Sustainable Urban Economic Development Programme (SUED) Using Political Economy Analysis as an Implementation Guide for Urban Programmes Introduction The Sustainable Urban Economic Development Programme (SUED) has worked closely with 12 municipalities in Kenya to better position them as emerging urban centers that will attract more investment for critical infrastructure and value chain projects. The programme’s work in advocating for balanced growth in small and medium sized urban centers that are located along high-economic potential growth corridors is aimed at providing responsive transformational economies. SUED’s work endevours to support growth and sustainable economic development by unlocking private and public investment in the urban sector. In this best practice document, the SUED team shares how the programme carried out its Political Economy Analysis (PEA) to better understand the local context in which SUED would be operating in. The PEA helped the programme see how the structures, institution, and stakeholders worked together to catalyse change. In doing so, the programme was able to determine how to favorably position itself to meet its technical objectives within the political landscape that it is operating in. Context Prior to the 2007 General Elections in Kenya, her economy was the best performing in the region. The country had been the regional marker of stability hosting refugees from neighbouring countries in their time of political unrest. The outcome of the elections led to a period of high tension and violence in most parts of the country. With the political situation in-country becoming very unstable, the economy suffered a short-term large-scale damage that impacted surrounding countries that relied on Kenya’s supply of essential products such as fuel. This clearly demonstrated how political instability undermined Kenya’s economic growth and reduced the propensity of investors to engage in available local markets. The precursor to the violence was embedded on the perceived relation between power and economics in the country. There was dissatisfaction with the highly-centralised governance system since independence that was historically seen to be imbalanced in regional resource allocation that led to local ethnic development inequalities. To address the country’s core issues, Kenya promulgated a new constitution in 2010. In it, a devolved system was constituted that comprised of a national government and 47 county governments. This new governance structure came into effect after the 2013 General Elections. Devolving political and economic resources enabled the 47 county governments to better address marginalisation and the needs of the populace. This has been demonstrable in areas such as Mandera where prior to devolution the urban water supply was served by 2 dams and now the municipality has increased it to 47 pans and dams that support the wider county. By 2030 it is envisioned that urban areas globally will house an additional 1.4 billion people the majority of whom will be in developing nations such as Kenya. Like many other lower-middle income countries, urbanisation in Kenya continues to hold the promise of viable economic opportunities not only for established industries and institutions but for the marginally excluded such as women, youth and people living with disabilities who desperately seek ways to offer their skills and expertise. Political obstacles
could potentially hamper the urbanisation of some of these new urban areas and negatively impact economic development. To better understand the intersect of politics, economy and sustainable urbanisation, it is necessary for programmes working within the urban sector to undertake political economy analysis. A better understanding of how power and wealth are distributed within the communities enable programmes to create processes that will help sustain and transform the interplay between politics and economy. Programme Intervention/Strategies Applied The UK Government places emphasis on the need to support cities and towns due to the importance and the role they play in economic growth. This is because increasing populations in these areas provide the platform for sector and skills specialisation, opening access to new markets and building sustainable prosperity. In its Sustainable Urban Economic Development programme (SUED), the UK Government aims at working with emerging urban centers in Kenya to put in place sustainable urban economic plans 1; improve the investment climate and draw in investment for key climate-resilient infrastructure and value chain projects. In Kenya, 50% of the country’s urban population is centered in 3 major cities - Nairobi the capital, Mombasa, and Kisumu. However, in the recent past, urban centers linked to these cities have experienced population growth resulting in urban population growth outside the capital increasing at 7.3% annually2. To achieve a balanced growth in the country and take advantage of the platform provided by devolution, it’s imperative that smaller, faster growing urban centers are supported to identify their economic niche to achieve a balanced economic growth in the country. The 2007/8 Post-Election Violence (PEV) brought to the forefront the need to ensure that economic development within Kenya was equitably distributed. While the intent of devolution was to address this, it still remains a challenging undertaking. In 2018, when SUED was officially launched, programme funding could appropriately cater for 10 urban centers. SUED’s first hurdle was defining secondary towns (urban centers3). Using lessons learned from other urban programmes in the country, SUED based its definition of urban areas on the Kenyan Urban Areas and Cities Act. In doing so the programme was able to identify municipalities as the primary beneficiaries of the programme’s support. Secondly the programme had to advertise a Call for Proposals (CfP) inviting all 59 municipalities in Kenya to apply for SUED’s support to ensure equity of access to funding. Key among the criterion used to assess their applications was the municipality’s political goodwill towards the programme and its economic environment as well as how it prioritised gender, social inclusion, and climate resilience. To ensure that all municipalities were at par in terms of understanding the CfP requirements, SUED held region-specific information sessions that culminated in a technical review conference that provided clarifications to the issues raised. The programme was able to receive applications from 53 of the 59 municipalities demonstrating the great appetite for sustainably managed urbanisation and economic development in Kenya. The programme initially selected 104 municipalities with an additional two5 to ensure the programme had balanced representation across all the regional economic blocs6 in Kenya.
