INSTITUTIONS FOR PRO-POOR GROWTH

A DFID Research Programme Consortium

MID-TERM REVIEW

February 2009

For the Department of International Development By Neil McCulloch, Institute of Development Studies, and Candida Blaker, North

South Consultants Exchange, on behalf of Coffey International Development

This report has been prepared for the Department for International Development by Neil McCulloch supplied by the Institute of Development Studies, and Candida Blaker, Consultant supplied by North South Consultants Exchange through the Governance and Social Development Resource Centre Framework. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the view of Coffey International Development, the consortium members of GSDRC or DFID.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Glossary

A Executive Summary

B List of Recommendations

1 Introduction

2 Review of Purpose

3 Knowledge Generation

4 Communication & Policy Influencing

5 Capacity building

6 Gender

7 Partnership Management and Effectiveness

8 Links with DFID

9 Conclusions and Overall Recommendation

Annexes Annex 1: Terms of Reference for the MTR Annex 2: People consulted Annex 3: Proposed changes to Log Frame Annex 4: List of outputs Annex 5: Other documents consulted during the MTR Annex 6: Proposed changes to the Risk Assessment Annex 7: Project Scoring Annual Review

2

GLOSSARY AERC African Economic Research Consortium

APP Power and Politics in Africa DFID-funded research programme

CODESRIA Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa, Senegal

CMDT Malian Company for the Development of Fibres and Textiles

CUTS Consumer Unity and Trust Society in India

IPPG Institutions for Pro-Poor Growth Research Programme Consortium

NRI Natural Resources Institute

ODG Overseas Development Group

ODI Overseas Development Institute

PAPI DFID funded programme on Public Action for Private Investment (part of the Development Research Centre for the Future State

PPG Pro-Poor Growth

RIMISP Latin America Centre for Rural Development in Chile

RTD Rural Territorial Dynamics

SBR State Business Relations

3

A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Positives IPPG has successfully elaborated how institutions are formed, evolve and

function within a wide variety of contexts, and has provided evidence about how institutions affect economic growth and its impact on poverty.

The programme‟s “let a thousand flowers bloom” approach to commissioning research has generated a large amount of work, including more Southern led research than is common in other RPCs. It has also allowed the funding of some “out of the box” studies, some of which have generated new and valuable insights.

IPPG has taken multi-disciplinarity seriously, encouraging economists, political scientists and other disciplines to work together to answer a common set of questions.

Pro-active and intensive management by the co-directors has resulted in a consortium with a high degree of collegiality and ownership of the individual research projects.

Considerable effort has been put into capacity building of Southern researchers by supporting PhD studentships and through project-based training and mentoring of junior southern researchers.

Negatives It is difficult to draw broader intellectual and policy lessons because the

existing work explores institutions in different contexts, at different levels and units of analysis and from diverse disciplinary perspectives..

IPPG has been timid in engaging in communications and policy dialogue. The programme is now gearing up considerably in these areas.

Despite excellent overall programme management, few effective tools for monitoring and evaluating performance have been put in place so far.

Areas Requiring Action The programme needs to tighten its focus and encourage greater

methodological comparability in order to generate lessons with broader intellectual and practical applicability.

More attention needs to be given both to communicating the outputs of the programme and to integrating policy dialogue within the design of the research.

A simple set of formal monitoring and evaluation tools should be introduced.

Conclusion

The IPPG is exploring the relationship between institutions and economic growth in an innovative and genuinely cross-disciplinary way. To achieve its potential it now needs to focus its efforts on work which will allow it to

4

draw broader lessons for theory and policy, and to engage more systematically in communicating these to a wide range of stakeholders.

5

B LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations for IPPG Purpose B.1 Design and implement baseline measures which will enable the

measurement of whether the Purpose has been achieved at the end of the programme.

B.2 Ensure that future research is designed to be able to draw generalisable lessons across studies and provide researchers with incentives to maximise coherence and comparability.

B.3 Facilitate and provide incentives for the engagement of researchers in communications and policy influencing activities.

Knowledge Generation B.4 Professor Hare should be encouraged to discuss soon how to ensure

methodological and conceptual overlaps with other elements of the IPPG programme, notably the work on SBR and Rural Territorial Dynamics. In addition, it will be important for the researchers in this cluster to become familiar with the work being undertaken on the political economy of investment outside the IPPG programme. Consideration could be given to choosing common sectors (rather than just export/import sectors) across countries, or other mechanisms to maximise the value of cross-country comparisons in this work.

B.5 The potential of a cluster of work on hybrid (informal/formal) institutions is high. Moreover, since it is still at the design phase, it provides an opportunity for the programme to draw lessons both from previous work in the IPPG and from work on informal institutions elsewhere. It is recommended that IPPG convene a workshop of key thinkers in this area as quickly as possible in order to finalise the design of this cluster.

B.6 Encourage methodological consistency between the various pieces of research funded by facilitating researchers from different clusters to learn from one another (e.g. through methodology workshops, or asking researchers to comment on each other‟s work across clusters).

B.7 Think about how to draw useful comparative lessons either by exploring the same institution in multiple contexts, or the same sectors across countries, or the examining of different institutions fulfilling the same economic functions.

B.8 Start on the production of a set of guidance notes, tool for dialogues and methods for institutional change to support pro-poor growth as a way of identifying more concretely the kinds of questions which the current research must answer in order to provide useful tools to policymakers.

6

Communications B.9 Refine the Communications strategy and operational plans, and devote

sufficient resources to ensure that they are implemented in practice. B.10 Develop clearer guidance to research clusters about expectations

relating to communications activities, as well as about the need to carry out baseline studies and to agree indicators of success.

B.11 Consider developing the SBR-India Policy Reference Group model for the IPPG research clusters, inviting participation also from governance and economics advisers in donor agencies and key line ministries so that they are more aware of the ongoing research.

B.12 Maximise opportunities for building understanding of and capacity in communications among southern researchers through workshops, and south-south linking.

B.13 Explore options for piggy-backing on ongoing processes of policy dialogue in each country context to disseminate research results.

B.14 Develop a plan for the dissemination and communication of the “big messages” from the IPPG research programme to broader international audiences.

B.15 Evaluate how the IPPG could benefit from DFID‟s increased emphasis on learning about policy impact.

Capacity Building B.16 Place greater effort on constructing “learning platforms” involving a

broader range of stakeholders and potential users of the research. B.17 Explore the possibility of undertaking capacity building in communications

in the southern regions, with active input from RIMISP and CUTS to promote south-south learning.

Gender B.18 Ask consortium partners to explicitly consider the gender aspects of their

work. There may be useful angles or information which could easily be incorporated if the issue was given some thought.

B.19 Ask RIMISP to share their experience of targeted work with women in the Institutions and Rural Territorial Dynamics programme with the rest of the consortium.

B.20 The programme management should also be conscious of male/female composition of cluster leaders and researchers and record gender related data in its monitoring and evaluation efforts.

B.21 Use experience within the consortium partner institutions to gather appropriate gender-relevant research questions – especially for the new Informal Institutions cluster.

Partnership Management and Effectiveness B.22 The co-directors should consider a significant simplification of the

consortium consistent with the need to create a clear and coherent set of

7

intellectual outputs from the programme. Such a structure should also be appropriate for any possible extension of the programme.

B.23 A simple set of formal monitoring and evaluation tools should be introduced to track progress against both Purpose and Outputs.

Links with DFID B.24 IPPG‟s management should be more pro-active in identifying opportunities

for policy dialogue and influence and not rely on local DFID offices to provide a point of entry.

B.25 IPPG should systematically contact other related programmes, ensure that relevant literature is disseminated to members of the IPPG RPC and, where appropriate, participate in or organise joint workshops or seminars.

Recommendations for Actions by DFID B.26 Consider how DFID could ensure appropriate and timely communications

support to the IPPG which assists in capacity development and learning from others.

B.27 Review DFID‟s mechanisms for alerting relevant country offices to the particular research being undertaken by IPPG, through Policy and Research Division for example, and agree guidelines for contact between IPPG researchers and DFID advisers.

B.28 DFID should clarify in writing their preferences with regard to the North-South budget split. This should allow more resources to be spent on Northern researchers within the broad desire to ensure significant Southern funding. It should also permit an increase in the resources allocated to the directors to enable them to devote time to synthesising the key messages coming out of the research programme.

B.29 DFID should take into account the significant cost which they impose upon RPCs through constant changes in the staff responsible for programmes and attempt to institute mechanisms for ensuring greater continuity of management.

B.30 DFID should consider how the IPPG relates to its increased emphasis on learning about policy influence and include the IPPG within its programme of monitoring communications strategies to ensure effective support, particularly during the final two years of the current programme.

B.31 DFID should facilitate further cross-RPC learning through its Communications Corner and occasional events.

B.32 DFID should encourage the Directors of the International Growth Centre to consider carefully the implications of the IPPG‟s work for their programme, and help to facilitate exchanges between the key staff involved.

8

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Institutions for Pro-Poor Growth (IPPG) is a DFID-funded Research

Programme Consortium. It was launched in September 2005, and was allocated £2.5million until September 2010. DFID have requested that this Mid-Term Review (MTR) be undertaken. The objective of the MTR is to measure and report on performance to date and to indicate adjustments that may need to be made to ensure the success of the research programme. The ToR for the MTR is in Annex 1.

1.2 According to the IPPG website, the inspiration for the RPC “comes from

two sources; the first is the recognition that „institutions‟ – meaning relatively stable social arrangements and the formal roles, laws and conventions, and informal norms that are associated with them – exercise an enormously important influence upon patterns and rates of economic development and change. The second is the concern that while it is by now clear that economic growth is a necessary condition for the sustainable reduction of poverty; it is not a sufficient condition for such reduction to take place. Consequently, if the objectives that are reflected in the Millennium Development Goals are to be accomplished, it is necessary to think of ways whereby growth can be made distinctly pro-poor.”

1.3 The founding proposition of the IPPG Programme is that the interactions of economic, political, social and cultural institutions constitute a matrix that may either enhance or constrain pro-poor growth. The task of the Programme is then to identify historically and comparatively those institutional sets and contexts that enhance pro-poor growth, and – recognising that the history of the evolution of institutions in any society reflects the changing bargaining power of different social groups – to show how such patterns of institutional interaction change or may be helped to change. A further aim is to identify the conditions under which coalitions of stakeholders may be encouraged to adapt, adopt, negotiate and change institutional matrices that will be conducive to pro-poor growth.

1.4 The original RPC bid was won by a consortium led by London School of Economics under the Directorship of Professor John Harris. Shortly after winning the bid and starting the programme, Professor Harris moved to Vancouver and was unable to continue as Director of the Programme. Directorship was therefore transferred jointly to Dr. Kunal Sen at the University of Manchester and Dr. Adrian Leftwich at the University of York, both of whom were senior members of the original consortium. The contract for the RPC was also transferred from LSE to the University of Manchester. There were considerable administrative delays associated with the process of moving the contract with the result that the contract with the University of Manchester was only signed in October 2006. Thus,

9

although this MTR reviews work from the beginning of the programme, it is important to note that only the work undertaken in the last two years has been undertaken under the current programme management.

1.5 IPPG is a large consortium involving from the UK: University of Manchester, University of York, Overseas Development Institute, Natural Resources Institute, Heriot-Watt University, and the Overseas Development Group, as well as the African Economic Research Consortium, the Consumer Unity and Trust Society in India, and the Latin America Centre for Rural Development (RIMISP) in Chile.

1.6 From its outset the programme has adopted an unusually “bottom-up” approach to commissioning research. After an initial set of country case studies, the IPPG used its Southern partner networks to advertise requests for research proposals from their networks of researchers and research institutions. The second phase followed a similar process although with tighter selection criteria resulting in the funding of a further 8 Southern implemented research projects.

1.7 As a result of this process, it is difficult to group work in the initial 2-3 years of the programme into a set of clear themes, since the work funded depended on how individual researchers decided to interpret and explore the core themes of the RPC. To try and encourage greater opportunities for comparison and learning, the current phase of IPPG proposal funding has been grouped into four themes or clusters:

a) state-business relations b) rural territorial dynamics c) industrial growth d) informal institutions

However, since work under these clusters has just begun, this review will evaluate the knowledge generated in the first three years under a broader range of categories reflecting the great variety of work undertaken.

1.8 This review examines the knowledge generated by the programme to date

as well as IPPG‟s communication and policy influencing strategies and its approach to capacity building. In addition we explore the incorporation of gender issues in the programme, and the effectiveness with which consortium partnership has been managed and an evaluation of the programme‟s monitoring and evaluation framework. The Links with DFID are examined next. We conclude with an assessment of the programme‟s value for money, proposed revisions to the risk assessment framework and suggestions for potential changes in the logframe.

1.9 The opinions of the reviewers are based on interviews with researchers in the consortium, both North and South, reading the IPPG‟s publications and project documents, as well as discussions with DFID, both in London

10

and feedback from staff in the Malawi country office, as well as members of the Advisory Board. The full list of interviewees is shown in Annex 2.

2 REVIEW OF PURPOSE 2.1 The Purpose of the IPPG programme included in the Logframe is that:

“Policy-makers in developing countries, donors and civil society organisations, recognise and value the scope for the creation and adaptation of institutions, as a means for and by which economic growth can benefit poor men and women.”

