This blog looks at the use of evidence in policy design and programming and the lessons learnt from the political economy analysis of evidence use in Uganda.
Extent of evidence use in Uganda
There is appreciation and use of evidence by key stakeholders who are engaged in planning and policy making. The National Planning Authority and other key stakeholders (both state and non-state) recognize the role of research and evidence use in planning and policy making. For example, within the second national development plan (NDPII), one of the key objectives was to guide data generation for evidence-based planning, accountability & decision making. The current national development plan (NDPIII) was backed by evidence from several commissioned studies, mid-term evaluation of NDPII, citizen evidence through consultations, and statistics from the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS).
Also, Parliament has a department of research services, which was created specifically to provide evidence to members of parliament to inform their debates. The parliament is expected to scrutinize activities of the executive arm of government– as such, parliamentary committees are required to make submissions based on evidence. Also, the requirement of conducting regulatory impact assessment of policy proposals contributes to evidence-based policy making. On the other hand, non-state actors such as the Civil Society Budget Advocacy Group (CSBAG) and Uganda National NGO forum use evidence for advocacy and inputting into national policy frameworks.
Based on key informant interviews with selected government and non-government stakeholders, overall, the use of evidence in planning and policy making is rated average, implying there is still room for improvement.
Insights from the political economy analysis of evidence use in Uganda
Evidence is manipulated to conceal some facts or bring out facts that support governments or individuals’ own interest. Multi-dimensional poverty measurement, for example, is resisted by government because it tends to magnify the depth and width of poverty compared to income poverty measurement.
Politics sometimes override evidence-based decisions. The parliamentary committees that are meant to scrutinise bills seldom make decisions that are not in the interest of the executive, even if the evidence before them would suggest that they do. This is because these committees are dominated by NRM MPs; any decision made must reflect the position of the party and its leadership. Even when membership of committees is balanced between NRM and opposition MPs, some of their decisions tend to be driven by personal considerations, not those of the people they represent or the evidence at hand.
Powerful agents, groups, and individuals influence governance and decision-making in formal and informal ways. Uganda presents a high-degree of institutional duality where informal rules and traditions operate hand in hand with formal legislation and institutions. Power is not only held by those who occupy public offices, but at times agents – rent seekers (such as business associations and powerful individual business personalities) – outside the formal functioning of the state, whose interests are personal, and who tend to go through the President to have their concerns listened to. Also, other platforms such as the NRM retreats at the famous National Leadership Institute (Kyankwanzi) are important for deciding policy direction. The broad agendas for each electoral term are cemented and key political pronouncements made at this retreat.
Church and trade unions have been influential power actors since the pre-independence period. Cultural and religious groups have stood out on several matters relating to land and specific rights-related legislation, such as the 2009-2015 campaign around the Marriage and Divorce Bill. Business associations such as Kampala City Traders Association (KACITA) and Uganda Manufacturers Associations (UMA) remain key actors in negotiating trade and taxation policies, both formally and informally.
International development actors (donors) influence the decision-making process and development focus in the social sectors they are interested in. Dependence on aid to finance development efforts has a bearing on the kind of policies the Government can formulate, since decisions to extend aid are paradigm-driven, whereby aid is extended to advance, or is in support of, specific policies. In many cases, aid is conditional and tied to support of social sectors. By conditioning aid to particular issues, donors determine or influence policy direction.
Lessons learnt on how to improve evidence use
- If there is demand for evidence because a problem of a policy nature has been identiffied, then uptake of generated evidence is likely to be high.
- When government ministries have clearly identified an issue of policy concern, they reach out to rreputable policy oriented research organisations to generate the needed evidence on policy implications and innovative inverntions.
- Involving the users of evidence in evidence generation processes is very critical for evidence uptake because it ensures that the right evidence is generated i.e. evidence that answers the unknown about a well identified policy issue.
- Timeliness of availing evidence matters. When evidence is generated at the time it is needed, it is highly likely to be considered in the design of interventions or setting investment priorities. For example, providing evidence on strategic investments at the time of developing the national development plan ensures that such evidence is used to inform the selected priority areas for investment over the planning period (five years).
- Framing of evidence should be well thought through. Most times, there is opposing evidence generated by other institutions; if the evidence is not well framed, no matter how credible it is, uptake may be overpowerd by the opposing messages that are well packaged. For example, in Uganda, this kind of scenario has kept the H.E the president of Uganda from approving the bill on genetically modified organisms.
- During generation of evidence, conducting key stakeholder consultations is key – it allows taking into consideration a wide array of views regarding the policy implications in terms of winners and lossers of a proposed change. Evidence is sometimes rejected simply because some critical stakeholders were never consulted at the time of generating the evidence.
- Seeking political buy-in at the stage of evidence generation is very important in deciding whether or not evidence will be used to inform or influence decisions. Highly placed political leaders have their interests and if the evidence works against them, it may be vehemently rejected.