Attachment_5_-_Applied_Political_Economy_Assessment.pdf

USAID Applied Political Economy Assessment

Field Guide1

A. What is USAID’s Applied Political Economy Assessment?

Political Economy Assessment (PEA) is a field-research methodology used to explore not simply how things happen in an aid-recipient country, but why things happen. It results in a written assessment with recommendations for a mission’s County Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS), project or activity design, or course correction during implementation.

PEA emerged as a tool used by donors in the 1990s and has been modified since then to improve aid effectiveness and the sustainability of programs. PEAs unpack how power is used to manage resources and, as such, are especially valuable for exploring a lack of political will, which is often blamed for undermining reform and hindering progress.

USAID’s Applied PEA is a problem-focused method specially intended to be used by Mission staff to inform the design of aid interventions at any phase of the USAID program cycle and at any level of effort. As indicated, the methodology can be used to inform a CDCS process or later at the project/activity design stage. It can be used to explore the causes of a particularly intransigent development or governance issue or problem in implementation. It can also be used in any technical or governance sector (water, health, education, justice, elections etc.), in conjunction with other assessments (e.g., Inclusive Growth Diagnostics or Gender assessments), and by the Initiatives (Feed the Future, Power Africa, etc.). It can be used to explore country-level dynamics or it can have a narrower focus at the local government level.

Further, USAID’s Democracy, Rights, and Governance (DRG) Strategy, finalized in 2013, states, “Effective integrated programming requires analysis of the various interdependent factors that underlie a development challenge…Therefore, USAID will employ political economy analysis (PEA) and other assessment tools to consider constraints to development holistically across its assistance portfolio and to develop integrated programs that leverage DRG interventions and strategies to support wider development results.”

This document provides an overview of the methodology. The Applied PEA method is taught by a PE specialist in a two-day orientation workshop, during which specially written course materials and a tailored PEA Framework are used as a guide in an effort to embed in USAID staff the skills to apply a political economy lens.

The Applied PEA methodology requires the Mission to take ownership of the process in order to be successful. This distinguishes USAID’s approach from that of many other donors whose PEA reports are often written by contractor, and often shelved and unused. USAID believes that mission ownership and participation will ensure that the information obtained is used by the Mission.

1 This Field Guide was authored by Diana Cammack, Sr. Democracy Fellow and PEA expert, with substantive input from members of the Cross-Sectoral Programs Division in the DRG Center. This report represents the second version of the Guide to be shared by the DRG Center. It may be updated at a subsequent point, but currently serves as the official version of the PEA Field Guide in use by USAID.

Field Guide: USAID Applied Political Economy Assessment

Version: October 2015 Page 2

Ownership begins with Mission staff’s participation in the two-day PEA workshop which helps them in identifying research questions that go to the heart of the development problem under study. Their engagement in identifying sources of information that can illuminate the question at hand (including stakeholders that may not be among typical mission contacts), in conducting the interviews during the field research, and in reporting likewise enhances mission ownership and guidance over the time of the PEA process. The team’s field experience enhances its ownership of the findings and understanding of how the local context will affect the success of any project it designs using its data.

The resulting PEA report is not a long theoretical piece but a short, relevant document that uses the PEA findings to make concrete programmatic recommendations. In applying the PEA findings to programming in a way that is more attuned to context, political factors and power dynamics, USAID is moving towards ‘thinking and working politically’ (TWP), which is thought by many in the international donor community to improve both sustainability and aid effectiveness.

B. Why do an Applied PEA?

Think about trying to change things in your hometown or work place. Many of the decisions that determine whether progress is made are shaped by multiple stakeholders with varying degrees and types of influence. This includes a number of often conflicting views, a complicated mix of incentives and interests, and ways of doing things that are likely to be rooted in past experience and rules, but are molded by powerful contemporary forces working informally. Thus, while good ideas and technical expertise are needed to write sound policies, multi-directional, iterative political action is necessary to get them implemented. It is the same for promoting reforms in the countries where USAID works.

In recent decades, development and governance projects have generally begun with an ideal scenario and project goals were derived from it. Funds and technical advisors were then used by the Mission to achieve those goals. This PEA framework is based on a different ‘theory of change’, one that argues that success is more likely if projects build on what is working well locally rather than importing foreign technical solutions. This may encompass efforts to build on examples of ‘positive deviance’ such as cases where unusual successes have been achieved, driven from within the local context. This also involves embracing a more gradual approach to development that slowly builds on processes in which there is a local investment rather than importing a technically superior, but ultimately foreign new system. Rather than adopting best practice, ‘best fit’ is often advocated. In other words, local actors must drive change and foreigners can only support their efforts not lead them. To aid the change process, we need to understand how and why things work as they do locally, who the key actors are, and what incentivizes them. A PEA study provides that sort of information and advises which entry points we might use.

