By Scott Guggenheim, Social Policy Adviser, AusAID; and Ben Davis, Senior Program Manager, Knowledge Sector and Tertiary Education, AusAID
Enrique Mendizabal recently wrote an interesting blog post about AusAID’s knowledge sector program. He said it’s “by far one of the most interesting programmes related to think tanks out there”. We’re also quite excited by it. The idea of treating knowledge as a “sector” actually originally came from an Indonesian (Kamala Chandrakirana) and it does seem to be resonating well across a surprisingly diverse range of interests.
We hope the project’s documentation made clear that while there’s a certain “aha!” moment to realizing how much the current state of affairs is not unique to any one institution. It reflects a long legacy of how colonialism and then the New Order actively pursued policies to block the development of independent inquiry. What next follows is a long, hard slog that can easily fail. Indonesia’s past is not really entirely past; the gloomy state of Indonesia’s knowledge sector may have its roots in the country’s New Order history. Nevertheless, our bet is still that the ongoing transition to democracy, the rise of a middle class, Indonesia’s overall economic growth and global engagements, and, above all, the emergence of a generation of young people, for whom the New Order is something that their parents talk about, have fundamentally changed the landscape of what is possible by way of reform.
Enrique raised a number of interesting, useful points. and we’re glad to engage in a public discussion of them. Like him, we too need to give some disclaimers vis-à-vis the ongoing procurement of a managing contractor. We helped develop the concept notes and design document, but we’re not involved in the procurement process ourselves, so our engagement in this discussion will not influence any procurement outcome of the tender process.
Enrique mentioned his preference for a more flexible framework built around “conversation” or “dialogue” over our supply-demand-intermediaries framework. We can agree with his main points, but still opt for the more defined structure that the standard mode provides. We like to think that we’re pretty clear in the design documents that these are heuristic categories, not real ones, and that they have fuzzy borders. Still, flattening them all into a “conversation” is a bit too amorphous. Our purpose here is not just to promote dialogue across Indonesian players but to make changes to the ability of the different organizations to produce better analysis and for that analysis to then inform policies. The advantages of the standard model are that it gives some sense of how to assess where gaps are, and it provides an overall sense of both agency and tasks among functionally differentiated actors in a way that a “conversation” doesn’t.
Enrique’s second set of comments refers to the bigger picture, the one that involves political parties, university reform, private sector and so on. Here, we’re in full agreement. What he’s picking up on is what we like to describe as the difference between strategy and tactics. He’s undoubtedly right that policy institutes are just the thin edge of a wedge—behind that must come university reform, political party linkages, and so on (step by step, though). Bigger agencies than ours have spent several decades working on these issues. Indonesia is huge and its challenges are commensurate with its size. We fully agree that improving universities, fixing campaign finance and so on are all part of the same puzzle; but if we tackle them all at once we can be sure that very little will actually happen. Better instead to acknowledge the whole and then use individual projects to bite off particular bits. Several members of the team that oversaw the design of the knowledge sector work are already working on a first cut at how to support university reform.
In terms of where “global expertise” on think tank development lies, we are again in full agreement. We thought that was clear from the many citations and comparative references to other developing countries in the design document’s analytics, but if it isn’t let us reiterate it on behalf of the team. Developed country expertise often takes for granted a lot of the institutional background and scale of investments that in fact help explain a couple of things: why their particular model works in their developed country context and why direct transfers from that reality to this one almost never work out. Unfortunately, all too much “global expertise” is about providing advice that would work if everything else also already worked.
At the same time, simply picking developing country specialists because they live and work in developing countries isn’t such a hot strategy either. Developing country specialists are themselves somewhat shut out of the global guidance market and as a result there’s nowhere near as much two way learning as there should be. All too often, south-south exchanges have been nearly as hindered by too much unique country and historical context as north-south exchanges have been.
