Frequently asked questions
Political economy analysis (PEA) has been defined in various ways. It ‘is the attempt to find out what is really “going on” in a situation’ (Whaites 2017). Or, put more technically, it ‘aims to situate development interventions within an understanding of the prevailing political and economic processes in society – specifically, the incentives, relationships, distribution, and contestation of power between different groups and individuals’ (Mcloughlin 2014). PEA makes those dynamics visible, including the ones people know are there, but don’t always say out loud.
At Open PEA we focus on unpacking the politics of particular enduring problems in growth and development, so also use the phrase ‘the practical politics of [that problem]’.
PEA undoubtedly offers useful insights. PEA can describe the major actors that relate to a problem or opportunity in public policy, the formal and informal rules they follow, and how these fit together in the (often disappointing) status quo. PEA can also help reveal who benefits from a proposed reform, who is likely to stand in its way, which coalitions might coalesce around specific aim, and whether any win-wins could bring opposing actors on board.
Beyond insights, we think that PEA has the potential to greatly improve the effectiveness of growth and development policy and investment, regardless of source of funds. This includes revenue, debt, philanthropy, private investment, and aid (probably in that order). By helping actors to consider the political constraints of a problem alongside its technical hurdles, PEA can enable feasible strategies to be developed that won’t fail at implementation due to a ‘lack of political will’.
While the tools of PEA are fairly well established, using them remains a specialist niche and is particularly associated with aid and foreign policy. Most PEA is conducted in private by donors and other organisations, or by the private consultants working for them. It’s bespoke, quite expensive, often sensitive, and offers a comparative advantage to those who have it. So while plenty of PEA exists, it’s usually kept under lock and key.
Done right, PEA can have big, real-world impact. Considering the very large sums spent in major sectors such as health, education, climate, and growth, it is also a relatively inexpensive side investment to make to try and catalyse success. Even a small increase in effectiveness as a result of PEA would represent a strong return on investment. We contend that PEA can have a very large impact if it breaks out of its private, expert niche.
Open PEA seeks to bring PEA out of the shadows and into the mainstream of growth and development. We want to make quality analysis easier to find, use, and act upon. We also want to build the field and increase the number of practitioners and users.
Think of private PEA like a tailor-made suit: perfectly fitted at that moment, but costly, slow, and designed for one particular user. Open PEA is more like a good-quality, widely wearable standard. It’s not one-size-fits-all, but it is intentionally designed to work for many people.
We believe the ‘handmade-only’ model is one reason PEA has stayed niche. Open PEA aims for something more mainstream. Our products follow a clear and consistent format. They are short and written in plain language. And they have a strong focus on ‘propositions’; what the analysis means for action.
There is more than one! There is a general audience for Open PEA, and then specific audiences for each product.
Open PEA’s general audience is anyone who cares about growth and development, and particularly in maximising the impact from policy, strategy, and investment. We think that PEA is a missing ingredient in current framings such as ‘what works’ and ‘best buys’. This general audience includes students, government officials, staff of development organisations, and those that read and consume new ideas and material widely via social media, blogs, podcasts, newsletters etc.
Then there is the sector- and country-specific audience. For a product on health in Nigeria, for example, this audience might include Nigerian government officials and advisers, civil society, donors and multilaterals, media, grant givers and private foundations.
Finally, our most targeted and specific audience are those who have direct influence on policy making and spending decisions, as well as those who directly advise them.
Some of these actors already commission their own, bespoke PEA. But not everybody who could benefit from PEA is able to commission it – because of affordability, risk appetite, or confidence. We see three main use cases beyond offering direct analysis and advice to these audiences. An open product:
- facilitates a common basis of open discussion for stakeholders, even if some already have access to private PEA
- offers a low stakes way for risk averse actors to experiment with the value of talking politics
- provides different parts of civil society – activists, unions, journalists, etc. – authoritative information and a document to reference as they seek to generate activity and pressure around an issue.
Some PEA experts contend that the main value of traditional PEA is found in the quality and depth of its insider information (what we often call the ‘dirt’ it dredges up). Who, what, where, why – and the dirtier the better.
This undoubtedly has its uses (and is natural when PEA is a private product for a foreign policy actor alone), but we disagree that this is the best that PEA has to offer. Open PEA products don’t seek to be a more generic or more palatable version of traditional PEA. They seek to surface a fundamentally different kind of value – that of facilitating, broadening, and normalising conversations about the political constraints of any given issue, and what to do about them.
In Open PEA we more typically talk about types and classes of key actor and interest groups, rather than dishing dirt and naming names, particularly where there are not reliable public sources to support this.
Some politics changes quickly (leadership, coalitions, crises). But a lot of what shapes outcomes changes more slowly: elite bargains, institutions, patterns of rent distribution, and structural constraints. Open PEA focuses on the enduring dynamics that keep systems suck, and that help explain patterns of failed interventions – often over decades. That said, if underlying dynamics do fundamentally change, we are open to updating our analyses to reflect such shifts.
We want more PEA in the world, and more of it to be public. However, Open PEA is not an open blog or a wiki-PEA-dia. We think that the private nature of PEA has constrained quality, peer feedback, and ideas around minimum standards.
We take quality assurance seriously, and have a rigorous system of editorial oversight and expert review for all our products. This covers analytical approach, content, and style.
Each product is overseen by Open PEA’s editorial board. This starts with the lead author presenting a skeleton outline of the product followed by an open brainstorm. The skeleton is then revised and full drafting begins. The Open PEA team contributes to the drafting process at multiple points, providing guidance and feedback to help the expert further tighten the analysis. In some cases we are lead author, or co-author.
Once a near final draft is produced, it is reviewed by our editorial board as well as multiple external practitioners and researchers before being professionally copyedited and going through final checks.
It can. There are real risks, including: shutting down access or dialogue, exposing researchers and informants, creating backlash, and analysis being misused by bad-faith actors. Open PEA takes duty of care seriously, and we allow authors to publish anonymously as ‘Open PEA’ where there are legitimate security risks. Any product that is based on new primary data collection falls within the standard university research ethics protocols.
Not at all. We see the two types of PEA products (private PEA and Open PEA) as complementary. They have different use cases and surface different kinds of value.
Open PEA aims to help build the PEA field and break further into the mainstream. We aim to increase the number and range of stakeholders active in the discussion, rather than to directly challenge the business model of private PEA consultants. Many actors cannot afford bespoke PEA analysis and advice, but could nonetheless have more impact if they had access to a better political economy roadmap. Watchdog organisations and accountability journalism should know where to look, and what to look out for. Onboarding staffers at international organisations also need quality assured political orientation. And officials in government offices may benefit from evidence-informed proposals on how to fix their own enduring problems.
We seek to serve all these customers and users, as well as to facilitate public discussion around the political dynamics of development in the broader field and among the interested public. Open PEA is about democratising PEA – we aim to help deliver a rising tide that can lift all boats.