I am not a political scientist. As a result, some readers have not been able to find enough 'politics' in the language I use to discuss the limits of institutional reform or in the idea of PDIA. This is interesting, because I see politics all over the book and PDIA. Indeed, I see PDIA as a strategy to effect change and development in contexts where one expect problematic politics. Let me explain.
In the book I argue that political analysis has an important place in development, but is limited. First, it is static and is typically done during project design. But change is dynamic and requires adaptation throughout the muddling through process. Second, it typically focuses on what can be seen and even more narrowly on what outsiders think are the power structures and relationships in a given context. But contextual realities are often hidden, below the sea level in multiple institutional arrangements (ice bergs) in the context being examined, so much goes unseen in these analyses. Third, political analysis often describes either a context that is open to change or one that is not, but often (not always) fails to tell us what to do in the context. But we need to know how to manage politics in real time, not just observe what is observable.
In the book I discuss contexts in which reforms occurred with lots of political analysis but failed to achieve objectives because of the above limits. I found that projects with more impact did not necessarily have lots of political economy analysis up front but instead focused groups in the context on problems they cared about (where enough political support could be located to allow for an entry point) and allowed step by step progression or iteration (to allow political obstacles to emerge, and to respond to such, and to build political support as the change emerged) through broad groups (to ensure that political support was not overly concentrated and to promote inter-agent accountability). This is the essence of PDIA.
- Use a problem as an entry point where there is enough political support to initiate change.
- Go step by step with the change so that you don't demand too much political support at a time, and can learn about the political realities as they go along, and build political support on the basis of each step. Experiments with results help to spread the risk that political authorities may take in supporting change as well.
- Allow flexibility and learning in the process so that you can adapt to the political realities that you see when you push into the context.
- Work with groups and not individuals, to expand the political support you have for change, and to bolster support bases for those who give you support.
Just because my language is not typical to the political economy literature does not mean I ignore politics in development, and just because I don't actively argue in favor of more external political economy analysis in projects does not mean I don't think about managing politics in change processes. I think politics matters a lot and we need to have change processes that take politics seriously. In fact, PDIA is all about working dynamically in complex political settings where I assume we don't see the realities upfront but need to learn and adapt as we go along.
Posted with Blogsy
Comments