The term policy is used in various ways, in different settings and places (Clark 1996). Policy is a broad term and it is hard to pin down to just one definition. Clark added that policy refers to a prescribed course based on guiding principles adopted and followed by governments, institutions or individuals. Torjman (2005) stated that policy can also be categorised as reactive or proactive. Reactive policy emerges in response to an emergency or urgent situation that must be addressed, such as health emergencies or environmental disasters. Proactive policies are introduced and pursued through deliberate choice. Similarly, it is also not straightforward to narrow a definition of policy processes in a precise way. Springate and Blaikie (2007) mentioned that policy process can be described as the means by which policy is conceived, negotiated, expressed and perhaps brought into law and the procedures of implementation and practice.
According to Sutton (1999), debates have been going on within political science on whether policy-making is a linear and rational process or a procedure that is more chaotic and is dominated by practical, socio-cultural and political forces. Furthermore in the past years, many models have been created to describe policy process (Sutton 1999). Juma and Clark (1995) stated that policy process studies see how decisions are made, and how they are organised by actors to make their decisions. Moreover, policy is created through debates and discussions between state and a broad range of actors such as civil societies. Juma and Clark (1995) added that through a policy process, ideas are being communicated and also certain political stance are being reflected and served.
The entire life of policy according to Sutton (1999) is a chaos of purposes and not intentional. It is not at all a theme of a logical implementation of the so-called decisions through selected approaches. However, Springate and Blaikie (2007) argiued that through an intentional policy making process, policy makers can shape social reality according to their outlook and ideology of life using policy creation as a process. According to Keeley and Scoones (2003), policy- making is a diverse, wordy and complex action, where sometimes it is challenging and not stable and other times it is consistent. Springate and Soussan (2002) emphasised that policy process analysis considers policy in a holistic and wide ranging context and it provides an opportunity to identify policy constraints and opportunities.
26
According to Keeley and Scoones (2003), policy positions are organised by many groups of actors, this includes, government officials, non-government personnel, scientists, politicians, civil societies and rural people. Springate and Soussan (2002) arguied that policy making process in reality is a complex, messy and challenging process and it involves negotiation and power play between diverse stakeholders. The policy making process according to Keeley and Scoones (2000) is linked to three central processes. This is “agenda setting, decision-making
and implementation process”; and the links between the three stages are firmly linear. In this
method, Keeley and Scoones (2000) added that reality is measured, issues are identified, different ways and solutions are assessed, and decisions are taken by political representatives and agents who are competent experts.
However, in many cases policy making process involves complicated procedure and it involves policy learning, changes and shifts along the way to its implementation process. One of the policy making process models in a policy environment I have considered in using to discuss my findings was the linear model. The linear model outlines policy making as a “problem
solving process which is rational, balanced, objective and analytical” (Sutton 1999, and Juma
and Clarke 1995). The linear model has been called the conventional, common sense or logical model, it is the most extensively held view of the way in which policy is created (Sutton 1999). According to Isaac (2006), decisions are made in the linear model in a series of sequential stages, beginning with the recognition of an issue or a particular problem, and ending with a set of actions to solve or deal with the problem. Isaac arguied that the linear model presents policy process as a straight-time line such that the process starts at the agenda phase and ends at the implementation phase. The linear model according to IDS (2010), is very straightforward and is still very influential in theorising about policy processes. IDS added that in this model, it is assumed that policymakers are able to consider all possible options, be able to calculate the economic, political and social advantages and disadvantages of public policy.
However, I have found that the linear model was not a suitable model for analysing the African Union (AU) and the Ethiopian Government (EG) food security policy making process. The AU and EG food security policy making process was not a straightforward process that follows an “agenda setting, decision-making and implementation process” stages. It is a more complex process, as the policy making process involves politics and power, the use of discourse and narratives and the involvement of different actors before it even goes to the implementation process.
27
I have found using the discourse and narratives, politics and interests and actors and networks model by Keeley and Scoones (2003) fits very well with the AU and the EG policy making process analysis. I have chosen this model because I could identify and use in my discussion the links between discourse and narratives that are being used and created by politicians at a top level within the African Union and the Ethiopian Government policy political environment. In this model, I could also use the links between the policy makers political interest and actors involved and their networks when making a policy within the AU and the EG policy environment. In the following section are some of the main important terms found in policy making process and are selected for their relevance to this study.
Discourse
The term discourse as mentioned by Jørgensen and Phillips (2002) is a general phrase with different definitions covering areas from philosophy, linguistics, sociology and other disciplines. The term could mean conversation, dialogue, language, and speech, or as a specific way of discussing an idea and understanding the world or an aspect of the world. Fairclough (2011) stated that as a universal way of experiencing the world, discourses refer to expressing oneself using language. It can also be described as a broad idea that language is planned according to many patterns that individual’s words and sounds follow when they take part in different areas of social settings.
