Political analysis as the practical art of the possible

24th July 2014

In May 2011 I met Adrian Leftwich for a cup of tea, to discuss a project that was plaguing him. 
He bounded over with a ‘Hello!’ and vigorous handshake and set out his concerns. Why, he wanted to know, couldn’t donors do a better job of understanding and navigating the politics of the places in which they work? 
Adrian’s own work had long shown just how important politics was for development outcomes. And now, he said, he was frustrated that smart and dedicated people in donor agencies couldn’t seem to get a better grip on what he always called ‘the inner politics of development’.
By this he meant the endless competition, cooperation, and conflict among individuals and organisations.  The real stuff of politics, as far as he was concerned: the deliberation over distribution and values; the striking and breaking of deals; and the building, maintenance and transformation of coalitions and institutions. Above all, the operation of power. 
“...existing PEA approaches and tools rely too much on economic assumptions”
Adrian’s proposition was that donors couldn’t develop a sufficiently detailed understanding of these living processes because they didn’t have the right tools. As we discussed where those tools might be found, our hunch was that we should go back to basics and do some serious theoretical excavation. 
Out of that work came a paper, From Political Economy to Political Analysis, affectionately known here at DLP as ‘Hudwich’. Its argument was extremely important to Adrian and, tragically, it turned out to be the last piece of writing he did.
It is a ground-clearing exercise, an invitation to think more deeply about the very nature of politics.
There has been much progress towards thinking and working politically over the last decade, thanks largely to the PEA approach, but that progress has stalled. Sue Unsworth argues persuasively that the rhetorical acceptance of the importance of politics rarely translates into politically-informed programming (ungated here). 
Why isn’t PEA helping us bridge this gap between thinking and working politically? Partly because of donor agencies’ own incentive structures and administrative barriers to more flexible programming. It’s also about staffing issues, skill-sets, resources, capacity and – to put it frankly – appetite. And it is difficult to communicate PEA in an attractive and compelling way. These factors all need to be tackled. 
But in our view, a crucial stumbling block is the lack of sufficiently sharp analytical tools to help donors understand the all-important inner politics of development. 
“Where is the room for manoeuvre, or how can it be created to make support of developmental reform possible?”
PEA has in some cases become a ‘dismal science of constraints’, argue Alex Duncan and Gareth Williams (ungated here). PEA is often very good at identifying the tenacity of institutions and vested interests, and therefore at explaining why change can’t happen. Yet the key question is surely about how change can happen – as Duncan and Williams point out, it is about the room for manoeuvre amidst the constraints. Where is the room for manoeuvre, or how can it be created to make support of developmental reform possible?
This is not a new question: political scientists have long discussed it. As we returned to those debates, Adrian and I found that learning from them could help identify room for manoeuvre in development work by bringing politics back into PEA. 
As the title of our paper suggests, existing PEA approaches and tools rely too much on economic assumptions – that people are consistently rational and respond to incentives in largely predictable ways. And economists have always failed to take power seriously enough. 
From the perspectives of politics and political analysis it becomes clear that interests and ideas are part of the same story: ideas, social norms and power all affect people’s motivations and interpretations of what their incentives are. Self-interest is not the obvious and consistent force it is often assumed to be. 
“Political analysis helps us understand the strategic creativity of political actors. ”
Understanding this makes it easier to identify room for manoeuvre. Whether it already exists or might be created, it is critical to work out which ‘realities’ are more or less available. 
To do this, political analysis sets out with the idea that we are venturing into the unpredictable terrain of a living, changing landscape. 
The most recent manifestations of PEA have become static and inflexible. They miss opportunities for change because they assume that every developmental journey will be a methodical and rational navigation through a maze of fixed walls. 
Political analysis is simply more dynamic. It investigates ideology, power, politics, and socio-economic context. It examines the role of ideas and interests in these arenas, helping us understand the strategic creativity of political actors. 
While political analysis recognises the constraints of political realities, it assumes that there is always room for manoeuvre. So it asks not only how institutions and structures shape what agents can and can’t do, but also what they might think of doing. Where, in institutions and structures, do agents find the resources to shape conduct and context? We also want to know how agents interpret their political context and their interests, what forms of collective agency are feasible, and what political work is necessary. 
When, in 1867, Otto von Bismarck described politics as the 'art of the possible', he was pointing out the limits of what can be achieved. But political analysis isn't just a study of obstacles; it considers how people creatively negotiate and reshape their context. Bringing politics back into PEA can transform the ‘dismal science of constraints’ into a practical – and more positive – 'art'.

Image: Dr Adrian Leftwich (1940-2013), the Developmental Leadership Program's founding Director of Research.


Leave a comment

The views expressed in Opinions posts are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of DLP, the Australian Government or DLP's partner organisations.


David Hudson

David Hudson

Dr David Hudson is a Senior Lecturer in Political Economy in the Department of Political Science at University College London (UCL). His main research interests lie in the political economy of development: public engagement with global poverty, the international political economy of development finance, and the politics of development.

Read more

Related items

The inclusiveness test: making change work

Guest post for openDemocracy

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal4th November 2015

The road to transparency in resource-rich Myanmar

Myanmar's EITI process and its contribution to broader reform

Opinion by Taylor Brown1st April 2016

Fiji's Roshika Deo - outlier, positive deviant or simply feisty feminist?

