• Political-economy analysis;
  • development management;
  • aid effectiveness;
  • complexity


  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. References

Recognising that aid effectiveness critically depends upon the quality of host-country institutions and policies, international aid agencies have sought to inform their activities through more systematic political-economy analysis (PEA). In this article, three analytical frameworks for PEA are compared, contrasted and critically appraised in the light of reflections by PEA practitioners and recent theoretical debate about development management. The article finds that the potential of PEA to improve development effectiveness depends on how far it addresses the micro as well as macro politics of aid and permits a finer-grained engagement between analysis and action. This requires more reflexivity on the part of those who commission and produce PEA, and further movement from intervention to interaction modalities for aid delivery.



  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. References
  • Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J.A. (2006) Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Andersson, K. and Auer, M. (2005) ‘Incentives for Contractors in Aid-Supported Activities’, in C. Gibson et al. (eds), The Samaritan's Dilemma. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Barder, O. (2010) ‘What can Development Policy Learn from Evolution?’.
  • Bevan, P. (2000) ‘The Successful Use of Consultancies in Aid-Financed Public Sector Management Reform: A consultant's eye view of some things which matter’, Public Administration and Development 20 (4): 289304.
  • Boettke, P.J., Coyne, C.J. and Leeson, P.T. (2008) ‘Institutional Stickiness and the New Development Economics’, American Journal of Economics and Sociology 67 (2): 33159.
  • Booth, D. (2011) Aid Effectiveness: Bringing country ownership (and politics) back in. Working Paper 336. London: Overseas Development Institute.
  • Bronk, R. (2009) The Romantic Economist: Imagination in economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Copestake, J. (2011) ‘Well-Being in Development: Comparing global designs with local views in Peru’, Economic Journal of Development Research 23 (1): 94110.
  • Copestake, J. and Williams, R. (2012) The Evolving Art of Political Economy Analysis: Unlocking its practical potential through a more interactive approach. Development Futures Paper. Oxford: Oxford Policy Management.
  • Copestake, J. and Wood, G. (2008) ‘Reproducing Unequal Security: Peru as a wellbeing regime’, in J. Copestake (ed.), Wellbeing and Development in Peru: Local and universal views confronted. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Denzau, A. and North, D. (1994) ‘Shared Mental Models: Ideologies and institutions’, Kyklos 47 (1): 331.
  • DFID (2011) Bilateral Aid Review: Technical report. London: Department for International Development, March.
  • DFID (2005) Lessons Learned – Planning and undertaking a Drivers of Change study. London: Department for International Development, November.
  • DFID (2004) Drivers of Change. Public Information Note. London: Department for International Development, September
  • Duncan, A. and Williams, G. (2010) ‘Making Development Assistance More Effective by Using Political Economy Analysis: What has been done and what have we learned?’, Development Policy Review 32 (2): 13348.
  • Easterly, W. (2006) The White Man's Burden: Why the West's efforts to aid the rest have done so much ill and so little good. New York: Penguin Press.
  • Economist, The (2011) ‘Beyond Economics: Business people need to think harder about political risk’, 12 February: 74.
  • Endlemen, D. (2009) Analysing and Managing the Political Dynamics of Sector Reforms: A sourcebook on sector-level political economy approaches. Working Paper 309. London: Overseas Development Institute, November.
  • Engberg-Pedersen, Lars (2011) ‘Decentralised Aid Management: The experience of Danish aid’. Paper presented at workshop on ‘Unpacking Aid Effectiveness: Examining donor dynamics’, London School of Economics, 21 June.
  • Eyben, R. (2010) ‘Hiding Relations: The irony of “effective aid”’, European Journal of Development Research 22 (3): 116.
  • Eyben, R. (2008) Power, Mutual Accountability and Responsibility in the Practice of International Aid: A relational. IDS Working Paper 305. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, May.
  • Foresti, M. and Wild, L. (2009) Analysing Governance and Political Economy in Sectors. Joint donor workshop report. London: Overseas Development Institute, December.
  • Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (2011) Outcome Statement: Busan partnership for effective development cooperation. Busan, South Korea: Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, 1 December.
