Day 1 keynote address: John Thompson, Future Agricultures Consortium and Institute of Development Studies, UK: “Analyzing and Understanding Agricultural Policy Processes in Africa” 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. Analysing and
Understanding
Agricultural Policy
Processes in Africa
John Thompson
Future Agricultures Consortium,
Regional Coordinator for Europe and Research Fellow,
Institute of Development Studies, UK
j.thompson@ids.ac.uk
www.future-agricultures.org
Workshop on Approaches and Methods for
Policy Processes Research
IFPRI, Washington DC
18-20 November 2013

2. Focus
• Future Agricultures Consortium – a focus on
agricultural policy processes in Africa
• Changing views on policy & policy processes
• Overview 1: FAC Policy Processes approach
• Study 1: Political Economy of Cereal Seed
Systems
• Overview 2: FAC Political Economy of
Agricultural Policy in Africa (PEAPA) approach
• Study 2: Democratisation and the Political
Economy of Agricultural Policy in Africa
• Summary

3. Future Agricultures Consortium
Established in 2005… to encourage
dialogue and the sharing of good practice
by policy makers and opinion formers in
Africa on the role of agriculture in broad
based growth
Why FAC?... the lack of attention to the
political economy of policy processes is
leading to inappropriate policy formulation
and implementation failures in African
agriculture

4. Core Focus =
Agricultural Policy Processes in Africa
1.
2.
3.
4.
Policy processes
Commercialisations
Social protection
Science, technology &
innovation
5. Land
6. Climate change
7. Pastoralism
8. Young people & agri-food
systems
9. Gender & social difference
10. Brazil & China in African
agriculture

5. Policy:
Clearly central to
development, but difficult to
pin down...
‘Policy is rather like the elephant - you know it
when you see it, but you cannot easily define it’
(G. Cunningham, 1963: 229; cited in M. Hill, 1997: 6)

6. Policy: A Textbook Definition
• Policy comes from the Middle English word
‘policie’, meaning ‘art of government’, ‘civil
organisation’
• Standard definition of policy is: ‘a plan or
course of action, as of a government, political
party, or business, intended to influence and
determine decisions, actions, and other
matters’ – West’s Dictionary of American Law

7. Conventional View of Policy
• Series of well-defined steps:
 Determining the policy issue or problem
 Exploring possible options for resolving the problem
 Weighing up the costs and benefits of each option
 Making a rational choice about ‘best option’
 Implementing the policy
 Evaluating the outcome
• Bureaucratic approach  separation of ‘value’ and ‘fact’
• The political nature of the policy is hidden by the use of
technical language  ‘Evidence-based policy-making’

8. An Alternative View of Policy
• Policies = Political phenomena/processes
• “...policies appear to be mere
instruments for promoting
efficiency and effectiveness.
This masking of the political
under the cloak of neutrality is
a feature of modern power.”
C. Shore and S. Wright, Anthropology of Policy: Critical Perspectives on Governance
and Power. London: Routledge; 1997: 8.

9. The Politics of Policy Processes:
Incremental, Complex and Messy
• Competing agendas and interests (poli sci)
• ‘Disjointed incrementalism’, ‘muddling through’
(public admin)
• Implementation involves discretion, negotiation,
trade-offs by ‘street-level bureaucrats’ (public
admin)
• Decisions are not discrete or technical  facts and
values are intertwined (socio-anthro)
• Technical experts and policymakers ‘mutually
construct’ policy (sci & tech studies)

10. Value of a Policy Process Approach
• What is a political economist?
‘Someone who comes and explains why your
programme hasn’t worked’ – Alex Duncan, OPM
But a PP approach doesn’t just help explain
why a policy or programme hasn’t worked, it
can also identify possible ways forward  i.e.
what is both technically viable and politically
feasible

11. How Does Policy Change?
Three Broad Perspectives
1. Negotiating knowledges, discourses, narratives
• Policies as narratives, stories (Emory Roe, Raymond Apthorpe)
• Discourse coalitions (Maarten Hajer)
• Policy as political technology (Michel Foucault)
2. Interaction between actors, networks and practices
•
•
•
•
•
epistemic communities (Peter Haas)
policy networks (Paul Sabatier)
policy entrepreneurs (John Kingdon)
actors and encounters at the interface (Norman Long)
actor network theory (Bruno Latour, Michel Callon)
3. Competition and bargaining between different
interests
• pluralist, society-centred accounts (Robert Dahl)
• state-centred accounts (Theda Skocpol)
• bureaucratic politics (Graham Allison; Michael Lipsky)

12. A Simplified Framework
Discourses/
Narratives
Politics/
Interests
Understanding policy
processes comes as a
result of looking at
the intersection of
these 3 overlapping
elements.
Actors/
Networks/
Practices
J. Keeley and I. Scoones, Understanding Environmental Policy Processes: Cases from Africa. London: Earthscan, 2003.

