Policy and Research Programme 2016 - 2020 Strategy - Submitted by: Graeme Ramshaw Date: 29 January 2016
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Policy and Research Programme Document 11.3
Westminster Foundation for Democracy
Policy and Research Programme
2016 – 2020 Strategy
Submitted by: Graeme Ramshaw
Date: 29 January 2016
2016-2020 Strategy
1Policy and Research Programme Document 11.3
Westminster Foundation for Democracy
I. CONTEXT AND RATIONALE
In January 2015, the Carnegie Endowment’s Tom Carothers posed a choice to those
supporting democracy internationally. They could opt to scale back, reducing risk and
ambition. Or they could work harder, investing in learning and arguing more effectively for the
benefits democracy brings. A subsequent report from the UK Parliament’s International
Development Committee on the findings from its inquiry into parliamentary strengthening
echoed this challenge, noting a shortage of well documented examples of programmes that
help deliver sustained political change and the need for stronger evidence about what works
in this field.
These are only the most recent voices calling for better knowledge and evidence on
parliamentary and political party strengthening work. A 2012 Sida report found “Unsystematic,
inconsistent, and under-resourced efforts to collect evidence about what works in
parliamentary development assistance and why. Many of the recommendations are still
relatively untried and untested and, where innovative practice does exist, it is not being
sufficiently researched.” Likewise, a 2007 ODI report encouraged DFID to “conduct a series
of case studies of parliamentary strengthening in a number of developing countries, to learn
more lessons about what works and what does not.” Political party strengthening is similarly
under-researched, with a 2009 ODI report asserting that “the evidence base about what works
– and still more, what works in a particular sort of context – is largely absent.”
The lack of impetus behind this search for better evidence is perhaps understandable, given
the relatively small proportion of budget that DFID allocates to parliamentary and political party
strengthening. The fragmentation of democracy assistance providers within the UK similarly
militates against comprehensive research on this topic. At the same time, multilateral
organisations such as the World Bank and UNDP may have incentives that dissuade them
from interrogating the theoretical and practical rationale for parliamentary strengthening too
closely. Being intrinsically political, the rationale for democracy assistance work can derive as
much from an ideological basis as a rational one.
In this context, WFD is well-placed to fill some of these gaps in the evidence base. We have
a built-in determination to better understand the inherent challenges we face in strengthening
parliaments and political parties, in order to help our staff and our beneficiaries to overcome
those obstacles. Building our relationship with DFID has encouraged us to seek out more and
better information about specific contextual issues that shape the way parliaments function,
but also constrain their role as democratic actors.
Our unique mix of parliamentary and political party access enables us to look at parliaments
from both an external and internal perspective. This gives our research portfolio a broad remit
to explore both how parliaments are shaping the broader democratic landscapes in their
countries but also how other democratic institutions and processes are shaping the ways
parliament itself functions. This makes WFD a strong potential partner for academics and think
tanks whose interests span across traditional practitioner silos.
2016-2020 Strategy
2Policy and Research Programme Document 11.3
Westminster Foundation for Democracy
II. VISION
By 2020, evidence from WFD’s research and policy work is informing better programme
design, practice, and outcomes in both our own parliamentary and political party strengthening
programmes and those of the broader democratic assistance community. WFD has become
a principal source for knowledge and evidence at the intersection of policymakers and
academics, with strong partnerships spanning both communities.
III. OUTCOMES/OUTPUTS
Programme Outcomes
WFD is recognised as a source for and a convenor of policy-relevant evidence in the fields of
parliamentary and political party strengthening. Key performance indicators are included in
and monitored via the annual plans.
Corporate Outcomes
As both a core value and a named output in the WFD corporate theory of change and its
DFID/FCO logframe, it is expected that the Research Programme will cut across all four
outcome areas, improving the learning we get from the programmes we undertake and
informing adjustments and adaptations to programming along the way.
WFD Outcome 1: The extent to which public policies are formulated or drafted or scrutinised
by parliaments or political parties based on evidence and an open,
transparent and consultative process
The Research programme will investigate the efficacy of Parliamentary Research Centres,
drawing on the WFD experience in establishing them or supporting them in a number of
countries, reflecting also the experience of the Northern Irish Assembly in their work overseas
in this area.
The Research programme will also look at effective ways in which parliaments and parties
have established mechanisms for providing transparent access to policy-making, enabling
broad consultation.
WFD Outcome 2: The extent to which parliaments or political parties hold other government
institutions or actors to account or enhance their own accountability to their
constituents and stakeholders.
The obvious area here is research into parliamentary budget offices and public account
committees, exploring under what conditions these are most likely to be effective and what
kinds of procedures need to be in place to enable this.
