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?
Great write-up! The desire for a green/impact/PE or other kinds of wash is in itself worth a write-up. My armchair analysis suggests it's all about brand cover to keep doing what you intended to do based on a political economy/mandate/sell that is not being factored into what the PEA is analyzing. Gaps I felt from the talks Stefan gave on domestic elite bargains (I haven't read the book) was this bidirectional narrative gap of a) a domestic elite operates in multiple places with offshore assets and it takes two to tango to enable and perpetuate that environment, and b) the role of bi/multilaterals in hard and soft go / no-gos in design of policy decision-making seemed glaringly missing especially given Stefan's background.
I know these are dimensions Stefan and you are more than well aware of, but I do think we should be at a stage now where we are addressing root causes outside of closed economy analyses and including the role of the totality of bilateral relationships rather than just aid/investment mechanisms.
thank you and yes - even when 'we' (development policy people) aspire to a complex systems understanding of a problem, we often limit ourselves to a sub system - such as aid and development relationships (not investment, private sector, debt, diaspora, remittances etc etc); or intense analysis of a national dominant elite but imaging that the international players are neutral do-gooders, rather than having their own political motivations and political effects themselves. PEA funded by international organisations rarely examines the political economy of that organisation - internal and external. Our discussions of sector political economy in a country (let's say health in Nigeria) have often thrown up points/questions about the political economy of the global investments... so the effects of donor/funder interests in country and the political economy of global decision making and prioritisation. All are ripe for a good poke.... though there is a risk of set piece PEAs that tick a box.
On PEA washing and other washing - I don't think it is all done with cynical intention. I think that some/many start off with worthy aims, but actually acting on analysis is just too difficult. Also made more likely if the analysis is critical of what is wrong, but not much positive, propositional thought abut how to navigate forward.
No major disagreements and appreciate the engagement Peter! Though I think a cynical take on your final point is, to borrow from econ lingo, in repeated games this extra effort does become a burden rather than an intention, however people may speak of it. I can't speak to PEA washing but having engaged with sizeable private asset managers in the ESG space and voluntary carbon markets (and the fracturing of that space itself) - fundamentally comes down to a bottom line. It's relatively clearer what that bottom line is in a private company but you need a quality PEA to understand what the bottom line an institution of any kind is really going to solve for! It would be funny in less serious circumstances but I wonder how often a PEA has resulted in saying "do not do this" - which as a recommendation should be easier to implement, but I would venture to say that a decision like "it has to be done" takes precedent precisely for the reasons a PEA may say otherwise.
(I'm genuinely not a cynic - I find a lot of hope and inspiration when we describe the world and interests as thoroughly and yet as simply as we can so that we are operating in that world and not downstream in contained environments!)
How do you respond to the charge the political economy analysis could be an easy way to say something is hard to do, or impossible - so don't try? Or just do something sub-optimal? Isn't PEA inherently descriptive, conservative, and favors status quo?
Likewise, when is ignoring PEA simply a bone-fide disagreement about feasiblity or what might fit into the "overton window"? I've been in this work for decades and I'm usually right in my political analysis. But sometimes I"m wrong. Anyone can be.
1) ...hard so don't try: this may reflect the reasonable criticism that PEA is better at 'breaking' than 'making' - so a focus on actionable advice is important. However, ultimately if the PEA says 'impossible' then perhaps the initiative should be paused, stopped, redesigned. I have done a few of these myself - and the problem is usually 'turkeys will vote for Christmas' in the assumptions column.
2) not sure about favouring status quo - but yes, explaining it, and seeking realistic opportunities to gently shift the equilibrium in a more progressive direction to unlock new outcomes. I guess 'working with the grain' is all about this reality, as is 'win: win' framing.
3) bone fide disagreement - yes, but good to have that disagreement in public (public policy debate), rather only than in private.
4) I'm never completely wrong! but that is because I hedge and nuance my analysis like crazy! More seriously, a tension when writing the blog (in an hour to scratch an itch - it ain't no work of art) is that I firmly believe that advisers/civil servants advise, and budget holders/Ministers decide - so I try and make my actionable advice within the 'politically feasible' bracket of the Overton window, but try and offer some more radical options to consider, as well as orthodoxy.
I have also long held that anything that's "mainstreamed" is also then never quite used in the manner it was originally meant to be. PEA-washing is happening already and perhaps a way to overcome this is to emphasize the use of the key principles and tools of PEA in day-to-day understanding and decision-making rather than as a grand report to be commissioned at the start or periodically during the programme.
thank you - great point. I have similar reflections about doing urgent (quick and dirty) political economy advice and not reverting to use of formal methods/tools (which take effort, time). It's OK to do this sometimes, but not always... but at least checking in with the principles is better than just freestyle description of the political economy 'weather' rather than a deeper reflection on the political economy 'climate'.
That's fair. It is perhaps a climate assessment, but followed by mandatory descriptions (and where possible, forecasts) of the weather. This also ties back in to how programmes use spending targets and results frameworks - how flexible those are depending on how the context is evolving. Not a new lament, but the projectisation does shift incentives in a particular, predictable direction.