The Applied Political Economy Assessment asks questions about the development context, including the factors that impact growth and governance such as politics, rules and norms, social and cultural practices, beliefs and values, and historical and geographical determinants. A countrywide analysis investigates the factors driving outcomes at the national level, while a sector-level PEA explores influences acting on particular technical areas like health or education. A problem- or issue-focused PEA examines the forces that create a particular developmental or governance challenge at any level. A PEA can also identify opportunities and actors (e.g., potential ‘development entrepreneurs’ and managers of ‘islands of excellence’) and others that can drive change.

Version: October 2015 Page 3

C. When to do an Applied PEA?

Since the 1990s PEAs have been done at country-level by donors such as the UK, Sweden, the Netherlands and the European Commission. More recently donors have developed political economy assessment frameworks to do sector- and problem-level analyses, but these more focused studies are often undertaken in places where country-level PEAs have already been completed although these are not a prerequisite.

The Applied PEA framework can be used to do an analysis at the country, sector or problem level. It allows USAID officers to assess the causes and dynamics of national decision-making, which is particularly important in a new regime after, say, a war or an election brings new rules and leaders to power. When a new CDCS is being written, a PEA is useful to identify the major forces acting for and against change nationally and in the regions where a Mission may work. When designing a new sector project or activity or modifying an existing project or activity significantly, an Applied PEA is usefully to do. It is especially valuable when trying to decide how to tackle on-going poor performance and sub-optimal outcomes in a country or sector that is already receiving aid. Similarly, staff can do a PEA to understand the reasons why a particular development problem – e.g., high maternal mortality rates or girls’ low school-completion rates – is so resistant to reform. A development problem can be narrowly focused, such as these two cases (poor mortality and school completion rates) or it can be much wider such as why civil society remains so passive or why corruption with impunity remains the norm.

It is good practice to redo or update a PEA repeatedly if the context is changing, if there is a need to ask a similar set of questions in a number of localities, or if project/activity goals are not being met and the reasons why are elusive. Engaging USAID national staff in the conduct of a PEA alongside PEA specialists when they do the first one will make it easier for subsequent PEAs to be done locally without specialist assistance and at a lower cost. It also helps the Mission to keep track on a regular basis of major actors and changes in leadership (at national and sector levels); any changes in the formal rules and informal norms governing behavior; and political, social and economic events that are driving and inhibiting reforms.

With this knowledge, new projects/activities and changes to existing projects/activities can be planned and on-going projects/activities can be monitored and evaluated and their outputs explained more accurately.

D. How Applied PEA Fits with Other Assessments and Learning Approaches

USAID has a number of assessment frameworks that were designed to explore specific issues, such as conflict, gender, and inclusive growth diagnostic. These can be used in conjunction with a political economy assessment. PEA-type questions can be added to these assessment tools, or a separate PEA could be conducted following these other assessments in order to deepen the analyses and provide more details about the constraints and opportunities for engagement. For instance, a PEA may help to explain the socio-political and cultural factors that incentivize violent behavior or gender discrimination. It can illuminate the reasons why economic constraints are so intractable.

In the governance sector, the PEA can support the Democracy, Rights and Governance Strategic Assessment Framework (DRG SAF) by investigating the origin and influence of institutions that underpin, say, human rights abuses and instances of non-democratic governance or where opportunities or champions may exist to address key DRG constraints.

It can also support the implementation of cross-sectoral programming by providing more information on how cultural, political and governance factors influence other technical

Version: October 2015 Page 4 sectors, such as health or education, and on the opportunities and champions that exist to address these issues. PEA-type questions can add value to an Inclusive Growth Diagnostic by exploring why constraints exist once they are identified by the diagnostic.

