As noted above, the significance
of the structure of this matrix depends on the intentions and interests
of the actors involved (and observing). There are three groups whose
interests could be considered: (a) the donors, as included above; (b)
government ministries and agencies who may pursue the listed policy
objectives, (c) NGOs who may want to influence the policy objectives
(and their implementation) via advocacy work directed towards donors
and government bodies (and maybe others).
One additional network model that clearly needs to be developed is that representing government bodies connections with the GGPRS policy objectives ( a two-mode network, like the above). When combined with the above donors x policy objectives network this should show which donors might be expected to be working with which government bodies, because of shared policy concerns. This view may or may not be consistent with the existing funding links between donors and government bodies (where they are outside the Multi-Donor Budget Support mechanism).
The existing donors x policy objectives may have some relevance for donor harmonisation activities, making it clear who need to work with whom on around agreed approaches to specific policy issues. The summary row could be seen as highlighting where there is greater versus lesser need for work on harmonisation. The summary column may be indicative of which donors might have more versus less time available for leading on harmomisation activities around a specific policy objective. Two or more policy issues will be linked by some donors who have overlapping concerns with those policy issues. Those donors could help provide a higher level information sharing function. The network diagram below shows a section of the above matrix, concered with the five policy objectives in the area of "Private Sector Competitiveness" (A1-A5). Squares = donors, which are colored differently according to the number of policy objectives they are linked to. Moving up in scale, comparisons of the sub-networks of donors and policy objectives within the three main "pillars" of the GGPRS ("Private Sector Competitiveness" [A1-A5], "Human Development and Basic Services" [B1-B9] and "Good Governance and Civic Responsibility" [C1-C7) might show differences in network density. Low density networks might require more explicit attention to harmonisation, because of the sparcity of links, reletive to the number of actors. Network density was lowest in the "Good Governance and Civic Responsibility" pillar.
One additional network model that clearly needs to be developed is that representing government bodies connections with the GGPRS policy objectives ( a two-mode network, like the above). When combined with the above donors x policy objectives network this should show which donors might be expected to be working with which government bodies, because of shared policy concerns. This view may or may not be consistent with the existing funding links between donors and government bodies (where they are outside the Multi-Donor Budget Support mechanism).
The existing donors x policy objectives may have some relevance for donor harmonisation activities, making it clear who need to work with whom on around agreed approaches to specific policy issues. The summary row could be seen as highlighting where there is greater versus lesser need for work on harmonisation. The summary column may be indicative of which donors might have more versus less time available for leading on harmomisation activities around a specific policy objective. Two or more policy issues will be linked by some donors who have overlapping concerns with those policy issues. Those donors could help provide a higher level information sharing function. The network diagram below shows a section of the above matrix, concered with the five policy objectives in the area of "Private Sector Competitiveness" (A1-A5). Squares = donors, which are colored differently according to the number of policy objectives they are linked to. Moving up in scale, comparisons of the sub-networks of donors and policy objectives within the three main "pillars" of the GGPRS ("Private Sector Competitiveness" [A1-A5], "Human Development and Basic Services" [B1-B9] and "Good Governance and Civic Responsibility" [C1-C7) might show differences in network density. Low density networks might require more explicit attention to harmonisation, because of the sparcity of links, reletive to the number of actors. Network density was lowest in the "Good Governance and Civic Responsibility" pillar.
The donors x policy objectives
network should also be of some immediate value to the group of 16
Ghanaian NGOs
who are funded by the Ghana
Governance Research and Advocacy Project (G-RAP). This project is funded
by four of the donors in the above matrix (WB, Netherlands, DFID and
CIDA). The Goal
statement of
that project is "Pro-poor policy adopted and
implemented effectively by GoG" and one of
the indicators for this objective is "GPRS Indicators, as prioritised
by the Funders Committee".Indicators
have yet to be defined for the GGPRS policy objectives, and donor
priorities have not yet been explicitly identified (in fact the idea of
doing so has been seen as problematic by some, because the GGPRS is
meant to be
the government's statement of priorities). However, the pattern of
donor's funding support to the different policy objectives may be
useful information for the G-RAP funded NGOs, and others (i.e a de
facto statement of relative priorities). It might
inform where they choose to invest their advocacy efforts The network
diagram below looks specifically at the funding support given to GGPRS
policy objectives by the G-RAP donors. (The shortened policy objective
identifiers can be related to the full versions in the matrix above)
G-RAP
funded NGOs have a number of choices as to how they
engage in advocacy work with donors (... recognising that they will
also directly engage with government). They can:
- Treat the network structure as an independent variable: Asking how could changes in this structure effect the policies that are of concern to them?
- Treat the network structure as a mediating variable: Asking the same question, but assuming the influence of the network influence will be more marginal rather than central
- Treat the network structure as a dependent variable: Asking what changes will take place in this network structure if their work on policy change is successful.
They can also:
- Take an "opportunistic" approach: Examine the structure of donor support to GGPRS policy issues, and identify which issue is most open to influence, give the structure of donor support to that issue. A working assumption here might be that there are multiple policy changes that could benefit poor households in Ghana, and achieving "a" change is more important than achieving "the" change that might be seen as most important, but which may take more time.
- Take a more "committed" approach: Pursue the policy issues that are of already of concern to them, but take note of the structure of donor support to these versus other issues.
Analysing the implications of structure will require more micro-level
knowledge of the actors and network involved. It might make sense to
work on
policy objectives that are already the centre of donor attention, such
as "HIV/AIDs" in the above network diagram, or "Infrastructure" in the
larger matrix, if the concerned donor's agenda's are either
sympathetic, or diverse. If not, it might make sense to work on policy
objectives that are more marginal.
Caveat: This is
an illustrative example only, using data that happens to be
available. The above networks are part of wider networks of many kinds,
which might be more influential in terms of the long terms goals of the
NGOs and donors. For example, personal contacts between RAOs and
sections of government, and RAOs and donors.
Late Note: See also Donor support for Ghana Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy GPRS2 and Civic Engagement with GPRS2
Developing network models of development projects: An introduction > Network Examples > Networks of other organisations
Late Note: See also Donor support for Ghana Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy GPRS2 and Civic Engagement with GPRS2
Developing network models of development projects: An introduction > Network Examples > Networks of other organisations