Great write-up! The desire for a green/impact/PE or other kinds of wash is in itself worth a write-up. My armchair analysis suggests it's all about brand cover to keep doing what you intended to do based on a political economy/mandate/sell that is not being factored into what the PEA is analyzing. Gaps I felt from the talks Stefan gave on domestic elite bargains (I haven't read the book) was this bidirectional narrative gap of a) a domestic elite operates in multiple places with offshore assets and it takes two to tango to enable and perpetuate that environment, and b) the role of bi/multilaterals in hard and soft go / no-gos in design of policy decision-making seemed glaringly missing especially given Stefan's background.
I know these are dimensions Stefan and you are more than well aware of, but I do think we should be at a stage now where we are addressing root causes outside of closed economy analyses and including the role of the totality of bilateral relationships rather than just aid/investment mechanisms.
thank you and yes - even when 'we' (development policy people) aspire to a complex systems understanding of a problem, we often limit ourselves to a sub system - such as aid and development relationships (not investment, private sector, debt, diaspora, remittances etc etc); or intense analysis of a national dominant elite but imaging that the international players are neutral do-gooders, rather than having their own political motivations and political effects themselves. PEA funded by international organisations rarely examines the political economy of that organisation - internal and external. Our discussions of sector political economy in a country (let's say health in Nigeria) have often thrown up points/questions about the political economy of the global investments... so the effects of donor/funder interests in country and the political economy of global decision making and prioritisation. All are ripe for a good poke.... though there is a risk of set piece PEAs that tick a box.
On PEA washing and other washing - I don't think it is all done with cynical intention. I think that some/many start off with worthy aims, but actually acting on analysis is just too difficult. Also made more likely if the analysis is critical of what is wrong, but not much positive, propositional thought abut how to navigate forward.
No major disagreements and appreciate the engagement Peter! Though I think a cynical take on your final point is, to borrow from econ lingo, in repeated games this extra effort does become a burden rather than an intention, however people may speak of it. I can't speak to PEA washing but having engaged with sizeable private asset managers in the ESG space and voluntary carbon markets (and the fracturing of that space itself) - fundamentally comes down to a bottom line. It's relatively clearer what that bottom line is in a private company but you need a quality PEA to understand what the bottom line an institution of any kind is really going to solve for! It would be funny in less serious circumstances but I wonder how often a PEA has resulted in saying "do not do this" - which as a recommendation should be easier to implement, but I would venture to say that a decision like "it has to be done" takes precedent precisely for the reasons a PEA may say otherwise.
(I'm genuinely not a cynic - I find a lot of hope and inspiration when we describe the world and interests as thoroughly and yet as simply as we can so that we are operating in that world and not downstream in contained environments!)
How do you respond to the charge the political economy analysis could be an easy way to say something is hard to do, or impossible - so don't try? Or just do something sub-optimal? Isn't PEA inherently descriptive, conservative, and favors status quo?
Likewise, when is ignoring PEA simply a bone-fide disagreement about feasiblity or what might fit into the "overton window"? I've been in this work for decades and I'm usually right in my political analysis. But sometimes I"m wrong. Anyone can be.
These are all common experiences to be navigated.
1) ...hard so don't try: this may reflect the reasonable criticism that PEA is better at 'breaking' than 'making' - so a focus on actionable advice is important. However, ultimately if the PEA says 'impossible' then perhaps the initiative should be paused, stopped, redesigned. I have done a few of these myself - and the problem is usually 'turkeys will vote for Christmas' in the assumptions column.
2) not sure about favouring status quo - but yes, explaining it, and seeking realistic opportunities to gently shift the equilibrium in a more progressive direction to unlock new outcomes. I guess 'working with the grain' is all about this reality, as is 'win: win' framing.
3) bone fide disagreement - yes, but good to have that disagreement in public (public policy debate), rather only than in private.
4) I'm never completely wrong! but that is because I hedge and nuance my analysis like crazy! More seriously, a tension when writing the blog (in an hour to scratch an itch - it ain't no work of art) is that I firmly believe that advisers/civil servants advise, and budget holders/Ministers decide - so I try and make my actionable advice within the 'politically feasible' bracket of the Overton window, but try and offer some more radical options to consider, as well as orthodoxy.
I have also long held that anything that's "mainstreamed" is also then never quite used in the manner it was originally meant to be. PEA-washing is happening already and perhaps a way to overcome this is to emphasize the use of the key principles and tools of PEA in day-to-day understanding and decision-making rather than as a grand report to be commissioned at the start or periodically during the programme.
thank you - great point. I have similar reflections about doing urgent (quick and dirty) political economy advice and not reverting to use of formal methods/tools (which take effort, time). It's OK to do this sometimes, but not always... but at least checking in with the principles is better than just freestyle description of the political economy 'weather' rather than a deeper reflection on the political economy 'climate'.
That's fair. It is perhaps a climate assessment, but followed by mandatory descriptions (and where possible, forecasts) of the weather. This also ties back in to how programmes use spending targets and results frameworks - how flexible those are depending on how the context is evolving. Not a new lament, but the projectisation does shift incentives in a particular, predictable direction.
When developing this Approach we considered how to make political economy practical - and some of the tools do exactly that: https://media.odi.org/documents/odi_roma_guide.pdf
But I think this (like PEA and other tools) are only shortcuts.
The objective is to be politically aware and competent - I think.
Politics are not "in the way".