By Arnaldo Pellini, Farini Pane, Kharisma Nugroho, and Vira Riyandari
In a recent article in The Guardian, Polly Toynbee reminded us that ‘all that matters in politics is what gets done’.
Does this also apply to policy making? Is all that matters in policy making what gets done? If so, what is the space for evidence to inform policy? How is evidence used within policy making?
These were the questions on the back of our minds when we attended a knowledge-sharing event organized by the Knowledge Sector Initiative in Jakarta last month: "Demand and use of Evidence: Insights from the Inside".
The event had three prominent speakers: Dr. Noer Fauzi Rahman, Special Staff at the Presidential Office (or Kantor Staff Presiden), Dr. Sudarno Sumarto, Policy Advisor at TNP2K, The National Agency for Acceleration of Poverty Reduction, and Dr. Suahasil Nazara (Head of the Fiscal Policy Agency (or BKF, Badan Kebijakan Fiskal) the de facto policy think tank at the Ministry of Finance.
The common factor between these high-profile presenters was that they had all come from academic and policy research and are now serving as senior civil servants at the center of policy making. As they have entered the ‘black box’ of policy making, what insights did they have to share?
Noer Fauzi Rahman reflected on his transition from policy researcher and activist on land and agrarian reforms with the Konsorsium Pembaruan Agraria and the Sajogyo Institute, to advisor at the KSP, the Presidential Office. He said changing and adapting one’s ideas and perspectives was about maximizing new opportunities. For him, moving from the outside to the inside of the black box of policy making meant: 1) acquiring a degree of power and being able to issue instructions to direct staff in ministries on, for example, land rights of indigenous people; and 2) changing attitudes and making an effort to understand the (bureaucratic) language and norms that guide the policy-making work of the bureaucracy.
Noer Fauzi Rahman continues to feel, first and foremost, like a researcher. It is precisely because of his reputation and credibility as a researcher that the President called him to serve at the Presidential Office. This is one way for the President to acquire the knowledge and experience that policy researchers possess and, at the same time, contribute to changing mentality and starting to develop evidence-seeking behaviors and attitudes within the bureaucracy.
Sudarno Sumarto reminded the audience that evidence-based policy making has a relatively long history in Indonesia. He recalled the Centre for Policy and Implementation Studies, the policy research institute set up during the New Order regime where he started his career as a researcher. The research produced by the Centre for Policy and Implementation Studies was used to validate research carried out by ministries. He highlighted that policy priorities define the Government’s evidence demand. These policy priorities are set by various factors: presidential elections, international agreements such as ASEAN, the UN, the Sustainable Development Goals, etc., the media and public opinion.
In his long career as a policy researcher in non-governmental and public institutions, Sudarno Sumarto has learned that policy researchers must understand and accept that research is only one of the many elements of policy making, and must remember that senior officials in ministries have very little time to sieve through evidence and data, which in fact results in a lot of policy-based evidence. Moreover, they must learn about the politics of policy making, as it is politics that defines policy making more than anything else; not ideology, not evidence, but politics.
Suahasil Nazara shared the experience of BKF (the Fiscal Policy Agency) which he leads within the Ministry of Finance. BKF was set up in the 1980s to monitor the national budget. Its role then evolved over time to monitor the state of the economy and balance of payments. It became the Fiscal Policy Agency in 2006. BKF is responsible for managing and producing evidence and, at the same time, has an economic policy mandate. It is therefore a central economic policy actor in the Indonesian bureaucracy. BKF does this by acting as an evidence intermediary or an evidence broker. BKF does not conduct primary research, but distils, packages and synthesizes primary research to inform policy decisions and provide policy options to the Ministry of Finance.Suahasil Nazara noted that the synthesis and translation of research-based evidence is made to translate evidence results into the language and needs of the bureaucracy. As an academic working for the University of Indonesia, as a policy maker at TNP2K and now a high-ranking civil servant within BKF, he had to learn thelanguage of bureaucracy and understand the way bureaucracy works. That was possible because he had become an insider. He admitted that it is very difficult for those on the outside to gain an understanding of policy research. In Indonesia and all over the world, bureaucrats follow a certain logic in the way they work. So, in Indonesia as elsewhere, policy researchers have to, as much as possible, understand the bureaucratic language or create networks that allow them to translate their policy research findings into that language, for it to be useful and pursued by bureaucrats and policy makers.
Suahasil Nazara concluded by listing the four key requirements for strengthening the evidence-based policy-making culture in the Indonesian bureaucracy:
- High-level commitment: the President, the Vice President and ministers must all show their commitment and intent to have policies, as much as possible, based on evidence.
- Support champions within the bureaucracy by creating space and providing resources to make more and better use of evidence.
- Develop the capability of professionals to conduct research as well as synthesize and translate evidence for policy making.
- Hire researchers, and create incentives and a regulatory environment for researchers to join the bureaucracy.
Overall, it was good to hear that policy researchers and academics remain, at heart, researchers when they enter the bureaucracy. It is their credibility and reputation as researchers that opened the doors of the bureaucracy to them in the first place. Once inside, they had to learn the language of the bureaucracy and the politics of policy making in order to contribute to the policy-making process and to get things done, which in the end, may be all that matters in politics and policy making.
Arnaldo Pellini is a Research Fellow at the Overseas Development Institute and the Lead for Knowledge-to-Policy Learning at the Knowledge Sector Initiative. Email: apellini@ksi-indonesia.org
Farini Pane is the Program Manager for Knowledge-to-Policy Capacity Building at the Knowledge Sector Initiative in Jakarta. Email: fpane@ksi-indonesia.org
Kharisma Nugroho is a Research Fellow at Migunani Research Institute Yogyakarta and Institute for Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam and the Lead for Knowledge-to-Policy Capacity Building at the Knowledge Sector Initiative in Jakarta. Email: knugroho@ksi-indonesia.org
Vira R Ramelan is a Research Affiliate with the Centre for Communication and Social Change, the University of Queensland, Australia, and Communication Manager at the Knowledge Sector Initiative in Jakarta. Email: vriyandari@ksi-indonesia.org