According to Jørgensen and Phillips 2002), political discourse and discourse analysis’ is the analysis of these patterns. Hewitt (2009) added that ddiscourse is used in a day-to-day language interchangeably with discussion or dialogue. For example, Keeley and Scoones (2000) arguied that the object of discourse analysis is the story of a dialogue; such analysis aims to expose the hidden language use and how language is used and narratives are created. In affirming knowledge and power and for resistance and evaluation, discourses can be identified. Moreover, Keeley and Scoones (2003) mentioned that the person in a power position can express her or his way of thinking and ideology in texts or linguistic forms using discourses.
Discourse Analysis
Discourse analysis as stated by Hewitt (2009) is a research method which involves examining communication to gain new insights about the topic studied. Apthorpe (1986) emphasised that it is an effort to break down, deconstruct and identify discourses so that the outlook they bring to for instance, the development process can be understood, and the analysis of discourse encourages the investigation for alternative methods to the resolution of policy issues.
28
Discourse analysis according to Sutton (1999) can be divided in to two; political and development discourse. Sutton added that development discourse involves a specific way of thinking and arguing which involves the political action of naming and categorising and it usually eliminates other methods of seeing situations and perspectives. Bayram (2010) argued that political discourse is a result of politics and it is determined by history and culture. Bayram added that political discourse is thematic as it primarily related to political ideas, relations and activities. Section 2.1.1 discusses the Keeley and Scoones (2003) model I have used to analayse the AU and the EG food security policy making process and the pros and cons and more details of using this model is discussed below.
2.2.1 Discourse and Narratives/ Politics and Interests/ and Actors and Networks
Keeley and Scoones developed the discourse and narratives/ politics and interests/ and actors and networks model for the Environment Group of the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) after considerable analysis of all different kinds of themes, approaches and perspectives on the analysis of policy making processes (Van Der Lee 2010). One of the reasons why I have used this model is because Keeley and Scoones have done a lot of policy related analysis work based in Ethiopia and therefore, their work relates closely to my work in Ethiopia too. Secondly, this model fits very well with the food security policy making process analysis work I have done in Ethiopia that deals with politics and power, discourse and narratives and actors involved and their networks. This therefore has given me an advantage for using this model.
There were other models I have considered as discussed above such as the linear model before deciding what model to adopt for discuss the policy making process data. However, the Keeley and Scoones model has helped me expand my examination and analyse the issues of food security policies and the politics involved in making these policies in place, by whom and for what purpose. The figure below, 2.1 shows the three different but overlapping arenas of the Keeley and Scoones (2003) model I have used for assessing policy making process. I focus upon the middle point were the three aspects of policy making process overlap in discussing the African Union and the Ethiopian Government food security policy making process.
29
Figure 2.1 Discourse and narratives, politics and interests and actors and networks policy process, Source: IDS (2006).
It is in the centre point where I have found the links between discourse and narratives, politics and interests and actors and networks within the African Union and the Ethiopian Government food security policy making process. Through this focus, I was able to discuss the issue of food security and policy creation. The disadvantage I have found in using this model was that the fact that it was constrained by the three aspects of policy making process. I have found it difficult to expand the issue of policy making process in Ethiopia as the country has a complicated political, social and historical background. For this, I have tried to go outside of the three aspects mentioned by Keeley and Scoones when I discuss the Ethiopian historical background related to food security policy making process of the country.
The model has been used to assess the African Union; NEPAD Agency and its CAADP framework and the Ethiopian Government ATP policy plan. The politics and actors involved and their influence through their power and the use of narratives in the food security policy making process is analysed in chapter five. This model is discussed in more detail below.
Discourse and Narratives
According to Van Der Lee (2010), understanding why policy takes a particular shape is very important. Van Der Lee added that it is very important to capture the scientific framings to how knowledge is passed from the research to the policy sphere of specific issues creating “narratives” that tell the policy stories. In politics, the use of language is very important.
Policy Making Process
30
According to Jones and Peccei (2004), language has a power to represent or misrepresent realities. People’s thoughts, ideologies and beliefs can be applied not only to guide them but also to restrict or misguide them by the use of a discourse. Bayram (2010) argued that language can be used to intertwine ideas and imaginaries to alter people’s realities. In some cases, it can help improve people’s well-being, but it can also systematically obscure realities and interpret them ideologically to serve unfair power relations. According to Sutton (1999):
“A discourse is a group of ideas, concepts and categories through which meaning are given to phenomena. Discourses shape certain problems, distinguishing some aspects of a situation and marginalising others. As dominant discourses set out ways of classifying people and defining problems, they have serious material consequences on the process of policy- making” (Sutton 1999, p.13).