1
An urban economic plan is an advisory document that builds on existing work and priorities identified in the county and municipal planning documents. It helps provide an inclusive economic strategy that will guide future development aimed at prioritising economic activities and climate resilient infrastructure. 2 https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/Attachment/07219519-925f-4c01-a451-e6ef9aeb635e 3 An urban center is any institution whose core mission is to inform and engage citizens in urban planning and public policy – www.urban-center/org/en/what-is-an-urban-center/ 4 Eldoret, Isiolo, Iten, Kathwana, Kerugoya-Kutus, Kisii, Kitui, Lamu, Malindi, Mandera 5 The programme received an additional £10 Million in funding enabling it to add two more municipalities -Bungoma and Wote 6 Kenya has the following regional economic blocs with SUED municipalities as shared: Lake Region Economic Bloc- Kisii and Bungoma, North Rift Economic Bloc – Eldoret and Iten, Frontier Counties Development Council- Mandera and Isiolo, Mt. Kenya
Although municipalities in Kenya existed prior to devolution, they are now integral to the county governance system. The Urban Areas and Cities Act helped to expand the municipalities scope, mandate, and geographical size within the counties. As such the programme needed to undertake a Political Economy Analysis (PEA) that would assist in understanding what drove the political behaviour at the county and municipal level and how that shaped the economic and development policies and the resultant impact. As the UK Government’s flagship urbanisation programme in Kenya, a PEA was imperative to enable SUED to learn more on the various municipalities’ political contexts, cultural orientations, diversity, economic opportunities and enablers or barriers to economic development. Further as the programme intent is to work with municipalities to help them map out the national and county level legal and regulatory environments that constrained private-sector urban growth, the PEA helped SUED learn previous policy outcomes at county and municipal level. The key objectives of the PEA were: a) Improve the programme’s understanding of the political impediments and opportunities for urban economic growth; b) Enhance dialogue with the County Governments where the municipalities are embedded to promote private sector growth; and, c) Inform SUED’s implementation plan highlighting how the programme could work with the municipality to strengthen their economic position In 2019, the programme undertook a qualitative approach to conduct its PEA utilising in-person interviews at county and municipal level. Conversations were held with the county executives that included the Governor, Deputy Governor, County Secretary, various County Executive Committee Members (CECMs) and County Assembly Representatives. Further the programme utilised Focus Group Discussions (FGD) to gain insights from business associations and private sector organised groups on what the local economic development barriers were. The PEA process used a three-pronged approach: 1- a macro-level (county/municipal level) analysis, 2a sector level (urban economic development) analysis, and 3- a problem-driven (private-sector growth) analysis. At macro-level the programme was keen to see the link between the respective county and municipality political-economy environment and SUED’s development objectives. It was imperative to learn how policy and institutional reforms promoted urban economic development and what were the existing policy and regulatory barriers. By understanding the municipal structure (natural resources), institutions (separation of mandates between the municipality and county) and agents (individuals that had convening power and influenced key decision making) the programme was able to design a responsive municipal engagement plan. At sector-level, the focus was on learning how the private sector engaged at county and municipal level in the urban economic development sector. Were there incentives or constraints to investment in the municipality? If there were what were they? Further was the private sector organised in a way that they could effectively engage with the political class to advocate for their needs, policy, and regulatory reforms?
and Aberdares Region Economic Bloc- Kathwana and Kerugoya/Kutus, South Eastern Economic Bloc- Kitui and Wote, Jumuiya Ya Kaunti Za Pwani- Malindi and Lamu.