13. Policy Narratives
Discourses/
Narratives
• Policy narratives ‘frame’ a problem; explain how
it comes about; and show what needs to be
done to put it right
• These narratives – storylines – frequently
simplify complex issues
– Many are ‘crisis narratives’, demanding
urgent policy action
– Others are ‘success stories’, suggesting a clear
way forward

14. Policy Narratives
Discourses/
Narratives
• Some narratives are very ‘sticky’ – i.e. persistent
 making it very difficult to challenge them
(e.g. ‘tragedy of the commons’, desertification...)
• Why?
– they suit certain political interests
– are easily communicated  ‘sound bites’
– become embedded in bureaucratic cultures 
reducing space for alternatives
– are perpetuated through everyday practice

15. Actors, Networks, Practices
Actors/
Networks/
Practices
• Actors and networks define and perpetuate
policy narratives
• These are coalitions and alliances of people with
shared beliefs, visions and patterns of behaviour
• They often link state institutions with private
sector, donors and civil society, spanning localglobal levels
• Diverse stakeholders engage in negotiation that
can reinforce – or sometimes challenge – the
prevailing narratives

16. Politics and Interests
Politics/
Interests
• Politics shape policy processes in several ways:
– The political context is moulded by the
interests of particular authorities who seek to
remain in power
– Competition also exists between groups in
society, based on their differing interests (e.g.
allocation of resources; economic vs. social
priorities)
– A range of interest groups attempt to exert
power over every stage of the policy process

17. Policy Spaces
Politics/
Interests
• ‘Policy spaces’ define the policy-maker's scope of
action  ‘room to manoeuvre’
• Strong pressures to adopt a particular policy
position can limit this space  ‘closing down’
• Reduction of such pressure may provide
opportunities to develop consensus among
stakeholders  involves negotiating trade-offs
• But consensus needs to be negotiated genuinely;
otherwise, the policy process may fall apart during
implementation  ‘implementation failure’

18. Policy Spaces
Politics/
Interests
• Invited spaces  consultations led by government
• Popular spaces  protests, demonstrations
• Practical spaces  pilot field-based projects
• Bureaucratic spaces  formal spaces within
government
• Electoral/political spaces  formal participation in
electoral system
• Discursive spaces  where new ‘framings’ are
introduced into the policy debate

19. Political Economy of Cereal Seed
Systems in Africa
• Focus: Particular configurations of
powerful public and private actornetworks are shaping the way cereal
seed systems operate in Africa, which
is influencing the way the ‘new Green
Revolution’ agenda is playing out in
different countries
• Framing: ‘market-led technology
adoption’
J. Thompson and I. Scoones, ‘The Political Economy of Cereal Seed Systems in Africa’s Green Revolution’, FAC
Policy Brief 44, 2012.

20. L. Sperling et al 2008. JDS

21. Seeds and
livelihoods:
social-cultural
dimensions
Seed aid
and relief
Governance
of seed/
innovation
systems
Planting
breeding, PBR,
priority setting
Economics of
seed production
and distribution
Seed systems
Regulation and
certification
Politics of
national and
global agri-food
systems
Politics and policy processes

22. Research Questions
• How do seed policies get created, and by
whom?
• How do narratives about what makes a
‘good seed policy’ change over time?
• How are seed problems and solutions
‘framed’ – and how does this affect policy
processes?
• Whose voices are taken into account in the
seed policy process – and whose are
excluded?
• What spaces exist for new ideas, actors and
networks? How can these be opened up?

23. Country Studies
1. Ethiopia (Dawit Alemu)– liberalisation under state control:
the politics of the emergent private sector seed industry
2. Ghana (Kojo Amanor) – Green Revolution narratives and
local-level realities: how a technocratic approach
overwhelms alternative perspectives on breeds and seeds
3. Kenya (Hannington Odame and Elijah Muange) – agrodealers and the market solution: politics, interests and who
wins and loses from the new Green Revolution?
4. Malawi (Blessings Chinsinga) – the politics of maize and
input subsidy programmes: how diverse interests converge
around a particular technical-economic trajectory
5. Zimbabwe (Charity Mutonodzo and Douglas Magunda) –
rebuilding the seed system post ‘collapse’: why top-down
government/aid programmes may make things worse

24. Mapping the Actor-Networks

25. Key Lessons
• Avoid generalised diagnoses to complex seed system
problems
• Question the dominant narratives that lead to
technological ‘lock in’
• Highlight normative issues (narratives, values and
interests) to open up policy debate
• Identify ‘policy spaces’ in seed sector to increase
room to manoeuvre  negotiate trade-offs, create
synergies
• Explore opportunities for ‘Integrated Seed Sector
Development’  bridging ‘formal’ and ‘informal’

