Guiding questions for context analysis

Consider the following areas of analysis for local governance. Keep in mind that not all of these questions will be relevant to your community. In addition, some of the below questions will be more relevant if you are a civil society representative using this guide in partnership with your local authority. As a result, please do not feel obligated to complete most or even a small number of these questions - many of these answers will already be known to you, and this exercise will waste time. Instead, focus your energies as a team to discuss the questions that most directly apply to the challenges you expect, for example, your team may find discussion of internal bargaining processes useful to refine their strategy for approaching opposition councilors or hesitant civil servants to engage in the process.

The following questions will help to create a political economy analysis, which is an understanding of the power dynamics in your community and the factors inhibiting or promoting change. In short, it is an effort to understand the overall context that the process you will implement will affect, so that you can better design the process to navigate (either by avoiding or taking advantage of them): 

  • structural and contextual factors, which form the backdrop of your community (e.g., the state of the national economy, a nearby border),
  • bargaining processes, which are the formal and informal 'rules of the game,' how agreement is reached and between whom,
  • stakeholders or 'agents', who are the people and groups that participate in or are excluded from bargaining processes,
  • incentives and disincentives, which drive the actions and attitudes of stakeholders who may stand to lose or win from change1

Again - this is an intensive exercise, and you need to determine whether your team has the time to dedicate to it; note that once it is done, though, it does not need to be repeated as intensely; instead, some teams revisit their assumptions periodically (every three to six months, or after a big event) to discuss what needs to be updated.

Your goal is to think and work politically

The feedback loop, or Listen, Respond, Report framework, will invite public participation in a local decision. This endeavor has some risks: The main risk is not delivering on the decision, which will result in frustrating the public who participated and undermining the chances of success for similar efforts in the future. Relatedly, there is a risk of opposition that stymies or undermines the process. Your goal with this political economy analysis is to anticipate where those threats may come from so that you can design your process to be as strong as possible. Politics is not passive, and you will need to plan and react – this is called “thinking and working politically” and applies to policymakers, activists and anyone seeking to make a change in the public sphere. 

Start with your own analysis, and ask others to fill in gaps

You and your team should convene to answer these questions. You do not need a professional expert to conduct a political economy analysis. As someone who lives in your community, you likely already understand the local “rules of the game,” who has power and who does not, and who will support or oppose your desire to increase participation in decision-making. If possible, your analysis should draw from formal interviews or informal chats with government representatives – including elected and unelected officials – and civil society organizations and activists, especially local media, whose understanding of key figures in society and politics will be helpful to map power dynamics. 

Conduct the analysis at the beginning, but keep checking your assumptions

Getting a baseline or initial understanding of the context is important before you design your process. This will help you and your team to secure buy-in and cooperation from the necessary stakeholders (whom you will identify in the analysis), as well as to design the process to “fit” within (or at least be neutral regarding) the rules of the game that you cannot change. However, the analysis is never 100% complete – power relations shift, and new influences come to light. You and your team should plan to revisit this power analysis regularly, and you may determine that your plans need to change as a result of new findings – therefore, the timing of your check-in or update should be planned accordingly. For example, plan to revisit your assumptions with the team for an hour or so just following or sufficiently in advance of key moments in the process. 

First, do no harm and plan for inclusion

The principle of “do no harm” requires your team to think ahead about how your efforts and actions will interact with visible and hidden power dynamics. In a conflict context, the above processes – which decide “who gets how much and when” – can be extremely politically contentious and risk exacerbating divisions. International development organizations apply a “do no harm” framework to plan for and mitigate risk. There are different approaches, but a common framework involves mapping “dividers” – actors and factors that push communities apart – and “connectors” – actors and factors that promote peace. Then consider your intended actions (what you will do, the resources you will deploy, and how) and patterns of behavior (how your team interacts with the community and the message this interaction communicates). We have included an additional section of questions to probe these issues below. 