First in a series on 'Power, politics and positive deviance', theme of DLP's 2016 annual conference.

Opinion by Priya Chattier 1st February 2016

Welcome to DLP's blog

Welcome to DLP's new blog on politics, power, policy and developmental leadership

Opinion by Heather Marquette10th December 2013
Opinion by Dan Hymowitz3rd February 2017

Politics, risk and development: three takeaways

Reflections from two conferences

Opinion by Chris Roche19th February 2016
Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal24th November 2014

Politics shape services; and services shape politics

How governance and sector specialists can help each other understand the politics of service delivery

Opinion by Richard Batley19th June 2014
Opinion by Caryn Peiffer5th February 2015

‘Crows who come in search of dollars’: NGO legitimacy in conflict zones

Do political dynamics affect NGO legitimacy more than performance?

Opinion by Oliver Walton19th August 2014

The seeds and roots of change

Guest post on leadership networks for Governance for Development

Opinion by Heather Lyne de Ver1st December 2014

Somaliland's route to peace

What can we learn from Somaliland's approach to peacebuilding? 

Opinion by Sarah Phillips12th December 2013

The politics of redistribution: we need you

Which are the key country cases? Help us shape new research.

Opinion by David Hudson16th October 2014

What's in a name? Leadership as more than the 'big men' and 'big women' of history

Looking beyond 'The Leader' for a deeper understanding of how change happens

Opinion by Heather Lyne de Ver11th February 2014

Taking the Results agenda to the next level?

On new book The Politics of Evidence and Results in International Development

Opinion by Chris Roche15th July 2015

Masculinity and sexual violence in India

Will the shocking Nirbaya case shift attitudes?

Opinion by Martin Rew16th September 2015

Forgotten South Sudan tangled in factionalism and failed politics

A toxic blend of complex historical identity politics and short-term elite politicking

Opinion by Jonathan Fisher4th September 2014
Opinion by Susy Ndaruhutse11th September 2014

Identifying rebels with a cause (and effect)

'Power, politics and positive deviance' is the theme of DLP's 2016 annual conference.

Opinion by Chris Roche1st December 2015

Inequality – the politics behind the policies

Discussion starter for the #polinequality conference

Opinion by David Hudson11th February 2015

Politics - the problem and solution to poor services?

Why - and how - does politics trump everything else in service delivery?

Opinion by Claire Mcloughlin13th March 2014

What do we do on Monday? Political settlements in theory and practice

The value of the political settlements framework

Opinion by Edward Laws15th July 2015

Political analysis as the practical art of the possible

Bringing politics back into PEA - a new paper with Adrian Leftwich

Opinion by David Hudson24th July 2014

Does talking about corruption make it seem worse?

Guest post for The Guardian's Global Development Professionals Network

#Feminism: Digital technologies and feminist activism in Fiji

Guest post on Devpolicy on DLP work with research partners at University of the South Pacific

Opinion by Tait Brimacombe14th March 2017

Climate change and adaptation in the Pacific Islands: watering down women's security?

How women leaders are challenging a narrow adaptation agenda.

Opinion by Nicole George7th March 2014

Is education a magic bullet for addressing corruption? Insights from Papua New Guinea

This post for Devpolicy unpacks the findings of a new Development Policy Centre / DLP paper 

Opinion by Grant Walton17th June 2015

Corruption: is the right message getting through?

The unintended consequences of raising awareness of corruption

Opinion by Caryn Peiffer12th August 2015

Adding gender and power to the TWP agenda

Why bring gender into Thinking and Working Politically?

Opinion by Sally Moyle6th August 2015

Parliamentary strengthening: the IDC report

Having presented evidence to the UK's International Development Committee, what of the final report?

Opinion by Tam O'Neil9th February 2015
Opinion by Heather Marquette9th March 2015
Opinion by Luke Arnold25th May 2016

It's all about inclusion, but how?

Guest post for the World Bank

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal6th April 2016

Cancer and the links between medicine and development

Guest post for From Poverty to Power

Opinion by Chris Roche15th April 2015

Two remarkable transitions: lessons from Oman and Somaliland

Political settlements and international power structures

Opinion by Sarah Phillips20th July 2015

Gender - the power relationship that Political Economy Analysis forgot?

Why more questions about gender relations could help

Opinion by Evie Browne13th February 2014

Neither 'good guys' nor 'bad guys': Positive engagement with armed groups

Final post in a series on 'Power, politics and positive deviance', theme of DLP's 2016 Annual Conference.

Opinion by Suda Perera5th February 2016

Innovation: transactional or transformative?

Given the fascination with 'innovation' in the field of development, it's time to discuss what the word might mean.

Opinion by Chris Roche23rd March 2015

Medellin - more than a miracle

From the most murderous city on earth to 'a new global standard for urban policy': the politics of change in the wake of crisis

Opinion by Cheryl Stonehouse4th March 2014

Is developmental patrimonialism a dead end?

The first of two posts introducing a new DLP paper on growth and democratic transition

Opinion by Tim Kelsall27th September 2016

Developmental leaders, 'dirty hands', and the dark side of collaboration

The ambiguities of supporting 'developmental leadership'

Opinion by Niheer Dasandi11th December 2013