26. Political Economy of
Agricultural Policy in Africa (PEAPA)
• Focus: To understand the role for the state in
stimulating agricultural development we need to
assess the capacity and willingness of state actors to
implement particular policies in particular contexts
• Starting point:
1. It is a country’s political system that generates the
incentives (strong or weak) for the state to take
action to invest in agricultural development
2. This political system also influences the type of
agricultural development promoted (e.g.
smallholder vs. large farm based)

27. PEAPA Model
Political
System
Incentives for
State Action
Policy
Outcomes
Agricultural
Performance
C. Poulton, Democratisation and the Political Economy of Agricultural Policy in Africa. FAC Working Paper 43, 2012.

28. Pro-Poor Agricultural Policy
• Investment in infrastructural and institutional
public goods to support smallholder producers
– Rural roads
– Irrigation
– Agricultural research
– Extension services
– Capacity for policy design and evaluation
– Coordination capacity for market development
• Medium-term impact

29. Democratisation
• Competitive elections ++
• Majority population is still rural, poor and
dependent on agriculture
– Vote for better agricultural policies?
– Challenge previous ‘urban bias’ in national policy?
• Basic answer = this is not happening yet
– Rural votes are rarely exchanged for policies
• Where better agricultural policy is observed,
what are the key factors behind this?

30. Country Studies
1. Burkina Faso (Augustin Loada)
2. Ethiopia (Kassahun Berhanu)
3. Ghana (Kojo Aidoo)
4. Kenya (Karuti Kanyinga)
5. Malawi (Blessings Chinsinga)
6. Mozambique (Domingos Rosario & Lidia
Cabral)
7. Rwanda (David Booth & Fred Golooba-Mutebi)
8. Tanzania (Brian Cooksey)

31. Scenarios in a Neo-Patrimonial World
Technocratic Support
No
Yes
No
Political
Backing
Yes
C. Poulton, Democratisation and the Political Economy of Agricultural Policy in Africa. FAC Working Paper 43, 2012.
N. van de Walle, African Economies and the Politics of Permanent Crisis, 1979-1999. New York, Cambridge
University Press, 2001.

32. Scenarios in a Neo-Patrimonial World
Technocratic Support
No
No
Political
Backing
Yes
X
2. Anti-poor
policy
Yes
1. Inertia
3. Success stories
4. Distorted policy
1. Good technocratic policies with no ‘appeal’ in patronage politics terms
simply don't make it
2. Policies driven by the exigencies of patronage politics, but which make no
plausible contribution to stated public policy goals, are adopted
3. ‘Success stories’: some alignment between technocratic policies and the
exigencies of patronage politics
4. Partial alignment: patronage politics distort well-intentioned technocratic
policies, undermining pro-poor impact

33. Examples from PEAPA Studies
• Malawi Fertiliser Subsidy (4 – distorted)
– Window of opportunity for broad-based policy
– Transfer (immediate, tangible): at the expense of
other public goods
– Emphasis shifted towards political control
• Kenya Ag Sector Revitalisation (1 – inertia)
– Strategy for Revitalising Agriculture vs. regional
commodity-based interventions (ethnic links)
– Collective action issue?

34. More Positive Agricultural Policy
(3 – success stories, with caveats)
• Rwanda (since 2007)
– Terracing + marshland development
– Cooperative development: coordination for market
access?
– One cow per family
– Extension?
– Outcome-based management + learning
• Ethiopia
– Sustained investment in agricultural extension (with
evaluation and adaptation)
– Growth + political control …

35. PEAPA Lessons
• ‘Pro-poor’ agricultural policy is not an automatic
outcome of democratisation, even where the median
voter is poor and rural
• Need to align interests of (urban-based) elites and
rural populations
• Dependence on agriculture for economic growth key
– Burkina, Ethiopia, Malawi, Rwanda
– c/w Mozambique, Tanzania
• Threats to regime survival – have to deliver!
– Ethiopia: fall of two previous regimes, minority
government with multiple enemies
– Rwanda: supporters of previous regime?

36. FAC Policy Processes - Summary
• Policy-making must be understood as a political
process, as much as an analytical or technical one
• Policy processes = complex interplay of narratives +
actor-networks + political interests
• Policy change requires understanding these
interactions:
– exploring spaces for opening up debate
– identifying incentives for getting political
commitment to delivering public goods
• Future Agricultures’ PP and PEAPA approaches can
help in analysing and understanding these complex
processes

37. Thank You
John Thompson
Future Agricultures Consortium
www.future-agricultures.org
http://www.future-agricultures.org/events/policy-processes-conference