Understanding how the cost of politics and the particular form of MP election may also shed
light on the extent to which MPs feel accountable to constituents and other stakeholders.
WFD Outcome 3: The extent to which parliaments or political parties represent effectively
their specific constituencies and are representative of the interests and
needs of their citizens as a whole.
2016-2020 Strategy
3Policy and Research Programme Document 11.3
Westminster Foundation for Democracy
There remains a need to better understand how women’s representation is best effected,
whether through quotas, all-women short lists, etc. Using WFD programming, we will explore
through what means women politicians are most likely to secure policy change in parliaments.
There is also a need to understand better the intersection of political party strengthening and
parliamentary development. Parliaments are fundamentally political institutions and need well-
developed political parties to function effectively. The development of these political parties
has proved a particular challenge in the Middle East and North Africa, perhaps preventing
more substantial democratic gains from the Arab Spring. WFD’s research will investigate the
parliamentary-political party relationship in the region and look for ways to encourage
complementary development.
WFD Outcome 4: The extent to which citizens, particularly women, youth or other
marginalised groups, have greater access to and a more active role in
parliamentary and political processes
The Westminster Consortium demonstrated an effective means of linking civil society with
parliaments but this has never been explored systematically. The Research programme is
looking to develop an adaptable model that can be used in different contexts.
The role of parliaments in supporting human rights, particularly for marginalised groups, is
receiving more attention. Following on from research done in collaboration with the University
of Oxford, WFD will continue to develop its knowledge in these areas.
Outputs
These outputs will form the basis for each annual plan with indicators and targets created for
each financial year.
1. Production of policy-relevant research and evidence: publication and dissemination of
policy briefs, reports, etc. on specified topics contributing to the democracy assistance
literature
2. Development of platforms for engagement and debate on issues of parliamentary and
political party strengthening: hosting and participation in face-to-face and online
events, workshops, and conferences that encourage sharing and debating of ideas
and lessons
3. WFD and its staff are linked to timely and relevant knowledge on democratic
assistance: hosting and facilitating access to peer-reviewed journals and prominent
academics in the fields of parliamentary and political party strengthening
2016-2020 Strategy
4Policy and Research Programme Document 11.3
Westminster Foundation for Democracy
IV. THEORY OF CHANGE
WFD’s corporate outcome target is to strengthen democratic culture and practice in the
parliaments in which we work. We believe that important component underpinning this
outcome is an investment in expanded research and policy work to inform and test our
programme activities. By studying the areas of parliamentary and political party strengthening
more deeply, we can help our own staff understand their particular contexts more clearly, draw
out comparative trends, and provide better evidence of the rationale behind our interventions
and the impact they generate. We can also share lessons and good practice with our
colleagues in the donor and democratic assistance community, helping to frame debates and
shape decision-making processes. This is predicated on the assumption that research can
produce relevant lessons in a timely fashion and that democracy assistance programmes are
sufficiently flexible to absorb and incorporate lessons once received.
Making this contribution within our programmes but especially within the international
community requires that WFD become recognised as a viable source for and a convenor of
policy-relevant evidence on issues related to parliamentary and political party strengthening.
Our theory relies on three routes for this to happen. The first is simply the production of policy-
relevant research and evidence. Through our own staff and through partnerships with
universities and think tanks, WFD will study and draw lessons from its own work and that of
others in the field. This will be translated into policy briefs and reports that will be published
and shared via various communication channels.
Second, WFD can create platforms for others to engage and debate with us on good practice
in parliamentary and political party strengthening. Within the UK this means further expanding
our network through the Community of Practice on Parliamentary Strengthening. Globally, it
means hosting and participating in workshops and conferences that bring together policy-
makers and practitioners to engage with our research and to share their own. Communicating
our role in facilitating this process of engagement and debate through our own website and
other platforms will build WFD’s profile as a serious player in the field of democracy assistance
research.
However, our reputation depends not just on the strength of our own work and of the networks
we foster and engage with. It also depends on the way in which our programme teams
articulate the lessons of this work, embody them in our programmes, and share them with
partners and beneficiaries. For this reason, the policy and research team will also focus on
linking WFD staff with the most current research and the most knowledgeable actors in these
fields, whether this is through face to face engagement or access to prominent literature.
Underpinning these routes are the assumptions that WFD has the capacity to produce and
manage this portfolio; that we can attract sufficiently prominent partners to assist us in this
work; and that the broader community will be receptive to our move to expand our presence
in this area.
2016-2020 Strategy
5Policy and Research Programme Document 11.3
Westminster Foundation for Democracy
V. SCOPE
The Research programme is global in scope. However, working with the Regional Directors,
there will be regional priorities, such as cost of politics in Europe and Africa and the intersection
of parties and parliaments in MENA.
