The drivers of policy changes and the implication for social protection policy change in Zimbabwe

Abstract

Despite global agreement on the importance of social protection in development programmes, Zimbabwe has not embarked on social protection reform, preserving several colonial-era tools. Consequently, social protection design in Zimbabwe has not kept pace with international developments. Cash transfers remain primarily donor-funded. Social protection policy change remains conservative while little is known about how the government selects and adopts context-specific policy instruments. The overall objective of this study was to identify drivers of policy change and their implication for social protection policy changes in Zimbabwe. The first sub-objective investigated the drivers of policy change in Zimbabwe from 1980 to 2017. The kaleidoscope model for policy change methodology was adopted to explore how the government identified social protection policies, selected policy instruments and what influenced the policy choice. The second sub-objective sought to establish how policy actors’ levels of knowledge, attitudes and perceptions affected the policy process over this period. The Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests tested the statistical significance of the association between the knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of policy options of veto players and champions. The third objective sought to establish how policymakers' perceptions of threats and coping appraisals of beneficiaries influenced policy instruments selection. A theoretical framework that borrowed from the Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) and Protective Action Decision Model (PADM was used to address this sub-objective. International actors used several strategies and significantly drove social protection policy change and even dictate policy preferences in Zimbabwe. This fuelled mistrust among policy actors. Recognised relevant problems created momentum for international and local advocates to initiate discussions about these policies. Notwithstanding a shared understanding in the agenda-setting phase of policy change, diverse stakeholders and context-specific concerns developed throughout the policy cycle design, adoption, implementation and evaluation stages influencing policy change. Power disparities led to token consultation and an appearance of consensus during the agenda-setting and design stages. Champions were knowledgeable about many social protection instruments. Despite this knowledge among champions divergent views are common with many fighting for social protection to align with their institutional mandates. However, veto players requested capacity development about the conditions under which cash transfers were suitable, the pros and cons of conditional and unconditional cash transfers, exit strategies, handling beneficiary grievances, shock-responsive transfers and setting transfer values. How social protection instruments are chosen, designed and implemented, as well as their outcomes is a negotiated settlement between divergent attributes among policy actors about social protection instruments. However, shared perceptions gave rise to the critical mass required for policy change. Although policy actors acknowledged cash transfers as a suitable mechanism to respond to covariate and idiosyncratic shocks, in-kind assistance remained the default instrument. Cash transfers represented a small proportion of social assistance initiatives. It is essential for policy actors to keep abreast of international developments regarding social protection best practices. However, policy change should not replicate international best practices, processes, systems without thoroughly considering and adapting instruments to local contexts. While technocratic concerns about attributes such as evidence of intervention impact, affordability of broad-based social protection, and rights-based concerns about universal principles and standards (among others) are valid, the central role of policy actors' perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes in policy change processes has inadvertently been overlooked. A convergence of perceptions, knowledge, attitudes and attributes mentioned above is crucial for policy change to address food insecurity and poverty. Veto players perceive the evidence from evaluations commissioned by champions with suspicion. Trust is essential for genuine consensus-building and meaningful involvement in policy reform. This calls for the active engagement of veto players in research rather than being the research object. Jointly commissioned independent research could benefit both parties to create common ground regarding perceptions. Building capacity among young professionals, members of parliament, and senior professionals is required to address the knowledge gap among policy actors and to inform policy selection for effective policy dialogue. Knowledge can build positive shared perceptions and change attitudes. The message is as important as the messenger is when it comes to attitudes. Therefore, there is a need to identify knowledgeable local champions to lead policy change, including initiating joint research to inform the policy change process and negotiating instrument selection.