4.5.1 Predict when policy windows will open

One of the greatest challenges for analysts and researchers and their organizations is to be ready with their evidence and analysis when a policy issue comes onto the decision-making agenda. In most instances, policy research can take anywhere from two or three months to two years to complete. In all four case studies, the organizations had been working on their issues for over a year before they were ready and the policy window was open. In addition, conducting such research takes time and resources, and in order to fund these initiatives you need to show some return, which in the case of policy research or analysis means influence of some kind. So, in planning your advocacy work, you need to try to predict what will come on the agenda and when and make plans accordingly.¹

Making such predictions is notoriously difficult as policymaking and political processes are dynamic and volatile² and it often turns out that there is as much luck as strategy in getting this right. Nevertheless, experience has shown that there are ways to look at an upcoming process to guide your prediction of what may occur. As previously raised in Chapter 2, there are a number of recognized ways to influence agenda-setting:

• New research evidence setting the agenda
• New technologies and trends and their transfer to address policy problems
• Changes of leadership or political parties in government
• Focusing events such as emergencies, security or economic crises or natural disasters³

Exploring these four categories helps to unpack ideas of how to facilitate the prediction process:

New research evidence setting the agenda

This can be the easiest situation for policy researchers since, in essence, the research they are doing leads to a decision to act on the part of the government. In such cases, the research normally brings out something that is unexpected, surprising or unignorable— what we call a “striking fact”—that does not fit into the commonly held understanding of the problem or the current solution. A common scenario is that the research shows that the current government policy is not performing to the expected level or that the assumptions that led to the decision to take the current policy approach have changed, for example, in terms of demography or economic development.⁴

Two of our cases nicely illustrate situations where research and analysis lead the agenda:

The cases illustrate examples of when research results can lead the agenda, but there is still an element of prediction involved. In terms of helping on agenda prediction, it is also advisable to try as much as possible to stay informed on the research agendas of other relevant organizations.

Another aspect of research leading the agenda that may be particularly relevant to the transition context is the fact that even the most striking research evidence may not be listened to or taken seriously by government.⁵ Hence, the standing and credibility of an organization producing research is important for predicting agenda issues. This element of the perceived legitimacy of those producing research or analysis will be developed in detail later in Chapter 5, The Messenger.

New technology, trends, and transfer

There is a continuous discussion of how to innovate to employ new technologies and approaches to find better and more efficient solutions to policy challenges. The example of how information technologies and the internet have been harnessed to network citizens, provide information, and even deliver public services in the last two decades is the most illustrative example of such innovation. The development and availability of new technologies often provide the impetus for governments to act to solve public policy problems, thereby putting them on the agenda.⁶

Sometimes called “policy spillovers”⁷ or transfers, the development of new technologies or new approaches to solving policy problems often become international trends that then lead policy discussions in many countries. This is certainly true of transition countries where neighbors quickly transfer successful or “trendy” policy solutions from country to country. A recent example is the introduction of a flat income tax and simplification of tax return process to try to reduce the economy and increase government revenue.

However, the transfer of policy solutions may not always be a purely rational or internal political decision and is often led by a mixture of pressure and incentive from international organizations.⁸ Throughout the 1990s, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund offered huge monetary support to transition and developing countries on the condition of deep structural reforms led by the thinking of what is called the “Washington consensus,” that is, a market-based reform of public services. The EU accession process has also pushed broad reforms incentivized by the promise of investment and membership.

In two of our cases, agendas were led by the introduction of such new technologies.

You should also be aware that trends only have a limited shelf life and these windows may close as quickly as they open. In summary, you have got to be aware of the end as well as the beginning of such trends in the policy world.

Change of leadership or political parties in government

This most predictable way for agendas to be reset is through a change of the political party in power.¹⁰ The basic competition of values between parties through the electoral process normally means that parties identify policy issues, approaches, and solutions they will prioritize and which will be different from other parties. Also, when a new party is elected to government there tends to be more openness to new ideas as well as a change in the source of ideas and advice.¹¹ Such a change in agenda priorities can also result from a change of leadership within the governing political party or a change in the balance of power in a coalition government.

Given the realities of politics, it is unsurprising that research advice that fits the value framework of a new leadership is a lot more likely to be influential than advice that does not.¹² This is certainly something to consider in making your plans for policy advocacy campaigns. One of our cases illustrates a new agenda development following a change of government.

The experience from this case does not mean that you should not engage in any advocacy until a political party that shares your values is in power. In fact, this kind of value opposition is the key to strong democratic debate. Moreover, research can give a decisionmaker the confidence to act or not to act.¹³ You may, for example, introduce research that creates enough doubt or discussion to prevent a decision going ahead. Nevertheless, advocates should be clear about what is a feasible objective under such conditions feeding or supporting an opposition position or softening up expert communities to bring your perspective into their discussion. Of course, waiting is also always an option.

However, election cycles and possible changes in administration are not the only thing to consider. Planning and budgetary cycles mean decisions will be made according to set deadlines and will determine when policy windows open and close.¹⁴ Being aware of the executive planning of your policy issue can also help in timing your advocacy interventions.

Focusing events such as emergencies, security or economic crises or natural disasters

For obvious reasons, these situations are the most difficult to predict as they tend to occur without warning. The global financial crisis of October 2008 is a good example of how the sudden failure of the international banking system quickly brought onto the agenda decisions on the ways to save key banking institutions in national and international arenas, and in the medium to longer term a discussion to rethink state regulation of the banking system. Under these conditions, all other items on the government agenda are put on hold and all opinions get a decent airing, especially those with workable and practical solutions attached.

Such focusing events mean that researchers and analysts have a chance to react to but not plan for these events. A quick response is required, as suggested in one of the “Ten Commandments for economists”: “Dare to be quick and dirty. Partial analysis is better than none.”¹⁵ In essence, the advice is to work with what you have to get your voice in the discussion within that short span of time before some action has to be taken. An organization like International Crisis Group¹⁶ is a good illustration of this kind of tension between continually monitoring potential conflict situations and the need to respond quickly once something happens with the information and tools available. Put simply, when a crisis erupts, it is time to act, not commission a two-year research project. However, we would sound a note of caution: avoid becoming the “instant expert” on issues you are unprepared to respond to! This will probably damage your reputation in the long run more than any short term media attention would bring.

Two of the case studies are examples where a focusing event led to a response from the researchers and analysts involved. In both cases, they had been monitoring and studying the situations for some time and were prepared to respond.

It is evident from the commentary and cases that getting the timing right is a balance of being able to predict openings and closings of policy windows and being ready to respond to windows that open in a predicted manner or quite suddenly.