what drives policy change? evidence from six empirical applications of the kaleidoscope model
TRANSCRIPT
What Drives Policy Change? Evidence from Six Empirical Applications of the
Kaleidoscope Model
Steve Haggblade
What Drives Policy Change?
Evidence from six empirical applications of the Kaleidoscope Model:
• Micronutrient policies (Malawi, South Africa, Zambia)
• Input subsidy policies (Ghana, Tanzania, Zambia)
Sample of Policy Reform Episodes
Reform characteristics
Micro-
nutrients
Input
subsidies Total
Made the agenda 38 12 50
Affirmative decisions 35 11 46
Implementation
Private sector 19 7 26
Public sector 16 4 20
Sixteen Testable Hypotheses
Results: Agenda Setting & Design
Policy domain
Policy stage Kaleidoscope hypotheses
Micro-
nutrients
Input
subsidy
Agenda setting 1 Recognized, relevant problem 84% 100%
2 Focusing event 82% 58%
3 Powerful advocates 84% 100%
Design 4 Knowledge, research, and ideas 89% 58%
5 Norms, biases, ideology, beliefs 16% 100%
6 Cost-benefit, risk calculations 55% 75%
Results: Adoption and Implementation
Adoption 7 Powerful opponents vs. proponents 68% 92%
8 Government veto players
+ affirmative decision 88% 100%
- exercise veto 12% 0%
9 Propitious timing 3% 27%
Implementation 10 Requisite budget 61% 82%
11 Institutional capacity 53% 100%
12 Implementing stage veto players
+ facilitate implementation 87% 45%
- stymie implementation 13% 55%
13 Commitment of policy champions 50% 91%
Results: Adoption and Implementation
Adoption 7 Powerful opponents vs. proponents 68% 92%
8 Government veto players
+ affirmative decision 88% 100%
- exercise veto 12% 0%
9 Propitious timing 3% 27%
Implementation 10 Requisite budget 61% 82%
11 Institutional capacity 53% 100%
12 Implementing stage veto players
+ facilitate implementation 87% 45%
- stymie implementation 13% 55%
13 Commitment of policy champions 50% 91%
Results: Evaluation and Reform
Policy domain
Policy stage Kaleidoscope hypotheses
Micro-
nutrients
Input
subsidy
Evaluation
and reform 14 Changing info and beliefs 50% 82%
15 Changing material conditions 42% 82%
16 Institutional shifts 32% 18%
Opportunities for Effective Engagement
• Credible evidence • Advocacy • Financial support • Institutional reform
Evidence
Policy domain
Policy stage Kaleidoscope hypotheses Micronutrients Input subsidy
Agenda setting 1 Recognized, relevant problem 84% 100%
2 Focusing events 82% 58%
3 Powerful advocates 84% 100%
Design 4 Knowledge, research and ideas 89% 58%
5 Norms, biases, ideology, beliefs 16% 100%
6 Cost-benefit, risk calculations 55% 75%
Adoption 7 Powerful opponents vs. proponents 68% 92%
8 Government veto players
+ affirmative decision 88% 100%
- exercise veto 12% 0%
9 Propitious timing 3% 27%
Implementation 10 Requisite budget 61% 82%
11 Institutional capacity 53% 100%
12 Implementing stage veto players
+ facilitate implementation 87% 45%
- stymie implementation 13% 55%
13 Commitment of policy champions 50% 91%
Evaluation
and reform 14 Changing info and beliefs 50% 82%
15 Changing material conditions 42% 82%
16 Institutional shifts 32% 18%
Advocacy
Policy domain
Policy stage Kaleidoscope hypotheses Micronutrients Input subsidy
Agenda setting 1 Recognized, relevant problem 84% 100%
2 Focusing events 82% 58%
3 Powerful advocates 84% 100%
Design 4 Knowledge, research and ideas 89% 58%
5 Norms, biases, ideology, beliefs 16% 100%
6 Cost-benefit, risk calculations 55% 75%
Adoption 7 Powerful opponents vs. proponents 68% 92%
8 Government veto players
+ affirmative decision 88% 100%
- exercise veto 12% 0%
9 Propitious timing 3% 27%
Implementation 10 Requisite budget 61% 82%
11 Institutional capacity 53% 100%
12 Implementing stage veto players
+ facilitate implementation 87% 45%
- stymie implementation 13% 55%
13 Commitment of policy champions 50% 91%
Evaluation
and reform 14 Changing info and beliefs 50% 82%
15 Changing material conditions 42% 82%
16 Institutional shifts 32% 18%
Financing
Policy domain
Policy stage Kaleidoscope hypotheses Micronutrients Input subsidy
Agenda setting 1 Recognized, relevant problem 84% 100%
2 Focusing events 82% 58%
3 Powerful advocates 84% 100%
Design 4 Knowledge, research and ideas 89% 58%
5 Norms, biases, ideology, beliefs 16% 100%
6 Cost-benefit, risk calculations 55% 75%
Adoption 7 Powerful opponents vs. proponents 68% 92%
8 Government veto players
+ affirmative decision 88% 100%
- exercise veto 12% 0%
9 Propitious timing 3% 27%
Implementation 10 Requisite budget 61% 82%
11 Institutional capacity 53% 100%
12 Implementing stage veto players
+ facilitate implementation 87% 45%
- stymie implementation 13% 55%
13 Commitment of policy champions 50% 91%
Evaluation
and reform 14 Changing info and beliefs 50% 82%
15 Changing material conditions 42% 82%
16 Institutional shifts 32% 18%
Institutional Change
Policy domain
Policy stage Kaleidoscope hypotheses Micronutrients Input subsidy
Agenda setting 1 Recognized, relevant problem 84% 100%
2 Focusing events 82% 58%
3 Powerful advocates 84% 100%
Design 4 Knowledge, research and ideas 89% 58%
5 Norms, biases, ideology, beliefs 16% 100%
6 Cost-benefit, risk calculations 55% 75%
Adoption 7 Powerful opponents vs. proponents 68% 92%
8 Government veto players
+ affirmative decision 88% 100%
- exercise veto 12% 0%
9 Propitious timing 3% 27%
Implementation 10 Requisite budget 61% 82%
11 Institutional capacity 53% 100%
12 Implementing stage veto players
+ facilitate implementation 87% 45%
- stymie implementation 13% 55%
13 Commitment of policy champions 50% 91%
Evaluation,
reform 14 Changing info and beliefs 50% 82%
15 Changing material conditions 42% 82%
16 Institutional shifts 32% 18%
When is policy reform most feasible?
• Credible evidence • Advocates • Financial support • Institutional reform
We wish to acknowledge the co-authors of the six initial
field studies:
Suresh Babu, Nicolette Hall, Jody Harris, Nicole Mason, Elizabeth
Mkandawire, David Mather, Stephen Morgan, Flora Nankhuni, David
Ndyetabula, Dorothy Nthani, Nic JJ Olivier, Nico JJ Olivier, Phillip
Randall and Hettie C Schönfeldt.
For More Information, Please Visit
http://foodsecuritypolicy.msu.edu/
www.feedthefuture.gov