Doing PEA studies yields strategic implications.

 

First, PEA can generate a more politically informed risk analysis. For example, working on anti-corruption could seem important, and reducing corruption could figure prominently in a DP’s overall programme objectives. But it would be problematic (not very effective) if corruption plays an important part in sustaining a local political system. For example, President Buhari’s (some say) imbalanced efforts to withdraw corruption from some northern constituencies contributed to the growth in violence over recent years, as it withdrew livelihoods from groups armed by political opponents.

 

There may be other very critical DP targets to achieve in sectors such as education, health and human rights. While PEA might indicate that the political appetite is not as strong for achievements in these areas than might have been hoped or expected, it can also help to explain why. On this basis a more realistic risk analysis can be constructed, helping to avoid actions that may stand little chance of success, and therefore saving money.
 

Second, a PEA study will sometimes demonstrate how work on a particular topic, might prove to be more productive. Usually this will be where the interests of some of those who hold access to a form of power (control of the State, resources, ideology or arms) may also benefit from the proposed change. For example, by working on the development of an important local value chain, it could be possible to demonstrate that responding to local farmer needs would not only improve their incomes but could also enhance the profits for larger operators, such as traders and processors.

 

These people tend to have political influence and are more likely to be able to persuade policy makers to implement changes. (Indeed the policy makers themselves may benefit financially.) So by focussing on a suitable topic, policy becomes more responsive, people in government begin to see the benefit of focussed consultation, and people across a wide spectrum can be better off.

 

The trick in this case is to make sure that topics are chosen for their local political tractability, rather than necessarily to reflect the sector priorities of development partners. This is peace and governance through practical, material engagement.
 

Thirdly, PEA suggests particular ways of working. Political settlements tend to shift, and indeed fall out of balance, sometimes quite rapidly, while knowledge is seldom perfect. It could become apparent after quite a short period that a particular partner or actor has an agenda that is different from what it was originally thought to be. In this case it can be wise to establish and maintain a flexible and adaptive design. We might say that this would be an approach that is “not projectized”.

Instead of choosing one or two partners to implement a long-term programme or piece of government policy, it can be better to play a facilitation role between a variety of organisations or individuals who have a stake in achieving the desired change. This kind of design requires a different approach to management and implementation, which comes with its own challenges.

​

The purpose is not to counter this power or work against it but to work out, given these circumstances, what can and cannot sensibly be done. We argue that there is little point in working against local interests and circumstances, just to try to achieve externally set objectives and standards. Much better to find the common ground, and work towards objectives that are relevant to local constraints and opportunities.
 

In most places, and across many sectors, in developing countries, informal institutions are used extensively to favour those who have access to power and resources. The State, for example, or ideas (ideology) do not function according to any normative standard principles, but tend to be used by those in positions of advantage.

 

Challenging these institutions, especially in the current, shifting, geopolitical circumstances, can be counter productive. But in most places there are tractionable issues, usually of a material nature related to jobs, livelihoods or key services that can provide political hooks on which to hang quite specific, often short term, influencing.