Advocates must be aware of the types of change discussed or called for in the any existing discussions on the issue, that is, routine, incremental, or fundamental.1 Put simply, these types of change can be defined as follows:
- Routine change — this normally refers to the change of a day-to-day administrative procedure and governments usually will not call for analysis or research input to make this change; it is more trial and error by officials to find what works for the given situation.
- Incremental change — this refers to a change in the overall approach to implementing a current policy or to use jargon, a change in policy design. An example might be to contract out the delivery of a social service to a local NGO, rather than continuing to use a local government agency to do so. This may need more expert input, especially where the capacity of local officials is low, which is often the case in many transition countries.
- Fundamental change — this refers to a radical change in the strategic direction of a policy, for example, changing the approach on minorities from a multicultural approach to one that is rooted in assimilating such populations. Unsurprisingly, this is an opportune moment to achieve influence with research evidence, as governments who adopt radical changes are putting their political lives at risk and tend to take as much input on that change as possible.2 Many commentators from transition countries say it is more radical reformers who have presented the real opportunity for research and expertise to influence decisionmaking.3
Whether or not you actually agree with the administration on the level of change being discussed or proposed, it is essential to be aware of the discussion and shape your argument accordingly. Policymakers often remark that researchers are too willing to push for fundamental change, when that really is not on the agenda.4 If fundamental change is not on the government agenda but you think it is needed, you would need to make an extremely compelling case for your recommendations. You may also realize that over time small incremental changes will not fix the underlying problem, and a discussion about a fundamental shift will slowly develop, and hence it is worth staying the course and continuing to push for such a fundamental change.
Be aware of the type of change achievable.
Two of our cases illustrate how the level of demand can be a step towards influence.
Case 1: Kazakhstan
Improving One Stop Shops (2006–2007)
Policy fellow and Civil servant
One Stop Shops were introduced by presidential decree in Kazakhstan as the solution to corruption and weak public service delivery. There had been much criticism in public and the media of the effectiveness of One Stop Shops and an assessment of the implementation problems for this model was being called for, together with a proposal that would address the local constraints but improve the delivery of services though One Stop Shops, that is, an incremental change. It was at this level, directly feeding demand from government, that the researcher put forward her recommendations.
Case 3: Macedonia
Introducing and passing a Patients’ Bill of Rights (2006–2008)
Policy fellow and think tank (Studiorum)
The issue of a Patients’ Bill of Rights for Macedonia was indirectly related to the criteria for Macedonia as a candidate country in the EU accession process. Therefore, the government had committed to this level of fundamental rights-based change throughout the medical system, a radical change of sorts, in that these issues had been the subject of legislation in the past but not from a patients’ rights perspective. As part of accession commitments, there was little room for maneuvering and Studiorum did research and made proposals at this level, directly addressing the elements of how to put such a Bill of Rights together to suit the Macedonian context.