In general, our approach will be extremely eclectic: less emphasis on people’s identity and more on what they can offer. There’s surely something to be said for the fact that where you sit can determine what you see. Fortunately, these days there is a growing pool of countries that have been tackling these very same problems of transition, democratization, and the definition of public space. So count us in on this one, and we’ll also be taking on board the specific suggestions about who to approach by way of the program’s expert guidance panel.
Finally, Enrique was right in saying that the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework is the weakest part of the program. That said the contractor needs to be involved in setting the program outcomes alongside AusAID and Bappenas because M&E begins with clarity on what a program’s objectives are.
We’re fortunate that allied bits of this program are focusing on building up evaluation rigour through our scholarships program and partnerships with specialized institutes such as J-PAL in the US and the Australian network of development evaluation people. Rest assured that the diagnostics work does not stop with the approval of the design; several are already underway, including field reviews of such hot topics as clean governance in research, political campaigning and public information, regionalized research, among others.
We thank Enrique for his insightful comments. We will certainly take on board his suggestions, including those on independent research, more use of independent M&E expertise and a lot more hands on oversight by the core program team.
We are hoping to continue the program’s tradition of publishing its findings in both English and Indonesian into the blogosphere quickly for public discussion, and we very much hope that those who are interested like in the program, like Enrique, continue to pass on their thoughts and observations.
Thanks Scott and Ben for this response to my blog. I’ll wait for comments from others to see if there is more to add. In the meantime I wanted to point out that this is possibly another innovation. I do not recall any other bidding processes where the funder has been open to a public discussion about their proposed programme. I hope those interested in bidding as well as (and possibly even more importantly them) those who stand to be directly affected by the programme will join you in this discussion.
What do the NGOs, think tanks and networks that the programme seeks to support think about it and what would they want to see in the winning bid?
I find that we (I’ve been in the bidding side many times) rarely talk to the potential direct beneficiaries before hand. It would be great if some of them had a chance this time. Maybe on this platform (or onthinktanks if they prefer: I’d be happy to create a space for them to do so).
So well done on this initiative. Its good to know that we agree on several issues -while we probably have some differences on the details. But it is even better, I think, that we can present these in public. How refreshing.
I would very much welcome a public discourse on assembling tenders by donors. That would mean they are included from the start in a learning process. Also the donor should stay on board during the project and keep the dialogue going.
I think it is worth noting that Rick Davies from MandE News has posted a reply to my post (http://wp.me/pYCOD-yt) today: http://mandenews.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/ausaids-revitalising-indonesias.html
His post focuses on the programme’s M&E. More information on M&E can be found here: http://mande.co.uk
I can certainly recommend it.
Enrique has suggested I comment on the M&E aspects of the new program, which I now have done, at http://mandenews.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/ausaids-revitalising-indonesias.html
The discussion between Scott , Ben and Enrique interests me and makes me want to comment on this blog. The following reflects the experiences of my organization over most the period since the process of reform began in Indonesia over ten years ago.
Firstly, your mention that not enough attention is being paid to universities. I totally agree that they have an important role to play in the knowledge sector program. Some contractors that want to bid in this program come to my office and raise the same question. Does my organization (FITRA) have connections with universities that assist us in our work? I can’t answer their question in ways they might expect. In our case, we work on budget transparency issues and it is hard to find universities that have the same perspective or who are knowledgeable about public financial management to the extent that we can involve them to add value to our product or use their product in our advocacy work. Many of them focus on budget issues from the economic perspective only, and know very little about budget procedures or the need to reform them. So from my point of view, a focus on universities is important and we would expect the winning bid to create bridges between NGOs, think tanks and universities.
