4.2.2 Challenges and opportunities for research demand in transition countries

The specific characteristics of transition contexts impact on the push and pull for research in a number of ways. The fact that governments will only ask for input on decisionmaking from anyone if there is institutional stability and a relatively open decision-making process¹ is of particular relevance. One of the main challenges to institutional stability in transition countries is the over-politicization of the executive branch, which usually results in the sacking of staff, all the way from senior to quite a low level, in a ministry when there is a change of administration.² For this reason, commentators and practitioners advise that in order to work with such public agencies in the long term, it is better to target and build relationships with second or third-tier officials, as they will be the ones to survive the cuts and are also the ones who possess the institutional memory that always strongly influences decisions and implementation.³

The literature also reveals that the transition process itself and/or strong economic pressures create conditions for strong research uptake.⁴ This can be true when a government has the will and/or is under pressure (for example, from the international community) to actually make radical changes. Unfortunately, many leaders are more committed to patronage than policy change and sign international conventions to appease donors, with little desire to deliver on the policy commitments made in these documents.

Open decision-making processes are also a cornerstone to greater research uptake, and decentralization has provided more opportunities for research to influence policy when decisionmaking, along with competencies and associated budgets, have been devolved from the center.⁵ In fact, we take this insight a little further when we advise trainees from transition countries that “you’ve got to ‘look for the cracks’ in the process.” Nonetheless, decision-making processes that include public participation and/or research evidence remain largely at the discretion of the individual(s) in power and this can indeed be at any level of government, central or local.⁶ If an individual or representative of a more progressive political movement becomes minister or mayor in a certain agency, region, or municipality, decisions ideally will be made in an open and expertise-informed manner for the duration of his/her administration. This is the kind of “crack” we are looking for. Unfortunately, when this person or party loses power and the next person takes over, the decision-making process often then returns to the much more familiar politically driven and closed process of old.

More inclusive decision-making processes also commonly happen when an issue is hotly contested and the administration is under pressure from the international community, the media, or the public.⁷ Again, this is another type of crack for those interested in putting their voice in the debate. After two decades of the transition process, the fact that inclusive policymaking processes remain discretionary rather than institutionalized as a standard would imply that capacity development in this area for all actors (including decisionmakers) should stay high on the agenda.⁸

Even within more authoritarian societies, opportunities, however unexpected, do arise for research to influence policy.⁹ Our case from Kazakhstan¹⁰ clearly shows that more modern technologies such as One Stop Shops are being used to try to solve the basic challenges of government in such a country. Of course, this requires the input of experts with the capacity to investigate and understand the challenges of the local context. Furthermore, with the massive development of extractive industries and accompanying large increases in tax revenue in Kazakhstan and Mongolia, the general public and private industry is expecting more professionalism and delivery from their governments, creating more opportunity and demand for expertise in making decisions. This development, unfortunately, should not be confused with a larger commitment to democracy, but it may act as a catalyst in this direction. Of course, the expertise in our Kazakh case comes from within the government structure and this clearly shows that the lack of openness of the system severely restricts the opportunity to influence such decisions. Moreover, such a situation seems quite common in many transition countries where the power and resources are held tightly in the ministries and it is very difficult for any outsiders, and especially NGOs who may be perceived as enemies of government, to influence decisions.