Donors Doing Political Economy Analysis™: From Process to Product (and Back Again?)

J. Fisher, H. Marquette
{"title":"Donors Doing Political Economy Analysis™: From Process to Product (and Back Again?)","authors":"J. Fisher, H. Marquette","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2206474","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper refocuses current debate on political economy analysis (PEA) by firstly critiquing existing scholarly tendencies to analyze donors through a particular lens, as a unique analytical category, which does not adequately capture donor officials as the civil servants they are. Current donor debates which move the purpose of PEA away from ‘thinking politically’ towards ‘managing risk’ may thus not reflect failure to mainstream PEA, but instead reflect a logical response from civil servants when faced with a product that exists to flag up risks or potential failure. Informed by Hood’s work (2010) on risk and blame, the paper argues that by understanding donors as blame-averse civil servants, we can better comprehend their continued ambivalence towards PEA. Secondly, the paper responds to a second critique of PEA, which highlights its politically sensitive nature. The paper argues that this sensitivity is not simply an operational matter but instead presents a significant challenge to donor commitments to country ownership. The paper explores how both of these issues have played-out in the World Bank’s evolving work on PEA. Drawing on interview data and participant observation, it is suggested that the Bank may be better placed to navigate these complexities given its apolitical mandate.","PeriodicalId":122993,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Bureaucracy; Administrative Processes in Public Organizations; Corruption (Topic)","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"29","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Bureaucracy; Administrative Processes in Public Organizations; Corruption (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2206474","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 29

Abstract

This paper refocuses current debate on political economy analysis (PEA) by firstly critiquing existing scholarly tendencies to analyze donors through a particular lens, as a unique analytical category, which does not adequately capture donor officials as the civil servants they are. Current donor debates which move the purpose of PEA away from ‘thinking politically’ towards ‘managing risk’ may thus not reflect failure to mainstream PEA, but instead reflect a logical response from civil servants when faced with a product that exists to flag up risks or potential failure. Informed by Hood’s work (2010) on risk and blame, the paper argues that by understanding donors as blame-averse civil servants, we can better comprehend their continued ambivalence towards PEA. Secondly, the paper responds to a second critique of PEA, which highlights its politically sensitive nature. The paper argues that this sensitivity is not simply an operational matter but instead presents a significant challenge to donor commitments to country ownership. The paper explores how both of these issues have played-out in the World Bank’s evolving work on PEA. Drawing on interview data and participant observation, it is suggested that the Bank may be better placed to navigate these complexities given its apolitical mandate.
捐助者做政治经济分析™:从过程到产品(再回来?)
本文重新聚焦了当前关于政治经济分析(PEA)的争论,首先批评了现有的学术倾向,即通过特定的视角来分析捐赠者,作为一个独特的分析类别,它没有充分捕捉到作为公务员的捐赠者官员。目前的捐助者辩论将PEA的目的从“政治思考”转向“管理风险”,因此可能并不反映PEA未能成为主流,而是反映了公务员在面对一个用于标记风险或潜在失败的产品时的合乎逻辑的反应。根据Hood(2010)关于风险和责备的研究,本文认为,通过将捐助者理解为厌恶责备的公务员,我们可以更好地理解他们对PEA的持续矛盾心理。其次,本文回应了对PEA的第二项批评,该批评强调了PEA的政治敏感性。该报告认为,这种敏感性不仅仅是一个业务问题,而是对捐助国对国家所有权的承诺提出了重大挑战。本文探讨了这两个问题如何在世界银行不断发展的PEA工作中发挥作用。根据访谈数据和参与者观察,我们认为,鉴于世行的非政治性使命,它可能更有能力应对这些复杂性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信