2.2 This is an important and relevant purpose. Achieving this purpose requires

three things. Firstly, it requires research that provides a clear conception of what is meant by institutions and what kinds of useful lessons can be learned about how different kinds or types of institutions affect pro-poor growth. Second, such a clear view requires a combination of both economic and political analysis – indeed the promise of applying political analysis to institutional issues is one of the main potentials of the IPPG. Finally it requires significant effort by the IPPG to communicate findings to policymakers so that they “recognise and value” the key insights from the programme. In other words, fulfilling the purpose requires both a coherent intellectual output and also an effort to translate this into increased awareness by policymakers of the role of institutions in driving pro-poor growth.

2.3 The achievement of the purpose is supposed to be measured by: greater

articulation of the role of institutions in promoting pro-poor growth in national poverty reduction strategies; a higher profile for institutional issues in the agendas of regional bodies; greater demand for the outputs of the programme from policymakers and efforts by them to sustain the learning platforms created; donors placing the debate on institutions on the wider development agenda; and stakeholders more broadly show increased understanding of institutional issues. These Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVIs) were revised in the September 2008 Annual Report to simply indicate that IPPG research findings are cited in at least one important policy document in each region that the programme is working in.

2.4 To date, we are unaware of any baseline studies that have been

conducted for any of the objectively verifiable indicators which might allow the programme to evaluate whether it has fulfilled its purpose or not. It would be advisable for the programme to devote more effort to conducting the necessary baseline analysis now so that it is in a position to determine

11

whether it has successfully enabled policymakers to recognise and value the role of institutions in pro-poor growth by the programme end.

2.5 The programme has, however, recently increased its focus on

communications and policy influencing (see below) and continues to encourage all research projects to interact with local stakeholders and policy groups to try and increase the chances that policymakers will recognise and value the role of institutions in pro-poor growth. It is therefore reasonably likely that the programme will achieve its stated purpose by the end of the programme (we would score the likelihood of achieving the outputs as 2 using the scoring system provided, and the likelihood of achieving the purpose as 2).

2.6 Achievement of the purpose of the programme, however, depends upon

two challenges: 1. The production of a coherent set of intellectual results from the

research programme which provide genuinely new, generalisable and policy relevant insights about the relationship between institutions and pro-poor growth.

2. The rapid expansion of the programme‟s communication and policy influencing work to build the necessary relationships and contacts that might allow the research results to influence the thinking of policymakers in the selected countries as well as other international audiences.

2.7 These challenges are beginning to be addressed. The intellectual

challenge is discussed in more detail in the section on Knowledge Generation, whilst the Communication and Policy Influencing section discusses progress to date and possible ways forward for the second challenge.

2.8 The principle risk facing the programme is the possibility that the

programme will fail to deliver a coherent intellectual message which can be incorporated into policy related communications. Ensuring that the many parts of the programme provide a clear intellectual output greater than the sum of the parts should be the central concern of the programme management for the next two years.

2.9 Addressing both the intellectual and communication challenges will require

changes in the incentives faced by the individual researchers and consortium members. Understandably, incentives are currently focused on delivery of individual pieces of research to the required quality. Experience has shown that this focus on quality control is essential. However, the directors should also provide researchers with mechanisms and incentives to ensure that the resulting pieces of work from different countries can be compared and useful general and comparative lessons can be drawn.

12

Similarly, some of the researchers within the consortium would benefit from greater knowledge of how to engage in communications and outreach activities. The directors may wish to address this both by facilitating training and mutual learning and by providing incentives for participation. If these challenges are successfully addressed there is a good chance that the programme will continue to have significant influence beyond its current projected end date.

2.10 Implementing these changes will be facilitated by some minor changes in the Logframe to ensure that performance is measured appropriately. Suggested changes to the Logframe are shown in italics in Annex 3.

Recommendations for IPPG 2.11 Design and implement baseline measures which will enable the

measurement of whether the Purpose has been achieved at the end of the programme.

2.12 Ensure that future research is designed to be able to draw generalisable lessons across studies and provide researchers with incentives to maximise coherence and comparability.

2.13 Facilitate and provide incentives for the engagement of researchers in communications and policy influencing activities.

3 KNOWLEDGE GENERATION 3.1 The first planned output of the IPPG is the generation of high quality,

policy relevant new knowledge on: i) how institutions are formed, evolve and function within particular social, economic and political contexts and ii) how institutions affect both economic growth, its distribution and impacts on poverty.

3.2 The IPPG has made significant progress towards this end. To date it has

produced:

22 Discussion papers

20 Briefing papers

7 Conference papers

7 Public lectures by leading thinkers on institutions

A bulletin in Spanish based on work by IPPG and a collection of papers on State Business Relations

Annex 4 shows a full list of all the knowledge outputs which have been generated to date.

3.3 The production of knowledge by IPPG can be understood by breaking the

process down into four phases:

13

i. Initial conceptual papers and country case studies ii. First phase commissioned papers iii. Second phase commissioned papers iv. Current research clusters

3.4 As noted above, significant difficulties were experienced in the first year of

the project in ensuring the quality of the research produced during the first phase of the programme. These problems stemmed primarily from the change in the management contract for the programme at an early stage. As a result, the first wave of research was heavily delayed. In addition, commitments made by LSE to consortium partners in the form of research proposal preparation grants, along with the extended delay, resulted in the new co-directors commissioning research from the partners that had received these grants.

3.5 Notwithstanding this, the initial set of conceptual papers produced in mid

2006 by the senior Northern researchers in the consortium provided valuable insights into what we mean by institutions, as well as how one might go about studying institutions, both through a historical institutionalist approach, as well as quantitatively through econometric analysis. The quality of this initial batch of papers is generally high and they proved important in motivating the analysis of institutions for pro-poor growth and laying out some approaches for doing so.

3.6 In addition to the conceptual papers, there were four initial country case

studies in Bangladesh, Tanzania, Mali and Bolivia. The original idea for these studies was that they would 'scope' the field in those countries and provide macro institutional stories from which more fine-grained studies could be quarried. However in practice they varied greatly in their quality and did not produce many new insights.

3.7 This initial phase of work was followed by the first phase of commissioned

work in October 2007. This included work in two main areas: state-business relations and institutional architecture. The state-business relations theme included work on:

the politics of state-business interactions in Malawi

state-business relations and firm performance in Zambia

institutional aspects of manufacturing sector growth in West Bengal.

The institutional architecture theme included work on:

the local government engineering department and its role in the growth of the rural non-farm sector in Bangladesh

Comparative property rights, transaction costs and co-operation in two rural communities in Bolivia

The institutional aspects of small-scale potato marketing in Peru.

14

These papers were presented in a workshop in May 2007. In addition work was also commissioned to explore the influence of specific organisations (Office du Niger, CMDT, microfinance institutions, and institutions in one village) in Mali and Niger. Work was also commissioned on land reform in Malawi which has recently completed.

3.8 Unfortunately the quality of the first phase of commissioned papers was

variable and, in some cases, poor. Another problem was the enormous variety of types of institutions and approaches used to study them as the wide range of topics and institutions listed above indicates. This diversity reflects the exploratory nature of the initial studies which is to be welcomed in early stages of research, and each of the studies tackled interesting issues and provided useful, context specific insights into the role of institutions. However, precisely because they covered different issues, and different institutions in different contexts with different methods, the process of comparing and synthesising the results is made more difficult.

3.9 The variable quality of the outputs from the first phase of commissioned

research resulted in the management of the IPPG instituting a much more rigorous process of centralised quality control in 2007. As a result only 8 of the 38 proposals submitted to the second call for proposals in July 2007 were accepted. These 8 proposals were on:

i. Farmer organisations and institutional change in Mali ii. A comparison of the institutional explanations of the different

historical performance of Bolivia and New Zealand iii. Institutions and morality iv. Legislative democracy and Pro-Poor Growth v. Formal-informal institutional linkages in the Nigerian agribusiness

sector and the implications for PPG vi. The politics and economics of the Indian Forest Rights Act vii. Access to public infrastructure, governance and PPG in Rural

Peru viii. Delegation, contracts and enforcement in post-reform India - an

institutional approach These projects are still completing and so material from all the projects was not available to the reviewers, however, most of the material reviewed appears to be of reasonably high quality.

3.10 Although, the approach of selecting proposals submitted by partners

through the network partners resulted in some interesting and useful research in both of the first three phases of the programme, it was felt that the variety of topics and approaches did not allow for sufficient comparability across studies. The co-directors, along with the core consortium members, have therefore defined 4 themes or clusters under which the current phase of work will be undertaken, namely:

15

state-business relations

rural territorial dynamics

industrial growth

informal institutions We briefly discuss existing and the proposed work in each of these clusters.

State-Business Relations 3.11 Perhaps the single most coherent body of work to be undertaken so far by

the IPPG is on State-Business Relations. SBR has formed an important part of the work of the programme from the outset. An initial conceptual paper laid out the way in which SBR might be measured and analysed quantitatively – something which has not been attempted before. This was followed by an innovative cross-country study of SBR in Africa, showing the importance of SBR for macroeconomic performance, as well as a micro-level study of SBR in Zambia showing the importance of this variable on performance and productivity.

3.12 Some work on SBR was also conducted in Bangladesh using an

institutionalist, rather than an econometric approach. The current phase of work combines economists and political scientists in case-studies of three states in India. In addition, a macro-level index of SBR will be constructed for 15 major Indian states over 1970-2005, mirroring the approach taken in Sub-Saharan Africa. There will also be a new set of 5 case studies undertaken in South Africa, Mauritius, Zambia and Ghana.

3.13 By adopting a common approach to data gathering and analysis and a

reasonably tightly-defined interpretation of SBR, this work has managed to generate interesting analytical results which may be of much broader application. There may be value in other components of the IPPG research programme adopting a similar approach.

Rural Territorial Dynamics (RTD) 3.14 “Territorial dynamics” refers to the process whereby some regions and

sub-regions achieve high economic growth and poverty reduction, whilst others do not. The IPPG component of this work is in fact a small addition to a large programme of work already being implemented by RIMISP using funds from another donor. The broader programme of work is engaging in 23 regions in 10 South and Central American countries to explore:

socioeconomic agents and their interactions in distributional coalitions

the institutions that are promoted by such coalitions

how those institutions affects the distribution, use and productivity of assets; and

16

how those effects in turn determine economic growth, its impact on the environment and its distributional effects.

3.15 The IPPG programme is adding funding to enable a focus on the

institutional determinants of different performance in two regions of Ecuador. Given the relatively modest resources available for work in Latin America, the IPPG should be complemented for opportunistically encouraging RIMISP to explore an institutional angle in their much larger programme of work on local level growth.

3.16 However, although the institutional basis of localised growth would appear

to be central to the IPPG‟s mandate, it is, at first sight, rather hard to see the conceptual and methodological links between the work proposed under the Rural Territorial Dynamics programme and the rest of the IPPG‟s work programme. The rural territorial dynamics programme is a comprehensive action research programme involving small-area estimation to select regions, and a barrage of economic, sociological, anthropological and political tools to provide a rich analysis of the determinants of economic performance.

3.17 It may be useful for other members of the IPPG network to become more familiar with the approach being used by the rural territorial dynamics team since some elements may be valuable for other components of IPPG‟s work. So far there appears to have been relatively little cross-fertilisation either of concepts or methodologies between the territorial dynamics work and the rest of the IPPG programme. However, precisely to address this, the next Lead Group meeting in September 2009 will be held in Quito in conjunction with a workshop of the RTD cluster to enable other core IPPG researchers to learn about the key findings of the RTD research.

Industrial Growth 3.18 The work on industrial growth is a new theme which has only just started

work. It is proposed to consist of studies on the political economy of investment in two sectors in Ghana and, probably, Tanzania. An important export-oriented and a significant import-substituting sector will be chosen in each country with the aim to compare the political economy of investment in export-oriented/import-substituting industries across the two countries. The industries chosen for study in Ghana are likely to be the wood processing sector and possibly the food processing sector. The industries in Tanzania have not been chosen yet and may be different. The work is being done by Professor Paul Hare in Heriot-Watt University and a Ghanaian Research Assistant based in the same institution.

3.19 Understanding the political economy of investment is an important topic.

However, it is not immediately obvious how this cluster links to the other work of IPPG. To maximise its value, it will be important to draw from the

17

SBR work already undertaken and the case-study on Ghana in the current SBR cluster. In particular, it will be important to learn from the separate DFID-funded research programme on Public Action for Private Investment which looks at the political economic of investment in a number of countries. The co-directors of IPPG are attempting to make this connection and will be attending the PAPI workshop in April.

3.20 Given the strong reputation of the lead researcher for work on

understanding the institutional determinants of economic growth in Eastern Europe, it is likely that the resulting work will be of high quality. But at the moment this project looks and feels like a standalone project somewhat unrelated to the other work being undertaken by IPPG.

Informal Institutions 3.21 The fourth new research cluster is on informal institutions and hybrid

institutions which cover the interface between informal and formal institutions. This work will be led by Dr. Steve Wiggins at ODI. This cluster builds on the idea that informal institutions are sometimes very important in fulfilling certain economic functions and determining economic performance, particularly, for example, for small-holder agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. There is great interest and enthusiasm for this new cluster. In designing this work IPPG is planning not only to commission work on the topic but also to organise inter-consortia conferences to deepen conceptual understanding and develop methodologies for analysing informal institutions and their interactions with formal ones.

3.22 The initial design note suggests that this work will focus on the role of mobile phones in changing the way in which business is done in two agricultural supply chains in two African countries. This is innovative and interesting, but it will be important to ensure that the insights from this work are complementary to IPPG‟s attempts to draw broader lessons across all of its projects.

Comments on the Approach to Knowledge Generation and Lessons Learned 3.23 The stated objective of the programme is to “generate a coherent body of

policy relevant analysis and new knowledge on how institutions are formed, evolve and function within particular social, economic and political contexts: and how institutions affect both economic growth, its distribution and impacts on poverty.” Given this, what is the relevance, sufficiency and scientific rigour of knowledge outputs generated during the first three years of IPPG‟s work?