The linking work will also have a global focus looking to develop WFD’s profile worldwide.
Principal focus will be on stakeholders in the UK and Europe, but WFD will engage with actors
in North America and other regions to foster relationships with potential partners.
2016-2020 Strategy
6Policy and Research Programme Document 11.3
Westminster Foundation for Democracy
VI. RISK
The Director of Research and Evaluation is accountable for the programme under the rubric
of WFD’s security strategy managed by the Director of Programmes.
For scoring please use the following scale: 1=low 2=moderate 3=significant 4=serious 5= high
Net risk
Likelihood Impact How would
What would you rate
How likely is Mitigation
the impact the risk
Risk area the issue to What action will you take to
be if you did (likelihood
arise? reduce the risk?
nothing to + impact)
mitigate it? after
mitigation?
Our academic partners
will be briefed on the
importance of
Political: confidentiality of certain
WFD’s relationships with issues related to our
parliaments or parties are work. The Director of
damaged by the inclusion of 3 4 Research will review all 1, 3
politically sensitive analysis in publications and consult
the research outputs with the relevant
Regional Director before
approval to ensure that
issues are addressed
satisfactorily.
Adherence to WFD
Security:
security protocols and
Minimal risks around events
FCO travel guidance.
and personal security for 2 2 1, 1
Selection of venues with
research field trips
sufficient security where
warranted.
Programme performance:
We have selected high
The quality of the products
quality partners to keep
produced by the research
this risk low. It will be
programme is sub-standard
further mitigated by
2 4 1, 2
extensive oversight from
The management of research
the Director of Research
partners proves unworkable
and relevant others,
due to distance, schedules,
including RDs and DFID
or relationships
Formal partnerships are
contractually agreed to
limit liability. Likewise,
Management/Finance:
academic experts will
have their fees locked in
Research cost exceed 1,1
2 2 through contract. Ad hoc
estimates, restricting the
research projects will be
outputs we are able to deliver
monitored closely to
ensure they deliver on
budget.
2016-2020 Strategy
7Policy and Research Programme Document 11.3
Westminster Foundation for Democracy
VII. MONITORING AND EVALUATION
WFD’s Policy and Research programme sits within the Research and Evaluation portfolio,
managed by the Director of Research and Evaluation. Much of the programme output falls
under the WFD corporate logframe and is monitored and evaluated under existing systems
and processes. The programme will adhere to WFD’s Evaluation Policy, requiring that all
Directors ensure that 2% of their programme budget is dedicated to monitoring and evaluation
of their work.
In particular, the Policy and Research programme will look to collaborate with WFD’s
Communications team to monitor uptake and dissemination of WFD’s products and any
relative changes in WFD’s profile vis a vis its research reputation. Prominent partnerships
lasting more than six months will be formally reviewed to ensure that they are meeting
expectations both in terms of outputs but also in terms of contributing to WFD’s theory of
change.
VIII. VALUE FOR MONEY
WFD’s Policy and Research programme makes every effort to operate within the constraints
of WFD’s Value for Money framework, seeking always to achieve highest levels of economy,
efficiency, and effectiveness. On economy, we negotiate daily rates in line with industry
standards and endeavour to select consultants and venues that can offer some element of the
cost as an in-kind contribution.
In terms of efficiency, we construct terms of reference that ensure that consultants deliver
work in the fewest number of days possible. Many activities can be delivered through online
platforms that ensures the widest possible audience at the lowest possible cost. Securing
longer-term partnerships also reduces transaction costs and overheads, enabling a more
efficient delivery of outputs.
The effectiveness of the research programmes is monitored and evaluated under the WFD
corporate logframe and M&E plan. Given the small scale of the programme, if it is able to
achieve a significant increase in the profile and footprint of WFD in terms of its research and
evidence creation, it will have performed strongly on any cost-effectiveness measure.
2016-2020 Strategy
8Policy and Research Programme Document 11.3
Westminster Foundation for Democracy
IX. CONSULTATION RECORD
Guidance: Parliamentary team should consult political parties, WFD corporate teams, central
FCO and DFID staff, and Board members (through Board Secretary). Political parties should
consult the relevant parliamentary programme team(s), WFD corporate teams, central FCO
and DFID staff, and Board members.
PERSON CONSULTED COMMENTS RESPONSE
X. COMPLIANCE RECORD
Please confirm that all activities will comply with core WFD policies on:
Purchase of equipment/consumables [insert link to Choose an item.
each policy]
Travel Yes
Hospitality Yes
Honoraria Yes
Anti-bribery and corruption Yes
Domestic legislation Yes
2016-2020 Strategy
9You can also read
