Modeling and Evaluation of Political Processes: A New Quantitative Approach
1 like581 views
This document discusses a study that evaluated participatory policy processes in Malawi using the Comparative Government-Performance Evaluation (CGPE) approach. The study found large gaps between actual outcomes and socially optimal outcomes according to an estimated social welfare function. These gaps could be due to insufficient participation, wrong incentives, or missing knowledge. Analysis showed that knowledge gaps were more important than participation or incentive issues. The conclusion is that participation alone does not improve outcomes and it is more important to connect the scientific and practitioner worlds by transferring knowledge between the two sectors.
Modeling and Evaluation of Political Processes: A New Quantitative Approach
- 1. Introduction Participation Knowledge vs Incentives Conclusion Whither participation? Evaluating participatory policy processes with the CGPE approach: The case of CAADP in Malawi Johannes Hedtrich, University of Kiel ReSAKSS Side Event 5, Maputo, 25-27 October 2017 Hedtrich, University of Kiel Whither participation? 1
- 2. Introduction Participation Knowledge vs Incentives Conclusion Introduction scientific vs practitioners world applied cgpe estimation to malawi based on collected survey data, we estimated a social welfare function (SWF) based on our estimation, we find: Hedtrich, University of Kiel Whither participation? 2
- 3. Introduction Participation Knowledge vs Incentives Conclusion Figure: SWF Gaps Hedtrich, University of Kiel Whither participation? 3
- 4. Introduction Participation Knowledge vs Incentives Conclusion large gaps! is it because of not enough participation? is it because of wrong incentives? or is it because of missing knowledge? Hedtrich, University of Kiel Whither participation? 4
- 5. Introduction Participation Knowledge vs Incentives Conclusion Is it participation? Figure: Shifting Participation Hedtrich, University of Kiel Whither participation? 5
- 6. Introduction Participation Knowledge vs Incentives Conclusion Figure: Knowledge vs Incentive Gaps Hedtrich, University of Kiel Whither participation? 6
- 7. Introduction Participation Knowledge vs Incentives Conclusion so far, we’ve been in the world of economic modeling do the gaps persist if we switch worlds? Hedtrich, University of Kiel Whither participation? 7
- 8. Introduction Participation Knowledge vs Incentives Conclusion Figure: Different political technologies Hedtrich, University of Kiel Whither participation? 8
- 9. Introduction Participation Knowledge vs Incentives Conclusion Figure: Expected Technical Progress under different PIFs Hedtrich, University of Kiel Whither participation? 9
- 10. Introduction Participation Knowledge vs Incentives Conclusion Figure: Three worlds Hedtrich, University of Kiel Whither participation? 10
- 11. Introduction Participation Knowledge vs Incentives Conclusion participation alone does not help much more important to connect the different “worlds” transfer knowledge of science sector to practitioners but, also: transfer knowledge of practitioners to science sector Hedtrich, University of Kiel Whither participation? 11
- 12. Introduction Participation Knowledge vs Incentives Conclusion CAADP Policy Lab Tool SIDE EVENT #12 Combining Theory and Practical Knowledge: An Introduction to the Interactive CAADP Policy Lab Tool Time: 13.05–14.30 Venue: NKOMATI Hedtrich, University of Kiel Whither participation? 12
- 13. Appendix Figure: Incentives for Goals Hedtrich, University of Kiel Whither participation? 13
- 14. Appendix Hedtrich, University of Kiel Whither participation? 14