3.24 In general, the programme has generated a large quantity of work on

institutions, broadly defined, most of which has met a reasonably high standard of scientific rigor. Moreover, the work of the programme has exhibited two important strengths.

18

1. First, by encouraging a plurality of approaches to institutional issues, it has enabled the production of some remarkably imaginative new work. A more narrowly drawn RPC would never have produced comparisons of the institutional development of New Zealand and Bolivia, or perspectives on the links between institutions and morality. Research is a process of exploration and by encouraging such exploration the programme has found a few gems.

2. Second, it has taken multi-disciplinarity seriously. Many programmes talk about multi-disciplinarity, relatively few force economists, political scientists and other disciplines to work together to answer a common set of questions. This was one of the key strengths of the IPPG bid and the programme has been faithful to this.

3.25 There are two broad conclusions that appear to be emerging from the body of work that has been done so far: 1. Institutions are important – in the sense that well functioning

institutions do have an impact on performance in the relevant sphere; and

2. Understanding the political basis for the construction and maintenance of institutions is key i.e. that economic approaches alone are not likely to give us sufficient understanding of the reasons for success or failure.

In addition, the research has generated myriad specific conclusions about how and why institutions matter in different contexts.

3.26 However, going forward, it will be important that the programme shows

how it is moving the intellectual agenda beyond traditional Northian concepts of institutions as the “norms and rules of the game”. Currently it is hard to draw clear lessons about which functions performed by institutions are most critical for promoting growth (or most often inhibit it). Nor do we have a clear picture for why certain institutions fail to provide key functions, whilst others succeed. Although some excellent research has been done, there is a need for greater coherence across the many different pieces of work.

3.27 To some extent this lack of coherence is a result of the “let a thousand

flowers bloom” approach to commissioning research. The IPPG from an early stage decided to invite proposals from Southern researchers, rather than prescribe a set of research projects. As noted above, this pluralism is a strength in so far as it has allowed an almost Darwinian exploration of different species of institutions and the contexts in which they evolve. It has also enabled far more Southern-led research than is common in other RPCs and has helped to ensure a genuine sense of ownership of the work by consortium members which has helped to maintain the collegiality of the consortium.

19

3.28 Nonetheless, one of the key challenges for the next two years will be to draw out from the large body of work already produced the key lessons, ideas and approaches which are likely to be most valuable, both intellectually and practically. The existing work explores institutions in different contexts, at different levels of analysis, in different units of analysis and from diverse disciplinary perspectives. Identifying the key lessons may require a narrowing of the range of institutions covered and a tightening of the methodological approaches across different pieces of work. Of course, with such a wide range of disciplines actively engaged in the research projects it clearly makes no sense to try and impose a common methodology. But there may be opportunities to encourage greater methodological consistency between researchers from the same discipline working on similar contexts in different countries.

3.29 The co-directors and core consortium members recognise the need for

and have already made some efforts to do this, notably through teaching workshops in Africa and Asia and the recent move to a set of clusters may also help to create greater synergies between the different pieces of research. This is the right direction since pulling all this work together into a coherent story about what we have learned about the relationship between institutions and pro-poor economic growth is the central challenge for the IPPG‟s management for the remaining two years of the programme.

Recommendations for IPPG 3.30 Professor Hare should be encouraged to discuss soon how to ensure

methodological and conceptual overlaps with other elements of the IPPG programme, notably the work on SBR and Rural Territorial Dynamics. In addition, it will be important for the researchers in this cluster to become familiar with the work being undertaken on the political economy of investment outside the IPPG programme. Consideration could be given to choosing common sectors (rather than just export/import sectors) across countries, or other mechanisms to maximise the value of cross-country comparisons in this work.

3.31 The potential of a cluster of work on hybrid (informal/formal) institutions is high. Moreover, since it is still at the design phase, it provides an opportunity for the programme to draw lessons both from previous work in the IPPG and from work on informal institutions elsewhere. It is recommended that IPPG convene a workshop of key thinkers in this area as quickly as possible in order to finalise the design of this cluster.

3.32 Encourage methodological consistency between the various pieces of

research funded by facilitating researchers from different clusters to learn

20

from one another (e.g. through methodology workshops, or asking researchers to comment on each other‟s work across clusters).

3.33 Think about how to draw useful comparative lessons either by exploring the same institution in multiple contexts, or the same sectors across countries, or the examining of different institutions fulfilling the same economic functions.

3.34 Start on the production of a set of guidance notes, tool for dialogues and methods for institutional change to support pro-poor growth as a way of identifying more concretely the kinds of questions which the current research must answer in order to provide useful tools to policymakers.

4 COMMUNICATIONS AND POLICY INFLUENCING

Communications Strategy and Operational Plans 4.1 The IPPG Strategy paper on Communications and Influencing clearly

integrates all aspects of communications into the research process from the outset. It incorporates elements of knowledge, capacity and dissemination, which are all necessary for effective influence of policy and practice, although it is somewhat weaker in its identification of a broad range of stakeholders, and alliance-building with other sectors, including domestic and international NGOs as well as the business community.

4.2 According to the DFID Communications Advisor and the initial DFID desk

officer, the original Strategy was considered to be a „good document‟. Indeed, it was one of the first RPC Communications strategies to be produced after DFID had introduced its Communications Guidance and its stipulation for a 10% allocation of funds to Communications.

4.3 However, the IPPG consortium members championing the

communications strategy moved on, and the IPPG Directorate changed, and they remain the only RPC without a dedicated Communications officer.

4.4 The two Communications Operational Plans contain only sketchy

information on achievements or outcomes of the proposed actions. 4.5 Nevertheless, a number of communications and policy outcomes have

been achieved, and more has been undertaken than has been reflected in annual reports (see below). Communications outputs have been weighted towards the production of research papers, and on the use of the website as an information-dissemination tool. There has been little information

21

about the programme as a whole and its achievements so far, and policy dialogue has hitherto been timid and localised.

4.6 IPPG have recently contracted a Communications Consultant to provide

strategic input on their communications action plan, and to advise and inform staff on the way forward. She is initially working on some aspects of the work in Africa, and tools for better dissemination of information. She will also address incorporation of communications and policy influencing dimensions within the programme.

4.7 Nonetheless, it is clear that communications and policy influencing has not

been an area of major focus in the first three years of the programme Indeed, the Advisory Group in May 2007 recommended not engaging in communicating to governmental agencies and international organisations such as the World Bank at that stage. In large part this reflects the need to have a much clearer set of messages coming out of the overall research programme, as outlined above. However, it also indicates that communications and policy influence has until recently been regarded by the programme management as an “end of pipe” process of dissemination, rather than an ongoing process of relationship building and dialogue. However, the IPPG consortium has shifted their perception and has begun the process of greater engagement in policy dialogue

4.8 There is ample scope for substantial development in the area of

communications and policy influence. A number of the consortium partners have particular skills in local communications and policy advocacy – their expertise could be shared more widely around the programme if they are willing to engage. And the Communications Specialist is already identifying a number of areas where researchers can be more effective in communicating their results and influencing the policy agenda. More generally it will be important for the programme to help to demystify the communications process for researchers that have less experience in this area and to take simple, practical steps to facilitate better communication of intent as well as results and greater interaction with stakeholders who might use the findings.

Achievement of Outputs a) Dynamic and Active Websites Within Network Organisations 4.9 The IPPG directorate encouraged consortium partners to make links and

create web pages on the IPPG. Several do have pages dedicated to the IPPG, although the programme is not obviously signposted on any Home Page.

22

4.10 The IPPG pages on the CUTS website are the most extensive and dynamic - announcing „pre-call applications for research projects 2008‟; and providing information about the project. The activities, however, are those planned rather than realised, and Research in Progress‟ opens the IPPG overall update document. There is also a recent Summary of Research about the SBR in India.

4.11 RIMISP has a dedicated page for IPPG, with information on the project,

and documents produced, as well as a link to a recent Seminar on Rural Land Territory Policies.

4.12 The AERC does not have a dedicated webpage, but a search for I.P.P.G.

reveals several entries including a number of documents produced by African researchers, and relevant seminars in Africa. None of the network partners signpost to the IPPG in their „links‟ pages.

4.13 Web links to the IPPG from other northern consortium partner sites are

weak. Manchester University links both to the IPPG co-director and to the partner research networks, as does York. IPPG is not accessible from the websites of Heriot Watt, NRI or from the ODI Home pages and, although a search for I.P.P.G throws up a number of documents, it does not yield any IPPG-branded papers. At ODI, documents include briefing papers on Pro Poor Growth written by researchers close to the IPPG consortium which nevertheless make no mention of IPPG as an RPC

4.14 Although individual institutions will inevitably prioritise themselves over

others/ their partners in their PR, there is nevertheless scope for additional branding and signposting of the IPPG, which could be addressed in the next phase.

b) Programme Website is Used by a Range of Stakeholders 4.15 A dedicated IPPG website was created in late 2005. This site contains

information on all the research papers. There are short descriptions and links to Consortium partner organisations via the partners page (not on the Home page). All information is in English, though Spanish and French versions of the Latin American and West African papers will be added.

4.16 The IPPG site is passive - there is no blog or feedback facility. There used

to be a „consortium members‟ area, but it was not used at all. The ODI has established a site (www.internationalgrowth.net) for SBR researchers to exchange opinions, experience and documents, but contributions are patchy and infrequent.

4.17 Search ratings are good - when „Institutions for Pro Poor Growth‟ is

entered into Google this project now appears 1st. Links to related research

23

projects, and to other organisations are good, although it is not obvious how to navigate to them, and inward links from them to IPPG are similarly not evident.

4.18 IPPG keeps data on the number and duration of website hits, whether

visitors are returning or unique, and numbers of page loads but not on which documents are downloaded. During 2008 the site received around 450 page loads per month, of which around 250 were unique visitors. More than two-thirds of site visits were for less than 5 seconds, but almost a fifth were for longer than an hour.

4.19 The IPPG is currently considering a number of changes to the website so

that it becomes a tool not only for dissemination but also for dialogue, and better reflects the Southern partners‟ voice and experience. They plan to review other RPC websites with a view to incorporating their „best‟ elements. The navigation structure will be improved to make it easier to use (3-click philosophy) and more obvious what the main areas of research are. A number of key messages are also being worked on for the home page to make it a one-stop shop to find out what the IPPG is and what it does. There are also plans to add Spanish and French versions of papers for Latin American and West African research respectively; films and videos of seminars (such as the World Bank seminar in Malawi which was recorded); and making the website more friendly to users on low bandwidths.

c) National and Regional Discussion Fora and Workshops Attract a

Range of Stakeholders 4.20 IPPG researchers have had a presence in a number of national and

regional events whose audiences include policy-makers as well as academics. These include:

Panel on State Business Relations in Africa in the Annual Bank Conference on Development Economics 2007 in Slovenia. This was organised by Dr te Velde (ODI) and was well attended by policy makers working on private sector development.

Invitation to present research findings of the State Business Relations projects to the Africa Task Force, convened by the Nobel Laureate, Prof Joseph Stiglits. This Task Force includes key policy makers from Africa and senior World Bank, IMF, and UN staff, along with leading academics working on Africa.

The work undertaken on the Office du Niger in Mali in the Inception Phase by Dr Isaie Dougnon and team (and disseminated in a workshop in Bamako) was circulated among policy-makers and development agencies in Mali.

24

ODI-IPPG launched a booklet, „The Economics and Politics of State-Business Relations in Africa: Preliminary Findings‟ in May 2008. This was attended by DFID staff and other members of the policy community, along with academics and research students and led to several invitations to members of the IPPG consortium to speak on state business relations in academic and policy forums.

3-partner Panel presentation on IPPG in the Annual Development Studies Association Conference, November 2008.

Policy Briefing session on the Land Reform project in Malawi organised by the World Bank office in Lilongwe, December 2008.

Dissemination and Media Work 4.21 Dissemination of the research products to-date to the academic

community would appear to have been reasonably effective. All of the briefing papers and discussion papers which have been produced are available online on the IPPG website. The SBR discussion papers were published in a collected volume and launched at the ODI. Copies are held at various centres including Danish Centre for International Studies and Human Rights and IDS. Papers have been published in books. Several public lectures have been held in conjunction with the Brooks World Poverty Institute. An IPPG-dedicated issue of RIMISP‟s Intercambios Bulletin was circulated to over 11,000 subscribers. One journal article has already been published with a number of others already in the pipeline.

4.22 The extent of broader dissemination through the media is difficult to

assess because no data is collected on this. With the exception of one recent event, we are not aware of any media coverage surrounding the research which has been produced to date. A weekly column is written by a RIMISP researcher and the introduction of the Communications consultant from October 2008 is providing greater attention to media work. For example, a Press Release was issued to mark the publication of a report on Malawi, which was discussed at a World Bank-hosted meeting in December 2008. This was aimed at African as well as international media and was picked up by www.agrifeeds.org. It is anticipated that this event may provide a useful template for the development of a programme media strategy.

4.23 In recognition of the importance of informal networks for dissemination, the

IPPG is extending its contacts database, and segmenting audiences so as to be able to differentiate targets with a range of media outputs. In addition, it is considering means to bring the research alive before the media, by better involving partners and incorporating human interest stories, as well as by re-presenting research findings in more accessible forms for non-academic audiences. Examples of this are the presentations made to the Development Studies Association conference in November 2008, and the possibility of uploading some of the Indian films onto You

25

Tube. There are also plans for the production of further local policy briefs, including in local language. The Phase I Latin American research was translated into Spanish and distributed by RIMISP, and the Indian Forest Rights research will have videos available for wider local use.

