Foreign economic-aid-related services

Tender description

Supporting increased evidence use by decision makers can help establish more cost-effective policies for poverty reduction and drive public sector reform. The UK has already contributed to programmes aimed at increasing evidence-informed policymaking in 12 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia through DFID's Building Capacity to Use Research Evidence (BCURE) programme. However, lessons learnt from BCURE and other interventions have also demonstrated that in order to further strengthen the use of evidence by decision-makers in developing countries, five key constraints will need to be addressed. The main outcome of SEDI will be a more systematic use of evidence by policymakers in the above mentioned regions however the selected countries may include Ghana, Uganda, Pakistan and Zambia (final countries to be confirmed). This will also contribute to the transparency of policymaking processes in these countries, highlighting where and when evidence informs decisions. Supporting increased evidence use by decision makers can help establish more cost-effective policies for poverty reduction and drive public sector reform. The UK has already contributed to programmes aimed at increasing evidence-informed policymaking in 12 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia through DFID's Building Capacity to Use Research Evidence (BCURE) programme. BCURE is coming to an end in November 2017 and has shown that investments in the use of evidence by partner governments can achieve better development outcomes. However, lessons learnt from BCURE and other interventions have also demonstrated that in order to further strengthen the use of evidence by decision-makers in developing countries, five key constraints will need to be addressed. 1.Limited individual and organisational capacity is a major constraint to the use of evidence in policymaking. However, lessons learnt from programmes such as BCURE show that individual-focused, one-off capacity building interventions rarely lead to sustainable change in the use of evidence by policymakers. Combining longer-term interventions at organisational and individual levels based on thorough needs assessments is more likely to lead to impact at the policy level, translating into better development outcomes for those living in poverty. 2.Political economy: There is a growing body of evidence demonstrating that political economy factors are at least as much of a constraint to the use of evidence by policymakers as limited capacity. As the World Development Report 2017 highlights, even if physical and administrative capacity exists, policies or programmes may still be ineffective if groups with sufficient bargaining power lack the incentive to gather or use evidence for design implementation. Alternatively, we can observe shifts towards more effective policymaking and implementation when changes are made in ‘who can participate in decision-making processes (the contestability of the policy arena), when incentives to pursue certain goals are transformed, and when actors' preferences and believes shift’. DFID is committed to working in politically smart ways, and our governance strategy aims to promote openness and transparency in public institutions, as well as creating a more prosperous, safe and peaceful world through supporting the establishment of accountable, capable and legitimate states. 3.Programme entry points: Choosing appropriate countries, sectors, organisations and stakeholders to work with at the outset is crucial for sustainable impact in the promotion of evidence use. Lessons from BCURE and other interventions suggest that evidence can best inform policy when certain minimum capacities, institutions and incentives are in place. 4.Timeliness and windows of opportunities: Often, evidence is not available when policymakers need to take decisions. The rapid decision making that may be required by political calendars is often incompatible with in-depth processes where recommendations may take several months or years to produce. This means that windows of opportunity to influence policy may often be missed by specific evidence products, and by the time results are available the evidence may have lost much of its relevance to current policy issues. 5.Limited coordination between various projects and stakeholders: Understanding and incorporating partner government, DFID country office, and other donors' priorities in relevant sectors is important for centrally managed DFID programmes in order to work effectively with and add value to existing bilateral programmes. Previous experience has shown that value can be added to the DFID country office portfolio through expertise in evidence-informed policymaking, whilst ensuring a firm understanding of the local political context. At the same time, projects, systems and resources for data and evidence supply need to be in place.