1. 1
MASTER OF RESEACH AND PUBLIC POLICY
UNIVERSITY OF DAR ES SALAM COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE
PAPER REVIEW
THE CAPACITY OF CSOs TO INFLUENCE POLICY DECISIONS
By Onesmo Olengurumwa- National Coordinator- Tanzania Human Rights
Defenders Coalition (THRDC)

2. 2
1.0 Introduction
In public policy process, especially the agenda setting stage every policy actors will always wish
to emerge as a victor. Some of the key and common actors in public policy are political leaders,
bureaucrats, civil societies, parliamentarians and the judiciary. Policy decisions are always
influenced by policy actors who know how to effectively influence policy agenda. As for the
case of this study, this review paper asses the capacity of CSOs and Civil Servants in influencing
policy decisions.
According to Julie and Pollard (2005) the ‘policy process’ is usually considered to include the
following main components: agenda setting, policy formulation, decision-making,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation while ‘Policy influence’ refers to how external
actors are able to interact with the policy process and affect the policy positions, approaches
and behaviours in each of these areas. A key point is that each policy component involves a
range of actors, institutions and processes. Some actors are important across the policy process,
while others only play a key role at certain points.1
Julie& Others (2005)2
defines CSO as any organization that works in the arena between the
household, the private sector, and the state, to negotiate matters of public concern. CSOs include
a very wide range of institutions and operate at many different levels, including the global,
regional, national and local. Civil society includes NGOs, community groups, research institutes,
think tanks, advocacy groups, trade unions, academic institutions, parts of the media,
professional associations, and faith based institutions.
For the purpose of understanding the effectiveness of CSOs in policy decisions, this paper
reviewed the following paper “Policy Engagement: How Can CSOs be effective in Policy”3
This paper was co-authored by Julie Court, Mendzibal, E; Osbone, D; and Young J from
Overseas Development Institute (ODI) in Britain.
1.1 Summary and Main Objectives of the Study by ODI
The Overseas Development Institute (ODI) is Britain’s leading independent think tank on
international development and humanitarian issues. The ODI is a think tank organization with
well experience in public policy. ODI focuses mainly on how policy actors can play significant
role in policy process by engaging in influencing the development of pro-poor policies. The
mainly carry their duties through the ODI’s Research and Policy in Development (RAPID) a
programme that aims to improve the use of research in development policy and practice through
improved: knowledge about research in policy processes; communication and knowledge
1
Julie, C, Mendzibal, E, Osbone, D, and Young J, (2006) Policy Engagement: How Can CSOs be effective in Policy
Decisions at page 7.
2
Julie, C, Mendzibal, E, Osbone, D, and Young J, (2006) Policy Engagement: How Can CSOs be Effective.
Overseas Development Institute (ODI). Britain.
3
Ibid.