Budget Allocation 4.24 The IPPG has exceeded DFID‟s guidance that 10% of funds should be

spent on communication. Up to March 2009, 12.4% of expenditure is related to communications. This is accounted for mostly with translation services and workshops (Jaipur and State Business Relations), as well as the recent contracting of a communications consultant.

4.25 The IPPG are considering re-centralising their communications budget.

They intend to allocate about £10,000 to each research cluster for communications, and to be more demanding and prescriptive about communications expectations.

Policy Influence 4.26 The IPPG has been timid in engaging in policy dialogue. They feel that the

programme‟s initial hope for policy influence was optimistic and unrealistic. However, they now recognise that with a wider understanding of the factors surrounding policy influence, it would be beneficial and appropriate to engage in broader communications outputs and also to embed policy dialogue within the research process.

4.27 The initial country case studies probably did not have anything substantive

to say in terms of policy messages. However, there have been a number of national and regional workshops which have brought together researchers with other stakeholders, including politicians and other policymakers, to discuss research in progress. For example, the Tansania workshop in November 2006 included local policy makers and UNDP, as well as NGOs and research bodies.

4.28 There is some limited evidence of the effect of IPPG research on the

policy arena so far including:

Policy dialogue is clearly integrated into the methodology of the Institutions and Rural Territorial Dynamics programme in Latin America. The subject is now of widespread concern in the region, and, according to the Director of RIMISP, the particular contribution of this research to the debate is to clarify the concept of „institutions‟ extending beyond formal structures. The Ecuadorian Ministries of Agriculture and Social Welfare have invited a senior IPPG researcher from RIMISP to link his territorial development research to the issue of national food security. Furthermore, RIMISP claims that the enshrinement of pro-poor growth within the new

26

Ecuadorian Constitution is a successful policy outcome of their work.

CUTS has experience of policy dialogue. It has convened a 12 person strong Policy Reference Group as part of the State-Business Relations (SBR) India research cluster. This involves the former Commerce Secretary of India as well as key local bureaucrats, business association members and industrialists from three of DFID‟s priority states as well as senior academics from a variety of institutions. This will not only affect the content but also the likely policy outcome of that work.

In Africa, there have been stakeholder consultation meetings with industrialists and bureaucrats in Ghana and Mauritius in connection with the SBR Africa projects, with the intention of bringing policy-makers on board early in the process. The Sambian researchers intend to do the same. The World Bank-hosted seminar in Malawi brought together senior policymakers and researchers to discuss land reform. The Malawian researchers said they would not have been inclined to call a policy forum meeting without the World Bank – which gave them credibility and arguably made them less politically vulnerable. By facilitating the link with the World Bank, the IPPG managed to bring its research to a much broader and more senior audience. This may provide a useful model for future efforts at reaching policy audiences, particularly in Africa where the socio-political context makes integration of policy dialogue at the grassroots level more challenging.

It has not been possible to assess the level of awareness among stakeholders so far. We received feedback from DFID in Malawi, which indicates that they are familiar with and rate the research partners, who they understand have access to in-country policy-makers. However, the DFID advisor was not able to comment on the extent of their policy influence. She had recently become aware of the case studies, and knew of the recent World Bank hosted seminar, which she was unable to attend due to short notice.

Lessons Learnt 4.29 The IPPG programme has, until recently, not clearly understood the

expectations and possibilities in terms of communications. This has been due to a combination of factors including lack of timely DFID support (see Section 8.5), staff and institutional changes at the IPPG, the programme design, lack of experience, the nature of the consortium and lack of experience of southern researchers, and lack of directive incorporation of communications into the research methodology.

27

4.30 The IPPG directors had hoped that DFID would be able to help facilitate advocacy-related work in research countries. However this is an inappropriate or unrealistic expectation, and has not been forthcoming. DFID‟s communications advisor indicated that DFID lacks in-country capacity to support local research communications, and their offices tend not to be involved in the research. It is more likely that DFID country staff may engage on occasional and strategic events, which would arise out of a clearly defined communications strategy, and once policy recommendations are made clear. However, correspondence with DFID in Malawi has indicated that they may be able to help at a local level if they are involved at an early stage in the research process, when country studies are being prepared. They also suggest they are open to being informed by local researchers of the particular studies being undertaken.

4.31 The IPPG‟s concept of Communications may have been at variance with

DFID‟s. Until recently, IPPG co-directors have been thinking more of end of programme dissemination and policy recommendations than of in built dialogue which is more akin to DFID‟s understanding of communications.

4.32 The IPPG co-directors may initially have felt frustrated by DFID‟s

emphasis on communications and outreach, feeling (rightly in our view) that the priority lay in ensuring research outputs of sufficient quality and rigour, while simultaneously building capacity of Southern researchers. They have felt ill-equipped to carry out what they perceive to be a specialism and have resisted attempting to influence policy until they have what they perceive to be more substantive and definitive „messages‟ for policy-makers.

4.33 However, with a broader understanding of „communications‟ it is clear that

the IPPG has done more than it has reported back to DFID. Furthermore, with a demystification of what is „communications‟, the IPPG directorate now feels more capable and motivated to drive this area forward.

4.34 The appointment of a Communications Consultant, together with the

recent addition of Professor Leonard Wantchekon to the Advisory Board, are likely to bring things more in to line with DFID‟s optimum approach to communications. And, with only two years to run, the RPC is necessarily addressing the need for policy influencing more closely.

4.35 DFID‟s new research strategy will allocate 30% of funds to learning about

the links between research and policy impact. IPPG could learn from this as well as from the experience being accumulated under DFID‟s Research into Use programme about the various approaches to promotion of research outputs for poverty reduction and economic growth.

28

Recommendations for IPPG 4.36 Refine the Communications strategy and operational plans, and devote

sufficient resources to ensure that they are implemented in practice. 4.37 Develop clearer guidance to research clusters about expectations relating

to communications activities, as well as about the need to carry out baseline studies and to agree indicators of success.

4.38 Consider developing the SBR-India Policy Reference Group model for the other IPPG research clusters, inviting participation also from governance and economics advisers in donor agencies and key line ministries so that they are more aware of the ongoing research.

4.39 Maximise opportunities for building understanding of and capacity in communications among southern researchers through workshops, and south-south linking.

4.40 Explore options for piggy-backing on ongoing processes of policy dialogue in each country context to disseminate research results.

4.41 Develop a plan for the dissemination and communication of the “big messages” from the IPPG research programme to broader international audiences.

4.42 Evaluate how the IPPG could benefit from DFID‟s increased emphasis on learning about policy impact.

Recommendations for DFID 4.43 Consider how DFID could ensure appropriate and timely communications

support to the IPPG which assists in capacity development and learning from others.

4.44 Review DFID‟s mechanisms for alerting relevant country offices to the particular research being undertaken by IPPG, through Policy and Research Division for example, and agree guidelines for contact between IPPG researchers and DFID advisers.

5 CAPACITY BUILDING 5.1 The Logframe specifies two outputs which specifically relate to capacity

building:

Research and policy practitioners in a range of relevant disciplines, improve their ability to provide independent and high quality analytical work and policy guidance.

Learning platforms and communities of research providers and users [are] established.

29

5.2 The IPPG has taken capacity building quite seriously and has gone quite far in achieving these outputs. The main tools used to achieve these outputs have been training, mentoring, and exchange of experience.

Training 5.3 The IPPG have devoted significant resources to sponsoring PhD students.

The choice to adopt this intensive and rather expensive approach to capacity building was taken at an early stage in the programme when the management still lay with LSE. However, the current management have both fulfilled the initial obligations made, and extended the programme by supporting applications for Commonwealth PhD Scholarships.

5.4 Three PhDs are being sponsored directly by the IPPG, and a third

Commonwealth Scholarship has recently been awarded to IPPG-supported applications. Four PhD students are from African countries, and two from Asia. In addition, there is a Research Assistant from Ghana currently working in Heriot-Watt, and there was a visiting Fellow from India. All of these are based in UK universities, and none are linked to any of the Southern IPPG research partners.

5.5 The hope and expectation is that the PhD students will be able to apply their additional knowledge and expertise to further research in their countries of origin as well as sharing that knowledge with their peers. However, there is a risk that this will not happen – either they will not return, or, more likely, they may lack the wider support system and infrastructure necessary to deliver the same high quality of research in a developing country context. Nonetheless, the IPPG has been successful in creating a small cadre of well qualified junior researchers from selected developing countries familiar with the concepts and tools necessary to undertake high quality analysis of the role of institutions in pro-poor growth.

Mentoring of Southern Researchers 5.6 The IPPG pairs junior with senior researchers, with a view to increasing

the capacity of the less experienced Southern researchers. This strategy appears to have been quite successful in building the capacity of southern researchers, and a number of papers have been co-authored. For example, of the 22 published discussion papers and 20 published briefing papers 15 have been authored by northern researchers, 12 have been co-authored with southern researchers (with 8 of these first authored by southern researchers), and 15 have been sole authored by southern researchers. Co-authoring of this kind has served to embed southern perspectives into the work.

5.7 However, mentoring does require a considerable input from the senior

researcher. IPPG Co-directors also mention a certain frustration about the

30

need to invest considerable time to ensure research quality. There is a clear trade-off between experienced Northern researchers investing time in mentoring and ensuring quality control of jointly authored work, rather than spending time on their own research.

Exchange of Experience – Workshops 5.8 A number of researcher workshops took place towards the outset of the

programme, with the stated aim of building capacity as well as of gathering research proposals. In particular, the 4-5 day workshops in Dakar and Dhaka in August 2006 included a good balance of experienced and junior researchers, across disciplines, and with a balance of inputs from North and South. Several participants went on to become involved as IPPG researchers.

5.9 Some other workshops which have loosely been termed capacity building

are in fact more programme discussions of concepts and frameworks, or findings and the way forward (e.g. Nairobi Inaugural workshop September 2005, and Manchester workshop in April 2007). These are nevertheless important for information exchange and reflection.

5.10 Useful platforms have been constructed for learning across researchers

for Rural Territorial Dynamics, Forest Rights Act and the current SBR Africa and India Projects. In addition, the PhD students will develop capacity by presenting their findings to each other as well as to other interested parties in a forthcoming workshop.

5.11 Capacity building which is explicitly for communications has hitherto been

lacking, although it is currently under discussion. The RPC directors comment on the difficulty of getting the southern researchers to take on board communications aspects of the research. However, the issue may in part be due to the way of engaging and working with researchers and the degree of leverage/ importance of the programme to the network partners. The Latin American and Asian network partners have experience of communication and policy influence, so they potentially both have a useful role in redressing the lack of communications awareness or experience among researchers.

Outcomes and Lessons Learnt 5.12 The IPPG feel pleased with their emphasis on Capacity Building. The

strategy has come to emphasise the role of project-based capacity building - having junior researchers on projects wherever possible, plus the various workshops, and not just studentships.

5.13 At the same time, it seems to have been effective in developing the skills

through PhDs, on an individual basis. However, PhDs are expensive in the

31

North, and account for a fair proportion of the capacity building expenditure.

5.14 Institutional capacity building among partner networks has not been

considered appropriate or feasible given available resources. Nor is it likely it would be welcomed - CUTS and RIMISP have their own capacity building units and do not necessarily have a perceived need.

5.15 Workshops may have been useful in exchanging information and

experience, particularly the PhD workshops. However, to be effective for capacity building they would need to be part of an ongoing programme rather than one-off short events (albeit up to a week long). This would have considerable financial implications beyond the scope of this project.

5.16 Although consortium partners are networks not research institutions, and

therefore lack infrastructure to host visiting academics, it may be there are further opportunities for South-South learning and capacity building exploiting the relative strengths of the consortium‟s partners.

5.17 There is no question that the first capacity building output is being

achieved (i.e. researchers are improving their ability to provide independent and high quality analytical work and policy guidance), and useful steps have been taken to construct learning platforms and communities of research providers (the second output). Going forward it will be important to focus more on creating a community of research users drawn from a wide range of stakeholders.

Recommendations 5.18 Place greater effort on constructing “learning platforms” involving a

broader range of stakeholders and potential users of the research. 5.19 Explore the possibility of undertaking capacity building in communications

in the southern regions, with active input from RIMISP and CUTS to promote south-south learning.

32

6 GENDER 6.1 DFID has not specified any particular expectation in terms of gender,

although any findings would be of interest for wider learning and dissemination of experience.

6.2 Gender dimensions were not highlighted in the IPPG project bid, or

research framework, and there are no explicitly gender-sensitive programme outputs identified in the logframe.

6.3 All development interventions have a gender dimension. The gender

composition of institutions and the gender breakdown of „growth‟ beneficiaries are relevant research questions. Nevertheless, while the potential gender perspective of a number of thematic research clusters is acknowledged by IPPG consortia members, none have made this an explicit area of enquiry. It may be that the incipient cluster on informal institutions will do so.

6.4 RIMISP – the Chilean Partner which is leading the field research for the

Rural Territorial Dynamics research cluster - has developed a body of research and training on indigenous women and on cultural identity, which although not directly related to the IPPG programme, could be brought to bear. RIMISP‟s experience of running virtual courses, including on women and local authority leadership is an interesting model for maximising participation of women in research for development, which could be more widely applied elsewhere.

Lessons Learnt 6.5 Unless some consortia or board members have a particular concern or

interest in this area, it is unlikely that gender relations will be directly addressed within the research questions.

