Day 1- afternoon session: Joe Mockshell and Regina Birner- University of Hohenheim: “Understanding the policy process and landscape through discourse analysis.” Workshop on Approaches and Methods for Policy Process Research, co-sponsored by the CGIAR Research Programs on Policies, Institutions and Markets (PIM) and Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH) at IFPRI-Washington DC, November 18-20, 2013.

1. Understanding the policy process
and landscape through
discourse analysis
Joe Mockshell & Regina Birner
CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions and Markets (PIM) Workshop:
Approaches and Methods for Policy Process Research
November 18-20, 2013, Washington DC, USA

2. Agricultural policy context
• Why do African governments adopt their policies?
• Focus on incentive systems
– Bates (1981): Government’s incentive to stay in power
– Van de Walle (2001): Neo-patrimonial state
– Jayne et al. (2002): Incentive dilemma – role of donors
– Olper & Raimondi (2010): Role of regime types
– Swinnen (1994 ) Political support function
• Role of ideologies and values – more recent
– Dutt and Mitra (2010): Role of political ideology
• Research gap & study objective
– Empirical research on role of policy beliefs is missing
– Identify prevailing agricultural policy beliefs
• Case study of Ghana and Uganda
2

3. Discourse analysis approach
• Discourses through
– Texts (Fairclough 1995; van Dijk 1998), Frames (Shöne &
Rein 1994), Story-lines (Hajer 2006)
• Study followed Hajer’s approach of discourse analysis
– Identifies story-lines and metaphors in discourses
– Expressed through language use
• Discourse coalition
– Ensemble of story-lines and actors that utter the story
– Actors that share common story-lines in their discourses
• Policy actors have (van Dijk 1998):
– Positive self-representation of their beliefs
– Negative representation of others beliefs
3

4. Discourse analysis approach
• In-depth interviews
– Broad initial questions (Roe 1994)
• Challenges affecting the agricultural sector
• Policy instruments to address challenges
• Quantitative approach
– Principal Component Analysis (PCA) & Cluster Analysis
• Novelty of the study
– Application of quantitative analysis to
• identify policy themes and
• discourse coalitions from discourses
4

5. Research method: sampling
Stakeholder organizations
Ghana
Uganda
Government agencies (Agriculture policy unit,
extension & finance)
7
7
Academic (Agriculture, Agricultural Economics &
Political science)
3
4
Think tanks (Research)
Donor agencies & IFIa
Non-governmental Organization
Political party representatives & Parliamentarians
Interest groups (Civil society Organization)
1
5
4
5
3
2
6
4
4
2
Farmers (small & large scale)
Traditional authorities
Local government
2
1
2
3
2
Total (67 in-depth interviews)
33
34
aInternational
Financial Institutions
5

6. Data analysis
• In the field
– Memo-writing to identify themes
– ‘Study your emerging data’ (Charmaz 2006)
– ‘Completeness’ & ‘dissimilarity’ (Blee & Taylor 2002)
– Additional actors to be involved and new questions
• After the field work: analysis with Nvivo
– Upload of documents
– Transcription of recorded interviews
– Notes of non-recorded interviews
– Coding of texts
– Identification of metaphors and story-lines
– Inclusion of additional texts (government programs,
donor strategies)
6

7. Analysis: Nodes & Codes
NVivo screenshot
• Total of 60 transcripts
• Identification of 17
policy themes from
coding
• Binary value to each
policy theme
• 1=Yes if the theme
appeared in the policy
discourses of a
particular respondent
without prompting &
0=No if otherwise)
7

8. Policy themes (PCA results)
Ghana
Uganda
Policy themes
Eigenvalues
Input subsidy & appropriate
technology
5.49
Quality of agricultural input
Policy themes
Eigenvalues
Market price support &
storage
Appropriate technology
2.42
5.82
2.16
Low agricultural
productivity
1.80
Quality of agricultural
input
1.76
Market price support &
storage
1.46
Inadequate land
policies
1.34
Input subsidy & low
agric. Productivity
1.13
Youth involvement in
agriculture
Rainfall dependent
farming & crop insurance
1.31
1.04
8

9. Discourse coalition (Cluster analysis)
Government agencies
(agricultural policy unit,
extension & finance)
Academic (agricultural
economics, political science)
Think tank (research)
International finance Institutions/
Donor organizations
Non-governmental organizations
Political party representatives
and parliamentarians
Interest groups
Local governments
Total
Uganda
Domestic
Donor
coalition
Policy stakeholder organizations
Ghana
Domestic
Donor
coalition
coalition
coalition
7
0
6
0
0
3
2
2
0
1
2
0
0
5
0
6
3
2
3
1
5
0
4
0
3
1
19
0
0
11
2
2
21
0
0
9
9

