MOPAN's relevance
A learning instrument in search of users seeking to learn MOPAN members have also started seeing MOPAN as a learning instrument. This is first an inward-looking movement seeking better use of the amount of information that MOPAN collects every year during and across assessments. It is also outward-looking; in recent years it has identified specific opportunities to provide a perspective that other stakeholders may not be able to give, particularly with the UNDS reform and climate change studies. A question arises regarding the necessity of these new products and the extent to which they can be used. It is evident that that new learning products are considered to be potentially useful, particularly for MOs, especially if they provide a comparative view of how MOs are faring on certain topics of interest. When it comes to use, the challenge is finding a place in the complex process of policy making: • Policy making is best presented as an iterative process in which several decisions that are not always consistent, that involve different actors, and that are made over one or several periods of time.95 • Within these processes, specialists with strong positions about what to do and why tend to make the decisions. They join advocacy coalitions seeking to win political battles.96 • Knowledge is an important resource for the coalitions, which take evidence that they find useful.97 When “windows of opportunity” for decisions open, the stakeholders will seek evidence for their view of the problem and of the solutions. Evidence is more likely to be used when disagreements are more intense and when the stakeholders agree that it can help solve a problem.98 In this context, the question is less about a potentially useful product and far more about recognising the context for an issue and channelling potential learning products to the “potential users” themselves. This is challenging, for several reasons: • MOPAN has no direct access to these users. MOPAN member representatives are partly hosted in evaluation units and partly in multilateral policy units, but are rarely senior-level decision makers. A majority of MOPAN representatives believes that MOPAN fits more in operational work than on strategic thinking, at least currently. • These specialist users tend to rely on knowledge producers they know, and share a common view of the issues at stake. Those in larger countries can rely on think tanks making clear-cut statements and recommendations based on evidence. Whether MOPAN can leverage its role to be sufficiently sharp and prescriptive in this setting to promote use is an evolving question. • An organisation that wishes to “push” knowledge towards decision makers (against 95 96 97 98
Barthe, Y., & Gaïti, B. (2008). Figures de la décision. Politix, 2, 3‑5. Sabatier, P., Weible, C. (2007). The Advocacy coalition framework: innovations and clarifications, pp. 189-223. In Sabatier, P. A. (Éd.). (2007). Theories of the policy process (2nd ed). Westview Press. Ingold, J., & Monaghan, M. (2016). Evidence translation: An exploration of policy makers’ use of evidence. Policy & Politics, 44(2), 171‑190. 8 Zarkin, M. (2020). Knowledge utilization in the regulatory state: An empirical examination of Schrefler’s typology. Policy Studies, 1‑18.
97