Keeley and Scoones base their model on the theory that policy change is naturally related to the creation of specific types of knowledge (Van Der Lee 2010). Often, the use of narratives suits specific political interests and these narratives are communicated in easy terms. For instance, according to Van Der Lee (2010) it is easy to define complex problems through the use of story-telling methods. Van Der Lee emphasised that most of the time, this creates specific solution to the issue while marginalising other choices. Through the story telling method, Keeley and Scoones (1999) stated that narratives and solutions that are available already can have long-lasting control or pressure on the policy-making process.
Politics and Interests
Policy making process involves politics and interests (IDS 2010). According to Bayer and Veldhuizen (2004), in the political and bureaucratic culture, many different actors try to pursue their own political interest when designing a policy. IDS (2006) stated that through an understanding of the political structure of an organisation, one can understand why certain knowledge influences and prevails the outcome of a policy process. Apthorpe (1986) argued that a critical feature of all policy practice is essentially and specifically “what” and “who” is included. Sutton (1999) added that policy process is impacted by different interest groups that use power and authority over policy-making. Bayram (2010) argued that:
“It is common knowledge that politics is concerned with power: the power to make
decisions, to control resources, to control other people’s behaviour and often to control their values (Bayram 2010, p.28).
31
Moreover, Keeley and Scoones (2003) added that many politicians are mainly interested in convincing their audience and validate their political claims. The influence of politics starts from the implementing of resources in order to form the values and behaviours of others. Through the ways in which discourses are expressed, it is possible to recognise networks of actors who, through their actions, promote and create specific discourses (Keeley and Scoones 2000).
Actors and Networks
Understanding how policy is deeply rooted in networks of actors is very important (Van Der Lee 2010). For instance, whether actors from government bodies, funding agencies, professional and other relationships and specific institutions enable or constrain power dynamics in policy process needs understanding. Keeley and Scoones (1999) emphasised that by assessing the relationships between actors in a network, it is possible to examine the micro level and see how the policy making process can be manipulated by groups and the power of individuals; as actors can be either individuals or those that are connected with networks. Within a network, there often exists a common idea about a certain theme between actors (Keeley and Scoones 1999).
It is argued by Keeley and Scoones (2003), individuals are collectively making up policy and it is individuals who can apply their power and influence others. Keeley and Scoones added that to understand how the interactions between actors and their networks work can have a role that is significant in the spread of knowledge during the policy making process. Moreover, highlighting the importance of actor-oriented approaches is also vital. According to IDS (2006), to understand a policy processes, it is very important to look at all the three and the overlapping perspectives together.
Policy Space
The concept of policy space creates an understanding of the reasons why some policy and institutional changes are created and implemented successfully in some situations but not in others (Keeley 2001). According to Grindle and Thomas (1991), politicians and elites have agencies set up to control the timing and content of policy reforms so that their prospects are increased for success. Moreover, Grindle and Thomas added that through the interactions of actors and networks, the norms of what is “good” and what is “bad” get formed and the narratives can be kept alive or new narratives are created. Keeley (2001) emphasised that by having un understanding of policy networks; it is easy to see why specific types of knowledge
32
stay in place; and this gives a chance to grasp if there is space in the policy area for possible change.
According to Keeley and Scoones (2003), discourses simultaneously have a structuring ability; as they can provide the boundaries within which people act and shape the way actors influence the world around them. These networks are as stated by IDS (2006), the methods through which knowledge is exercised through policy. What joins the network together is a sharing of some common goals (IDS 2006). Keeley and Scoones (2003) added that actors and networks are able to set up discourses in actual policy by taking advantage of policy space.
An Area of Overlap
I have used the three concepts but overlapping point of Keeley and Scoones’ (2003) model for assessing the AU and the Ethiopian Government food security policy making process. According to IDS (2006), the model particularly outlines the policy process and reveals three comprehensive approaches to help understand policy-making process. The link between political economy and the interactions of state and civil society and different interest groups can be articulated in this model. The model asses the histories and traditions linked to changing discourses, the use of language and how these form and direct policy problems and courses of action through narratives. It also highlights the capacity and role different actors play to make a difference in policy making; or how actors make and form policy narratives and introduce or push their interests.
Moreover, the framework outlines the political and bureaucratic context in which many different actors attempt to push their own political agendas. I have adopted this model by mainly focussing on the overlapping area. This area in which I am focussing on is not hard edged; but an open space area that allows me to go back and forth in all the three different aspects of policy making process. This has assisted me to analyse the African Union and the Ethiopian Government food security policy making process.