1. From Policy to Research and Back Again
Evidence from the South
Dr. Julio A. Berdegué
Dr. Ignacia Fernández
Rimisp – Latin American Center for Rural Development
First Annual Rural Workshop 2011, Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation,
Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Ottawa, Canada, 5 May 2011

2. Contents
1. Problem statement
2. The policy process
3. Development issues and the policy-research interaction
4. What to do? The policy side
5. What to do? The research side

3. Problem statement
 How to break away from these constraints, in a way
that does not require that researchers become
politicians or politicians become philosophers?

4. 2. The policy process

5. 2. The policy process
 Decision-making styles
Level of agreement regarding objectives and values
Strong Weak
Programmed Process Negotiated Process
Routines. Ideological debates
Dependence on technical Turning to experience
Strong aspects and tradition
Level of Bureaucratization Official controversies
certainty Planning and hidden
regarding the commitments
means, facts
Programmatic Process Chaotic Process
and knowledge
Turning to the experts Prevention
Weak Empiricism (the best Decentralization
possible), search for strategic Turning to authority
variants or the “lucky man”

6. 3. Development issues
 Commission on Education
o 81 members
o 32% researchers and technical experts
o 64% civil society constituencies
 Commission on Labor and Equity
o 48 members
o 75% were researchers and technical experts
o 29% represented civil society sectors
 Commission on Social Security
o 15 members
o 87% researchers and technical experts
o 13% represented civil society

7. 5. What to do?

8. 5. What to do? The researchers’ side
 Strategies to fit the context (F. Carden)
1. Clear government demand
2. Government interested in research, but leadership
absent
3. Government interested in research, but with a capacity
shortfall
4. A new or emerging issue activates research, but leaves
policymakers uninterested
5. Government treats research with disinterest, or
hostility

9. ROMA process, Young and Mendizabal, ODI
For example: For example:
RAPID Framework •AIIM
Drivers of Change •Stakeholder analysis
Power Analysis •Influence Mapping
SWOT •Social Network Analysis
Influence Mapping •Force Field Analysis
Force Field Analysis
Start by defining
your policy For example:
objectives – Progress Markers
constantly review Opportunities and
them during the Threats timeline
For example: process Policy Objectives
AIIM
Log Frame (flexible)
Force Field
Outcome Mapping
Analysis
Journals or impact logs
Internal monitoring tools
For example:
For example:
For example:
Strategy Map
Policy entrepreneur questionnaire Publications, public relations Force Field Analysis
SWOT Media and events
Internal performance frameworks Negotiation and advice
Develop a network or coalition
Research

10. 5. What to do? The researchers’ side
 Rimisp’s experience
1. Nurture credibility
2. Formulate policy-relevant research questions
3. Stay close to decision-makers throughout the
research process
4. Communicate effectively

11. In conclusion, one message
Get organized

12. From Policy to Research and Back Again
Evidence from the South
Dr. Julio A. Berdegué, jberdegue@rimisp.org
Dr. Ignacia Fernández, ifernandez@rimisp.org
Rimisp – Latin American Center for Rural Development
www.rimisp.org
First Annual Rural Workshop 2011, Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation,
Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Ottawa, Canada, 5 May 2011