Post on 09-Feb-2017
Andrew BartlettAgricultural Policy Adviser, NUDP
Questioning Policy
A simple idea
We can improve the policy makingprocess by asking more
questions
Structure of this presentation Background about NUDP A breakthough in thinking Does policy matter? How is policy made? Questions we are afraid to ask Barriers to critical thinking How can we do a better job?
Background The Northern Upland Development Programme is
now operational, supported by 4 donor agencies NUDP has a component called ‘Strengthening
Government Agency Policy Making and Capitalization Capacity’
The Agricultural Policy Adviser started work in October this year
The framework proposed by the Adviser is based on the ‘4 breakthroughs’ announced at the 9th Party Congress
A breakthrough in policy making
A breakthrough in management of policy making
A breakthrough in human resources for policy making
A breakthrough in prioritizing poverty in policy
making
A breakthrough in thinking about
policy
The biggest challenge is…
… a breakthrough in thinking Asking questions is the key to achieving this
breakthrough Questioning has been used to improve thinking
throughout human history … … from the Socratic Method and the Kalama Sutta to Empirical Science and Marxist Dialectic This process is known as ‘critical thinking’
Critical thinking The word ‘critical’ has more than one meaning in
the English language… expressing disapproval Involving an objective analysis
It is the second meaning that we are talking about
let’s start now!
Does policy matter? It can be argued that government policy is no
longer a ‘driver of change’ Public research and extension has less influence
on agric development than regional economic integration, labour migration, and new channels of communication
The markets for maize, sugar, cassava and other commodities depend on decisions taken in Washington, Brussels and Beijing
Does policy matter? Nevertheless, the Government of Laos continues
to play a role in regulating change Policy allows some things to happen… … and blocks other things But is policy research focusing on the right
things? Macro-level policies have the biggest impact on
change processes Yet a lot of policy research focuses on the micro-
level
Levels of policy Visionary level
Eradicating poverty Achieving 8% growth Increasing forest cover Modernizing production
The key question at this level is ‘What are the goals we want to achieve?’
Levels of policy Strategic level
Granting land concessions Eradicating shifting cultivation Resettlement of villages Controlling market structures
The key question at this level is ‘How are we going to achieve our goals?’
Levels of policy Technical level level
Promoting specific crops or technologies Re-organising government structures Establishing khumban technical service centres Setting up production and marketing groups
The key question at this level is ‘Who cares? Most of these issues are inward looking They are about the functioning of MAF and
development projects, but have little or no impact on the lives of the majority of farmers
Are we stuck in the middle?
We spend a lot of time studying technical issues that interest ourselves
Are we doing enough to help policy makers at the strategic level?
Are we doing enough to provide farmers with practical options?
Perhaps we could do a better job if we understood the policy-making process
It’s a mystery to most foreigners
How is policy made?
But here are two hypotheses: Firstly, a lot of de facto policy
is made at the Provincial level
Here, visionary policy is not simply implemented, it is interpreted and adapted Consequently, policy at the strategic level is a contest between national goals and local interests
Secondly, there is a lot of reactive (rather than proactive) policy making
Leaders encounter a problem, or see something they like, and make a decision
Eg. promoting TSCs or adopting SRI Basing policy decisions on real-world problems
and models is a good idea… … providing these decisions are not impulsive or autocratic Ideally, these reactions should be treated as
proposals, as suggestions, as opinions
How is policy made?
Policy proposals need to be studied, tested, evaluated
The costs and benefits need to be calculated, and comparisons made with alternatives
In other words, proposals need to be the subject of critical thinking
But too often we find officials who are trying to implement something without knowing if it is possible or useful
Sometimes they don’t even understand what their boss wants, but they still try to do something
This is why we need a breakthrough!
How is policy made?
Questions we are afraid to ask
The bigger and bolder the question, the more likely we are to achieve a breakthrough in thinking
But are there some questions we are afraid to ask?
Like the following…
Do we need farmers?
