1 / 14

Bridging research and policy in a supply and demand framework

Bridging research and policy in a supply and demand framework. role of external agencies/donors. Analytical framework. Basis – GDN Bridging project (global), ODI RAPID program (developing countries) Demand <=> factors of political context:

clay
Download Presentation

Bridging research and policy in a supply and demand framework

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Bridging research and policy in a supply and demand framework role of external agencies/donors

  2. Analytical framework • Basis – GDN Bridging project (global), ODI RAPID program (developing countries) • Demand <=> factors of political context: • Routine processes (transparent or not, open or not, specific entry points) • Nature of politics and culture (degree of contestation, participatory or top-down) • “windows of opportunities”: (crisis – revolutions and public protest, new opportunities – EU or regional integration, new government/minister, parliamentary hearings)

  3. Analytical framework - 2 • Supply <=> knowledge production • Timeliness, relevance • Quality and trust (are you speaking with authority?) • Packaging and delivery (working paper, policy brief, policy memo, concept of a law, “idea”)

  4. Analytical framework - 3 • Linkages: • Intermediary organizations (filtering and amplifying research messages, organizing meetings, outsourcing analytical tasks) – “connectors” between different epistemic communities. CRS as an “ideal type”? • Media • Civil society groups, advocacy coalitions, political parties

  5. Analytical framework - 4 • External influences (IFI’s, international donors) • Agenda setting (IMF) • Technical assistance (by-product – capacity building or crowding out local suppliers?) • Capacity building for researchers and policymakers (funding research, training, networking, etc.) • Promoting “Open society” institutions

  6. Transition countries - demand • The nature of politics and general characteristics of the policymaking processes are not “great”, but there are many windows of opportunities: • Market reforms (privatization, financial sector, etc.) • Government reforms (also local level) • Social sector and education reforms • Regional (dis)integration processes • Partial funding is available from outside donors (DFID, USAID, etc.) and creditors (WB). Governments are increasingly able and willing to pay for consulting services (Russia, Kazakhstan).

  7. Transition countries - demand • Demand is articulated through consulting contracts (examples from Russia): • administrative reform (HSE) • issuance of regional bonds – Economic Expert Group; • municipal-level strategic planning – Leontieff Center (SPb), Urban Institute (Moscow); • Reform of budgeting procedures at the regional level – Fiscal Policy Center, • Reform of public utilities – Fiscal Policy Center, Urban Institute

  8. Transition countries - demand • Demand is articulated through government-affiliated think-tanks (“revolving door”) • Dvorkovich’s Economic Expert Group, Moscow (MinFin) • Gref’s Center for Strategic Planning (MinEconDev&Trade) • Medvedkov’s Center for Trade Policy and Law (MinEconDev&Trade) • Center for Sustainable Development (Astana Akimat) • and creation of in-house research departments, e.g. within central banks

  9. Transition countries - supply • Government-related (semi-independent?): new, through revolving door, or former state institutes • Limited research, mostly policy consulting • Independent, western-funded. Different models: CEFIR vs. International Centre for Policy Studies, Kyiv vs. CEP-Tashkent • Academic research and “policy analysis” for western clients, limited policy consulting with western funding

  10. Supply side problems • Incentives: production of timely and operational knowledge is not the primary function of independent think-tanks. Among other reasons, because of their “independence” from government funding and dependence on western funding => inclination to produce for western clients and audiences • Non-operational knowledge has “value”, but not local “market value”, because civil society institutions and other “transmission” mechanisms are underdeveloped.

  11. Supply side problems - 2 • Independence has a price – no steady source of income (budget transfers, “voluntary contributions” by private sector, tuition?) • Endowments – the US model – are exception, not the rule (International Centre for Policy Studies) • Partnerships with research universities or business schools are rare (IPM, NES/CEFIR, HSE). Tuition could provide a steady source of income + faculty sharing

  12. Supply side problems - 3 • Western project funding is short-term and phasing out. EU? • Vicious circle: too many loosely connected and small projects, lack of focus and strategy, low-quality outputs b.c. monitoring is costly • Implications: • Difficult to attract and retain qualified cadre • Investments in quality is delayed • Reputation is damaged beyond repair • “Imagine you had a million dollars”. CEFIR?

  13. Role of donors – long-term • Facilitate strategic re-orientation and re-structuring • Facilitate mergers and strategic alliances • Create endowments for “legacy” institutions (help bring private donors on board)

  14. Business models for independent think-tanks • Strategic alliances: • With government: CSR, CER. Ensures access to policymaking, but may be difficult to maintain independence. • With business: Public Policy Institute-Bishkek (Aki-Press, Business club). How to maintain independence? • With a business school (IPM): how to make it mutually beneficial beyond “marketing”? Sharing faculty requires extending MBA curriculum beyond business. • With an economics department (CERGE EI, NES/CEFIR): faculty can be shared (cost reduction), but income stream is not guaranteed. Ph.D. and western-style MA are costly, while tuition is low. Requires BA or MBA. • With an “outreach” operation (CEFIR/EERC) – banking on local corporate funding. Requires development of relevant products, beyond research. • SA and mergers often don’t happen until too late 

More Related