3. 3
management; awareness of the importance of research; and approaches to capacity development
in this area.
The Main objective of the study but ODI were among others; identify the factors that
undermine the capacity of CSOs in influencing policy decisions, to how better can CSOs use
evidence to increase the policy influence and pro-poor impact of their work. The report also in
part two indicates how CSOs can engage more effectively in policy processes. Moreover, the
report includes strategic and practical advice regarding how CSOs can overcome the main
challenges to policy engagement. Report findings indicate that adverse political contexts and
poor CSOs capacity in getting rigorous evidence and poor communication strategy to be among
the factors undermining their capacity to influence policy decisions.
2.0 How can SCOs Effectively Influence Policy Decisions
Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) need to recognize how they can engage with policy
processes more effectively. CSOs establish pressure groups and mobilize resources to form more
supporters in policy engagement. But in the real world CSOs are often financially unstable, have
weak capacity and are poorly connected in policy process. The active involvement of CSOs in
policy decisions will always benefit the public and the poor. It has been so challenging for CSOs
to maximize their influences in policy decisions for the interest of the public. This paper review
the work by Julie & Others as provided above. This review will also refer another work by Julie
and Pollard (2005).4
This review agrees with Julie and Pollard (2005) that if CSOs are well established and supported
they can always be of greater influence in policy decisions. Julie and Pollard (2005) backed their
position by providing an example showing how CSOs in Ghana, Zimbabwe and Kenya which by
then was providing 40% of all healthcare and education services in those countries. They also
gave an example how NGOs managed to reach 20% of the world’s poor in those times with only
annual global revenues of some US$12 billion.
2.1 Factors Undermining CSOs capacity to Influence Policy Decisions
According to Julie and others (2006) for the last 15 years year the capacity of CSOs to
effectively engage in policy process has been limited by poor resources, sustainability, political
pressures and capacity in policy process which inhibited their scope to effectively influence
policy decisions. The findings of the survey by Julie (2005) indicate that CSOs are now much
informed that policy engagement can often have a greater impact with widespread benefits than
contestation and their service delivery effort alone.
This is what they argue but, it mainly depends on where the research was done. The capacity of
CSOs to influence policy decisions is still very poor especially in developing countries. The
global situation indicates that CSOs are often failing to influence policy processes in developing
countries than developed countries. This review agrees with ODI that major challenges
4
Pollard Ammy and Court, Julie (2005) How Civil Society Organizations Use Evidence to Influence Policy
Processes: A literature review. Working Paper No 249

4. 4
undermining CSOs capacity to influence policy are CSOs internal factors rather than external
political factors.
Among many other factors, political challenges, poor capacity and lack of evidence in policy
engagement were mentioned by Julie and Others (2006) to be the main factors undermining the
credibility and effectiveness of CSOs to influence policy decisions in developing countries. It is
has been elucidated that CSOs in developing countries ignore research findings during policy
engagement.
Source: Summarized fro Julie & Others (2006)
The table above indicates that barriers to CSOs effective engagement policy process to be
more internal rather than external. This is the fact that seems to be more common in developing
countries.
2.2 How to Improve CSOs Capacity in Policy Engagement
The study by ODI has comprehensively tried to address the issues of CSOs influence in policy
decisions by providing multidisciplinary approaches as the way forward. Even though this study
was done 9 years ago, a great percent of its findings are still relevant today. For instance, Julie
(2006) emphasizes better understand of the institutions and actors involved in policy processes
for CSOs to be influential. This will enable them to recognize the incentives and pressures on
those involved, as well as and the type of evidence and communication approach needed to
maximize the chances of policy influence. This is the best approach that every CSO wishing to
influence policy decisions ought to know before engaging in any policy process.

5. 5
(i) Research Based Policy
Evidence based policy engagement was the main approach well elaborated and insisted in this
study by ODI. Again this is one the main problems facing NGOs of the contemporary world
especially those from developing countries. The study, did very well as it articulates the
disadvantages of engaging in policy process without evidence, it also provides very openly with
example how evidence can be used by CSOs to influence policy. The study insists on the use of
research evidence as the basis for CSOs effective policy influence. That is to say better policy
influence and practice occur when rigorous, systematic evidence is used.
The review found out that the ODI report is more than a report because it is gives readers not
only information from the field but also academic and learning information. For instance, the
report as elaborated in the table below insisted that evidence is key in every stage of policy
process.
Targeting Components of the Policy Process and Evidence Needs
Policy stage and key
objectives for actors
aiming for influence
CSOs can help Evidence must be
Agenda setting:
Convince
policymakers that the
issue does indeed
require attention
• Marshal evidence to enhance the
credibility of the argument
• Extend an advocacy campaign
• Foster links among researchers,
CSOs and policymakers
Crystallized as a policy narrative
around a problem
• Credible
• Suitable for the political environment
• Communicated effectively
Formulation:
Inform policymakers
of the options and
build a consensus
• Act as a ‘resource bank’
• Channel resources and
expertise into the policy
process
• Bypass formal obstacles to
consensus
High quality and credible
• Contain cost-benefit assessments
• Adapted to maintain credibility with
communities and policymakers
• Both tacit and explicit in origin
Implementation:
Complement
government capacity
• Enhance the sustainability and
reach of the policy
• Act as dynamic ‘platforms for
action’
• Innovate in service delivery
• Reach marginal groups
• Relevant and generalisable across
different contexts
• Operational – how to do it
• Directly communicated with
policymakers
Evaluation:
Review experience
and channel it into
Link policymakers to policy end
users
Consistent over time – through
monitoring mechanisms
• Objective, thorough and relevant