With regards to problem-driven7, gaining access on how potential critical infrastructure and value chain projects would spur economic growth was integral in informing the programme to determine whether there was a skilled workforce to support the projects. Findings: Macro-Level Structure: Historical factors linked to the 2007/2008 PEV came into play, some of the municipalities had borne the brunt of the violence and experienced in-country displacement of persons. In addition, some areas had seen population flee due to ethnic profiling. As such some of these urban areas had lost their national appeal for investment and were seen to be favourable to certain ethnic groups. While other municipalities benefited from the aftereffects of the PEV with increased population growth as there were perceived to be more cosmopolitan. As a result, some municipalities saw an increase in their private sector investment while others experienced a decrease. Economic/Geo-Strategic Location: Some of the municipalities such as Iten, Eldoret and Kisii are in close proximity to each other as such there is economic complementarity allowing them to leverage of each other’s resources and markets. While for other supported municipalities such as Lamu and Malindi at the Coast, the over dependence on the tourism sector as a key economic generator had led to a negative economic impact when the tourism sector significantly shrunk. Resource Endowment: In some of the municipalities, land is an emotive issue. As such investors who may want to set up industries may be hard pressed to gain access to land in the urban area within the municipality. In such municipalities there is need for continual engagement with the community to demonstrate to them the merits of opening up their municipalities to investors by availing land. Some municipalities have the right climatic conditions to favour particular agricultural value chain projects. In Kenya, counties/municipalities have varied budgetary allocations from the national government that is pegged on historical and locational advantage and disadvantage. Institutions: Formal: In some municipalities such as Iten, the formal legislative process is used to pass laws, regulations, and public policy. There is adherence to the stipulated guidance. While in other municipalities such as Mandera and Isiolo, there is need for a community-led consultative and consensus approach due to the sensitivities with clans as a precursor to the formal process. Informal: In some municipalities such as Kitui and Lamu, where the county assembly representatives are not from the same political party as the Governor there is negotiated democracy. Further in municipalities that have an organised private sector, they proactively seek the implementation of favourable legislation to enhance the business environment in the municipality. The informal approach (Kamukunji) is utilised when a policy or regulation requires consensus. This is usually achieved by the executive and the county assembly having prior meetings to gain mutual understanding on the importance of a particular policy or law. By doing so, it eases the discussions during the formal process. Incentives: With reference to Mandera Municipality due to the significant clan dynamics, the incentive is to ensure that all clans feel included in the decision making to avoid inter-clan conflict. Agents: SUED was able to identify the key influencers and gatekeepers in county level decision-making. It was important to understand the mechanisms that they employed to do so. Beyond formal and elective leadership positions, cultural and political orientations within a municipality determine(d) key influencers. However, in municipalities that had an organised private sector, the associations were able to significantly influence decision-making.
7
Problem driven analysis focuses on the specific issue the programme wants to address as apart of its delivery strategy and implementation intervention
Sector Level In the proposal submitted by the municipalities, the programme had requested them to share two potential projects that could be funded by the programme. However, clarity was given that the submitted proposals would not be funded unless they were viable and that would be determined by SUED’s urban economic plan development and investment attraction process. As such the sector level PEA was aimed at gaining understanding of the local private sector capability to harness the economic opportunities in the municipality. A majority of the municipalities did not have an organised private sector, as such they missed out on opportunities that would have helped them leverage off each other’s expertise. The poor organisation of the private sector could potentially be attributed to the lack of adequate technical resources within the local chapters to appropriately cascade the structures at national level to county and municipal level. Further, the infrastructure within the municipalities that could support significant value chain project investment was wanting making the case for SUED’s climate-resilient infrastructure support. In addition, in some municipalities there was need to ensure environmental considerations were included in the selection of the infrastructure projects that the programme would support. Problem Driven Level In some municipalities, there is county level support for small scale cottage industries however the operationalisation of these industries is heavily reliant on the private sector. While in others, there is lack of direct support to the private sector with non-governmental organisations stepping in to fill the gap to help the sector organise to increase their reach. However, this support isn’t enough and has not had significant impact on market systems needed to enable various value chain projects to thrive and become sustainable. For instance, in Iten where the private sector requires support to better organise, the Community-Based Organisations (CBO) and Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) have a stronger voice. This disproportionality of level of influence results in the CBOs and CSOs advocating for county investments to be prioritised for social investments which reduced the county’s urban infrastructure budget which if utilised would unlock the municipality for investment.
SUED’s Incorporation of Findings in its Implementation Approach Proactive Stakeholder Engagement: In carrying out the PEA, the programme was able to gain deep understanding on the political dynamics at County and Municipal level. This helped inform the programme’s stakeholder engagement strategy. The stakeholder engagement strategy using the PEA as a base, defined SUED’s entry points into the Counties which was critical for its implementation activities. As such the Urban Economic Plan (UEP) development process was greatly enriched by pro-active participation of key county and municipal sector players. This ensured that as the UEPs were developed, SUED was able to work with the municipalities to guarantee that the insights of the political class, the private sector as well as the community were incorporated. This resulted in the development of 6 UEPs 8 that really reflect the aspirations of the municipal and county stakeholders for their respective municipal economic visions. When submitting their proposal, the Kisii technical team put forward the banana value chain as a project that would like to receive funding from SUED to unlock. The programme’s work through the UEP development phase reaffirmed the county and municipality’s insights on the banana value chain being a viable economic project that should be prioritised to attract investors. Enhanced Knowledge on the Political Context: The understanding of the various political contexts in the 10 municipalities has helped the programme gain insights on the balance of power and the interplay SUED has completed the development of six UEPs – Kitui, Kathwana, Isiolo, Malindi and Iten, the programme is currently developing the UEPs for Lamu, Eldoret, Kerugoya-Kutus and Mandera and when complete will develop Wote’s and Bungoma’s. 8
with the private sector. Knowing this has helped the programme identify allies in its municipal engagement process. Further it assisted SUED to know how to engage with county leadership on matters that relate to urban economic development. As such, municipalities that have been supported to develop their urban economic plans have all fully adopted them with four publicly launched and two still to be launched. This public display of political goodwill is a harvest of the utilisation of the PEA in the programme’s implementation activities. Balancing Interest and Viability: At the CfP stage, the programme requested the municipalities to share potential projects for funding, with majority of the proposed projects having political interests. In some municipalities the Governors had viewed the projects as their legacy projects. When developing the UEPs, the programme needed to ensure that while the proposed projects were assessed they had to be economically viable to be incorporated in the final UEP. In instances where the projects were not feasible, the SUED team ensured that they held debrief sessions with the county leadership and technical team to explain further why the projects were not viable. These meetings helped provide clarity to the key stakeholders ensuring that they were cognisant of the reasons why “their projects” were not included in the UEP. Further in some municipalities such as Mandera where after the announcement of the successful municipalities there were dissenting voices on the municipality’s success, SUED ensured that during the PEA, meetings were held with the individuals. Having these in-person meetings and sharing the programme’s implementation approach while highlighting its inclusive nature helped win over negative influencers who now champion the programme locally. Adaptive Programming: At the inception of the programme direct engagement with the municipalities had been at the launch, information sessions and technical review conference as well as when physically submitting their proposals. When carrying out the PEA, the programme determined that due to historical best practices adopted by other donor agencies, municipalities needed a formal agreement that shared SUED’s roles and responsibilities as well as the municipality’s and the respective county. This formal agreement came in the form of a Participation Agreement (PA) that spelled out all the requirements from all parties. This enabled the programme to formally engage with the counties and municipalities. This PA has enabled the programme to work closely with the municipalities in a well-coordinated and seamless manner. In addition, the SUED team’s innovativeness to design a PEA template that was well suited to the programme’s asks at the time helped the programme to utilise experiential knowledge of the municipalities. This resulted in a less “technical” PEA and one that was contextual helping SUED to have an engaging PEA that yielded ideas on how the programme would work with the political class in its implementation. Programme Planning: When the PEA was carried out, the programme embedded within its PEA process a Rapid Readiness Assessment (RRA) to determine which of the 10 municipalities were ready to receive programmatic support. The RRA looked at political goodwill, municipal governance, municipal human resource capacity, municipalities’ fiscal autonomy, economic issues, and social inclusion. As a result, the programme identified the critical factors that would hamper the municipality’s capability to engage appropriately with the programme. Subsequently SUED was able to group the municipalities according to their readiness to kickstart the UEP process which is a gateway to other SUED components. Risk Management: The PEA enabled the programme to examine risk along UK Governments’ risk categories: a) The external context that it would operate in. In its sector level assessment, the PEA provided insights on what laws and regulations were a hinderance to private sector investment. In addition, it helped the programme identify what political risk such as change of governors after 2022 general elections, poor relationship between the executive and the assembly that the municipalities had and how it could ensure that the programme interventions were not disrupted or severely affected b) Delivery- The programme was able to assess the access to technology at county and municipal level determining what would be the best stakeholder engagement approach. Further by determining data
access at county and municipal level, when commencing its urban economic development process, the programme was familiar as to where secondary data could be accessed. c) Safeguards: Since land is a key resource when it comes to leveraging the county’s or municipality’s attractiveness to investors, the programme ensured that land use discussions formed part of the PEA. As such, in some municipalities, for the value chain and climate infrastructure projects to take shape, there may be need to work with the municipality and county on zoning to ensure that land for investment is accessible. d) Operational: When carrying out the PEA, SUED was keen to determine if the municipality had the capacity to technically engage with investors. This was pertinent to determine the level of capacity building the municipalities would need once the UEPs completed and the investment attraction work commenced. e) Fiduciary: The programme used the PEA to learn whether any of the municipal and county leadership had been engaged in any corruption. This was important for the programme to ensure that any ongoing court cases would not impact the programmes activities. f) Reputational: During the PEA the programme was able to share with senior county executives its objectives and its implementation approach helping to ensure that they were cognisant on how the programme would work with them and minimise misrepresentation of facts. Further, it helped the programme learn about what other donor agencies were doing to synergise similar activities and avoid duplication of efforts. Working With Other Programmes: The PEA enabled the programme to map other donor-funded programmes working within the same sector and localities. One such programme is World Bank’s Kenya Urban Support Programme (KUSP). The programme was able to utilise the lessons learned by KUSP when implementing urban programmes at county and municipal level. The partnership between SUED and KUSP has enabled the programme to be able to broaden its scope and take advantage of the work KUSP is doing in the same municipalities that SUED supports. With the KUSP Senior Urban Specialist as part of SUED’s Programme Steering Committee (PSC) it helps the programme to best to navigate the municipal urban space by learning from a key sector player. While PEA has previously been viewed as a problem finder, SUED has determined that they actually provide opportunities for programmes to identify policies that need support to reform the political and economic space they work in. Further, PEA helps programmes develop in line with reality and have responsive implementation approaches that result in sustainable outcomes.
Best Practices to Replicate Ensure Gender and Social Inclusion are integrated in the PEA: A gender and social inclusive PEA ensures that the perspective of inclusion and diversity informs the process, findings and the utilisation of the analysis. By understanding why particular stakeholders have been previously marginalised, programmes will be able to identify how to engage with them and ensure that they benefit from the programme’s offerings. Further by reaching out to the excluded during the PEA, technical teams are able to design responsive engagement strategies that inform the equitable change that the programme aims to bring. In Isiolo, Malindi, Mandera and Lamu where women and youth are culturally expected not to proactively contribute in settings where older men are having discussions on community building, it was necessary to ensure that their voices were heard and they were integrated into the PEA process. This is because majority of the work across the value chain projects would directly impact on women, youth and people living with disabilities. Integrate Climate Resilience into the PEA: It is imperative for programmes to determine the willingness of the political class to integrate climate resilience into their development planning. Programmes must work within the local governance systems to ensure that there is a growing political awareness that results in commitment to act on climate change within their localities. Counties/municipalities that have strong climate resilience strategies can better position themselves to access climate-change related
funding that will lead to climate resilient economic development. By knowing which municipalities were climate change conscious the programme was better placed in determining how to design its implementation approach to encourage those that weren’t to be aware of the effects of climate change on their environment and how it impacted their municipality economically. Gain Knowledge on Key Decision Makers Early: There is merit in understanding who in the urban sector or locality has the most convening power. Further, there is need to gain insights on the interaction between political and economic process and how power and wealth are distributed between different groups and individuals. This information will enable the programme to develop a responsive engagement strategy that determines how to create, sustain, and transform these relationships within the centrality of power. Prioritise PEA prior to Programme Support: When developing concepts for programmes, while teams may have integrated local knowledge on the political dynamics in a sector and woven in literature that demonstrates that, it is important to note that when commencing implementation, programmes especially those that are working in the urban sector need to place priority on conducting PEA. In doing so they will be able to determine what has been a hinderance to economic development in the urban area, learn more about the history of the urban area to be able to properly support the future. In addition, the PEA will be able to determine the best cause of action in their support. Ensure that the PEA includes Conversations with the Political Class: SUED’s approach included having initial meetings with the County political class, In all counties/municipalities the programme had an in-depth meeting with the Governor or Deputy Governor, the County Executive Committee Member (CECM) and Chief Officer who are tasked with managing the urban development docket, County Secretary, Technical Directors, the Speaker and Members of the County Assembly. By having these indepth meetings with the political class where the programme team explained in detail SUED’s implementation approach and offerings, the programme was able to gain political goodwill, pledged commitment and support. Further, the political buy in to SUED’s work helped strengthen the municipalities resolve to being proactive in carrying out programme activities. Additionally, by having the highest political office aware of the programme, SUED has been able to continually gain support in implementation of its activities across all municipalities. In 8 out 10 municipalities, the programme was able to meet with the Governor and his executive team while for two the programme met with the Deputy Governors who then briefed their respective Governors on the programme. Determine Strategic Entry Points: The PEA provides programmes the capability to determine which would be the most productive entry point to utilise its stakeholder engagement should it be needed. When carrying out the PEA, SUED was able to determine who within the county and municipal team had stakeholder convening power. As such the programme was able to work closely with the municipal team and the key opinion leader to ensure the active participation of stakeholders in the programme activities. Identify Sector Specific Asks to be Included in the PEA: SUED key sector is urban economic development. To help the programme better understand the interests, incentives and institutions operating within the sector, the PEA tool needed to be designed to include sector specific questions that would directly impact the implementation of the programme. As programmes design their PEA, they should ensure that while it looks at the broader political and economic aspects, their tools should be tailor made to ensure that they collect information that is directly linked with their programmes. Identify Barriers as part of the PEA: As programmes carry out PEA it is imperative that they gain understanding on what the historical barriers were in the sector that its intervention was designed to address. In understanding what the previous deterrents were, it will help better design its programme. For instance, in some of the SUED supported municipalities, the 2007/2008 post-election violence continues to influence their attractiveness to ethnically diverse investors. By understanding these dynamics, the programme is able to work closely with the County to reassure potential investors by putting in place measures such as encouraging community cohesion to reduce their risk to election violence.
Determine the Long-Term Drivers of Change: The PEA is the best time for the programmes to identify who within the teams that they’ll be working with would be best suited to be the long-term drivers of change. This is critical to see how to work with the political systems to ensure that the programmes initiatives are not only well understood but have a champion for them who can advocate for the programme. This driver of change if capably built would also help sustain the programmes initiatives beyond its implementation stage. Political offices in Kenya are usually held for five years barring impeachment, further Governors can only vie for two terms. In instances where there is a change in political office that results in a change of the team that a programme is working with, there is merit to ensure that when working within the county and municipal team, programmes work closely with the technical teams who transcend political changes. Define the Role that Power and Politics Play: Within the urban economic development sector, defining the role that politics plays helps programmes see the interplay between politics and economy. However not all political officials have power and not all people of power hold political office. By determining the extent that the programme will need from both and at what point helps provide a starting point to think about programme strategy and its engagement approach. SUED has endeavoured to determine how relationships and power dynamics can potentially impact the programme and has leveraged off its vibrant multi-stakeholder implementation approach. Identify a Methodology that Works: There are varied ways in which one can carry out a PEA, some options may be desk study heavy or field work heavy. Further, scopes may vary depending on the asks that the programme has. The first step to start with when identifying a methodology that works is to gain consensus within the team on the objectives of the PEA. Once a unified agreement on the goal of the PEA has been met, there is need to define its scope with regards to the range of power relations that will be included as well as social economic inclusion across the groups that the programme will work with. Next, the team carrying out the PEA should have guidance questions that include operational ones that they aim to respond to as they carry out the PEA. Include Policy Assessment: As policies can inhibit or positive influence the implementation of urban programmes, it is important to have the PEA analyse how stakeholders influence the policy processes and the resultant outcomes. Programmes such as SUED that have an investment climate component particularly need this addressed as without the inclusion of this in the PEA, the risk of a narrow focus may downplay the integral role that broader legislative processes play in ensuring the success of the programme. The PEA should include analysis on governance reform and how responsive it is to the needs of similar programmes. Determine the Role of External Forces: When carrying out the PEA, its important for programmes to carry out a rapid mapping on other similar donor funded programmes that are within the same sector. This helps the programme see where complementarity between its initiatives and other programmes lie. SUED was able to identify KUSP as a key programme that it would need to work closely to leverage off their expertise as well as work while SUED would share its implementation lessons and work with the municipalities to take forward some of the work that KUSP was doing. By determining what other donor agencies were working on within the same sector, programmes are able to align on their policy reform asks as well as amplify each other’s support by addressing different components within a particular sector or workstream. Utilise the PEA to Determine Operational Implications: PEA’s should not just be conducted as a step in implementation but should be utilised as the key influence on how programmes tweak their implementation approach to be responsive to the outcomes that the PEA provides. The PEA should inform strategy as well the structuring of work plans. Ensure that PEA’s are Continuous: While at the commencement of a programme’s implementation, PEAs are needed and help inform downstream support; they should not be relegated to a once-in-a programme activity. PEA’s are continuous. Programme teams should continually engage with the key
conveners to determine any political changes and how that may influence a programme’s implementation context. Further, programmes should continue to monitor the social, political, economic, and institutional factors that affect the context in which they operate in. This information should be used by the team to update their implementation approach. Advocate for Conversations Among Stakeholders: While the temptation might remain to have key informant interviews or conversations with individuals from the same sector or department , PEAs carried out where varied stakeholders engage together helps bring to the surface areas where the stakeholders may need to create alliances to achieve a common objective. In the PEA, SUED held some of its Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with county and municipal leadership, in them the associations were able to highlight some of the policy reforms that would be beneficial to them with the political class conquering. This helped identify areas that the programme could help with because of the common interest. When carrying out the PEA, SUED was cognizant that PEA tend to address areas that are normally highly sensitive with different stakeholders having differing opinions on what the inhibitors of economic development were. In these components the team was keen to ensure that all stakeholders felt heard and were assured that their insights would be appropriately included in the programmes support. The programme has continued to place priority on a continual PEA process that helps SUED adapt its implementation approach.