Recommendations 6.6 Ask consortium partners to explicitly consider the gender aspects of their

work. There may be useful angles or information which could easily be incorporated if the issue was given some thought.

6.7 The programme should ask RIMISP to share their experience of targeted

work with women in the Institutions and Rural Territorial Dynamics programme with the rest of the consortium.

6.8 The programme management should also be conscious of male/female

composition of cluster leaders and researchers and record gender related data in its monitoring and evaluation efforts.

33

6.9 Use experience within the consortium partner institutions to gather appropriate gender-relevant research questions – especially for the new Informal Institutions cluster. For example, Caroline Moser at the University of Manchester has extensive experience of researching these issues.

7 PARTNERSHIP MANAGEMENT AND EFFECTIVENESS

7.1 Overall the co-directors of the project and the group of lead consortium

members appear to have developed effective mechanisms for the management of the programme. The approach and dedication of the co-directors has been supported and recognised by the Advisory Group. Lead consortium members appear to be happy with the management arrangements in place, and in particular of the strenuous efforts of the co-directors, and supportive of the overall strategy.

7.2 Achieving an effective system of partnership management has not been

straightforward. Building an effective management framework was delayed by the transfer of directorship in 2006 and departure of LSE from the programme. It was further complicated by the difficult rupture associated with the withdrawal of a key consortium member, CODESRIA, resulting from fundamentally differing approaches to financial management and accounting.

7.3 Another issue which created difficulties was the initial decision to

commission research in the early rounds through regional research networks (CUTS, RIMISP, AERC). The intention behind working through networks was that the southern voice in the RPC would be more authentic, and that local buy-in would be stronger than if working through individual researchers. The aim was that these networks would help to support proposal preparation, select appropriate researchers, and provide quality control and monitoring.

7.4 After the first, relatively unsuccessful round of proposal funding, it became apparent that some of the network members of the consortium do not have the capacity, or sufficient resources, to undertake these roles. For example, the original work undertaken in Africa was commissioned through the AERC. However, the AERC is a very large organisation familiar with managing large funds and programmes. It is not well equipped, and gains little benefit from playing an intermediary role for the relatively small sums of money coming from the IPPG programme. As a result, although the AERC continue to be a consortium partner and may have a useful role in facilitating dissemination and policy influence down the line, the current research work by African partners has been contracted directly by the IPPG at the AERC‟s request. In general,

34

because the southern partners represent networks, they do not all have the infrastructure to deliver what the IPPG wants or needs. This has presented itself as a challenge for local communications strategies, base line indicators, and hosting visiting researchers for capacity-building workshops.

7.5 By contrast, the collaboration with RIMISP appears to have been more

successful. In part this is because RIMISP already have large-scale funding (from the IDRC) for an extensive program of related research. They have therefore been able to use the IPPG funds to undertake a specific project on institutions and rural territorial dynamics which both fits with the aims and objectives of the IPPG as well as being complementary to their existing work. Their long experience of research management and approach to quality control has enabled them to play more of an intermediary role for the IPPG in Latin America.

7.6 Nonetheless, the difficulties identified in ensuring quality control in the first

round of research led the IPPG co-directors to take on a much more active role in managing quality control and researcher selection from the centre. In addition, they put in place procedures for involving lead consortium members in the peer review of proposals and the selection of researchers and research partners. These measures appear to have been generally appreciated by all consortium members and have markedly improved the quality of the research produced.

7.7 However, this did result in relatively few (8 out of 38) proposals being

awarded funding in the second proposal round in July 2007. Moreover, there were concerns that the proposals funded might not provide sufficient opportunities for comparative work from which more general lessons might be drawn. At the same time, both the Advisory Group and the lead group felt that there might be greater overall benefit from the programme where there to be a greater concentration of research around the core thematic clusters of the programme. As a result, the recent third call for proposals has shifted to a cluster approach, in which a cluster leader develops, in consultation with consortium members, a proposal that the programme wishes to implement. Then proposals to implement the proposed programme of work are solicited and selected or are developed together with a set of selected researchers.

7.8 The shift from commissioning research through regional networks to more

direct involvement of the co-directors and the lead group has also had significant implications for the time inputs required of the co-directors. Because only a half-time director was included in the original bid, and directorship is shared, this means that each of the co-directors only receives funding for 25% of their time. However, because of the much greater responsibility for quality control which they have taken on, both co-

35

directors are now spending considerably in excess of the budgeted 25% of time on the management of the project. Furthermore, DFID‟s strict adherence to a 50:50 split of funding between Northern and Southern institutions, severely constrains the ability of the co-directors to buy out more of their own time or that of other Northern partners.

7.9 There is therefore a clear trade-off between the projects desire to build

capacity, which requires using scarce Northern partner resources in selecting and supporting Southern partners, and the projects aim to produce the highest quality of research, which would suggest providing more resources for experienced Northern researchers to do research. DFID may wish to consider whether this 50:50 rule provides the best balance of outcomes, particularly given that it is not applied to other similar Research Program Consortia programmes.

7.10 Interestingly, the current DFID management team were unaware that this

constraint had been imposed on the programme (and indeed stated that it was unlikely to be the case, despite evidence suggesting that previous DFID staff had clearly imposed this constraint) and felt that the IPPG management were free to pick whatever allocation they felt most appropriate subject to the general desire to see significant southern voice and ownership in the programme‟s work. It would be useful for DFID to formally indicate this view to the IPPG management to avoid any further confusion. This issue is important since, it is doubtful that the current co-directors will have an incentive to continue investing such a large amount of time into capacity building and programme management for any continuation program with some increase in resources for them to also participate in doing the research.

7.11 The significant time demands on the co-directors also points to a more

fundamental structural issue affecting the programme. The IPPG RPC has a very large number of members. The co-directors therefore devote considerable efforts coordinating the efforts of 6 Northern institutions (Heriot-Watt, NRI, ODI, York, Manchester, and ODG), 3 core Southern institutions (CUTS, RIMISP and AERC) as well as PhD students and researchers in a very wide range of countries. It is therefore pertinent to ask whether the consortium is too large. Given the concerns about the need to ensure much greater coherence in the research programme, it may be worth the co-directors giving consideration to a more radical streamlining of the consortium and its workplan over the next two years to ensure that the IPPG delivers on its overall vision.

7.12 More generally, there may be ways to increase the extent to which the consortium approach adds value to the research being done. The consortium structure has provided the opportunity to explore the same sorts of institutional issues in a variety of different country contexts,

36

allowing learning across the different projects and increasing the chances of learning generally applicable messages. However, more could be done to draw on the skills and knowledge of the consortium members for the benefit of the entire research programme.

7.13 To facilitate this, there may also be a role for more frequent meetings of the consortium leaders. The IPPG had intended to hold quarterly meetings of Consortia leaders. This has not happened. Rather the co-directors have tended to liaise directly with partners on an individual basis and around the cluster themes. This may be a more realistic approach as consortium partner leaders are busy and disparate, and it is hard to get them together frequently. Communication between the co-directors and their corresponding partners in the Southern Research Networks is strong, and respect is high. However, more frequent cross-cluster communication may now be important to enhance both the intellectual and communication components of the programme.

7.14 The Advisory Group has played an important role in providing timely guidance to the IPPG management on the direction and focus of the programme. Evidence from the minutes of the Advisory Group meetings suggests that it has been both effective and influential. This reflects the experience and calibre of the Advisory Group members. As noted above, the recent addition of Professor Leonard Wantchekon to the Advisory Board should also help as the programme moves towards greater policy engagement and dissemination.

Monitoring and Evaluation 7.15 The practical real-time management and monitoring of progress by the co-

directors has been very good and this represents the most important safeguard against drift or non-delivery of key objectives.

7.16 However, all large research programmes can benefit from a set of formal monitoring and evaluation tools which can help the programme managers to keep track of progress and reliably evaluate success. Currently, the Objectively Verifiable Indicators used by the programme are concerned with the achievement of outputs. The annual reports have consequently been more concerned with activities undertaken than with outcomes. In particular, the establishment of baseline studies to enable the programme to assess progress against Purpose and impact is lacking.

7.17 On monitoring, a series of clear questions is sent by the IPPG administrator to researchers to help monitor and evaluate in-country communications. However, these have met with patchy responses. Relatively few other formal monitoring or evaluation tools are used by the programme outside of those needed for formal reporting requirements.

37

7.18 As a result, there is currently no clear formal method by which the programme can evaluate its success. The IPPG would benefit from a greater integration of Monitoring and Evaluation as a programme tool, with a series of baseline indicators for current research clusters and a sharper focus on outcomes and expected impacts.

Recommendations for IPPG 7.19 The co-directors should consider a significant simplification of the

consortium consistent with the need to create a clear and coherent set of intellectual outputs from the programme. Such a structure should also be appropriate for any possible extension of the programme.

7.20 A simple set of formal monitoring and evaluation tools should be introduced to track progress against both Purpose and Outputs.

Recommendations for DFID 7.21 DFID should clarify in writing their preferences with regard to the North-

South budget split. This should allow more resources to be spent on Northern researchers within the broad desire to ensure significant Southern funding. It should also permit an increase in the resources allocated to the directors to enable them to devote time to synthesising the key messages coming out of the research programme.

8 LINKS WITH DFID 8.1 The co-directors have tried their best to ensure a close working

relationship with DFID and have kept DFID continuously informed of progress on the programme. DFID sit on the Advisory Group and their suggestions and advice is welcomed by the co-directors.

8.2 This said, the co-directors of the programme did express considerable

disappointment about some aspects of the links with DFID. The principle concern is that there have been continual changes in the DFID personal responsible for administering and managing the programme. In the three years in which the programme has been running, there have been four administrators, and three program managers. This is set to change once again in January 2009. Each time there is a new person assigned in DFID, the Manchester programme administrator and co-directors spend time to bring the new officer up to speed. But the rapid turn-over has meant that, as soon as the DFID officer responsible has a good grasp of the program, they move on, taking with them all the institutional and procedural knowledge of the program which then must be re-learnt by the next person. The only member of DFID staff who has followed the programme from the outset is a senior Governance Advisor whose advice and support

38

appears to have been extremely valuable. However, since he does not have managerial or administrative authority over the project, his presence has not prevented the problems associated with changing managers and administrators.

8.3 These constant changes of DFID personnel have also had some financial

implications. For example, DFID took more than two years to obtain an accounting for the funds spent by LSE in the first few months of the project, with the final residual only paid to Manchester during the course of this MTR. Again the continual changes in the person responsible in DFID hampered the efficient resolution of this issue.

8.4 DFID also do not appear to have the resources to provide broader support

to the programme. The IPPG directors claim that they have received no feedback on the 2007 annual report, although comments were received on the 2008 report. Furthermore, as part of the dissemination and policy influencing work, they have requested support from DFID country offices to help open doors between academics and the policymakers with which donors engage. Again they were disappointed with the response - although DFID staff did put them in touch with the relevant staff in those offices, they emphasised that the RPC should not rely on DFID for convening power for in-country initiatives.

8.5 DFID‟s 2008-2013 Research Strategy and accompanying working paper

on Research Communications states “DFID is seen as a leader in facilitating and encouraging communication of research, has developed a comparative advantage in this area….” However, DFID‟s communications advisor told us that the IPPG has, for some inexplicable reason, been “left fallow” – it has fallen outside their normal procedure for communications support and mentoring, and DFID failed to conduct a full quality assurance on the implementation of the IPPG Communications Strategy. So the IPPG programme does not appear to have benefited from such facilitation. This RPC could arguably have been a priority for active and consistent DFID communications input on account of the innovative nature of the research content, the structure of the consortium, and the IPPG management and communications staff changes (with consequent hiatus).

8.6 The lack of dedicated responsibility for Communications within the RPC between April 2008 (when Felicity Proctor left NRI) and November 2008 is likely to have further weakened this aspect of the dialogue between DFID and IPPG. The Administrator, who has had responsibility for the website, has attended two of DFID‟s annual meetings of RPC Communications Officers, but otherwise this opportunity for exchange of experience has not been incorporated into the programme‟s development. In the summer of 2008 DFID‟s communications advisor met with IPPG staff to clarify DFID‟s

39

communications expectations, and IPPG subsequently met with ODI‟s RAPID team and contracted a Communications Consultant.

8.7 It should be noted that these problems are not having a major impact on the ability of IPPG to run the program successfully. However, it does suggest that DFID could increase the value for money of the programme through some relatively minor improvements in the management and administration of DFID support to the programme.

Links with Related Research or Influencing Programmes 8.8 The IPPG is by no means the only research programme researching

issues of institutions and pro-poor growth. There is a separate DFID-funded RPC on Improving Institutions for Pro-Poor Growth based in Oxford which covers similar ground. There is also a project on Public Action for Private Investment in the DFID–funded Centre for the Future State which has strong overlaps with the SBR work. In addition, there is a Power and Politics in Africa (APP) DFID-funded programme which overlaps with some elements of the political analysis done by IPPG.

8.9 Links to these programmes are provided on the IPPG website. There have

been a range of practical efforts to learn from or share information with these programmes. The IPPG co-directors have organised meetings with the directors of APP, Crisis States and Future State to discuss common issues, and sit on the Advisory Group of the APP. Attempts at such exchange with the Oxford IPG have not borne fruit. The IPPG Administrator is in regular contact with the other programme Administrators. IPPG Advisory Group recently recommended that other RPCs are involved in the Informal Institutions research cluster. DFID have not taken any steps to encourage such cross-programme communication.