6. 6
the policy process • Provide good quality,
representative feedback
• Communicated in a clear, conclusive
and accessible way
Underlying:
Capacity building
for CSOs aiming to
influence policy
Provide a dynamic environment
for communication and
collaborative action
• Provide support and
encouragement
• Provide a means of political
representation
(Evidence needs will vary according
to
the capacity building initiatives)
…
• Source: Adapted from and Pollard and Court (2005)
(ii) Political Context
This review criticizes this argument because it not well elaborated how this is a problem and how
can be mitigated. Coston (1998) in Julie and Pollard (2005) tried to address the issue of CSOs
influence by linking political relationship. It has been argued that CSOs political relationship
has a certain impact on policy influence. What seems to be confusing is how CSOs can operate
without being politicized. The authors of this reports failed to understand that there is a lot of
politicking in CSOs activities. It is common in many governments of the day to intimidate CSOs
who propagate views different from those in power.
I agree that policy process is political in nature, but this should not be taken as point of harassing
and silencing the work of CSOs. With my own emphasis, the most affected groups of CSOs by
the state intimidations are those working on human rights, social accountability, corruptions,
political rights and governance. The ODI study failed to analyze this problem which is key in
policy process. Service deliver NGOs for instance, are not much at political risk compared those
working on human rights and political rights. Julie and others (2006) had to go further and
explain how this problem can be addressed to allow CSOs engage freely in policy process.
(iii) Other approaches
I also agree with Julie and Others (2006) that major challenges facing CSOs in policy
engagement can be solved by NGOs themselves except political challenges which come from
state side. CSOs need to improve their credibility and legitimacy by improving moral values,
performance, political and legal status. For instance, CSOs legitimacy can be expertise,
knowledge, information or competence that justifies its actions and its influence on authoritative
decisions. That suffices it to say, CSOs can effectively influence policy decisions if they improve
the quality of their various activities and their legitimacy. All these things confer on CSOs the
ability to develop policy influence.
The ODI reports also insists on the following tactics as options to improve policy engagements;
campaigns to try to change policy; ‘boomerang’ strategies (engaging with external partners to try
to change policy in a country); and policy pilots. These are not real approaches but ways of

7. 7
implementing or reaching the following key factors also mentioned in this study as the way of
improving CSOs policy capacity; First, Improving CSOs networking with key policy actors,
Secondly, improving CSOs capacity to communicate effectively in policy process and policy
entrepreneurships.
2.0 Conclusion
The study by ODI as per this review, has comprehensively tried to address the problems facing
CSOs in policy making process. However, some issues such as political and admistrative
harassment to CSOs were not given much attention by this study. Discussing how policy actors
mentioned in this review can effectively influence policy decisions, many factors were given
emphasis. Key issues such as CSOs freedom, professional and technical skills, communication
strategy, evidence, technological and financial resources and with good functioning
organizational system were highly discussed as challenges facing CSOs in policy engagement.
CSOs must always strive to improve their credibility as discussed in this paper in order to
inspire, inform and must be considered in all components of policy process. For instance, to
influence the monitoring and evaluation of policy, the key factors seem to be to generate relevant
information and communicate evidence in a clear, conclusive and accessible way (whether
internally within CSOs or to external policymakers). For CSOs to be effective in policy, they
must focus on research based advocacy, improve their policy engagement capacity, and improve
their legitimacy and quality of their activities.