Successfully reported this slideshow.

Strategic actors for the implementation of inclusive development


Published on

Draft Concept Note for Discussion during the Platform meeting (Accra, 5 April 2013)
Produced by a team composed of ECDPM staff, an ECDPM Programme Associate and two African experts

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Strategic actors for the implementation of inclusive development

  1. 1. Draft Concept Note for Discussion duringthe Platform meeting (Accra, 5 April 2013)Produced by a team composed of ECDPM staff, an ECDPMProgramme Associate and two African expertsStrategic Actors for theImplementation of InclusiveDevelopment
  2. 2. • This is a “scoping paper”, not a “state of the art”analysis• Purpose: to clarify concepts, delineate the“domains”, map existing research, identify potentialniches for future research• No pretention to cover all aspects (vastdomain, many research programmes, timelimitations)• No mapping of country level situations• Challenging job - Not much “framing” so farSome preliminary pointsECDPM Page 2
  3. 3. 1) Focus on inclusive “development” (as opposed toinclusive “growth”)2) Focus on “implementation” (as opposed totraditional focus on “policies”)3) Focus on “strategic actors” (from state, societyand business) that can “push” for effectiveimplementationIn many ways, the proposed theme seems a “goldmine”…ECDPM Page 3
  4. 4. • Growing consensus that failure to tackleinequality is bad for sustainability growth andsocial cohesion• “Severe economic disparity” number 1global risk (World Econ. Forum 2013)• ID finding its way in African policy discourse, beit in a rather vague way1) Inclusive development (ID) on the riseECDPM Page 4
  5. 5. 2) The mystery of the “Bermudatriangle”: explaining the gap betweenpolicy formulation and implementationPage 5ECDPM
  6. 6. 6Looking below the top of the iceberg
  7. 7. “Nudging unwilling actors intoaction…”Page 7ECDPM
  8. 8. What incentives for change?
  9. 9. • WHO are the “strategic actors” pushing for ID?• WHERE is there “traction” for social change”• HOW is that “traction” translated intoeffective “action” (how does change occur?)3) Strategic actors: Moving beyond political economyanalysis to understanding processes of social changeECDPM Page 9
  10. 10.  INCLUSIVE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC ACTORSClarifying key conceptsECDPM Page 10
  11. 11. Inclusive development: a concept “underconstruction” (no shortage of confusion…)Page 11ECDPM
  12. 12. What “animal” are we talking about?Page 12ECDPM
  13. 13. Policy domains where ID could be progressively fosteredEquitable economicgrowth (productive anddiversified economy, income distribution)Inclusive Governance(transparency,accountability, localgovernance, rights,horizontal inequalities,elections)Territorial developmentand spatial equityAccess to basic services(education, health, finance, infrastructure)supported by equitable fiscal systemsProductive andgainful employment(decent work)Policy triggers formakingdevelopmentinclusiveSocial protection ofvulnerablepopulations
  14. 14.  ID as a normative agenda Need to go beyond policy recommendations(there is no shortage of ideas on “whatshould be done”) and focus on the “politics”of implementing ID Don’t forget to look at linkages betweenthese various policy domains !Three traps to be avoidedECDPM Page 14
  15. 15. • Institutional perspective• Agency perspectiveAttention !!!!! Both perspectives matter Connections between actors matter When are actors “strategic”? Be aware of dynamic landscape of actors Focus on conditions that allow strategicactors to translate “traction” into “action”Two perspectives on “strategic actors”ECDPM Page 15
  17. 17. 1. Political nature of development (as opposed to“technocratic approaches”)2. Need to focus of interests and incentives3. Importance of “agency”4. Need to move away from “donor orthodoxies”(e.g. “best practices”, “good governance”)5. Failure is part of the game6. Still limited knowledge on how change actuallyhappens and on optimal donor supportstrategiesThe policy debate: points of convergenceECDPM Page 17
  18. 18. The black box of change processesPage 18ECDPM
  19. 19. 1. Different “theories of change” (or “routes” to inclusivedevelopment)2. Results-driven (“amoral”) approach vs. “value-driven”approach3. Top-down state driven transformation and/or societaltransformation4. Discordance on role of governance (APP programme)5. Added value of “citizen action” for state accountabilityand donor support to civil society6. The added value and effective use of politicaleconomy7. The existence and quality of citizen demand (“thedocile citizens”)8. The power and use of social media9. Desirable degree of donor interventionismThe policy debate: points of controversyECDPM Page 19
  20. 20. 1. How to avoid “conceptual trap” regarding ID asNorthern (Anglo-Saxon’) donor concept?2. How to avoid Western bias in agenda setting?3. How to build on existing knowledge regarding thepolitical economy of reforms/ID?4. Does the Platform opt for a middle-level theoryapproach or an action-oriented research, or acombination of both?5. How to avoid “development recipes” in the pushto be “operational”?Critical questions regarding “research approach"ECDPM Page 20
  21. 21. 1. “More of the same” : deepening existing researchthemes identified in mapping1. Focus on less traditional strategic actors2. Accompany ongoing change processes with action-oriented research3. Select cases based on “common interests” (localdynamics and donor concerns)4. Integrate the “political approach” consistently inall research programmes (see par. 90)Possible options in terms of research focusECDPM Page 21
  22. 22.  6 examples in Note (as illustration of the kind ofthe “new” topics to be considered) Discussions of last two days seem to supportsome of the proposals made See “hot” debates on the added value of“citizen action for inclusive development”Some examples of possible “cases”(reflecting shared agendas)ECDPM Page 22
  23. 23. Thank 23