In a representative democracy, we elect leaders to represent us in making decisions, which we hope are made in the public interest. Such leaders have roles in the legislative arms of our governments as parliamentarians or councilors, and if they are prominent figures in their political parties, they may also be members of the cabinet and have a role as a minister or deputy minister at the national level or mayor at the local level. Further, in any political party, influential opinion leaders in a particular area (such as foreign policy or environmentalism) are often the appointed leaders of commissions or working groups in these areas. The first task in this mapping is identifying those who are in the decision-making roles through all stages of the target decision-making process.
It is then worthwhile to find out about the individuals themselves in these roles, honing in on their past, interests, background, and education, as well as their rise to power. As mentioned above, the position of an individual decisionmaker can mean the difference between a decision-making process that is open and interested in research evidence and one that is not.1 Also, finding out whether a minister has any strong interest or expertise in the assigned role can be a strong indicator as to whether she or he will lead the decision-making process or whether it will be lead more by advisors and advisory bodies such as working groups or research institutes.
For example, an associate of ours works as a researcher in a think tank with a strong liberal bias in Slovakia. The head of the think tank became a minister in a recent administration. Knowing about his previous work in the think tank tells you much about both his interests and how he might approach decisionmaking as well as the networks he has been a part of in the past.
Knowing the circle of advisors around a decisionmaker is also crucial: if a decisionmaker has a limited background in a certain policy area, he or she will often simply follow the word of an advisor or advisory body in making decisions. Higher-level civil servants or bureaucrats may also be very influential in leading decisionmaking, as they are the ones who can advise what works in terms of the management, administration, and capacity of a public institution. It is often said that decisionmakers set the agenda, but advisors and bureaucrats are the ones who elaborate the alternatives on an agenda issue.2
Find out about the background and interests of decisionmakers and the circle of advisors.
The following cases examined illustrate how in-depth knowledge of decision-making circles was key to success.
Case 1: Kazakhstan
Improving One Stop Shops (2006–2007)
Policy fellow and civil servant
In this case, the researcher knew that one advisor to the minister was the opinion leader in the area of One Stop Shops and she targeted him with her research in advocacy efforts.
Case 2: Kosovo (UNSCR 1244)
Reorganization of local administrative units in Mitrovica (2003–2006)
Think tank (European Stability Initiative)
In the Mitrovica case, the European Stability Initiative quickly identified and primarily targeted the main spokespeople for the two sides in this dispute: on the Serbian side, this was a member of Parliament, and on the Albanian side, the person was the first postconflict mayor of Mitrovica and prime minister of Kosovo (UNSCR 1244) at the time of the campaign. Without engaging these two, nothing could have happened in this advocacy effort.
Case 3: Macedonia
Introducing and passing a Patients’ Bill of Rights (2006–2008)
Policy fellow and think tank (Studiorum)
As in the Kazakh case, the identification and targeting of an advisor to the minister of health and an almost accidental relationship through academic circles with a future deputy minister were pivotal in making this advocacy effort work.