Paper short abstract:

This paper will look at tensions around measuring influencing that is framed in terms of the metrics of short term results - and what options exist for those who 'think and work politically'.

Paper long abstract:

In a sector that invests $140 billion per year to reduce poverty and injustices, it is not just useful to know whether our bets on what might work or not are based on plausible theories of change; it is essential. Hence the proliferating studies, trials, meta-studies and the like - all seeking definitive answers to what works or not. Important insights are emerging on micro-credit, cash transfers, education and of course deworming (though controversially - see 'worm wars').

That's all fine for programmes on the ground, but what do we really know about what works when it comes to the secret plans and clever tricks of influencing strategies, advocacy efforts and campaigns for local, national or global change? Not enough by a long stretch. And yet entire organisations assume that long-term influencing initiatives are the way to go when it comes to structural poverty reduction and transforming entrenched injustices. After decades of service delivery, many international NGOs in particular are approaching structural change by investing more in influencing strategies.

However, are these organisations prepared to shift how they measure what matters? Deep problems occur when the results framing is dominated by those touting supposedly value-free methods and approaches and systems that prioritise metrics of short term results. This paper will look at the source of these tensions and options for those investing in "influencing authorities and the powerful, and less on delivering the services for which duty-bearers are responsible" such as Oxfam with its worldwide influencing ambition.

Paper Download (1.4 MB)