Systems mapping and PE analysis are substantially complementary exercises. Systems mapping is aided through PE analysis that identifies stakeholders, their networks, linkages and feedback loops, influences and interests; the boundary of the system and its dynamics;

and other of its key characteristics. Integration and cross-sectoral programming are advanced by doing a PEA that clarifies the social, economic, and governance forces that drive behaviors in, say, the delivery of health or education services. Where systems mapping in some form has already been undertaken, PEA can help to further explore the dynamics within the defined system, the relationships, and incentives that are working within the actors. More dynamic political environments, such as during political transitions and crises or in post-conflict contexts, will benefit from regular assessments that explain not simply what is happening contextually and how a program is faring, but why. An Applied PEA can also help understand trends where special initiatives to address major changes are undertaken, such as where Missions are employing a Collaborative Learning and Adapting (CLA) approach to strategy and project design and management.

E. Connection with Initiatives and Sector Assessment Processes

Finally, different Congressional and Presidential initiatives such as PEPFAR, Power Africa, and the Global Climate Change Initiative have their own assessment frameworks to help staff determine the best way to design projects. PEAs can play a vital complementary role. In all these initiatives, large sums of money are being invested in long-term interventions that support local actors to achieve and sustain difficult changes in key areas e.g. the electrification of sub-Saharan Africa, the management of HIV/AIDS, and the support of low-carbon growth and sustainable forestry. Staff need to understand what forces are working for and against reforms and the effective use of their funds in these complex situations, what motivates actors and groups at all levels to work (or not) in favor of these objectives, and which formal and informal institutions (laws, norms and rules) support or undermine these goals and why.

F. Linkage with Local Solutions & Politically Smart, Locally Led Development

The USAID Forward reform agenda has prioritized the development of projects that foster Local Solutions by providing aid to local civil society and private sector organizations as well as supporting government-to-government activities and strengthening the systems within which these institutions operate. A PEA study is extremely supportive of this agenda, as it helps USAID staff assess why local actors (including civil servants), agencies and organizations behave as they do, what institutions (rules and informal norms) frame their actions, and what has molded and continues to incentivize their behaviors. Effective programming requires such knowledge. Also, having this information helps staff to design interventions that are more likely to sustain positive outcomes even after USAID’s projects have run their course.

G. How is an Applied PEA Done?

The Applied Political Economy Assessment process begins when a Mission decides it wants to explore an aspect of a development or governance situation in the country or sector where it works. This might be before designing a new CDCS, project or activity, or when faced with a stubborn problem it wants to understand better. The Mission should contact the

Version: October 2015 Page 5

Cross Sectoral Program (CSP) team in the DRG Center in Washington DC to discuss the Applied PEA process, which the CSP team has designed, and to talk about timing, resources, and other administrative issues. The CSP Team is currently working to train USAID staff in other sectors to undertake PEAs and can make referrals to the correct resource people in various technical areas.

Correspondence and video/teleconferences will be held between a trained PE specialist on the CSP team and the Mission staff about PE assessments generally, and the resources required to carry them out. Efforts will be made to clarify the topic of the specific PE study, the amount of time it will take, the resources needed, and the composition of the team doing the fieldwork and reporting. The CSP team will want to discuss the purpose of the PEA e.g.

whether it is being done in the lead-up to a CDCS, a PAD, activity design or to address a stubborn governance or development problem that arises in implementation. Efforts will be made to bring into focus the question(s) to be explored during the fieldwork. This is important because the Applied PEA is problem-focused; it is not a theoretical exercise. The main output is a short report that outlines the thinking behind the design of a project or program to address a particular problem in light of the PEA findings.

Early on, the Mission will be urged to do a literature review of the issue under study. Doing so requires the staff to gather as many of the existing PE assessments and other relevant reports as it can find, and to synthesize them. This helps identify gaps in knowledge. Also, the literature review is a good resource to share with the Mission and CSP team before going into the field. Many of the existing PEAs will not be in the public domain, and the Mission will have to seek these out from analysts, consultants and other donors in country. The review will therefore include other donors’ and NGOs’ unpublished reports, audits and specialists’ reviews, political science and historical studies, anthropological reports, and material from journals and newspapers. The survey will inform the design of the research, and it is likely that some of the material can be incorporated into the final PE report as background information.

At an agreed time, the PEA team will visit the Mission. The PEA process starts with a two-day workshop attended by the Mission’s PEA team, comprised of Foreign Service Officers (FSOs), Foreign Service Nationals (FSNs) and other local specialists deemed necessary.