8.10 In addition to forging stronger linkages with some existing programmes, it will be important for the IPPG to liaise with the newly launched International Growth Centre. This Centre has much to learn from the work of the IPPG, particularly with regard to different ways of understanding the political processes that drive growth. DFID should encourage the Directors of the International Growth Centre to consider carefully the implications of the IPPG‟s work for their programme, and help to facilitate exchanges between the key staff involved.

Recommendations for IPPG 8.11 IPPG‟s management should be more pro-active in identifying opportunities

for policy dialogue and influence and not rely on local DFID offices to provide a point of entry.

40

8.12 IPPG should systematically contact other related programmes, ensure that relevant literature is disseminated to members of the IPPG RPC and, where appropriate, participate in or organise joint workshops or seminars.

Recommendations for DFID 8.13 DFID should take into account the significant cost which they impose upon

RPCs through constant changes in the staff responsible for programmes and attempt to institute mechanisms for ensuring greater continuity of management.

8.14 DFID should consider how the IPPG relates to its increased emphasis on

learning about policy influence and include the IPPG within its programme of monitoring communications strategies to ensure effective support, particularly during the final two years of the current programme.

8.15 DFID should facilitate further cross-RPC learning through its

Communications Corner and occasional events. 8.16 DFID should encourage the Directors of the International Growth Centre to

consider carefully the implications of the IPPG‟s work for their programme, and help to facilitate exchanges between the key staff involved.

9 CONCLUSIONS AND OVERALL RECOMMENDATION

Value for Money 9.1 Judgments about Value for Money are always extremely difficult,

particularly at Mid-Term before the programme has had an opportunity to synthesise its key outputs and when efforts to disseminate and communicate its key messages are just gearing up. In general, we believe that the programme has offered good value for money. With its strong concentration on Southern-led research it has generated a large amount of research output for the funds provided; and, early quality problems notwithstanding, it has produced some high quality and innovative research.

9.2 More significantly, the programme has the potential to produce important

new general insights about the relationship between institutions and pro-poor growth. Achieving a high final value for money will therefore depend critically on the ongoing efforts to draw together and learn from the existing work and communicate it to a broad range of stakeholders.

41

Risk Assessment 9.3 The original risk assessment framework contained three key risks relating

to whether policymakers remain committed to the MDGs, whether the IPPG generates findings which can be applied in practice, and whether southern researchers are able to apply their skills within their regions. These risks all remain with the same probability of occurrence and impact on the programme as before (see Annex 6).

9.4 In addition, we propose that two new risks be added to the risk

assessment framework reflecting developments both in the programme and the external environment that it faces.

9.5 First, we suggest that there is a risk that policy-makers, including DFID,

may lose interest in institutional approaches to understanding growth processes and therefore do not make use of the insights arising from the programme. The current financial crisis has shifted the focus of all donors, including DFID, towards immediate responses to the crisis and there may therefore be less emphasis on longer-term institutional development issues. We regard this risk as low, but, should it occur, it would have a moderate impact upon the success of the programme.

9.6 Second, notwithstanding the considerable efforts noted above which are

now being spend on communication and outreach, there is a risk that IPPG researchers fail to build effective processes of dialogue with key policymakers and other stakeholders so that key lessons from the programme fail to be recognised and valued. This risk is moderate and would also have a moderate impact upon the success of the programme. The proposed revisions to the Risk Assessment Framework are shown in italics in Annex 6.

9.7 The programme‟s efforts to highlight the importance of the institutional

approach to tackling these issues, along with its growing emphasis on communicating the key messages from the research should help to reduce these risks.

Overall Recommendation 9.8 Our overall recommendation is that the IPPG programme continues with

the modifications suggested above. 9.9 We recommend that the management of the IPPG use this Mid-Term

Review as a tool to assist them in shaping the IPPG for the future. In particular, the MTR should act as a mechanism through which the programme management can create the structures and incentives that

42

they believe are most appropriate if this work is to continue beyond the life of the current programme.

9.10 The current output of the programme is not yet at a stage where a definite

decision can be made about whether the IPPG programme should continue beyond its current phase. However, the research is undoubtedly innovative and the subject is important to development. Given the considerable preparatory work that is required in the event of an extension, it is important not to leave this decision to the last year of the programme. We therefore recommend agreeing soon a one year extension of the programme beyond its current end date. This would allow DFID to undertake a thorough evaluation of the outputs of the current phase of research before making a final decision about whether to grant a full-extension.

ANNEX 1

Terms of Reference for Mid-Term Review of DFID-contracted Research Programme: Institutions for Pro-Poor Growth

Background DFID-contracted Research Programmes are centres of specialisation around a particular research and policy theme. They are groups of researchers from a number of institutions which may include NGOs, civil society organisations, academic and commercial organisations. Funding is provided for five years. The Central Research Department (CRD) provides support for the research programmes through the Human Development, Growth & Livelihoods and Social, Political and Environmental Change teams. It is a DFID requirement that all programmes are subject to regular reporting and monitoring processes. CRD‟s agreement with research programmes provides for an external mid-term review (MTR) of each programme. MTRs will be held after two years of operation of each research programme, to enable the research programmes to gain the maximum benefit from the review. Each programme has a statement of Purpose and a number of Outputs (deliverables) agreed by DFID and the relevant institution(s), which are set out in the programme‟s Logical Framework, together with indicators of achievement. Benefits of the mid-term review to research programmes

Encourage ownership and participation;

Ensuring continuous learning and quality control;

Ensure funds are used effectively and efficiently to deliver outputs/outcomes;

An opportunity to engage with CRD and DFID advisers. Benefits of the mid-term review to DFID

Part of the ongoing monitoring and review of research programmes;

An opportunity to work closely with research programme members and external reviewers;

An opportunity to discuss lessons learned by research programmes in some detail;

MTRs of programmes are a key process in the programme management cycle, comparing actual progress against targets and value for money (VFM);

To review the risk analysis of the programme. Objectives The purpose of the MTR is to measure and report on performance to date and to indicate adjustments that may need to be made to ensure the success of the research programmes. The MTR should be used by all of the research programme partners and management to inform their future work.

The MTR should include an analysis of the following areas: 1. Review of Purpose

a) The degree to which the purpose is relevant to decision-makers in policy and practice in developing countries.

b) The likelihood of achieving the purpose during the grant period. Use the scoring system outlined below*** in paragraph 6.

c) The likelihood of further progress in achieving the purpose after the grant period (this captures the issue of influence continuing after the 5 years, especially if the programme has built sustainable partnerships. It allows for the slowness of some influencing processes).

d) Value for money (VFM) (The score provided for the review of purpose is used by DFID internal systems for a calculation on value for money for the CRD and DFID as a whole. In the absence of benchmarks for the VFM of impact of research on policy and practice, it is worth looking at the degree to which changes in policy and practice can be attributed to the programme, as assessed by reviewers who are familiar with that particular policy environment, e.g. by interviewing target decision makers. This could lay the foundation for a retrospective review of VFM when the benchmarks are clearer).

2. Review of outputs

a) Degree to which the outputs have been achieved and likelihood of achieving them by the end of the grant period. Use the scoring system outlined below*** in paragraph 6.

b) Relevance, sufficiency and scientific rigour of knowledge outputs (whether or not these are specified in the output indicators).

c) Relevance, sufficiency and quality of communication process and outputs (whether or not specified in the indicators).

d) Degree to which the outputs capture the gender dimensions of the

research topic (whether or not this is specified in the indicators).

3. Capacity development

a) Degree to which the research programme has developed the capacity of research programme members in research and persuasive, targeted communication (whether or not these are specified as separate outputs).

*** Please use the following scoring system 1. = Likely to be completely achieved. The outputs /purpose are well on the way to completion (or completed) 2. = Likely to be largely achieved. There is good progress towards purpose completion and most outputs have been achieved, particularly the most important ones. 3. = Likely to be partly achieved. Only partial achievement of the purpose is likely and/or achievement of some outputs. 4. = Only likely to be achieved to a very limited extent. Purpose unlikely to be achieved but a few outputs likely to be achieved. 5. = Unlikely to be achieved. No progress on outputs or purpose

b) Is capacity building adequately dealt with in the logframe/workplans? c) How has it been defined - as “training” or organisational capacity

building? d) Has what is promised been delivered; does it meet the needs of the

partners a) to be better researchers and b) to build sustainable organisations?

e) Do members of the research programme have adequate capacity to analyse gender issues relating to the research topic? And/or what additional support do they need?

f) To what extent does the consortium have the internal skills to deliver both training/personal capacity building and organisational capacity building?

g) What additional financial assistance is needed to ensure that the agreed levels of capacity building are delivered in future DFID research programmes?

4. Partnership Management and Effectiveness

a) Degree to which all research programme partners have been involved in research and communications, as envisaged in their proposals and inception reports.

b) Effectiveness of the research programme‟s inter-partner management systems (e.g. steering committees, working groups, communications).

c) Effectiveness and influence of the Advisory Group in decision making. d) Degree to which a consortium approach adds value to research and

persuasive communications, compared with a non-consortium approach.

e) Effectiveness of the research programme‟s M&E systems, including the quality of internal systems and annual reports.

f) Lessons learned on effective research programme working. g) Effectiveness of the division of funding between the different partners,

and any recommendations about any changes in the relative amounts of funding for each partner.

h) Recommendations about how any future extra funding could be disbursed between developing country partners for maximum benefit for the research.

i) How might be the partnerships and the networks which have been built best be sustained after 2010?

j) What are various organizational arrangements which might be made, especially to strengthen the role of southern partners in overall leadership and coordination of an ongoing network? What capacities for this already exist, and what additional activities should be taken in the final years of the existing grant to insure sustainability and vitality of the network?‟

5. Links with DFID

a) Degree to which CRD meets the research programme‟s needs in terms of management and administration.

b) Degree to which the research programme has access to DFID advisers for reasons related to achievement of its outputs and purpose.

c) Degree to which DFID advisers have access to the research programme, for similar reasons.

6. Miscellaneous

a) Utility of links with related research or influencing programmes or institutions that would increase the probability of the Research Programme meeting its objectives, or missed opportunities for links.

b) Risk assessment of the research programme, using the DFID risk assessment processes (annex 1).

c) Identification of opportunities to introduce/strengthen the use of a gender perspective in the analysis of research findings.

Outputs from the Review The MTR team will produce a report (no more than 15 pages plus appendices) that includes:

A one page summary (which will be put on DFID‟s R4D – www.research4development.info);

A full list of recommendations that makes reference to evidence contained within the main body of the report;

A one page outline of the extent to which the programme is currently addressing gender equality issues, highlighting future opportunities for the programme to strengthen the use of a gender perspective in analysis.

A DFID „Project Scoring Annual Review‟ in accordance with DFID PRISM guidelines (Annex 2);

Recommendations about any revisions required to the logical framework;

A recommendation that the programme: Continues as is, Continues with modification or, Does not continue.

Methodology The MTR team may comprise DFID CRD staff, independent consultants and other DFID staff (e.g. link advisers) as appropriate. One of the independent consultants will be the designated Team Leader. Consultants may be subject area specialists, research/policy specialists or organisational management specialists. The exact composition of the MTR team will be decided in negotiation with CRD.

Process

DFID will recruit the MTR team and organise key dates and deadlines

for the review process for each research programme.

Each MTR team meets and holds a briefing session with DFID to agree the overall review methodology and flag any other issues e.g. any concerns known in advance.

The consultation and review process should include:

Interviews with the research programmes‟ partner institutions to collect information on outputs to date, achievements to date and management aspects of work;

Interviews with key stakeholders and users of the research programmes work, to include questions on the degree to which programmes have met their outputs and intended impact; what are the gaps; and what could have been done differently or better?;

Interviews with DFID Departments to ascertain the degree to which the research work has permeated their thinking and decisions;

Research programmes/DFID provides the MTR team with key documents, as outlined below.

Hold a formal MTR meeting with the review team, DFID and relevant research programme staff to discuss findings so far;

Write up findings of the MTR as per expected outputs;

Submit and finalise reports based on DFID comments; Documents to include in the MTR

Project bid document;

Inception phase report;

Research programme annual reports;

Documents containing research programme‟s response to any written questions from the MTR team;

Key communication successes which should keep the focus on upstream activities, not academic, peer-reviewed papers publications. These items should be identified by the research programme and focus on examples of the most persuasive communications, with an explanation of why the research programme thinks it is important. This could include anecdotes of decisions having been taken, policies or programmes that have changed or communication material that may have an impact on decision making.

Documentation from the research programmes, which identifies lesson learning from successes and challenges;

Other documents as negotiated with the MTR team, DFID and research programmes.

Timing The start date and date for receipt of final report will be negotiated with DFID, the MTR team and the research programmes. CRD 10 August 2008

ANNEX 2

PEOPLE CONSULTED FOR IPPG MID TERM REVIEW 20 November 2008 Dinner with IPPG Advisory Board 21 November 2008 Meetings with Advisory Board, co-Directors and

administrator. 25 November 2008 Meeting with DFID 1 December 2008 Telecon with AERC, African network partner, Olu Alayake 3 December 2008 Meetings with ODI staff, Steve Wiggins, Dirk Willem te Velde 4 December 2008 Telecon with RIMISP, Latin American network partner,

Alexander Schejtman 9 December 2008 Telecon with Sue Martin, IPPG Communications Advisor 9 December 2008 Telecon with Felicity Proctor, formerly of NRI 15 December 2008 Telecon with CUTS, India network partner, Bipul Chatterjee 15 December 2008 Telecon with Prof. Paul Hare, Heriot Watt University 17 December 2008 Meetings with IPPG co-Directors, Administrator,

Communications Advisor 12 January 2009 Email exchange with DFID Malawi Economic Adviser, Manu

Manthri 23 January 2009 Meeting with DFID

ANNEX 3

LOGICAL FRAMEWORK – SUGGESTED REVISIONS FOLLOWING MTR, JANUARY 2009 RESEARCH PROGRAMME CONSORTIUM FOR IMPROVING INSTITUTIONS FOR PRO-POOR GROWTH Note: Changes proposed by the IPPG management are in black italics; changes proposed by the MTR consultants are in red italics.