Context analysis and do no harm worksheet

Assess the nature of current public engagement approaches

What should be happening: 

  • Is there an existing legal or administrative obligation to conduct public outreach or consultations as part of the policymaking process? Is the local authority meeting those obligations? If there is a required obligation, and public input is missing or not effectively gathered or used, a feedback loop could be useful.

What is happening: 

  • Is there an existing public outreach process that already collects (and responds) to public feedback?
    • What are the characteristics of this process; when does it occur, on what issues, why, by whom or which part of the local authority, and how is feedback collected and responded to? What governance process is this feedback fed into – a budget, plan, strategy or something else?
  • If not, how does the government currently communicate with the public?
    • Is this communication two-way (“government speaks, public speaks”), or one-way (“government speaks, public listens”), such as through publications or updates to the public from the government, or one-off complaints and suggestions to the government from the public?
    • Where do these communications occur (i.e., in city hall, at public meetings, online)? When do they take place (evenings, during the workday, weekends)? Are these locations and times conducive to broad participation and inclusion – such as for people with caregiving responsibilities? Or persons with disabilities? Working-aged people? People who live outside the town center? 

 

 

Structural and contextual factors – Independent decision-making and the capacity of the local authority to implement a feedback loop process

  • Can the local authority make its own decisions, or is the regular work of the local authority directed or approved by a higher level of government?
    • Does the local authority have legally recognized powers and responsibilities? Does it have its own budget?
  • What different bodies and agencies is the local authority composed of, and how do they relate to each other (is it competitive or collaborative)? Consider especially how they might respond to public feedback.
  • Is the local authority able to effectively implement its responsibilities and decisions? For example, sufficient budget (through fiscal transfers or taxes), technical or physical infrastructure, and human resources and skills that would help deliver on the feedback loop process and promises made.
  • Are there important economic, infrastructural or geographic factors to contend with, especially when reaching and communicating with people? For example, is unemployment and youth emigration an issue; is the community compact in an urban center or dispersed into distinct villages or neighborhoods; are residents and communities well-connected or isolated by rivers, hills and mountains, or distance?

 

 

Bargaining processes – How decisions are made/what are the “rules of the game”

  • How are decisions made within the local authority? Is there a system of checks or deliberation within or between local elected institutions? For example, what decisions, if any, can a mayor make unilaterally, and which require approval from a local deliberative body? What are the written and unwritten “rules of the game” for getting things done?
    • Consider, in particular, any plans (zoning, urban layout, development, etc.), strategies and budgets – whether set by individual departments or the local authority. Making these decisions and securing votes or approval may be easier if they are informed by evidence of public priorities.
  • How inclusive is the local authority? If it looks like the community it serves, it may be easier to avoid “doing harm” (see the do no harm section below) and build an inclusive process.
  • What is the current level of public engagement (refer to questions in Section 1.2)?
  • What partnerships or associations does the local authority leverage? For example, does the local authority have ongoing collaboration with local civic organizations, or does it participate in an association of municipalities? These can be sources of support in implementing the feedback loop and resulting promises. 

 

 

Map stakeholders and their roles and influence

  • Who are the key actors typically involved in addressing and solving local problems? Who creates change (positive and negative)? Consider government departments as well as civil society organizations, religious associations, or private sector/professional associations. Positive actors should be leveraged in your process, while negative actors should be avoided or managed. For example, if political polarization undermines constructive dialogue, try to anticipate polarizing agents proactively.
    • Consider mapping these actors along two axes: Low-to-high influence/power and low-to-high support/allyship.
  • Describe the population – is it diverse or homogenous with regard to language, ethnicity or other identities? Is it balanced in age, or is it mostly populated by older or younger people? This will inform your inclusion approaches (see below).

 

 

Incentives and disincentives, which drive the actions and attitudes of stakeholders – especially members of the public – who may stand to lose or win from change

  • How do residents feel about the local authority? Do they trust it?
    • If the local authority is perceived as delivering quality services, being transparent, accessible, and not corrupt, residents will be more likely to participate in community engagement. In other words, they will be incentivized to participate if they feel their voice matters. If not, the local authority will need to make a greater effort to reach citizens and create that trust through the feedback loop.
  • What other incentives or disincentives exist that would affect participation in a feedback loop, and how could those be addressed? In short, what would make it easier or more attractive to participate? Consider this question during the inclusion section below.
    • Consider incentives as well when it comes to implementation – are the civil service or frontline service delivery teams motivated to respond to the public? If not, how can that motivation be developed?