Do we need farmers? There are now 2,135 land concessions covering
1.6 million ha. These concessions are creating a new class of
rural workers in Laos. They don’t make any decisions, they simply provide labour in return for cash
They work on plantations, or they work in factories, in Laos or Thailand
In Marxist terms we can call them ‘wage slaves’ Is this an acceptable and inevitable cost of
modernization? of turning land into capital? of economic growth?
Does agriculture need farmers or labourers?
Where did all the trees go?
Where did all the trees go? The target for forest cover continues to be 70%,
last achieved 50 years ago Despite all the good work of the Forestry
Department, most of us know that…. … the target is not realistic But are we allowed to say that? Can we openly discuss the role of corrupt officials
rather than continuing to blame swidden farmers? Can we discuss those reports that say the
Vietnamese military is involved in illegal logging?
Do dams affect food supply?
Do dams affect food supply? The ‘Battery of ASEAN’ is a visionary policy. More
than 70 dams are planned There have already been negative impacts on rice
and fish, two basic foods for Lao people Is it possible to carry out an objective analysis of
the trade-offs between hydropower and agriculture?
Is a win-win situation a practical reality or mere propaganda?
Questions have already been asked by CSOs at the Agric Sector Meeting this month
Is MAF ready to respond?
Are there any positive cases?
Can we learn from rubber?
Can we learn from rubber? The rubber boom began in 2003 and 2004 Important studies were completed in 2005 (Alton
et al), 2006 (Manivong & Cramb), 2007 (NAFRI) and 2008 (Weiyi Shi)
Is is now accepted that there are negative social and environmental impacts from rubber plantations
In May this year, MAF announced a cap of 300,000 ha for rubber, and the new sector strategy focuses on smallholders rather than large concessions
This is good news, but could we have reached these conclusions a bit earlier?
Barriers to critical thinking
Whatever, it is characteristic of traditional and authoritarian regimes, where questioning policy is seen as criticism of the Church/King/Party/Dear Leader
The ‘myth of infallibility’ is one of the things that sustains these regimes
Some might say there is a cultural barrier, a respect for authority
Others might say the barrier is fear of the consequences
Barriers to critical thinking As a result, many Govt officials have learned to
avoid having a clear
opinion Or, alternatively, they view things in
BLACK &WHITE Consequently, there is no point is asking
questions… … either there is no answer … or it has already been decided!
How can we do a better job? Firstly, those in power must show their
subordinates that it is safe to ask questions Critical thinking should be
rewarded, not punished Without this change, there
will be no breakthrough
How can we do a better job? Secondly, if de facto policy is created through
interpretation of goals at the Provincial level, we need to engage with the contestants in the field
The learning alliance facilitated by SADU is a good example, bringing together a wide range of stakeholders within a province to discuss tricky issues like market regulations
EMRIP has made similar achievements working with rice millers and farmer groups in the south
What matters at the end of the day is not how policy is written, but how it is understood
How can we do a better job? Thirdly, development projects and programmes
should create spaces where critical thinking is not only permitted, but also encouraged
Eg. change the way we organise meetingsthese people are asking questions are these?
And we could make greater use of web 2.0 eg. blogs, discussion groups and other social media
How can we do a better job? Fourthly, we need to produce materials that are
stimulating not soporific Shorter reports, policy briefs, fact sheets… with
bullet points, pictures, fact boxes and info-graphics
people will read this but will they read this?
If they don’t read it, how can they analyse it?
How can we do a better job? Fifthly, we need to promote analytical concepts
and techniques that will help people to think in
colour Concepts and techniques that help people
understand different perspectives, alternatives, options, choices
Scenarios Force-fields Narratives Trade-offs
Uncertainty Values
A simple conclusion… Policy making should be more ’open’ Open has more than one meaning:
Accessible (i.e. participatory and transparent) Candid (i.e. honest and forthright)
We need both
Open policy-making involves asking questions Open policy-making involves critical thinking
A simple conclusion…
Open policy making = a breakthrough in thinking
Andrew BartlettAgricultural Policy Adviser, NUDP
Any Questions?