Narrative Summary (NS)

Verifiable Indicators (OVI) Means of Verification (MOV)

Assumptions/Risks

Goal: DFID The production and uptake of technologies and policies that will contribute to poverty reduction and the achievement of the MDGs

Purpose Policy-makers in developing countries, donors and civil society organisations, recognise and value the scope for the creation and adaptation of institutions, as a means for and by which economic growth can benefit poor men and women

National and sub-national poverty reduction and economic development plans better articulate how institutions can affect both economic growth, its distribution, and poverty; as well as interventions that foster pro-poor institutional evolution Regional bodies e.g. NEPAD, AU, ECLAC, SAARC, and other sub-regional economic groups place institutional issues on their agendas Policy makers’ demand for programme outputs Policymakers in focus countries actively seek to sustain learning platforms Donors place the debate on the wider developments agenda – e.g. OECD-DAC

Review plans and associated reports for focus countries and sectors Agendas and/or reports of regional and sub-regional

Policy-makers remain committed to the alleviation of poverty and the attainment of the MDGs. Relevant DFID policy remains constant over 5 year period DFID country and regional offices are supportive Policy-makers are prepared to experiment and to devote resources to programmes that will translate general lessons into practical action in specific country and regional contexts.

ANNEX 3

Stakeholders show increased understanding of institutional issues.

bodies Programme reports Country reports Aid and development meeting reports

Outputs 1. A coherent body of high quality, policy relevant new knowledge generated on (i) how institutions are formed, evolve and function within particular social, economic and political contexts (ii) how institutions affect both economic growth, its distribution and impacts on poverty

In depth country -based and cross-country thematic analysis (x15) (year 3-4) peer reviewed and published.

Peer reviews Programme progress reports Reports of Advisory Panel

Some studies may produce findings that are of limited practical application because their findings are so qualified by context Lessons from some country studies may not be widely applied, since their application may require more, or very different, political capital or administrative skill than is typically available.

2. A set of guidance notes and methods for institutional change to support pro-poor growth. These will be amenable to adaptation and adoption to specific contexts.

Draft guidance notes and methods published in year 4, and year .5. Synthesis document of key messages published in year 4, revised in Year 5. Policy makers both national and international demand such materials

Peer reviews Progress reports Uptake of literature reviews, guidance notes and methods by research users Reports of Advisory Panel

ditto

ANNEX 3

3. Research and policy practitioners, in a range of relevant disciplines, improve their ability to provide independent and high quality analytical work and policy guidance

Teams of political scientists, sociologists/anthropologists and economists (X12) formed in focus countries to analyse institutional issues from a multi-disciplinary perspective, with a large proportion of teams comprising early career researchers from the South. Demand for key researchers to contribute to national and local planning and policy processes in SSA, South Asia, and Latin America.

Those trained by the programme remain within their regions, and have jobs that allow them to apply their skills

4. Learning platforms and communities of research providers and users established. These contribute to research planning and wider change process in a dynamic and sustainable manner at national, regional and international levels

Learning platforms of researchers, policy makers and change agents in place in a minimum of six countries Dynamic and active web sites within network organisations (x4) Programme website is used by range of stakeholders (user numbers, participation in e-fora,) National and regional discussion fora and workshops attract range of stakeholders (numbers meetings/participation/participant type

Meeting reports Levels of participation in debates. Web contributions Network member surveys User number – web records Reports from e-fora Programme website linked to other interest group sites Frequency of calls for materials from other regions Workshop and meeting reports Project documentation

That platforms are designed relevant to the needs and possibilities of key actors

5. Media and dissemination products delivered to meet the

Policy briefs published Press cuttings

Policy briefs Press cuttings

That briefs are distributed to key actors, that the media targeted

ANNEX 3

demands of multiple stakeholders

Demand for policy briefs (numbers, calls for specific topics) Programme website used by range of stakeholders

Project reports Survey of web -user satisfaction

are those used by such actors

Activities Inception phase 1.1 Establish website and programme promotion 1.2 Methods development meeting of consortium members – Nairobi 1.3 Meeting of advisory panel 1.4 Exploratory country studies (4 countries) 1.5 Review of literature and of findings of other relevant research 1.6 Meetings with key international and regional interest groups 1.7 Methods developed based on outputs from 1.2-1.5, for the subsequent country analytical narratives 1.8 Baseline data for M & E collected 1.9 Preparation of detailed programme work plan

Inputs (programme milestones) 1.1 Website functional (Month 3) 1.2 Meeting held (Month 3) 1.3 Advisory panel record of meeting (Month 2) 1.4 Country reports (Month 7) 1.5 Literature reviews and other reports (Month 6) 1.6 Records of meetings with representatives of IBRD, IMF, OECD DAC, NEPAD, AU, ECOWAS, SADC, SAARC, ECLAC, key bilateral donors, international NGOs 1.7 Report on methods (Month 8) 1.8 Baseline agreed (Month 8) 1.9 Full work plan presented to DFID (Month 8)

All of these activities will be documented in reports and minutes produced by the programme.

5 –year programme 1. In some countries and contexts there may be objections to the research owing to its political sensitivity 2. Able to find sufficient able and committed young researchers interested in doctoral work 3. That ways can be found to bring diverse policy-makers together and facilitate an effective dialogue, within the limited time that policy-makers have available 4. That core staff remain able to allocate human resource commitment for project duration

Five year programme – key activities Year 1 1. Inception phase (above) 2. Thematic country-based studies, and cross country econometric analysis.

Inputs (Programme milestones) Annual programme reports Regular financial reports as required by DFID

ANNEX 3

Year 2 and 3 3. Thematic studies (min X12) that examine the institutional correlates and determinants of pro-poor growth and the political processes that shape these institutions; Years 2- 5 4. Capacity building among southern partners:

Train researchers (PhD – min.X5, Post-doc fellowships, joint project work)

Technical and advocacy workshops and training

Involve and support AERC, RIMISP and CUTS network members in capacity building, including multi-stakeholder learning groups

Train researchers in communications skills 5. Refine the Communications operational and action plan. 6 .Disseminate results of studies through web sites, formal publications, policy briefs, meetings, the media 7. Consult iteratively with policy-makers and their advisers at international, regional, national and local bodies, including key donors/IFIs, and involve them where possible in policy reference groups 8. Establish baseline indicators for each research cluster, that include communications and policy data Years 4 and 5 9. Further intensive studies of country cases and themes, to refine hypotheses emerging from earlier studies (3 above). 10. Bring together researchers in South and North in intensive workshops to generate ‘middle range theory’ and ‘tools to think with’ from research conducted in Years 1-4. 11. Distil the key policy messages from the research, and disseminate the policy messages to research users in academia, the policy domain and civil society. 12. Assess the need for further research in institutions and pro-poor growth (and in which areas).

Publications Workshop reports User group and client survey reports Learning platform feedback and survey reports PhDs awarded Budget Summary

FY 05/06

314,037

FY 06/07

496,621

FY 07/08

492,111

FY 08/09

507,598

FY 09/10

489,145

FY 10/11

170,997

Total 2,470,509

ID Date Activity Title Location Brief Description Author

1 September 2005 Workshop Inaugural workshop Nairobi

2 January 2006 Publication What are InstitutionsBriefing Paper 1: http://www.ippg.org.uk/PDF/Institutions%20A.pdf

Adrian Leftwich

3 April 2006 PublicationNotes on a Historical Institutionalist Approach to the IPPG Agenda

Discussion Paper 1: http://www.ippg.org.uk/3abstract2.html John Harriss

4 April 2006 Publication

Institutions and Pro-Poor Growth: Towards a framework for quantitative analysis

Discussion Paper 2: http://www.ippg.org.uk/3abstract2.html

Kunal Sen, Dirk Willem te Velde, Max Cali & Steve Wiggins

5 April 2006 Publication

Institutions and Development: what we (think we) know, what we would like to know

Discussion Paper 3: http://www.ippg.org.uk/3abstract3.html

Paul Hare & Junior Davis

6 June 2006 Publication Institutions and State-Business Relations

Briefing Paper 2: http://www.ippg.org.uk/PDF/State%20business%20B.pdf

John Harriss

7 July 2006 Workshop Dhaka Teaching Workshop Dhaka

8 July 2006 Publication Economic InstitutionsBriefing Paper 3: http://www.ippg.org.uk/PDF/Economic%20Institutions%20C.pdf

Steve Wiggins & Junior Davis

9 July 2006 Publication Institutions and Trade Liberalism

Briefing Paper 4: http://www.ippg.org.uk/PDF/Trade%20liberalism%20D.pdf

Paul Hare

10 August 2006 Workshop Daka Research Workshop Daka

11 November 2006 Workshop Tanzania Country Study Workshop Tanzania

12 November 2006 PublicationWhither Business Regulation? Institutions and Private Sector Development

Briefing Paper 5: http://www.ippg.org.uk/PDF/Whither%20business%20E.pdf

Dirk Willem te Velde

13 November 2006 PublicationMeasuring State-Business Relations in Sub-Saharan Africa

Discussion Paper 4: http://www.ippg.org.uk/3abstract4.html

Dirk Willem te Velde

14 November 2006 Publication Institutions and Economic Growth in Bolivia

Briefing Paper 6: http://www.ippg.org.uk/PDF/Bolivia%20F.pdf

Steve Wiggins, Alexander Schejtman, George Gray & Carlos Toranzo

15 February 2007 Conference Paper

States, Institutions and the Politics of Pro-Poor Development

Geneva United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) Adrian Leftwich

16 March 2007 PublicationState-Business Relations and Firm Performance in Zambia

Discussion Paper 5: http://www.ippg.org.uk/3abstract5.html

Dirk Willem te Velde & Mahvash Qureshi

17 March 2007 PublicationTrade Liberalisation and Export Growth: an Institutional Perspective

Briefing Paper 7: http://www.ippg.org.uk/PDF/Trade%20liberalization%20G.pdf

Paul Hare

18 March 2007 Publication

'Real Markets' in Rural Bangladesh: Institutions, Market Interactions and the Reproduction of Inequality

Briefing Paper 8: http://www.ippg.org.uk/PDF/Real%20Markets%20H.pdf

Taifur Rahman

19 March 2007 Publication

The Interaction of International and National Institutions: Implications for Agriculture in West Bengal

Briefing Paper 9: http://www.ippg.org.uk/PDF/Interactions%20I.pdf

Indranil Bose

20 March 2007 PublicationInstitutions for Facilitating FDI: Issues for BEPZA, Bangladesh

Briefing Paper 10: http://www.ippg.org.uk/PDF/FDI%20J.pdf

M. Abu Eusuf, ABM Omor Faruque & Atiur Rahman

21 March 2007 Publication

The Importance of Institutionalising? Structured Consultations in Evaluating Trade Proposals: Lessons from India's Experience and their Wider Relevance

Briefing Paper 11: http://www.ippg.org.uk/PDF/Importance%20of%20Institutionalising%20K.pdf

Julius Sen

22 April 2007 Meeting OECD & AFD Paris Reports Paris Meeting with OECD & AFD Paris, introducing them to IPPG work.

Felicity Proctor & Kunal Sen

23 May 2007 Workshop Manchester Findings Workshop Manchester, UK

Workshop held at Chancellor's Conference Centre. All consortium members and research teams were represented. Presentations on all Phase One funded research were given and feedback and peer review provided for inclusion in final discussion paper.

24 May 2007 LectureThe Rise of China and India: A Comparative Economic Assessment

Manchester, UK BWPI & IPPG Co-Sponsored lecture Pranab Bardhan

25 May 2007 Conference Paper

State-Business Relations, Investment Climate Reform and Economic Performance in Sub-Saharan Africa

Slovenia World Bank ABCDE Conference 2007 Dirk Willem te Velde

26 June 2007 Publication

State-Business Relations, Investment Climate Reform and Economic Performance in Sub-Saharan Africa

Briefing Paper 12: http://www.ippg.org.uk/PDF/State%20business%20L.pdf

Dirk Willem te Velde

27 June 2007 Publication

State-Business Relations, Investment Climate Reform & Firm Productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa

Discussion Paper 6: http://www.ippg.org.uk/3abstract6.html

Mahvash Qureshi & Dirk Willem te Velde

28 June 2007 PublicationThe Politics of State-Business Relationships in Malawi

Discussion Paper 7: http://www.ippg.org.uk/3abstract7.htmlForthcoming in McGrath, C. ed. (forthcoming) Interest Groups & Lobbying: Vol 13. - Latin America, Africa, the Middle East & Asia Pacific (Edwin Mellon Press).