Steps of a PEA

1. Hold initial discussions to brainstorm PEA questions.

2. Recruit the team members based on PEA focus.

3. Conduct a desk study.

4. Agree on a preliminary agenda.

5. Hold a PEA workshop in country.

6. Finalize the agenda/site visit plan.

7. Conduct the field work.

8. Meet nightly to review interview results.

9. Conduct additional interviews to triangulate and confirm findings.

10. Brief sector and Mission leadership on preliminary findings.

11. Draft PEA report.

12. Finalize based on feedback from Mission staff and other USAID stakeholders.

13. Repeat field work as necessary to refine and update results.

Version: October 2015 Page 6

The workshop consists of interactive discussions that cover:

● The history and nature of political economy assessments;

● The ‘theory of change’ that underpins PEAs;

● The current CDCS and relevant program and project materials,

● The country/sector or problem being studied;

● Restrictions (security, funding, political, etc.) that influence Mission programming,

● Field research methods and note taking;

● Reporting and using the PEA’s findings; and

● Thinking and working politically (TWP).

A central part of the workshop is the team working together to narrow down the research questions it will go into the field to answer. The research questions are directly linked to the topic under study, and their answers will inform the program or project being (re)designed.

To support the team in developing key research questions, the workshop will involve discussion of a Framework of questions related to the following areas of inquiry, and how they may impact the particular development challenge to be addressed:

• Foundational Factors: Deeply embedded national and sub-national structures that shape the character and legitimacy of the state, the political system and economic choices. Many are slow to change such as borders with conflict-affected countries, natural resource endowments, or class structures.

• Rules of the Game: Formal and informal institutions (rules and norms) that influence actors’ behavior, their incentives, relationships and their capacity for collective action.

This encompasses both the formal constitutional and legal framework, as well as informal norms, social and cultural traditions that guide behavior in practice.

• The Here and Now: Current or recent behavior of individuals and groups and their response to events (“games within the rules”) that provide opportunities for, or impediments to change. For example: leadership changes, add domestic and international pressures impact social, political and economic structures and processes.

• Dynamics: What features are in flux and may drive an opening or closing of space for change? What foreign or domestic drivers of change are acting on society already? What levels of complexity and uncertainty are there in any potential changes that are identified?

Identification of the research questions will in turn determine who exactly the team will interview. From this will flow the itinerary, logistics and research plan.

H. How to Identify an Applied PE Problem?

The process of identifying a set of PE questions whose answers have a project or technical sector focus, is undertaken by the combined PEA team (CSP, other USAID/Washington staff, and Mission staff) working together before the workshop (by teleconference) and during it. It builds on knowledge of the Mission’s existing country strategy and the specific challenges it has faced. It relies on an understanding, often quite deep, of the history, geography and other structural factors that the FSNs and country specialists on the team have about the nation, area and/or sector under study. During the workshop the FSNs present information about their own country using the Applied PEA Framework as a guide.

This helps get the team ‘to think like PE analysts’ about the structural elements that drive or undermine a country’s or a sector’s development. Specifically, it helps the team move away

Version: October 2015 Page 7 from thinking simply about the technical issues and funding constraints that shape projects and development outcomes.

The aim during the workshop is to finalize a short set of questions to take to the field, which can be answered in several days by interviewing carefully selected stakeholders: questions that cut to the heart of the development or governance problem being studied. For instance, in one of the Applied PEA pilot countries the Mission and CSP team sought to learn why, despite being a middle income country purporting to follow best practices, the country’s rates of maternal mortality remained so high? And why some best practices adopted locally were never taken to scale? In another country, the team sought to learn about the political dynamics in the municipalities under study? And how would you characterize the risks (constraints) to effective state presence and what risks are likely to exist in a post-conflict transition?

Starting with the nature of the problems being experienced in the existing programs, it took a great deal of discussion by the teams during the two Missions’ workshops to narrow down to these two sets of questions. In the first case, the team was keen to explore the broad, non-health related issues that drive poor performance (cultural, economic and political incentives, for instance). In the second case, the team was anxious to understand how the regional context, including the local economy, influences the power structure, the nature of governance, and the chances for peace.

Often the hardest part of narrowing down the topic under study is questioning the strongly held assumptions of team members. For instance, during a third pilot some members of the team assumed that state officials refused to adopt the modern tuberculosis treatment regime because they didn’t understand it (so, simply telling them about it would kick-start reform).

The PE specialist ensured that the field questions included one about the health officials’ knowledge of the modern TB protocol, but more importantly, the list included one question about the political and economic incentives that were likely to motivate doctors to oppose changes to TB treatment. In other cases, cutting through the normative reasoning of Mission staff and questioning their closely held assumptions about how aid works (theories of change) or about the role of governance in development may generate new ways of looking at the causes of intransigent development or governance problems.

