1 / 17

Stephen Ndegwa, AFTPR

Stephen Ndegwa, AFTPR. Simplified Stakeholder Analysis. A Demonstration. Goals. Simpler, user-friendly and portable Transparent calculations and assumptions Scenario building over prediction Accessible charts and grids as guides for potential options/targets for policy dialogue.

karyn-everett
Download Presentation

Stephen Ndegwa, AFTPR

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. Stephen Ndegwa, AFTPR Simplified Stakeholder Analysis A Demonstration

  2. Goals • Simpler, user-friendly and portable • Transparent calculations and assumptions • Scenario building over prediction • Accessible charts and grids as guides for potential options/targets for policy dialogue

  3. Data Collection • As with other models, extensive and reliant on field interviews • Depending on government or policy area openness, data can be collected by two methods: • Interviews with specialists or experts and/or • Interviews with actual stakeholders

  4. Data Attributes *Annex 1: New Effective Power equation

  5. Sample Data

  6. Policy Continuum A

  7. Policy Continuum B (#) = Effective Power

  8. Effective Power/Position MatrixIdentifies stakeholder position and their relative power -- how hard reform will be With simple rule -- movement within quadrant/subset -- allows setting goals to influence

  9. Scenarios: Governing Assumptions • Stakeholders can only move within their policy preference sector, or minimally into next one • Strategy may then be to: • Move stakeholders with low policy reform preferences to the right or diagonally upwards by increasing information • Empower stakeholders with higher policy reform preferences to move up and to the right by increasing effective power

  10. Influence-Salience MatrixIdentifies the stakeholders by their level of salience and influence (color-coded on policy reform preference)Information on stakeholder attributes allows setting intervention strategy and coalition building

  11. Specific Examples in response to influence-salience profile of opponents • Promoters - counter or compromise • Defenders - suppress potential action • Latents – Increase salience • Apathetics - Ignore

  12. Specific Examples in response to influence-salience profile of proponents • Promoters - Build coalitions with low preference stakeholders-common interests • Defenders - Provide resources to promote position • Latents - Provide information and incentives to increase saliency and preference for reform • Apathetics – Ignore

  13. New Policy Continuum B (#) = Effective Power

  14. Improvements/Simplifications • Adds detailed stakeholder “reservation price” to policy continuum • Clarifies “effective power” equation • Focuses on creating scenarios in lieu of predictions to promote policy • Uses maps to identify and assess stakeholder positions and potential movement for dialogue and goal-setting

  15. Conclusion • Simpler model • Portable, cost effective • Excel-based • WB team executed (data/scenarios/dialogue) • Transparent assumptions • Informed by Task team – country/issue knowledge • Theoretically valid, methodologically reliable • Organic scenarios over precise/debatable predictions

  16. Annex 1: Effective Power Equation (.70)*I + (.30)*S = Effective Power • Effective Power is the weighted sum of 70% Influence and 30% Salience • Influence is weighted more than Salience because those with higher influence have a higher ability to block reform • E.g. A stakeholder with 80 (I) and 20 (S) has more power to veto a policy than a stakeholder with 20 (I) and 80 (S)

  17. More Information • Please contact: • Stephen Ndegwa (AFTPR) • Ed Campos (SASPR) • Barbara Nunberg (EASPR) • PRMPS for Equipment

More Related