 

 

Inclusion: Consider the power imbalances between various groups, identities and members of the community. Consider the following questions relating to power imbalances between men and women: 

  • What roles do women have in the community, especially in formal or informal decision-making processes? To what extent are women represented in decision-making bodies and offices?
  • What constraints do women face in participating in politics and civil society or accessing public space? Include structural constraints (i.e., are women allowed in all spaces) and social ones (i.e., do women assume a higher proportion of caretaking responsibilities).
  • How, if at all, does the local authority consider or respond to the needs and priorities of women?
  • What other identity factors increase or decrease a woman's ability to access political agency (i.e., age, sexual orientation/gender identity, income, religion, conflict)?
  • What is the status of gender equality or equity in the community? Is it improving or being promoted by government policies?
  • Are there unique risks women may face when participating in politics or participatory outreach activities? How can these risks be mitigated?
  • Are you aware of strategies or methods that successfully enable women to participate in decision-making? What accommodations might be necessary to enable the participation of women in decision-making processes?

You can adapt these questions to focus on religious, language, or racial minorities; refugees and migrants; people with disabilities; youth, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) communities; older adults; and others relevant to your context. Overall, use these questions to plan for how these populations may or may participate and to consider whether and how they may want to participate. Then design accommodations or modifications to your outreach accordingly. 

 

 

Do no harm and questions for teams working in conflict-affected communities:

Consider the following risks from actions:2 

  • Market effects: How will the project and plans under scrutiny in the feedback loop affect local markets and business owners? Who stands to benefit from proposed solutions, and who might lose out?
  • Distribution effects: How does the problem affect different communities, and how might solutions and investments be distributed in a way that is relevant to existing divisions in society? If the local authority views solutions as neutral, do communities perceive them similarly?
  • Legitimization effects: Are certain organizations, associations or groups legitimized over others because they participate in feedback and dialogue processes?
  • Substitution effects: Are existing systems and structures ignored, overwhelmed or undermined by the feedback loop and dialogue activities? For example, is the feedback loop design bypassing lower-level officials, community leaders or others? What might that mean for participation?

Consider the following risks from your team's behavior: 

  • Respect: Who is consulted? Who decides? How are disputes settled? Is your team listening?
  • Accountability: Do staff respond to grievances and feedback? Are problems and mistakes fixed promptly?
  • Fairness: Are local definitions of “fair” considered in the design and implementation of the intervention?
  • Transparency: Are criteria shared and understood? Do people know what to expect from your team and the process? Transparency cuts across respect, accountability and fairness.

 

 

Additional resources for context and political economy analysis

Plenty of resources exist that define and offer guidance on political economy analysis, and several explicitly mainstream gender and inclusion into their analysis. 

The Beginner's Guide to Political Economy Analysis (PEA), Alan Whaites, July 2017 [Link].

This is a quick and effective overview of PEA and should be sufficient for your team's purposes. Of note, the author includes a series of guiding questions on page 9 that should start the conversation on the four analysis dimensions: structure, bargaining, stakeholders and incentives. 

Making Political Analysis Useful: Adjusting and Scaling, April 2015 [Link].

While more directed at development organizations, this guide helps you to shift your frame depending on whether you are “learning the game” (geared toward setting an agenda), “winning the game” (more helpful with problem-solving), or “changing the game” (to understand influence and how you can tap into it). It also offers useful advice on how to start small with one-hour conversations (compared to a month-long research project). 

Everyday Political Analysis, Developmental Leadership Program, January 2017 [Link].

This guide offers a “stripped-back” framework for political analysis and is composed of two steps: 

  1. Understanding interests: What makes people tick?
  2. Understanding change: What space and capacity do people have to effect change?

