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 MO-

PAN 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  Barthe, Y., & Gaïti, B. (2008). Figures de la décision. Politix, 2, 3-5. 96  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. 97  Ingold, J., & Monaghan, M. (2016). Evidence translation: An exploration of policy makers’ use of evidence. Policy & Politics, 44(2), 171-190. 8 98  Zarkin, M. (2020). Knowledge utilization in the regulatory state: An empirical examination of Schrefler’s typology. Policy Studies, 1-18.

their inclination to use known and trusted products) needs to develop formal and informal knowledge brokering processes to identify opportunities that ensure that the knowledge is consumed and taken up at critical times. It also needs to multiply these opportunities to expose decision-makers to the knowledge it produces. To do so effectively, the MOPAN Secretariat would require the support of members to be recognised by decision makers in key forums and would also need commensurate, flexible resources to leverage these opportunities when they are identified. MOPAN is structured to deliver assessments currently with no systematically guaranteed additional support or resources. These problems are not insurmountable. The high-level event on climate change shows that MOPAN can reach senior officials with the help of its members. But it also raises questions. First, from the policy standpoint– about the legitimacy of MOPAN having a policy standpoint without having any high-level decision-makers in its governance framework and second the resources (for advocacy and budget) that MOPAN members are willing to invest for increasing MOPAN’s impact as a knowledge producer.

Main Findings

• MOPAN can provide original new knowledge on some common challenges across the multilateral system, especially if it uses its accumulated knowledge and understanding of MOs to provide a comparative view across the multilateral scene. • MOPAN may have difficulties getting its products before targeted users because: • senior-level decision makers are not directly exposed to them • these users do not know MOPAN or its policy perspective on important issues • MOPAN lacks the means to push the knowledge it produces towards its potential users systematically, absent changes in how members support the initiatives.