Several and different efforts are being conducted around the globe to promote the use of research in policy. P&I is permanently thinking about ways to contribute to a more fruitful interaction between knowledge and ideas emanating from it and policy. Yet, are we learning enough from those who are hardly working for this on the ground?
At P&I we believe there is large and promising room to further systematize what policymakers are achieving (and challenges they are dealing with) on the field. In that sense we decided to co-produce two case studies with this profile of policymakers to share how they dealt with the use of knowledge and evidence within two different policy processes: 1) the development of a M&E system for a social protection plan in the province of Santa Fe, Argentina (co-written by Cecilia Nieto and myself) and 2) the design of the General Direction for Analysis and Evaluation of Social Policy by the Secretary of Social Development in Honduras (co-written by Héctor Díaz Romero and Leandro Echt).
We share today the first one: The creation of a monitoring system for the Abre Plan in the province of Santa Fe, Argentina (only available in Spanish). It is a very interesting experience since it entails working and reaching consensus among policymakers from different ministries that interact at the Social Cabinet of Santa Fe to design an M&E system that could be of use and relevance to all of them. Besides the challenge of identifying the right indicators to monitor and evaluate the effects of a very specific and integrated intervention, they had to coordinate efforts for data gathering and analysis. Ministries have different systems and capacities to conduct M&E; therefore this was regarded as an opportunity to build a common lens that could both build on what they had by the beginning but also to conduct a joint effort to further develop interest and capacities of a wide range of policymakers in the generation and use of knowledge.
By documenting this experience, we aim to share ideas, lessons and challenges with those who are interested in learning from the very concrete and on the ground efforts of those who daily try to contribute to a more fruitful dialogue between knowledge and policy.