Secondly, you also talk about the media and political parties. Our experience in Indonesia is that the media plays a key role in policy change but can also have a negative impact. The media tends to cover bad news (which it treats as good news), but doesn’t report genuinely good news or publicize recommendations that we want to see implemented. Another negative impact is that we as NGOs can fall into the trap of being “activist celebrities” that just produce bad news to be covered by the media. On the other hand, as we know, policy makers also come from political parties, but they tend to be reactive, responding to issues as they arise. That leads them to make policy changes but not of the substantive kind that we want to see implemented. Another important point is that we will not bring about change if we only engage with policy makers to communicate our research’s findings. They will not take our suggestions seriously if we don’t use the media and public opinion to pressure them. This is the gist of our experience, Enrique, that we would delve into more deeply for your book.
It is precisely because many policy makers come from political parties represented in parliamentary institutions that we include political parties and MPs as a target in FITRA’s strategic plans. Although they tend to reject NGO involvement because of their support by international donor agencies, it is important that the chosen contractor should target political parties in addition to think tanks, universities and media.
Finally, I would like to comment on the enabling environment for this program. There are already initiatives underway in this broad area, in particular the open government partnership. This initiative requires civil society engagement in the process and involves open data that will be useful for think tank organizations to produce more research and to measure the impact of policy change. Currently, the UK and Indonesia are co-chairs of this initiative. So it will be important for contractors to be conscious of and form links with this initiative.
Great discussion. I would be interested in hearing more about how AusAID intends to link this Indonesia knowledge sector program to the Australian development research community? As this knowledge sector initiative is funded by public funds I would assume this would be a key part of the program? For example, exchange programs between Australian/Indonesian research organisations, encouraging knowledge-transfers, joint research, seminars and general collaboration etc.
AusAID has a reputation (which is growing internationally) for over-looking Australian universities and thinktanks (besides ANU) and instead of investing in the capacity of Australian research organisations AusAID goes straight to universities and thinktanks in the UK, US, Europe and Canada for research and partnerships. With that in mind, I hope that this new innovative program hasn’t done the same thing and not considered the importance of facilitating linkages with the Australian development research community.
A major focus of our recently launched Research Strategy 2012-2016 is an increase in the amount of AusAID research work being funded through competitive schemes like the AusAID Development Research Awards Scheme (ADRAS). The ADRAS is a competitive grants program that supports primary research and is open to research bodies in Australia and internationally, and which has produced major pieces of development research in recent years. If we agree that development benefits from better evidence, analysis and policies as Scott and Ben discuss above, then it is clear that we need to be open to the best research and knowledge from across the globe or at home. This also helps us to promote fairness, transparency and value for money in our research funding.
Great to see the engage blog and the authors bring other discussions together in the one place. It’s interesting how ‘development industry’ some of the discourse is – though that’s probably not that surprising given the communities who have an interest in the aid program. I would like to see AusAID encouraging more academics, researchers and thought leaders from countries in the region to be involved in these discussions. That would certainly make AusAID’s engage blog unique.
Excellent discussion. I thought I’d add a couple of comments.
Something that keeps coming up in my conversations with people interested in this programme is how to link initiative to other contexts. In a way, it is about how to make sure that lessons from outside Indonesia are learned and applied. I’ve written something (sort of) related this week: think tanks as windows: http://wp.me/pYCOD-zh I’d argue that there is a role here for Australian academia (but not just the ‘development’ focused one) to offer an improved good-old fashioned input to the supply of skilled Indonesians ready to work for think tanks, NGOs, public bodies, the media, etc. Why Australian? Well, to be honest, it makes sense; I am sure it would be logistically, politically, and economically easier to arrange. But, as I wrote in my blog I am NOT advocating for more ‘development studies’. I insist: developing countries need more sociologists, anthropologists, economists, political scientists, historians, etc. Without the languages and reflection that these professions provide and allow practical research can only rest on rather flimsy ideas or be entirely dependent on those of others.
