Document Library

Can Political Science Speak to Policymakers?

Author: S Unsworth
Date: 2007
Size: 12 pages (160 KB)

Access full text: available online

Summary

How far do current high profile debates about governance offer opportunities for political scientists to influence development policy? Drawing on the experience of the Centre for the Future State (CFS), this paper argues that research has had an impact where it is context specific, or has clear operational implications. It has been less successful in challenging conventional approaches to governance, or moving debate away from a focus on formal institutions, towards a real concern with politics. Unless this happens, the research will have limited impact, and the 'good governance' agenda risks being discarded once it becomes clear that it has failed to meet the unrealistic expectations held out for it.

Policymakers are potentially receptive to political science research. They increasingly recognise the links between persistent poverty and poor governance, the ineffectiveness of much development assistance, and the need for local policy ownership. However, they still underestimate the challenges involved in improving governance, and have unrealistic expectations of what can be achieved in the short-term through aid partnerships. Under pressure to justify large increases in aid and to demonstrate progress within the timescales set for achieving the Millennium Development Goals, they find the central messages of the research both conceptually and operationally challenging. In particular:

• The research emphasises that effective public institutions evolve through a political process of bargaining between the state and organised groups in society. They cannot be constructed just by transferring institutional models from rich to poor countries. This challenges donors to focus on local political processes and informal relationships, not just on formal institutions.
• This in turn would have far-reaching operational implications, requiring donors to play a much less high-profile role in setting reform agendas, and to invest in more long-term, indirect strategies for supporting progressive change. These could have uncertain outcomes and high political costs.

Policymakers have been receptive to CFS research on links between tax and governance, and increasingly recognise how the behaviour of OECD governments and businesses can contribute to bad governance in poor countries by weakening the dependence of political elites on citizens for tax. But while they are interested in tangible solutions (for example, tax reform) they are still neglecting the importance of social, economic and political context. Despite the rhetoric about country led development, it is far from clear that donors are ready for this. By contrast, political scientists are often better at explaining the causes of poor governance than proposing policy responses.

Recommendations for both policymakers and political scientists include the following:

• Policymakers need to reappraise the current unrealistic expectations that underpin the good governance agenda. Instead of focusing on strengthening formal institutions they should take much more account of informal relationships, and how their own behaviour impacts on local political processes.
• Political scientists could increase their impact, by tailoring their message to individual policy audiences, and looking for tangible entry points that connect with larger, more abstract policy ideas.

Access full text: available online

Source: Unsworth, S., 2007, 'Can Political Science Speak to Policymakers?' Paper presented at PSA Development Politics Group 2nd Annual Conference, 26th January, International Development Department, University of Birmingham
Author: Sue Unsworth , sue.unsworth@thepolicypractice.com
Centre for the Future State, http://www.ids.ac.uk/gdr/cfs/