10. Summary of some key discourses
Domestic policy coalition
Public sector centered
Donor-led coalition
Private sector centered
Framing of the main
problem
Farmers do not have
access to inputs
Institutions are not
available, poor
implementation, capacity
Views on input subsidies
Important to transform
agriculture
Subsidies not sustainable,
kill private sector initiatives
Views on appropriate
technology
(mechanization)
Important to modernize
agriculture to attract the
youth
Should be achieved by the
private sector
Self-image
Capable of bringing
Capable of understanding
external experience and
domestic problems and
superior knowledge to
determining the best policy
provide evidence based
option for the local economy
policy options
Other-image
They come with policies
that create dependency
10
They lack capacity, they
do not have any figures to
show

11. Policy beliefs about mechanization
Domestic coalition beliefs
The youth prefers jobs outside
agriculture, which offer “better
jobs than the drudgery that the
youth go to face when they go
into farming, because farming
in Ghana is still largely
dependent on hoe & cutlasses,
so it is a lot of drudgery
involved, so it is not attractive.”
Donor coalition beliefs
“the tractors have a political
image, because they are
big, when they say we have
brought in tractors, when
they say we have brought
in 1000 tractors, you can
make a big political
statement of it.”
(Development consultant)
(Member of Ghana Parliament)
• Two worlds in agricultural policy making
• Pay attention to role of policy beliefs in agricultural policy making
11

12. Thank you
PCA &
cluster
analysis
Transform
qualitative
data
Policy
themes
In-depth
Interviews
coding
of
transcripts
12
Policy
beliefs &
discourse
coalition

13. Appendix 1: Ghana
PCA: Policy themes, (Pattern Matrix)
Appropriate technology
Inadequate access to credit
0.88
0.78
0.00
0.01
-0.23
0.30
-0.17
0.17
-0.14
0.04
Rainfall
dependent
farming &
crop
insurance
0.15
0.13
Fertiliser subsidy
Agric. mechanisation
Rainfall dependent agric.
0.69
0.51
0.39
-0.14
0.00
-0.46
-0.06
0.01
-0.20
0.24
0.21
0.16
-0.11
-0.49
-0.07
-0.19
-0.14
-0.31
Public extension
Counterfeit inputs
Quality standards
Hoe and cutlass farming
Irrigation facilities
Low agric. Productivity
Private extension
Lack of storage facility
Market price support
Youth in agric. policy
Inadequate land policies
Crop insurance
Eigenvalues
0.35
-0.07
0.15
0.06
0.27
-0.07
-0.17
-0.07
-0.06
0.19
-0.19
0.23
5.49
0.04
0.86
0.76
0.39
-0.37
-0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
-0.12
-0.21
-0.04
2.42
-0.07
-0.04
0.03
0.04
0.33
-0.89
0.87
-0.02
-0.13
0.06
-0.01
0.09
1.80
0.72
-0.13
0.30
0.27
0.38
0.26
0.06
0.86
0.86
-0.06
0.27
-0.01
1.46
0.16
-0.16
0.23
-0.68
-0.06
0.16
0.10
-0.20
-0.10
-0.79
-0.58
0.11
1.31
0.14
0.01
-0.20
-0.17
-0.17
0.10
0.21
-0.18
0.10
-0.02
0.58
0.89
1.04
Policy themes
Input
Quality Low agric.
Market
Youth
subsidy & of agric. productivity
price
involveme
appropriate
input
support &
nt in
technology
storage agriculture
13

14. Appendix 2: Uganda
PCA: Policy themes, (Pattern Matrix)
Policy themes
Quality standards
Lack of storage facility
Hoe and cutlass farming
Market price support
Youth in agriculture policy
Public extension
Rainfall dependent agric.
Irrigation facilities
Fertiliser subsidy
Counterfeit inputs
Agricultural mechanisation
Private extension
Crop insurance
Inadequate land policies
Appropriate technology
Low agricultural productivity
Inadequate access to credit
Eigenvalues
Market
price
support &
storage
0.86
0.80
0.59
0.50
0.45
0.39
0.07
-0.05
-0.15
0.06
0.21
-0.16
0.08
-0.05
0.26
-0.11
0.24
5.82
Appropriate Quality of
technology
agric.
input
-0.20
0.07
0.54
0.36
-0.08
0.10
0.90
0.88
0.57
0.42
0.40
0.30
-0.05
0.05
-0.15
-0.05
0.28
2.16
14
-0.02
-0.08
-0.13
-0.09
0.25
-0.06
0.02
0.06
0.19
-0.54
-0.04
0.84
0.65
-0.10
0.22
-0.06
-0.18
1.76
Inadequate
land
policies
0.08
0.02
-0.28
0.03
-0.33
0.29
0.07
-0.06
0.10
0.40
-0.31
0.09
0.19
-0.87
0.08
-0.10
-0.02
1.34
Input subsidy
& low
agricultural
productivity
-0.04
0.03
0.14
-0.19
-0.36
-0.60
-0.04
0.13
-0.45
0.02
-0.46
-0.10
0.53
0.01
-0.77
-0.71
-0.64
1.13