Menu
I offer expertise across three key dimensions.
analysis – communication – collaboration
The combination of all three is needed, but one may be particularly challenging. Below, three examples highlight these dimensions in turn.
Regulatory and financial analysis; estimating, measuring, and maximizing impact of private and public investments in emerging markets and developing countries.
Example:
Writing and presenting; drafting reports in accessible language; communicating findings also for politically and technically sensitive topics.
Example:
Strong track record of collaboration with diverse individuals and institutions; leading teams and managing stakeholders.
Example:
big challenge – analysis: In 2008, the analytical foundations for private health sector engagement in Africa did not yet exist (what is better engagement? in which direction lies progress?). I led the effort over three years to establish this foundation. This required the collection of new data as well as the development of new indicators and new methods for collection and analysis, across an entire continent (45 countries). The report constitutes the first analytical method to systematically compare countries in terms of their engagement with the private health sector.
communication: Private health sector engagement was, and remains, technically and politically difficult. Results were discussed at various fora, at different events and seminars, across Africa including the Ministers’ meeting of the West African Economic Community (ECOWAS), Europe, and the USA. A streamlined and simplified presentation was developed to this end.
collaboration: A big team was needed. An Advisory Council and various partners were assembled and managed throughout the project, including representatives from African governments, WHO, universities, think tanks, and other stakeholders. For the survey, more than 750 respondents in 45 countries were interviewed during in-country research. We had separate peer-review processes with internal and external experts for (i) the data collection instrument and methodology, (ii) the construction of indicators, as well as (iii) the final report.
While the report’s analytical foundation has supported operational projects, initiatives and financing facilities across the globe, the Covid pandemic has served as a reminder how critical the further operationalization and further development of this work still are.
The report itself is available here. The presentation slides are available here.
[Please note: The work described here was carried out prior to the 2021 military coup in Myanmar, and prior to the bloodshed, oppression, and violence that has followed it. Though troubling signs were apparent also during this analysis, there was at the time a cautious sense of optimism and potential.]
analysis: This was the first ever Investment Climate Assessment (ICA) for Myanmar, undertaken after World Bank Group reengagement following the partial lifting of sanctions. The first comprehensive study of the country’s private sector with in-depth analysis of its possibilities and constraints. Data collection was based on the Enterprise Survey Methodology. Individual subject matter experts from across the World Bank Group joined the team and provided contributions.
big challenge – communication: The communication for this ICA was a major challenge for two reasons. First, another analysis of the Myanmar private sector was released just as this work was in its final stages. Our conclusions, for example with regard to the influence of corruption, were going to contradict the earlier (and less rigorously researched) report. Second, this ICA addressed the burden of government corruption in an uncommonly frank tone. We mitigated these risks – tone of the report and political sensitivity – by (a) releasing a summary of findings early, so as to prime the audience and the government, and (b) officially presenting the full report by then-Chief Economist of the World Bank, Kaushik Basu, during a launch event in the country’s capital Nay Pyi Taw in March 2015.
collaboration: Both data collection and the final report underwent several stages of review. The Government was also given the opportunity to share feedback, though without promising that any requested changes would be made.
The ICA helped shape the initial World Bank Group program in Myanmar.
The report is available here. The summary document published earlier is available here.
analysis: When I joined the Pakistan team in 2015, the World Bank had been carrying out a number of projects in the volatile Northwest to revitalize the economy and create jobs. One project sought to support small and medium-sized businesses in rebuilding in the wake of military operations. Despite recording considerable success in creating jobs (the main objective), management in Washington indicated that the project might be closed for lack of clear results. The question was: who was responsible for aligning these divergent opinions? What additional work needed to be done?
communication: It was our (the operational team’s) responsibility to translate results into language and concepts that would be understood by the target audience (management and donors). Better communication, more than additional analysis, was needed. But the team could not do this remotely.
big challenge – collaboration: To succeed, we had to understand the context, our partners and beneficiaries better. We had to go see for ourselves, so that we might then find the language to communicate effectively. Our site visits and discussions, for example in Swat valley, indicated that we had actually underreported results. The supported businesses often provided public services: electricity, health care (also for women), education (also for girls). The project did more than simply support the creation of jobs, urgent as that objective itself was. Using this collaborative approach, we were better able to understand the nuance of the project’s results, which we easily managed to fit into the language and concepts of our target audience.
As a result of the efforts described, these projects in Northwest Pakistan were not only continued but expanded.
Since the internal discussions were deliberative, they are not publicly available.
Back to you …
You might be a private firm seeking to measure and maximize the positive impact of your project; either direct impact (e.g. service providers) or indirect (environmental or social; minimizing negative impact from core business). Perhaps you are wondering who can assess the ESG-relevant and regulatory status quo as well as likely future development; or who can help to put this information in context with financial returns and with a strategy to improve the project’s impact. Who can help you get credit for such efforts from customers, local stakeholders, and global activists?
Or, alternatively, you might be a public- or public-private entity or NGO seeking to support the public interest by working more deliberately with the private sector and other organizations. If encouraging private contributions toward the public interest are part of the puzzle, who can assess what the most difficult hurdles are and where the greatest promise lies? Who can evaluate the effectiveness your efforts and identify any corrective actions?
Well … we should discuss. I’d welcome your email or call.
copyright © 2021, sprenganalysis.com