Saturday , March 6 2021
Home / Impact Evaluations / 7 types of policy makers and what they mean for getting your research used

7 types of policy makers and what they mean for getting your research used

Summary:
So you are out there with some results on a program that works and you really want to get your research used. And you’ve managed to schedule a meeting with a policy maker who is in a position to actually use your work. Maybe they even called you. As you start to discuss things with ...

Topics:
Markus Goldstein considers the following as important:

This could be interesting, too:

IMFBlog writes Engendering the Recovery: Budgeting with Women in Mind

David Andolfatto writes Is it time for some unpleasant monetarist arithmetic?

Swiss National Bank writes 2021-03-04 – SNB Working Papers – Financial inclusion, technology and their impacts on monetary and fiscal policy: theory and evidence

FRED Blog writes The educational and health services sector is no longer recession-proof

So you are out there with some results on a program that works and you really want to get your research used. And you’ve managed to schedule a meeting with a policy maker who is in a position to actually use your work. Maybe they even called you. As you start to discuss things with them, one key thing to think about is what that policy maker is looking for. Based on my experiences with this, there are seven types of policy makers, and knowing your counterpart’s type might be helpful in figuring out how to pitch your discussion:
 
  1. The Quicksand:  the absorber of ideas and time without sentience.    This policy maker is confused about the project they are supposed to be designing and met with you (or even sought you out) because they heard you had an interesting idea.  It’s not clear they will actually use your idea and they are talking to a lot of different people to get inputs.    They can take a fair amount of your time (e.g. asking for clarifications).    It’s not clear this project will work, so it’s best not to spend too much time with them, relative to other policy makers who are more ready to put evidence into action.
  2. The Validation Seeker: This is someone who was already thinking that the intervention you have researched might be a good idea. They are looking for evidence on the size of impacts that they can use to justify this to whomever they report to. The more skeptical/thoughtful folks in this group will have questions on external validity and how best to adapt the intervention to their particular context.
  3. The Innovator: This group ranges from people who are excited about the “hot new thing” to those who are frustrated with the same old approach. This group cares less about the magnitude of impacts and is more likely to be satisfied just to know the intervention works. Here it’s important to show what is new about what you are doing and what sets your intervention apart from others in the same family.
  4. The Bonus Seeker: Let’s say you have evidence on a job training program that increases women’s income, but also lowers the fertility rate of the beneficiaries. In the coincident benefit type, you’ll find people who are thinking about job training programs and will be excited to hear that this program has other benefits they (or the people funding their work) care about. You may also meet people who are considering a fertility-targeted program who are excited to hear that they could impact this and income at the same time, although since that’s not the usual program they think about, it’s likely to be harder to convince them (see my blog post on this issue here).
  5. The Carer:  Part of why I love my job is that there are a significant number of policy makers who care about making people’s lives better.  For these folks it’s important to emphasize a) that the intervention works, and b) the size and duration of benefits. Showing those benefits relative to impacts from other programs (or the fact that these alternatives have no rigorous evidence) will also be useful.  
  6. The Empirically Driven Carer: A subset of group 5, these folks are likely to know the existing evidence (or the lack thereof). Putting the impacts from your study in context relative to others will be important. This group is also likely to care about cost-benefit or cost-effective comparisons as well.
  7. The Repeat Customer: This policy maker has found your research (and/or your command of relevant other research) useful in the past.  You’ll face less skepticism than from other types. Don’t mess it up.

Two final thoughts. First, types 6 and 7 (and to a lesser extent 3 and 5) have discussions about your research which often will not only lead to them adapting your intervention, but also can lead to a new, second generation impact evaluation. Be prepared for this to come up in the conversation.

Second, these types overlap and can be thought of as aspects of policy makers rather than types. Indeed, policy makers may switch type within the same conversation. So, even if you think you have an idea what the policymaker is looking for initially, be ready to shift. 
 
Markus Goldstein
Markus Goldstein is a development economist with experience working in Sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia, and South Asia. He is currently the Gender Practice Leader in the Africa Region and a Lead Economist in the Research Group of the World Bank. His current research centers on issues of gender and economic activity, focusing on agriculture and small scale enterprises. He is currently involved in a number of impact evaluations on these topics across Africa. Markus has taught at the London School of Economics, the University of Ghana, Legon, and Georgetown University. He holds a PhD from the University of California, Berkeley.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *