By: Amanda Porter
In this week’s readings the concept of policy diffusion is discussed on a national scale between states in a federalist system by Shipan and Volden and Grossback et. al. and on a global and regional scale by Weyland, Zeng and Drezner. I would agree with Shipan and Volden that “exploring the conditions under which each of these mechanisms drives policy diffusion….is essential for a better understanding of the political incentives behind policy decisions” (pg. 840). I would like to extend Weyland's point on international organization's role in policy diffusion and Weng's evidence about why the SEZ's have not been as effective in Africa through a discussion of the underlying conditions and mechanisms of policy diffusion in Uganda, looking at issues that can occur when policy is diffused between rural and urban settings—which could be a key issue in a rapidly developing and urbanizing region. Specifically, I will use the example of development induced displacement and the Ugandan government’s use of the World Bank’s land policy, in order to extend the analysis of state backed policy diffusion mechanisms to examine methods of policy diffusion and coercion put forth by international institutions. I will also exemplify why learning and imitation can falter when implemented coercively from an international institution and adopted from a rural to urban setting.
Due to the size, scope and persistence of the phenomena of development and displacement, in the past couple of decades the issue has entered the agendas of policy makers. As Lyla Mehta, Research Fellow at the Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex explains, “Every year more than ten million people across the globe are affected by forced displacement due to infrastructure projects such as dams, mines, industries, power plants and roads…Most displaced people belong to poor and marginalized communities, and within them, women and children experience special vulnerabilities” (Mehta 2007). For the most part, this literature is focused on rural development induced displacement and analyzes mass displacements due to large scale infrastructure projects like dams or oil infrastructure. Furthermore, much of this research is focused on countries like India and China rather than areas like East Africa. Best practice literature on development induced displacement policy as well as policies regarding forced evictions come from key international institutions like The World Bank and the United Nations Human Settlements Program (UN-Habitat).
Uganda’s policy on development induced displacement has been hailed by some as progressive, comprehensive and inclusive. Because the government adapted World Bank policy guidelines, the country was thought to be ahead of many other developing countries in terms of dealing effectively with development induced displacement. However, the legacy of post-colonial political instability left the country with a weak governance capacity and weak institutions—a legacy that Uganda has not yet been able to rectify. These weak institutions, a lack of government capacity and extremely complex land tenure policies contribute to a situation where, despite having strong written policies and legislation to prevent displacement and forced evictions; the government is often both unable and unwilling to stop the displacement process in Kampala, the capital city—especially when it is in the name of development.
In analyzing policy diffusion it is important to look at the context and to recognize, policy that can be applicable and effective in the rural context of mass evictions that are occurring in rural Uganda, may not necessarily translate to the urban context of spot evictions, as are common in the city of Kampala. Because the characteristics of an urban setting differ from those of a rural, state or national context in terms of heterogeneity, density and size, mobility of people, and the limited range of capacity and resources available in city governments; policies must be crafted and implemented differently. Weng points to this in his analysis of SEZ's in Africa, when he touches on the Resettlement issues and weak regulatory and institutional frameworks as challenges to implementation in several African countries. Zeng explains how land reforms, in both the rural and urban context were a key factor in the success of SEZs in China. In the case of Kampala, a complex land tenure system birthed from the fusing of colonial legacy and traditional laws around landownership has created a tangled land tenure system and sprawling slums in need of a unique policy solution. In addition, the government is dealing with tight budgets, rampant corruption, refugees teeming in from neighboring war torn countries, environmental degradation and poverty challenges. An unplanned, sprawling and informal urban environment creates a challenge that just doesn’t seem to be high on the government’s priority list. A mass eviction in rural Uganda related to oil production may cause a national, regional and international stir. In contrast, the “spot” evictions of a few families or even hundreds of families that occur on nearly a daily basis in Kampala to make way for development projects like taxi parks or railway lines, tend to be swept under the rug by socioeconomic elites and government elites alike. The underlying narrative is, the city needs to develop and these “illegal squatters” are in the way.
In terms of extending Shipan and Volden’s concept of coercive state governments, Uganda certainly experiences this. However, their policies are shaped by coercive international intuitions as well. For example, the country adopted policy guidelines in their ‘Resettlement Policy and Institutional Capacity for Resettlement Planning in Uganda” that was funded by The World Bank and largely reflected the guidelines created by The World Bank. While the World Bank uses a combination of “carrot and stick” approaches ultimately, the Ugandan government officials know that the World Bank has the power of the purse. Therefore, Uganda does seemingly have progressive policy frameworks that follow the norms and values of international laws, human rights and institutions however, the administration of policy is uncoordinated and implementation is either weak or nonexistent. As Alan Rew et. al. explains “new policies, typically layered on top of older ones, are implemented only partially and with different components proceeding at different speeds” and although some scholars and practitioners hail Uganda’s choice to adopt the World Bank framework for displacement, “top level search for alternative policy formulations to displacement focuses on global issues…The global issues are generally ‘policy frames’ rather than any detailed policy that has been analysed for cause-and-effect linkages” (Rew el. Al. 2005, 50). Rew’s et. al. insight to Uganda’s displacement and land policies partially explains why the diffused policies don’t take into account the differential drivers and needs between the rural and urban—because these policies deal in high level rhetoric rather than actionable items that can be realistically implemented in the slums of Kampala.
In conclusion, it is necessary to emphasize not only the unique political and socioeconomic considerations in policy diffusion between cities, states and countries; but also to recognize the issues that can occur when policy is diffused from rural to urban settings and that coercion can occur from the top down not only by states, but in this globalized world, can occur from international institutions as well. While, I do not have the space in this precis to address Mina’s poignant question of “How might policymakers develop solutions for policy problems for which there is no precedent” based on the issues that can occur when policy is diffused in between a rural and urban setting and more broadly from one country or region to another it may be more effective for policymakers to focus on the innovation that can be fostered in the urban setting rather than imitation. Of course good, effective policy in one area will be politically enticing to promote in another area and learning from past policies is important however, when crafting policy in an urban setting with a unique history and set of challenges perhaps it is not always a bad idea to rely on innovation and “reinvent the wheel.”
ADDITIONAL SOURCES:
Mehta, Lyla. (ed.). 2007. Displaced by Development: Confronting Marginalization and Gender Injustice. Sage Publications, India.
Rew, Alan, Eleanor Fisher and Balaji Pandey. 2005. “Policy Practices in Development-Induced Displacement and Rehabilitation. In: Chris de Wet (ed.), Development-Induced Displacement: Problems, Polices and People. New York: Berghahn, pp. 55-79.
In this week’s readings the concept of policy diffusion is discussed on a national scale between states in a federalist system by Shipan and Volden and Grossback et. al. and on a global and regional scale by Weyland, Zeng and Drezner. I would agree with Shipan and Volden that “exploring the conditions under which each of these mechanisms drives policy diffusion….is essential for a better understanding of the political incentives behind policy decisions” (pg. 840). I would like to extend Weyland's point on international organization's role in policy diffusion and Weng's evidence about why the SEZ's have not been as effective in Africa through a discussion of the underlying conditions and mechanisms of policy diffusion in Uganda, looking at issues that can occur when policy is diffused between rural and urban settings—which could be a key issue in a rapidly developing and urbanizing region. Specifically, I will use the example of development induced displacement and the Ugandan government’s use of the World Bank’s land policy, in order to extend the analysis of state backed policy diffusion mechanisms to examine methods of policy diffusion and coercion put forth by international institutions. I will also exemplify why learning and imitation can falter when implemented coercively from an international institution and adopted from a rural to urban setting.
Due to the size, scope and persistence of the phenomena of development and displacement, in the past couple of decades the issue has entered the agendas of policy makers. As Lyla Mehta, Research Fellow at the Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex explains, “Every year more than ten million people across the globe are affected by forced displacement due to infrastructure projects such as dams, mines, industries, power plants and roads…Most displaced people belong to poor and marginalized communities, and within them, women and children experience special vulnerabilities” (Mehta 2007). For the most part, this literature is focused on rural development induced displacement and analyzes mass displacements due to large scale infrastructure projects like dams or oil infrastructure. Furthermore, much of this research is focused on countries like India and China rather than areas like East Africa. Best practice literature on development induced displacement policy as well as policies regarding forced evictions come from key international institutions like The World Bank and the United Nations Human Settlements Program (UN-Habitat).
Uganda’s policy on development induced displacement has been hailed by some as progressive, comprehensive and inclusive. Because the government adapted World Bank policy guidelines, the country was thought to be ahead of many other developing countries in terms of dealing effectively with development induced displacement. However, the legacy of post-colonial political instability left the country with a weak governance capacity and weak institutions—a legacy that Uganda has not yet been able to rectify. These weak institutions, a lack of government capacity and extremely complex land tenure policies contribute to a situation where, despite having strong written policies and legislation to prevent displacement and forced evictions; the government is often both unable and unwilling to stop the displacement process in Kampala, the capital city—especially when it is in the name of development.
