2.4.4. Taking and getting credit for policy influence

When someone is in the business of producing or supporting the production of policy advice (for example, donors), it goes without saying that success in any such project will ultimately be measured in the extent to which they influenced the final decision. For researchers and analysts, this link is proof that their expertise is an essential part of a decision-making process in a certain policy area, and therefore the basis for future commissions and sustainability. Donors want dollars turned into change in ways that support their own goals. Linking their support to partners who achieve such change is the basis for them to prove that they are fulfilling their mission.

However, making clear links from your own input to the final decision or adopted policy is usually a very difficult proposition. First, if decisionmaking is a long-term inclusive process of convincing and bargaining, then many people will have a say in the final outcome and yours will only be one voice in this multistakeholder discussion: for example, the final approach adopted will probably not look very much like the proposals you put forward at the beginning.¹ Second, through the process and over time, people will be motivated to make decisions on the basis of multiple and overlapping inputs and may even forget that it was you who made a certain proposal at the beginning. In addition, for donors, policy processes rarely fit neatly into budgetary cycles and this can create its own problems in reporting results.²

Of course, there are instances where new ideas or desperately needed solutions are relatively uncontested and the link to the decision made is plain to everyone. Most often, the key is to adopt a broader definition of success, such as policy influence (see section 2.3.7). Broadening this definition to include capacity building and contribution to policy dialogue does not mean lowering the hurdle, but setting a target that is a better reflection of an extremely messy and challenging reality that then allows you to see the influence of your ideas in the broader process. In contrast, only targeting direct policy impact is usually setting yourself up to fail from the start. Setting such an unrealistic goal can and does have serious implications for fostering policy communities throughout the region, since many initiatives are doomed to be considered failures.

Researchers in the region also struggle with the following issue:

Keeping your name as the source in a policy discussion

For policy researchers from an academic background, it is worrying to see people within the policymaking world take on others’ ideas all the time and make them their own without mentioning or giving credit to the original source of the idea. In a formal academic setting, this would amount to plagiarism. However, in the policymaking world, this in fact should be the goal and also makes sense in this context.

As researchers or analysts, the best-case scenario is that a target policy dialogue is dominated by your insights, analysis, and even your language. What’s more, if someone is convinced by your position, as in any argument, they will begin to process it, repeat it, and take ownership of the ideas themselves. Finally, for politicians to be convincing and sound legitimate in a policy debate, they must put forward their proposed position as their own. They may at some point find it useful to acknowledge the source of some ideas, especially if it is particularly reputable, but mostly it is their “own” position that will be at the center of the argument.

The silver lining to this apparent cloud is that most specialist policy communities are relatively small, even in the international arena, and if you or your institution comes up with something new, interesting, innovative, and/or brilliant, it will not be forgotten. In fact, this is how policy researchers build their reputations and as a result, the chances of continuing to be included in the discussion and receiving new commissions for analysis or research are increased—even if your name is not all over the newspapers.

For example, in a conference in 2008, a representative from the European Council on Foreign Relations reported on how the European Commission’s foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, had substantively adopted and presented their positions (as outlined in a policy brief) on how Europe should respond to the growing strength and power of Russia. Of course, these ideas were put forward as the European Commission’s own position and no mention was made of the European Council on Foreign Relations’ paper. The researchers took this as a considerable victory.