I. Fieldwork and Reporting During a PEA

Once a short set of questions is produced, and a research plan is established – which includes producing a list of key stakeholders and appointments, an itinerary and travel dates, and debriefing and report-writing plans – the team will head to the field to do its interviews.

Fieldwork is likely to take approximately two weeks though could be shorter or longer, depending on the scope of the questions and the depth of the inquiry. Discussions during the workshop will focus on note-taking and interviewing techniques.

As new information is gathered, it may be necessary for the team to go back and meet the same or new stakeholders again to double-check its findings. Triangulation of data is vital, especially if the information is controversial, secret or sensitive. Rigor is increased by frequent team meetings during the fieldwork phase, where findings are shared and compared. Determining if the findings are replicable across a wide range of places (outside research sites) requires doing more studies and/or using a different methodology that includes sampling around key variables.

Version: October 2015 Page 8

As with a number of other US agencies, USAID follows the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (Common Rule) as developed by the US Department of Health and Human Services for research involving human subjects. Thus, the team will conduct the PEA and its field assessment complying with the ethical standards expected from this type of social research. The details of the Common Rule policy are included as Appendix A.

When making appointments, and later when doing interviews, it is important to ask for any literature the stakeholder is willing to share, e.g., reports, reviews, published pamphlets, unpublished papers, minutes of their own meetings, etc. Sometimes photos can be taken that illustrate a point made during interviews.

Upon returning from the field, the team will hold a meeting to discuss their findings, to plan their debriefing(s) and their report. Who will attend debriefing(s) and see the report will depend on decisions made by the Mission team during the workshop earlier, but these may include the Mission’s Front Office, staff from other technical offices and/or the program office, people from the Embassy, other donors and NGOs, contractors and even the partner government. This will depend on the findings, the country situation, sensitivities in the report, and how much the team and Front Office feel it would be helpful to share.

The written report will be approximately 12-15 pages and cover background about the PEA process, the problem under study, the research questions, the methodology and interviewees, and the findings. It should not be a theoretical piece, but focused on the CDCS, project or activity design or modification and how the learning from the PEA may inform these processes.

It is recommended that as time passes further PEAs be undertaken to double-check on changes in the context, assumptions, findings, and the efficacy of project/activity design.

Further, notes from all of the interviews should be retained by the Mission team for future reference.

J. Ownership of the PEA

Past experience with PEAs has demonstrated that unless program office and technical officers understand, ‘buy into’ and own the research process, they will not use the findings for designing interventions. This is true of many assessment frameworks, but it is especially important in this case because programming from PEA findings can be challenging. Thus, understanding how important the findings are, and how they were derived, can ease the design process somewhat.

It is important to get the technical officer(s) and/or project development officer(s), the officer writing the CDCS and/or whoever has commissioned the study directly involved in the PEA process. Ideally, the person working on the project or design will attend the workshop and go into the field as part of the research team, to hear for themselves what stakeholders have to say about the actors and interests that affect the potential for reform. Second best, but far less optimal, they would be involved in PEA planning and attend meetings where the study’s findings are discussed.

K. Resources Needed for a PEA

The process starts with a two-day workshop that covers research methods and identifies the questions to be answered by the field research. Doing the PEA research and afterwards, brainstorming on CDCS implications, project/activity design or modification together as a

Version: October 2015 Page 9 team are also part of the hands-on training in PEA. This process supports staff learning and their ability to conduct assessments and to use a PE lens to monitor and evaluate projects/activities in the long term.

It can take several weeks to complete the first PEA, including a literature review and the field work. Costs include wages, travel, accommodation, subsistence and communications for the researchers. Budgets should also include the time it takes for the staff/authors to write the report and for their meetings to talk about the findings and how to use them in programming.

Any additional costs arising from USAID staff working with the researchers (in the field, perhaps, or afterwards during project/activity design) should be factored in.

The time it takes to do a PEA will depend on the complexity of the study, the nature of the topic(s) being addressed, and the number of people doing the research and writing. Getting to grips with how another society works is not a simple task. The more knowledgeable the team before starting the PEA, the faster the process will be though. Also, the simpler the topic, the shorter the study. If the problem under study is narrow, the team is especially knowledgeable, and/or the research is to remain relatively shallow (‘quick and dirty’) it can take less time and involve interviews of key stakeholders via focus groups, supported by desk studies and data collection. A simple PEA can even be done by a program design or technical officer on his/her own, using previously gathered materials. Generally, though, unearthing information on real motivations, ‘informal’ institutions, and behind-the-scenes actors takes time. That said, a PEA must be designed to fit the skills, time and budget available. The Applied PEA research process outline here has been done in as little as two weeks, including the workshop and field research, but excluding the report writing and new project/activity design, which were done afterwards. Then the PEA report is written, which can take another couple of weeks of Mission staff time. The CSP team will comment on the report if requested.