In analyzing policy diffusion it is important to look at the context and to recognize, policy that can be applicable and effective in the rural context of mass evictions that are occurring in rural Uganda, may not necessarily translate to the urban context of spot evictions, as are common in the city of Kampala. Because the characteristics of an urban setting differ from those of a rural, state or national context in terms of heterogeneity, density and size, mobility of people, and the limited range of capacity and resources available in city governments; policies must be crafted and implemented differently. Weng points to this in his analysis of SEZ's in Africa, when he touches on the Resettlement issues and weak regulatory and institutional frameworks as challenges to implementation in several African countries. Zeng explains how land reforms, in both the rural and urban context were a key factor in the success of SEZs in China. In the case of Kampala, a complex land tenure system birthed from the fusing of colonial legacy and traditional laws around landownership has created a tangled land tenure system and sprawling slums in need of a unique policy solution. In addition, the government is dealing with tight budgets, rampant corruption, refugees teeming in from neighboring war torn countries, environmental degradation and poverty challenges. An unplanned, sprawling and informal urban environment creates a challenge that just doesn’t seem to be high on the government’s priority list. A mass eviction in rural Uganda related to oil production may cause a national, regional and international stir. In contrast, the “spot” evictions of a few families or even hundreds of families that occur on nearly a daily basis in Kampala to make way for development projects like taxi parks or railway lines, tend to be swept under the rug by socioeconomic elites and government elites alike. The underlying narrative is, the city needs to develop and these “illegal squatters” are in the way.
In terms of extending Shipan and Volden’s concept of coercive state governments, Uganda certainly experiences this. However, their policies are shaped by coercive international intuitions as well. For example, the country adopted policy guidelines in their ‘Resettlement Policy and Institutional Capacity for Resettlement Planning in Uganda” that was funded by The World Bank and largely reflected the guidelines created by The World Bank. While the World Bank uses a combination of “carrot and stick” approaches ultimately, the Ugandan government officials know that the World Bank has the power of the purse. Therefore, Uganda does seemingly have progressive policy frameworks that follow the norms and values of international laws, human rights and institutions however, the administration of policy is uncoordinated and implementation is either weak or nonexistent. As Alan Rew et. al. explains “new policies, typically layered on top of older ones, are implemented only partially and with different components proceeding at different speeds” and although some scholars and practitioners hail Uganda’s choice to adopt the World Bank framework for displacement, “top level search for alternative policy formulations to displacement focuses on global issues…The global issues are generally ‘policy frames’ rather than any detailed policy that has been analysed for cause-and-effect linkages” (Rew el. Al. 2005, 50). Rew’s et. al. insight to Uganda’s displacement and land policies partially explains why the diffused policies don’t take into account the differential drivers and needs between the rural and urban—because these policies deal in high level rhetoric rather than actionable items that can be realistically implemented in the slums of Kampala.
In conclusion, it is necessary to emphasize not only the unique political and socioeconomic considerations in policy diffusion between cities, states and countries; but also to recognize the issues that can occur when policy is diffused from rural to urban settings and that coercion can occur from the top down not only by states, but in this globalized world, can occur from international institutions as well. While, I do not have the space in this precis to address Mina’s poignant question of “How might policymakers develop solutions for policy problems for which there is no precedent” based on the issues that can occur when policy is diffused in between a rural and urban setting and more broadly from one country or region to another it may be more effective for policymakers to focus on the innovation that can be fostered in the urban setting rather than imitation. Of course good, effective policy in one area will be politically enticing to promote in another area and learning from past policies is important however, when crafting policy in an urban setting with a unique history and set of challenges perhaps it is not always a bad idea to rely on innovation and “reinvent the wheel.”
ADDITIONAL SOURCES:
Mehta, Lyla. (ed.). 2007. Displaced by Development: Confronting Marginalization and Gender Injustice. Sage Publications, India.
Rew, Alan, Eleanor Fisher and Balaji Pandey. 2005. “Policy Practices in Development-Induced Displacement and Rehabilitation. In: Chris de Wet (ed.), Development-Induced Displacement: Problems, Polices and People. New York: Berghahn, pp. 55-79.