that includes the eighteen complete case studies (p. 78); 1 Eastern Europe/CIS was added in the third stage of the project; therefore the survey does not include PRIs from this region. 2 and 5) Appendix V which contains an extensive description of several endogenous and exogenous variables that, though not among the most mentioned on the case studies, have affected either negatively or positively some PRIs´capacity to influence policy (p. 284). 3 SECTION 1: BACKGROUND I. METHODOLOGY This study was part of the Global Development Network (GDN) studies on Bridging Research and Policy. The aim of the project was to conduct an international study to detect which are the main factors that help policy research institutions (PRIs) influence policymaking through the use of research. The goal was to first identify successful institutes and then to study their organizational performance in detail in order to illustrate their strengths and weaknesses in achieving impact on policy through the use of evidence and research. Finally, the study sought to understand why some institutes are better able to influence policy in a wide range of policy sectors and in diverse regions, consequently identifying the key factors that aid PRIs to do so. The project was divided into two phases. The first phase focused on building a database of PRIs in Asia, Africa and Latin America that carry out policy research. CIPPEC worked with two partners: KIPPRA in Kenya and IIDS in Nepal that developed the work in Africa and Asia, respectively. The aim was to gather general information on the PRIs’ missions, statements and objectives, institutional profile, research programs, type of involvement in policy influence, networks, and communications / dissemination, among other factors.