L. Who Should do the PEA?

A person trained and experienced in using USAID’s Applied PEA methodology needs to run the Mission workshop and be on the research team.

That can be a USAID employee from the region, Mission or Washington DC, or a specialist contractor who has been trained in the methodology. (As indicated, the CSP team is working to broaden the number of USAID staff trained to lead a PEA team.)

A second person is as important to the team, namely a staff member with in-depth knowledge of the Mission and its programming. If the PEA is to be done at sector- or problem-level, this second person must have a full understanding of the sector and/or issue under study. This person will lead the Mission team during the workshop, fieldwork, and writing. A senior FSN is often an excellent choice to serve in this role.

The PEA Team

1. Trained and Experienced PEA Team Lead

2. Mission Staff Member Knowledgeable on

Mission Programming and Operations

3. Sr. FSN with Country Expertise

4. Local Sr. Researcher/PEA Expert

5. Staff from Relevant Technical Sectors

6. Logistics Support Person

7. DRG Technical Officer (if not from above)

8. Excellent Writer (if not one of the above)

9. Other USAID/mission staff interested in learning about PEAs

Version: October 2015 Page 10

Further, the team must have a good local researcher, either an FSN from the DRG Office or perhaps a local political scientist or journalist, who knows the key actors and the history of the country, and understands current affairs. Sometimes several local analysts may be required because they have different specialties, say, procurement and public finance, or community participation and citizen voice. They should be as politically neutral as possible.

The rest of the team might consist of FSOs and FSNs from the relevant technical or program office. A well-connected local researcher can open doors (and make appointments) for the team. Otherwise the group needs the support of another local person or FSN to handle logistics and arrange meetings with hard-to-access interviewees.

The work will include a report that needs to be clearly written and that draws conclusions relevant to project design. Thus, the team requires a person who is conversant with the Mission, its programming, and with the country/sector/problem, and who can write well and succinctly. This can be any one (or more) of the team members, or a separate person who can draft the report using the fieldwork findings. The final report should be read, validated, and corrected by the field-team members, and its findings and their implications discussed with Mission leadership and key staff. The PEA specialist, who takes part in the fieldwork, should comment on the report as well.

M. Using a Consultant to do the PEA Fieldwork and Reporting

Historically in development contexts, PEAs have largely been done by specialist consultancy firms and think-tanks. Their reports have been very insightful. However, as mentioned above, they were not very useful for improving programming of aid interventions because they were too theoretical, i.e., they were too high-level or abstract. Therefore, it was too difficult to translate their findings into practical project designs or changes in the way staff implemented programs. Staff found that they put the PEA reports on their shelves and never used them. This is why this USAID Applied PEA field methodology deliberately aims to involve technical officers and program office staff and to focus on answering questions that are directly relevant to the strategy, projects or activity under review.

The Agency is taking an approach that involves training in Missions and across the cadre where possible as noted in the DRG Strategy and the recent Action Plan on DRG Integration. The fundamental idea is that USAID staff who are trained in the PEA methodology are meant to use the PEA findings to design/modify their projects or activities and to keep tabs on development processes and the factors that drive or inhibit reform. Staff are also meant to learn how to do applied PEAs so they can manage partners that may do PEAs in the course of their work at local levels.

However, there are times when a Mission may be unable to carry out a PEA itself, perhaps because it lacks the time or personnel, or due to security considerations. Whatever the reason, the Mission staff may prefer to have a contractor undertake the fieldwork and write the PE report. This is a fine alternative as long as Mission staff participate in development of the PEA questions and own the findings. In addition, staff must be close enough to the PE assessment process that they understand how the findings were generated, whether or not they are valid, and what local socio-economic and political changes will require a new PEA to be done.

To support embedding PEA skills within USAID staff, the CSP team may be able to send an experienced USAID staff member to work with the consultant(s), and to lead the PEA workshop in-country. The CSP team member (or other trained USAID staff member) will

Version: October 2015 Page 11 accompany the consultant(s) to the field initially, and liaise with the consultant(s) when they are collecting data, writing the report, and debriefing the Mission. The CSP team member will aim to ensure the consultant understands and uses the Applied PEA methodology and the practical aims of the workshop, fieldwork, and report. The CSP team member or other trained USAID staff member will help ensure the PEA report and other consultant outputs support the Mission staff as they (re)design and implement their program and project.