A second point to make has to do with the composition of a team for a programme like this. Such a massive initiative is likely to attract large consortia eager to ‘cover all bases’. In the past I have argued that consortia (networks, partnerships, etc.) are not the best delivery mechanisms for these interventions. Much easier would be to have a single leading organisation that then subcontracts THE BEST organisations and people out there via competitive and open processes. Or to form a joint venture independent of the bidding members (who could be shareholders). The current system limits the options the funder and the preferred bidder have: they must choose from within the consortium. Also, managing these arrangements (let’s not call them partnerships) takes a lot of time and money; and this could be better used to deliver more services.
On the subject of teams. I’d like to see more Indonesians involved instead of foreign contractors flown in. Indonesians or people who just live there. I am not advocating for ‘charity’ in the allocation of jobs, by the way. One of my least favourite terms in this jargon laden industry is ‘regional expert’. Bids often abuse this term. They take anyone who lives or is ‘based’ in a ‘region’ add the word ‘expert’ to it and put them forwards as ‘regional experts’. It is as if I went around calling myself a European expert because I am based in London. This initiative is as much about formal processes as it is about subtle historical processes governed by rules that these ‘experts’ cannot really understand because, well, they cannot always be explained. One either has to study them (really study them: so lets see their degrees and extensive literature first) or experience them (with demands, if the candidate is not originally from the country, being, at least, fluent in the language).
Rather than struggle to find the perfect person or embellish someone’s CV I’d suggest to focus on competent people who can deliver and, most importantly, learn. Then use advisory groups, support networks, mentoring, formal education, etc. to offer them the opportunity to connect to and learn from other experiences. They can then decide what and how to adopt and adapt to their context. This is a long initiative so there should be plenty of space and time for this to take place.
Andrew, Enrique & the Ausaid comments are interesting and telling. Ausaid is weak at engaging, investing in and encouraging Australian research community (not just ‘development’ as Enrique says). The ADRAs is a well known useful grant system but this research is not considered policy relevant nor influential in Australia. Innovative & ground breaking research comes out of collaborative partnerships and ausaid should fund partnerships between Australian research groups & those in developing countries (where our aid goes) to ensure the output is communicated both in aid recipient countries AND in Australia. What is the point of funding groups in the developed north who are unable to input into, communicate & influence the debate in Australia? You don’t see DFID or USAID funding Australian research groups -why – because they invest in & build linkages between their own & those in developing countries. Why has this been missed by the government & foreign minister?
AusAID’s commitment to an untied aid program, and our responsibility to all Australians to deliver aid as effectively as possible, mean that our research program must be open, transparent and competitive.
Central to this is our commitment to actively seeking out the best and the brightest in development knowledge and research, whether in Australia, around our region, or across the globe, and having this inform our policies and programs. Other donors such as the UK’s DFID now competitively tender their research to a global market.
We recognise that policy relevance is absolutely essential if the research we undertake is to be put to good use. This is why we have built in mandatory criteria to assess policy relevance at the very outset of research projects such as the ADRAS, making sure they are responding to the strategic goals of our aid program, and the needs of our developing country partners.
I’ve blogged a bit more on this based on some discussions with think tank in Indonesia last week. You can find the blog here: http://onthinktanks.org/2012/10/08/supporting-think-tanks-advice-from-the-think-tanks-themselves/
I suggest that:
Direct policy is not the only thing that think tanks can do -they can play other important roles and can affect their policy environment in more constructive ways
Think tanks, NGOs, grassroots, university research centres, etc. need to be careful defined FOR this initiative to avoid all these other organisations disappearing as they all try to label themselves as think tanks
Large initiatives like these must be careful that they do not overfund organisations will no absorptive capacity. This could have negative consequences for the labour market of experts in Indonesia
The initiative should focus on building close relationships between the think tanks and the managers; person to person rather than indicators and tools matter.
Ideally, the demand, supply, intermediary divisions will be erased and efforts will be made to think about the system as a whole
The initiative will recognise that there are great ideas in Indonesia and the region. There is no need to go all the way to Europe or the US to find original ideas about think tanks.
The initiative must be led by the think tanks. If they do not want the support or do not take it seriously then the initiative should look for those who do.