Henry Chingaipe & Adrian Leftwich

29 June 2007 Publications

State-Business Relationships and Economic Growth in Sub-Saharan Africa

Discussion Paper 8: http://www.ippg.org.uk/3abstract8.html

Kunal Sen & Dirk Willem te Velde

30 June 2007 PublicationInstitutions, Growth and Poverty in Bolivia: Obstacles to Broad-Based Growth

Discussion Paper 9: http://www.ippg.org.uk/3abstract9.html

George Gray Molina

31 June 2007 Publication

The Decline and Recent Resurgence of the Manufacturing Sector of West Bengal: Implications for Pro-Poor Growth from an Institutional Point of View

Discussion Paper 10: http://www.ippg.org.uk/PDF/Manufacturing%20West%20Bengal%2010.pdf

Ajitava Raychaudhuri & Gautam Kumar Basu

32 June 2007 PublicationThe Role of Organisations in the Growth of Rural Non-Farm Sector in Bangladesh

Discussion Paper 11: http://www.ippg.org.uk/PDF/Non-farm%20Sector%20Bangladesh%2011.pdf

Atiur Rahman, Taiabur Rahman & Taifur Rahman

33 June 2007 Publication

Transaction Costs and Institutional Arrangements in Potato Marketing by Small Producers in Rural Peru

Discussion Paper 12: http://www.ippg.org.uk/3abstract12.html

Javier Escobal & Denice Cavero

34 July 2007 Workshop Africa Task Force BWPI Africa Task Force (Joseph Stiglitz) covened by the Institute of Policy Dialogue Kunal Sen

35 July 2007 Workshop

Advanced Graduate Workshop on Poverty, Development and Globalisation

BWPI Graduate Workshop/Summer School convened by BWPI Kunal Sen

36 August 2007 Publication

Institutional Architecture and Pro-Poor Growth in the Office du Niger: Responses from Farmer Organisations

Discussion Paper 13: http://www.ippg.org.uk/3abstract13.html

Isaie Dougnon & Lamissa B. Coulibaly

37 October 2007 Dissemination Intercambois Boletin Latin America RIMISP's bulletin dedicated to IPPG research, circulated to 11,042 subscribers

38 October 2007 PublicationThe Political Approach to Institutional Formation, Maintenance & Change

Discussion Paper 14: http://www.ippg.org.uk/3abstract14.htmlReproduced on www.gdsrc.org

Adrian Leftwich

39 October 2007 Publication

The Socio-Political Matrix & Economic Development in Chile/The Functioning of Economic Institutions in Two Chilean Territories

Discussion Paper 15: http://www.ippg.org.uk/3abstract15.html

Manuel A Garreton & Eduardo Ramirez respectively

40 October 2007 Publication

Institutions and Pro-Poor Growth in Mali: Overview and Conclusions of an Exploratory Study

Mali Research Brief Number 1/Briefing Paper 13: http://www.ippg.org.uk/PDF/Mali%20Brief%20M.pdf

A. Olukoshi, I. Dougnon, A. Traore, B.L. Coulibaly, E. Sall, J. Morton & K. Sen

41 October 2007 Publication

A National Institution for Por-Poor Growth: Agribusiness versus Household Farming in the Office du Niger

Mali Research Brief Number 2/Briefing Paper 14: http://www.ippg.org.uk/PDF/Mali%20Brief%20N.pdf

A. Olukoshi, I. Dougnon, A. Traore, B.L. Coulibaly, E. Sall, J. Morton & K. Sen

42 October 2007 PublicationA National Institutional for Pro-Poor Growth: the CMDT and the Cotton Zone

Mali Research Paper Number 3/Briefing Paper 15: http://www.ippg.org.uk/PDF/Mali%20Brief%20O.pdf

A. Olukoshi, I. Dougnon, A. Traore, B.L. Coulibaly, E. Sall, J. Morton & K. Sen

43 October 2007 PublicationInstitutions and Pro-Poor Growth in Mali: the Case for Microfinance Institutions

Mali Research Brief Number 4/Briefing Paper 16: http://www.ippg.org.uk/PDF/Mali%20Brief%20P.pdf

A. Olukoshi, I. Dougnon, A. Traore, B.L. Coulibaly, E. Sall, J. Morton & K. Sen

44 October 2007 PublicationLocal Institutions and Pro-Poor Growth: Kadiolo District Case Study

Mali Research Brief Number 5/Briefing Paper 17: http://www.ippg.org.uk/PDF/Mali%20Brief%20Q.pdf

A. Olukoshi, I. Dougnon, A. Traore, B.L. Coulibaly, E. Sall, J. Morton & K. Sen

45 November 2007 Lecture Does Foreign Aid Really Work? Manchester, UK BWPI/IPPG joint lecture Roger Riddell

46 November 2007 PublicationThe Role of Institutions in Rural Territories that have Undergone Land Reform

Discussion Paper 16: http://www.ippg.org.uk/3abstract16.html

Manuel Chiriboga V.

47 December 2007 Workshop Phase Two Inception Workshop Jaipur, India

All newly funded research projects in Phase Two of the programme were represented and presented their research with peer review provided. One-to-one meetings were held with the directors and communications strategies reviewed.

48 January 2008 Conference Paper

State-Business Relations and Economic Performance in Sub-Saharan Africa

Reading Business School, UK

Lecture given at the University of Reading Business School

Dirk Willem te Velde

49 February 2008 Lecture

The Politics of Successful Governance Reforms: Lessons of Design and Implementation

Manchester, UK BWPI/IPPG Joint Lecture Mark Robinson (DFID)

50 March 2008 Publication Economic Institutions Matter, But They Not the Full Story

Briefing Paper 18: http://www.ippg.org.uk/PDF/Economic%20Institutions%20Matter%20R.pdf

Paul Hare

51 March 2008 Publication African Growth - Forgotten Issues

Briefing Paper 19: http://www.ippg.org.uk/PDF/Forgotten%20Issues%20S.pdf

Dirk Willem te Velde

52 2008 Publication

The Organisational Morphology of Rural Industries and its Dynamics in Liberalised India: a Study of West Bengal

Publication in the Cambridge Journal of Economics, 32(4) pp. 577-91. Paper produced during Visiting Fellowship undertaken at the University of Manchester under IPPG sponsorship

Dibyendu Maiti

53 April 2008 Lecture Everything I know about Development in one hour BWPI/IPPG joint lecture Lant Pritchett

54 April 2008 PublicationTowards a Territorial Approach for Rural Development

Discussion Paper 17: http://www.ippg.org.uk/3abstract17.html

Alexander Schejtman & Julio Berdegue

55 April 2008 Conference Paper

Institutions and Diversification in the Economies in Transition: Policy Challenges

Geneva United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Paul Hare

56 May 2008 Publication

The Economics and Politics of State-Business Relations in Africa: Preliminary Findings

ODI Launch of the IPPG Collection of Discussion Papers on State-Business Relations (ISBN 9780955911101). Copy held in Danish Centre for International Studies and Human Rights

Adrian Leftwich, Kunal Sen & Dirk Willem te Velde

57 May 2008 Workshop State-Business Relations in India Calcutta Calcutta SBR inception workshop

58 July 2008 Conference Paper

State-Business Relations and Economic Growth in Sub-Saharan Africa

Glasgow Centre for Development Studies 25th Anniversary Conference Kunal Sen

59 July 2008 Workshop State-Business Relations in Africa Nairobi

Inception workshop for SBR Africa case studies, attended by all research projects with presentations for peer review

60 July 2008 WorkshopState-Business Relations in India - an Analysis of Three Indian States

CalcuttaTwo workshops held at CESS & CSSS on concepts & methods in the analysis of SBR in three Indian states

61 July 2008 Workshop Rural Territorial Dynamics QuitoOrganised by RIMISP, the Latin America Centre for Rural Development, at the Simón Bolívar Andea University (USB) in Quito

62 July 2008 PublicationLand Tenure, Farm Investments and Food Production in Malawi

Discussion Paper 18: http://www.ippg.org.uk/3abstract18.html Ephraim Chirwa

63 July 2008 Conference Paper

The Indian Forest Rights Act: Commoning Enclosures?

2008 IASC Conference on Governing Shared Resources: Connecting Local Experience to Global Challenges

Oliver Springate-Baginski + Forest Rights Act Project Group

64 August 2008 Publication

Informal Institutions in Transition: How Vietnam's Private Sector Boomed without Legal Protection

Discussion Paper 19: http://www.ippg.org.uk/3abstract19.html

Liesbet Steer & Kunal Sen

65 September 2008 Publication

Exploring the Politics of Land Reforms in Malawi: A Case Study of the CBRLDP

Discussion Paper 20: http://www.ippg.org.uk/3abstract20.html

Blessings Chisinga

66 September 2008 Publication

State-Business Relations and Economic Growth in Sub-Saharan Africa

IPPG discussion paper revised for the Journal of Development Studies (forthcoming)

Kunal Sen & Dirk Willem te Velde

67 October 2008 PublicationInstitutions and Agricultural Growth in Bolivia & New Zealand

Discussion Paper 21: http://www.ippg.org.uk/3abstract21.html Steve Wiggins

68 October 2008 Meeting State-Business Relations in India West Bengal Meeting with Chief Minister of West Bengal Indranil Bose

69 October 2008 Meeting Research into Use Manchester, UK Meeting with Sheelagh O'Reilly from Research Into Use

70 October 2008 Publication Africa Task Force Paper included in publication resulting from Africa Task Force Kunal Sen

71 November 2008 Workshop Political Economy of Growth Issues DFID, London

Joint World Bank and DFID working level workshop Making the Connections - KS to respond to paper by David Booth & DWTV 'Political Interests and Incentives for Economic Growth: Integrating ‘Drivers of Change’ with Growth Strategies'

Kunal Sen

72 November 2008 Lecture

Expert Information, Public Deliberation and Electoral Support for Good Governance: Experiemental Evidence from Benin

Manchester, UK BWPI/IPPG Joint Lecture Leonard Wantchekon

73 November 2008 Conference Paper

The Institutions of Development & Development of Institutions

DSA, London Panel session at DSA 2008 Conference 'Development's Helping Hands'

Kunal Sen, Adrian Leftwich, Steve Wiggins & John Morton

74 November 2008 Lecture

What a Long, Strange Trip its been: Reflections on India's Economic Growth in the Twentieth Century

London Annual British Association of South Asian Studies (BASAS) Kunal Sen

75 Lecture Cambridge Cambridge University International Department Kunal Sen

77 December 2008 Workshop Malawi Land Reform - World Bank Malawi

World Bank lunch-time seminar on IPPG Land Reform project. Invitees: DFID, USAID, AfDB, Norwegian Embassy, EU, Government & World Bank colleagues

Ephraim Chirwa, Blessings Chisinga, Hardwick Tchale, David Rohrbach

78 November 2008 Citation ESRC book

SBR measure as in 'The Economics and Politics of State-Business Relations in Africa: Measuring State-Business Relations in SSA' used in ESRC publication

Paul Mosley

79 Summer 2008 CitationThe Political Approach to Institutional Formation, Maintenance & Change

Discussion paper reproduced on GDSRC website Adrian Leftwich

80 Mailing List Website Enquiries Number of requests to join mailing list - 5 Frances Davies

ANNEX 5

IPPG MTR - OTHER DOCUMENTS CONSULTED

In addition to the documents listed in Annex 4 - IPPG Communications Outputs, the following documents were consulted in the course of the MTR.

IPPG Documents

IPPG Bid, LSE, 2005

IPPG Programme: Strategy Paper on Communications and Influencing, February 2006

Governance Structure of the RPC on IPPG, November 2008

Risk Assessment Matrix

IPPG Annual Report September 2007, and Annual Report September 2008

IPPG Advisory Group TORS

Notes of Advisory Group meeting 211108

October 06 to June 07 Financial Summary

July 07 to September 08 Financial Summary

IPPG Inception report (revised)

IPPG Operational Plans for communications, outreach and policy impact, April 2006-March 2008 (draft 03-06-06); March 2008-September 2009 (draft 30-09-08)

IPPG Communications – discussion document, Sue Martin, October 2008

IPPG Malawi land press release 1108

IPPG Communications & Impact Monitoring – next steps. Note to Advisory Board, November 2008.

IPPG Monitoring and Evaluation and Communications questions for researchers

India Forest Rights Act study – Communications Strategy (undated)

Rapporteurs SBR meeting April 2007

Notes on Tanzania workshop

Dakar workshop report

Dhaka workshop report

Agenda for Jaipur meeting

Agenda for PhD workshop March 2009

081216 Report on First Policy Reference Group meeting (SBR India Project)

IPPG Cluster: Institutions and Rural Territorial Dynamics in Latin America, August 2008

IPPG Cluster Brief: State Business Relations

Industrial Growth – Investment selection

IPPG Institutions and Industrial Growth workplan, December 2008.

ANNEX 5

IPPG Documents Produced for the MTR

Challenges, and Successes in relation to these challenges, November 2008

Key Communications Successes: 2005-2008 and nominated research outputs

IPPG Note on Governance Structure

Reflections on MTR draft report, December 2008

DFID and other RPC Documents

Monitoring and Evaluation: A Guide for DFID-contracted Research Programmes 0506

Communication of Research: Guidance Notes for Research Programme Consortia, 1005

DFID Communications Strategy, Draft for Consultation 2008 (undated)

Research for Development (R4D) website and Communications Corner

DFID feedback on IPPG Annual Report 2008, November 2008

Research Into Use programme

ANNEX 6

RISK ASSESSMENT – SUGGESTED REVISIONS FOLLOWING MTR, FEBRUARY 2009

Probability

Low Medium High

Impa

ct

High

IPPG generates insights and findings of limited application – or fail to draw out a coherent set of messages

Medium Policy-makers, including DFID, lose commitment to the MDGs, and will not be willing to undertake innovative and perhaps experimental actions to make use of the insights arising from the programme

Policy-makers, including DFID, lose interest in institutional approaches to understanding growth processes and are therefore do not make use of the insights arising from the programme

IPPG researchers fail to build effective processes of dialogue with key policymakers and other stakeholders so that key lessons from the programme fail to be recognized and valued.

Low Southern researchers do not remain within their regions, or do not find posts that will allow them to apply their skills or have influence with the policy community