Blog Home

Three things governance and accountability experts should be asking themselves in 2016

Nathaniel Heller   |   February 17, 2016   |   Comments

Last year, Results for Development undertook a major strategic review to define a governance program that made best use of our comparative advantages while adding maximum value to the transparency, accountability, and participation (TAP) community globally. As a result, we decided to double down on evidence building and applied research, particularly around the intersection of governance and TAP issues in key sectors.

As our 2016 work kicks into high gear, we wanted to share three key questions we’re focusing on right now through new projects. We’d love to hear feedback, critiques, and any ideas for possible synergies between these new initiatives and others’ ongoing work.

1. What role, if any, are technology innovation hubs playing in public policy decision making at the domestic level?

With generous support from Making All Voices Count, we’re very excited to be undertaking a new research project over the next 12 months assessing the role that “technology innovation hubs” play in political and policy processes at the domestic level. Technology innovation hubs are loosely defined as communities where [civic] technologists convene and work.

We know that these communities can be effective at incubating new entrepreneurial ventures, both commercial and non-profit. Some of these communities and spaces also invest in programming around public policy issues and engage, in an ad hoc manner, with ongoing domestic policy debates. In the weeks and months to come, we’ll explore whether and how these communities work more intentionally with public sector interlocutors to experiment with “co-creation” around public policies and programs, and whether (or not) potential exists for technology innovation hubs to play a more proactive and strategic role in co-creation moving forward.

While our inquiry will be look at the experiences of a variety of hubs and innovation labs around the world (including my own experience building the OpenGov Hub), our research will focus explicitly on several countries where Making All Voices Count is currently working. Research will be conducted in collaboration with public sector partners in each country, to ensure we’re asking the right questions about whether and how these communities add value to government decision making.

2. Who is translating and repackaging data in a way that policymakers can act on it?

Those of us who work on transparency, accountability, and participation issues tend to assume that when provided with compelling evidence and data, government officials will use that information to make rational, evidence-informed decisions around public policy and the investment of public resources.

In practice, we know this is far from the truth: ideology, politics, inertia, patronage, culture, and a myriad of other factors often trump the use of evidence to inform and shape policy. But beyond that insight, we often know little about how “raw” data is translated into actionable information—and by whom.

Through a new project with the Hewlett Foundation, Results for Development is exploring the role of “translators” in shaping policy. We’re specifically looking at who is repackaging and distilling evidence and data into policy advice and specific calls to action. And beyond the usual suspects (e.g., think tanks, journalists), what role do political parties, business interests, and religious and cultural leaders play in the translation of evidence and data?

Our first goal with this research is to develop a more sophisticated understanding of the kinds of policy translators that exist in countries through both in-depth literature reviews as well as retrospective country and sector case studies (where we’ll explore the role of particular translators in key historical policy decisions). Toward the end of our work, we’ll be employing a mix of observational research and soft ethnography to observe ongoing policy debates in a small number of countries to further sharpen and refine the typologies we develop in the first phase of the project.

3. Is open government more effective than the status quo for delivering services to the public? And does it result in cost savings and/or economic opportunities?

Earlier this week, the World Bank announced a new research consortium, including Results for Development, that is exploring the ways in which open government affects service delivery and development outcomes in countries.

The consortium will be specifically looking at whether open government is more effective for delivering services to the public. Some of the questions the initiative is looking at include whether the availability and accessibility of data lead to cost savings, and whether economic opportunities such as jobs and new businesses emerge from open government policies.

Here at Results for Development, we’re excited to work with some amazing partners including the Bank’s new Open Government Global Solutions Group, NYU’s GovLabGlobal Integrity, and the Open Government Partnership. The Bank is kicking off the collaborative by investing in a literature review of what evidence currently exists for the “return on investment” from open government at the domestic level in countries. We’ll then be designing future impact assessment research efforts, both as a group and individually, around those results. If your institution is interested in getting involved in the collaborative, please don’t hesitate to reach out (nheller[at]r4d[dot]org).

Leave a Reply

Comment Guidelines

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Global & Regional Initiatives

R4D is a globally recognized leader for designing initiatives that connect implementers, experts and funders across countries to build knowledge and get that knowledge into practice.