PEA washing

What if we accept the need for Political Economy Analysis (PEA) and thinking, and commission new analysis... then ignore it? As 'PEA' gets more mainstream, is 'PEA washing' a risk worth calling out?

PEA as a public good - the Practical Politics Platform

I’m very nearly twelve months into my mission to ‘drag political economy out of the shadows and into the mainstream of growth and development’.

It has been exhilarating and I owe lots of favours.

The central plank is to establish a new initiative - the ‘Practical Politics Platform’ - which will find, synthesise, and (most importantly) explain ‘political economy’ (political constraints, political opportunities) by country and by sector. This will be an open access public good so everyone can use it. The word ‘practical’ conveys plain language, accessible, actionable, useful.

The PPP aims to shift norms - and make it harder for any ‘actor’ in development, aid, or public policy, to avoid any mention of politics, and remain in a bland, technocratic, inoffensive, and ineffective status quo. Technocrats also work hard to protect their interests and their dominance…

Avoiding the P word is itself a power move…

I’ve been working closely with Stefan Dercon and team at Oxford on this - and the PPP explicitly takes Stefan’s book - Gambling on Development - and offers a framework, tools, and support to put the framing into action.

We have been consulting, listening, pitching to prospective users and potential funders, and refining the plan. We are making steady progress - watch this space.

we even named our puppy ‘Elite Bargain’ *

Over the year I’ve also tailored my standard ‘Don’t fear the P word’ presentation to a growing range of specialist audiences - so politics in health, in education, in tax, in public procurement, in debt, in fiscal crises. It is a good workout, but also reveals needs across growth and development sectors, and the utility of a relatively standard approach. The practical politics of… everything.

I’ve also challenged anyone who bemoans ‘a lack of political will’ and leaves it at that.

I keep planning to retire this 2018 slide… then I hear someone important say LoPW so use it.

Bills to PEA

I’ve also been working to pay the bills (social media friendly puppy accessories don’t come cheap, especially when the puppy chews them) with advisory work - governance, development, research strategy, and political economy advice for a range of clients - governments, non government, multi lateral, private sector.

In a way this is doing the private PEA work that the public good Practical Politics Platform aims to displace, though even organisations that are potentially interested in funding PPP public goods also ask about expert advice - and seem potentially willing to pay for it. The PPP will augment, amplify and (hopefully) popularise the kind of analysis common in PEAs - it won’t replace them.

I’m always delighted when organisations undertake (in house) or commission new political economy analysis. My gut tells me that this makes their development investments more likely to be effective - this is a fundamental argument for the PPP, though it is hard to prove, and something that needs to be tested hard in the monitoring and evaluation strategy (does structured political economy analysis help unlock effectiveness?).

I have also learnt this year that it is not just government aid donors that commission PEAs. Foundations commission similar work as part of their strategy and programme design.

PEA Washing

However, a conversation with Stefan last week highlighted something that we had not previously given much thought to - the risk that organisations agree that political economy analysis is a good thing, commission new analysis for major investments, even make this mandatory for major programme design or investment approval.

But then…

…do nothing different as a result.

They get the PEA report, file it, and carry on as usual. PEA has no discernible effect on strategy, investment choices, or implementation, but they have ticked a box, and are now ‘PEA compliant’.

Our instant label for this is ‘PEA Washing’ (no jokes please¹, ²) and I think it is a distinct, emerging risk.

How can we tackle it? I guess we all need to hold to account those who commission PEA or deliver it (including ourselves), and build in a clear expectation to know what changed as a result - and keep revisiting this throughout policy or programme implementation - at reviews, in progress reports etc. This in warrants PEA being an on going process, not a ‘one off’ at the start of a programme.

This type of process thinking is baked into the design of the PPP - not just ‘admiring’ political economy problems; but also ensuring that we offer actionable advice; and then revisiting this during policy or programme implementation - was it useful? Did strategy and implementation change? Has this worked? Are there credible indications that investments were more effective as a result?

Washing up

I’m generally cautious about adding the word ‘washing’ (or ‘gate’) to put a new spin on a problem (green washing, sports washing, Washington power washing³).

But labels and hooks can be snappy short hand, and I think ‘PEA washing’ is a risk worth calling out, particularly as the language of political economy becomes more common in the mainstream of growth and development.

Let’s get ahead of the problem.

1. There is of course a respectable industry dedicated to the washing of peas, and other leguminous crops. This substack does not endorse any particular manufacturer - but could do if the price was right. When I have broad beans to clean I tend to reach for my… Olney Screening and Scalping Reel… https://olneymachinery.com/food-processing-equipment/pea-lima-bean-cleaning

2. In a final twist I had also set up a consulting company, Peter Evans Advisory (PEA) and realised too late that my services risk being described as PEA washing….

3. This is a joke.

Actually ‘Mishti’ as in ‘Mishti Doi’.