Furthermore, the CSP team is putting together a list of PE specialists outside USAID who will over time become familiar with the USAID Applied PEA methodology and who, it is hoped, will be called upon by Missions if they need specialist assistance if unable to carry out the PEAs themselves. It is hoped to utilize regional and local PE specialists whenever feasible given local and regional knowledge.

N. Sharing PEA Findings

A written report is generally produced by the Mission team, which will be in a unique position to combine its knowledge of the project/activity with what it has learned through its research about the local context. The team should hold its own meeting to synthesize and validate the fieldwork findings, which will also help it prepare to debrief the Mission (leadership and other relevant staff) on the methodology and findings. It may decide to hold a second debriefing to present the findings to other donors and/or local stakeholders, including government, but this is a decision that must be made by the Mission. Sometimes two reports are written including an in-depth study that is retained by the Agency, and the other for public dissemination, which is less detailed.

It is important to recognize that PEA findings are potentially very sensitive, on multiple dimensions. They are likely to include an analysis of the financial, personal, or political incentives of actors and institutions in the system - many of whom are influential and would prefer these factors not to be openly addressed. PEA is also frequently undertaken where the results of previous programming has been a disappointment in order to better illuminate the factors leading to less than hoped for outcomes. Missions must be prepared to delve into these questions, to learn from the ‘failures’ of previous activities, and to see these documented. In addition, the report may include information that is procurement sensitive.

Thus, the PEA team will need to work closely with Mission leadership and staff on what is included in an internal report versus an externally shared version.

O. Using the PEA Report for Designing and Modifying Projects or Activities

It is important for programming and ownership of the PEA report that at the end of the study, its findings are discussed in depth by the researchers and the appropriate technical and program office staff. In order to judge the validity of the findings and to assess their implications for programming, these discussions should cover the research methodology, the various respondents, the data collected and the analysis made by the team. Variations in the findings (e.g. between sectors or across the country) should be highlighted, and explanations for the variations. The specific findings around each question and sub-question should be considered in detail, especially what the causal factors are, how they relate to the larger country/sector environment, the role/motives/influence of the key groups and individuals identified during the research, and the informal and formal institutions shaping behaviors. Finally, the discussion should include how these findings may affect project design, outcomes, and methods of monitoring and evaluating change.

Version: October 2015 Page 12

A PEA can inform any sort of programming. It can offer insights to improve sector interventions (e.g., roads, health, water and sanitation) or governance and human rights projects (e.g., citizen scorecards or parliamentary support). For example, the knowledge gained through these studies can identify why a civil service lacks the capacity and will to push through reforms, or why NGOs meant to strengthen civil society are unable to generate sufficient ‘voice and accountability’ to change the way services are delivered. Such information should help the redesign and implementation of traditional aid projects.

P. Thinking and Working Politically: Innovative Projects Using PEA Findings

PEAs can also support more innovative forms of programming and a different sort theory of change from the one that underpins much of USAID’s regular development and governance work. Political economy enthusiasts generally believe that locals must drive their own reforms and that aid agencies can facilitate but not lead change. Therefore, projects or activities that are designed using PEA findings are often different than traditional interventions that start with a normative (a standard, often imported Western, including a good-governance) agenda and provide technical assistance and funds to implement it.

These innovative projects might support local institutions that already generate good outcomes and incentivize changes in institutions that nudge local actors in the right direction.

Projects that emerge from the local context do not always lend themselves to log frames and predetermined output indicators, and may not benefit from huge sums of financial aid.

However, these types of projects or activities can still be supported, monitored and evaluated by USAID staff.

Such work is not predictable. While the ultimate achievement of results may not occur during the course of a CDCS or a particular USAID project/activity or staff member’s appointment, significant change can also be accomplished within a shorter timeframe. It requires staff to be politically astute. These projects recognize the need to address collective action problems (that hinder collaborative endeavors) at all levels and to support the emergence of local leaders with vision and networking capabilities, development entrepreneurs and reform coalitions, all of whom recognize and make use of unique opportunities that arise from changes in national or local power relations, or even from crises. PEA provides insights that permit USAID staff to play a supportive role in these sorts of locally led development and governance processes.

