From the very beginning of the postcommunist transition, the need to develop a more evidence-based and inclusive decision-making process has been high on the agenda of all actors committed to the establishment of democratic systems of governance. Yet the evidence, more than two decades into this democratization process, is clear: there continues to be both a lack of evidence or research knowledge generated and little appreciation of the importance of evidence in the decision-making process1. The relatively low level of domestically produced policy research, the persistence of highly value-driven political debates, and the ongoing struggle to reform public administration systems around a strategic and inclusive policymaking process is further evidence of this unfinished business. While some claim the “transition” is over or fossilized, we still believe that striking the right balance of evidence-based and value-driven debate within any democratic system is a cornerstone to the establishment of a healthy competition of ideas through the decision-making process2.
Although the transition countries vary significantly in their level of development and sophistication and the reasons for the low level of demand for research vary accordingly, there are some commonalities: the development of government cultures (rather than just mechanisms) that appreciate the need to devote substantial energy on developing strategic solutions to societal problems is still ongoing. Much of the business of government and public administration is focused on the detail of administering government programs and any larger policy questions tend to fall to the wayside. Therefore, the demand for or use of expertise and policy research remains stubbornly low3.
However, when we discuss weak institutions in the region, this also includes the generally low capacity of the NGO sector or the supply side of the policy research equation. Although the capacity gaps on both sides are substantial, it’s widely recognized in the literature that there is an urgent need to improve the communication or advocacy of research, in order to make it more accessible, convincing, and usable for policymakers and broader stakeholder groups4. We also see that policy practitioners from the NGO and governmental side need a deeper understanding of the challenge of policy advocacy and a shift away from the following three approaches too commonly used overwhelmingly fail to yield results:
- The traditional/academic approach employs the tools of academic dissemination that are familiar to most researchers. This short one-way engagement usually entails presenting at a conference, publishing the paper in a journal, and/or meeting with a person in the relevant ministry, and rarely brings results.
- The ad-hoc approach entails minimal dissemination accompanied by an unplanned and relatively random set of advocacy activities and is driven more by response to the research from any commentator rather than being proactive. No clearly defined advocacy objective or target audience are identified at the beginning, and without this direction or target, it rarely goes very far.
- The project management approach involves the cutting and pasting of the research recommendations into the advocacy objectives. Then the planning of activities begins. While the tools of project management are useful, this approach avoids asking what is actually feasible. The common response from decisionmakers to such an advocacy effort is that it is too idealistic and/or unfeasible. This approach often leads to frustration and strong cynicism about the policymaking process among those leading the campaign.
This guide tackles these challenges and puts forward a practical approach to planning advocacy campaigns in which the realities of the target policy context are at the heart of the approach.