The guide includes a series of yes/no questions for each step, making it easy to quickly understand what information you need and where to find it. 

Understanding Political Economy Analysis and Thinking and Working Politically (Published 27 February 2023), Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) and the Thinking and Working Politically Community of Practice, 2023 Authors: Alan Whaites, Laure-Hélène Piron, Alina Rocha Menocal and Graham Teskey [Link].

Written by the same author as the Beginner's Guide, this is a more comprehensive (and jargony) guide from the U.K. government. It covers the following: What is the purpose of a political economy analysis? What are the main elements of a PEA? Thinking and working politically (TWP) and planning and undertaking an in-depth PEA process. It also lists and defines some key political economy concepts. 

Thinking and Working Politically Through Applied Political Economy Analysis: A Guide for Practitioners, USAID April 2018 [Link]. 

This is USAID's version of the FCDO guidance above and covers much of the same ground. It is likely more advanced than your purposes warrant, but notably, it includes an annex of some helpful guiding questions for analysis at different levels (see footnote for link).3 

Additional resources for do no harm and inclusion

The following resources provide additional perspectives and guidance on do no harm and inclusion for local and regional governments: 

Urban Institute's Do No Harm Guide: Applying Equity Awareness in Data Visualization (2021): This guide – and especially the general recommendations on page 41 – describes how the language, colors and icons used when collecting and communicating data can be improved to be more inclusive and easily understood.4

Council of Europe Congress of Local and Regional Authorities' Human Rights Handbook for Local and Regional Authorities Vol. 1: Fighting Against Discrimination (2019): This guide focuses on the European context and offers concrete recommendations and examples for how various local authorities have promoted equal rights for various discriminated and vulnerable groups in their communities.5

International City Managers Association (ICMA) offers two resources: 

  • Equity and Inclusion Toolkit (2018): Offers examples and lessons from the United States and Canada on how to approach community relations, service delivery and internal practices through a lens of promoting equity.6
  • Governing for Equity: Implementing an Equity Lens in Local Governments (2020): Based on experiences from the United States, this guide offers recommendations for local authorities seeking to reform their internal practices and processes to improve their engagement with diverse and underrepresented communities.7

Box. Digging deeper into assessments and local democracy

The above list of questions was developed with reference to the following assessments and self-assessments for local public authorities. Additional resources, indicators, and guiding questions can be found at the links below: 

  • Common Assessment Framework: The European Model for Improving Public Organisations through Self-Assessment (2020): Link.
    • The CAF model is premised on five “enablers” within a local authority or organization (leadership, people, strategy and planning, partnerships and resources, and processes) and their relationship to four results categories (people results, citizen/customer-oriented results, social responsibility results and key performance results). The self-assessment guide can be used to identify strengths and weaknesses within the organization through perception and performance measurements.
  • UN Habitat's Urban Governance Index: Conceptual Foundation and Field Test Report (2004): Link.8
  • Swiss Development Corporation, The SDC's Guidance on Governance (2012): Link.
Footnotes

1 Whaites, Alan. 2017. “The Beginner’s Guide to Political Economy Analysis (PEA).” National School of Government International. Link.

2 Do No Harm: A Brief Introduction (CDA - Practical Learning for International Action, n.d.), Link.

3 Thinking and Working Politically through Applied Political Economy Analysis (PEA) (USAID, n.d.), Link.

4 Jonathan Schwabish and Alice Feng, Do No Harm Guide - Applying Equity Awareness in Data Visualization (Urban Institute, 2021), Link. 

5 Human Rights Handbook for Local and Regional Authorities (Council of Europe, vol. 1, 2019), Link.

6 African Union Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection (African Union, 2014), Link ; Review of ICMA Equity & Inclusion Toolkit (ICMA, n.d.), Link. 

7 Benoy Jacob; Governing for Equity: Implementing an Equity Lens in Local Governments (ICMA Research, 2020), Link. 

8 The Global Campaign on Urban Governance (United Nations Human Settlements Programme: UN-HABITAT, 2002), Link and Link.

Previa Anterior