Additional material on Thinking and Working Politically will be covered in the two-day Applied PEA workshop. As a further resource the CSP team has a literature review (to 2015) that it can provide to those seeking further advice on these ways of ‘doing development differently’.

Contact information for CSP Team members is below:

• Lisa McGregor-Mirghani, CSP Division Chief, DCHA/DRG, lmcgregor-mirghani@usaid.gov

• Lisa Williams, Sr. Fellow, CSP Division, DCHA/DRG, liwilliams@usaid.gov

• Sarah Swift, PEA Coordinator, CSP Division, DCHA/DRG, sswift@usaid.gov mailto:lmcgregor-mirghani@usaid.gov mailto:lmcgregor-mirghani@usaid.gov mailto:liwilliams@usaid.gov mailto:sswift@usaid.gov

Version: October 2015 Page 13

Further PEA Reading

Andrews, M et al (2012) ‘Escaping Capability Traps through Problem-Driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA)’ Center for Global Development, Working Paper 299. June.

Booth, D (2013) ‘Facilitating Development: An arm’s length approach to aid’, ODI Think Piece. March.

Corduneanu-Huci, C et al (2013) ‘Understanding Policy Change: How to Apply Political Economy Concepts in Practice’. Washington DC: World Bank.

Duncan, A et al (2010) ‘Making development assistance more effective by using political economy analysis: what has been done and what have we learned?’ Presentation to Carnegie Endowment for International Peace/USAID/DAI, June.

Fabella, R et al (eds.) (2011) Built on Dreams, Grounded in Reality: Economic Policy Reform in the Philippines, Makati City, Philippines: Asian Foundation.

Fisher, J et al (2013) ‘Donors Doing Political Economy Analysis™: From Process to Product (and back again?)’ Paper presented at ISA Annual Convention panel on ‘Politicising or Depoliticising Aid? The Political Economy of Political Economy Analysis’, San Francisco, 3-6 April.

Fritz, V et al (2014) Problem-Driven Political Economy Analysis: The World Bank’s Experience, Washington DC: World Bank.

Grindle, M. (2004a) ‘Good enough governance: poverty reduction and reform in developing countries’, Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 17(4):525–48.

--- (2004b) Despite the Odds: The Contentious Politics of Education Reform, Princeton:

Princeton University Press.

Levy, B (2014) Working with the Grain: Integrating Governance and Growth into Development Strategies: Oxford University Press.

The Policy Practice (n.d.) Political Economy Analysis: Selected Readings (www.thepolicypracticelibrary.com).

‘The case for thinking and working politically: The implications of “doing development differently”’ (2015) www.TWPCommunity.org.

Routley, L et al (2013) ‘Donors, Development Agencies and the use of Political Economic Analysis: Getting to grips with the politics of development?’ Manchester University, ESID Working Paper 19. Feb.

Unsworth, S et al (2012) ‘Using Political Economy Analysis to improve EU Development Effectiveness: A DEVCO Concept Paper’. Sept. 13.

Wild, L et al (2015) ‘Adapting Development: Improving services to the poor.’ ODI Report.

Feb.

http://www.thepolicypracticelibrary.com/ http://www.twpcommunity.org/

Version: October 2015 Page 14

Appendix A

Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (‘Common Rule’)

This policy was developed by the US Department of Health and Human Services for research involving human subjects and states the following:

• Conducting research in a way that maintains the integrity of the research enterprise and does not diminish the potential for conducting research in the future;

• Protecting the statutory rights of members of the social community or groups being investigated, avoiding undue intrusion, obtaining informed consent, and protecting the rights to privacy of individuals and social groups;

• Being aware of, and complying with, the requirements of data protection laws and other relevant legislation;

• Ensuring that the conduct, management and administration of research is framed in a way that is consistent with ethical principles and recognizes the limits of competence of each member of the research team;

• Providing adequate information to colleagues to permit their methods and findings to be assessed, as well as to alert potential users to limits of reliability and applicability of data resulting from their studies;

• Ensuring the clarity of the research objectives, and remaining aware of, and respecting, the concerns of the individuals or communities being studied; and

• When researching individuals or groups where power differentials could operate to their disadvantage as subjects (for example, students, prisoners, employees, minority groups, and the socially deprived), researchers should pay particular attention to issues of consent and potential risk.2

2 Adapted from Marcia Freed-Taylor, Ethical considerations in European cross-national research, UNESCO MOST Phase I website (1994-2003), http://www.unesco.org/most/ethissj.htm