  • Gaventa, J. (2006) ‘Finding the Spaces for Change: A power analysis’, IDS Bulletin 37 (6): 2333.
  • Gough, I. and McGregor, J.A. (eds) (2007) Wellbeing in Developing Countries: From theory to research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gough, I. and Wood, G. (eds) (2004) Insecurity and Welfare Regimes in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Grammig, T. (2002) Technical Knowledge and Development: Observing aid projects and processes. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Grindle, M. (2011) ‘Governance Reform: The new analytics of next steps’, Governance: An international journal of policy, administration and institutions 24 (3): 4158.
  • Grindle, M. (2010) Good Governance: The inflation of an idea. Working Paper 202. Cambridge, MA: Centre for International Development, Harvard University.
  • Grindle, M. (2007) ‘Good Enough Governance Revisited’, Development Policy Review 25 (5): 53374.
  • Grint, K. (2005) ‘Problems, Problems, Problems: The social construction of leadership’, Human Relations 58 (11): 146794.
  • Gulrajani, N. (2012) ‘Organising for Donor Effectiveness: An analytical framework for improving aid effectiveness policies’ (mimeo).
  • Gulrajani, N. (2011) ‘Transcending the Great Foreign Aid Debate: Managerialism, radicalism and the search for aid effectiveness’, Third World Quarterly 32 (2): 199216.
  • Gulrajani, N. (2010) ‘New Vistas for Development Management: Examining radical-reformist possibilities and potential’, Public Administration and Development 30 (2): 13648.
  • Haider, H. and Rao, S. (2010) An Overview of Five Approaches, Political and Social Analysis for Development Policy and Practice. Birmingham: Governance and Social Research Centre, International Development Department, University of Birmingham.
  • Hayman, R. (2009) ‘From Rome to Accra via Kigali: Aid effectiveness in Rwanda’, Development Policy Review 27 (5): 58199.
  • Hirschman, A. (1967) Development Projects Observed. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
  • Hughes, C. and Hutchison, J. (2008) Development Effectiveness as Political Struggle: Taking sides in aid programming. Murdoch: Asia Research Centre, Murdoch University.
  • Hyden, G. (2008) ‘After the Paris Declaration: Taking on the issue of power’, Development Policy Review 26 (3): 25974.
  • Killick, T. (2004) ‘Politics, Evidence and the New Aid Agenda’, Development Policy Review 22 (1): 529.
  • Landell-Mills, P., Williams, G. and Duncan, A. (2007) Tackling the Political Barriers to Development: The new political economy perspective. Policy Briefing Paper 1. Brighton: The Policy Practice.
  • Leftwich, A. (2007) Drivers of Change: Refining the analytical framework to understand the politics of the places we work: Notes of guidance for DFID offices. York: Department of Politics, University of York.
  • Leftwich, A. (2006a) Drivers of Change: Refining the analytical framework, Part 1: Conceptual and theoretical issues. London: Department for International Development.
  • Leftwich, A. (2006b) Drivers of Change: Refining the analytical framework, Part 2: A framework for political analysis. London: Department for International Development.
  • Levy, B. (2011) ‘Moving the Governance Agenda Forward: A new blog on development’, retrieved 15 May from
  • Lewis, D. and Mosse, D. (2006) Development Brokers and Translators: The ethnography of aid and agencies. Sterling, VA: Kumarian Press
  • Mahoney, J. and Thelen, K. (2009) ‘A Theory of Gradual Institutional Change’, in J. Mahoney and K. Thelen (eds), Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, agency and power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Martens, B.; Mummert, U.; Murrell, P. and Seabright, P. (2002) The Institutional Economics of Foreign Aid. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • McCourt, W. and Gulrajani, N. (2010) ‘The Future of Development Management: Introduction to the special issue’, Public Administration and Development 30 (2): 8190.
  • Moncrieffe, J. and Luttrell, C. (2005) An Analytical Framework for Understanding the Political Economy of Sectors and Policy Arenas. London: Overseas Development Institute.
  • Mowles, C. (2010) ‘Post-Foundational Development Management – Power, politics and complexity’, Public Administration and Development 30: 149158.
  • Mowles, C, Stacey, R. and D Griffin (2008) ‘What Contribution can Insights from the Complexity Sciences Make to the Theory and Practice of Development Management?’, Journal of International Development 20 (6): 80420.
  • Natsios, A. (2010) The Clash of Counter-Bureaucracy and Development. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development. (accessed 10 June).
  • North, D (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Powelson, J.P. (1994) Centuries of Economic Endeavor: Parallel paths in Japan and Europe and their contrast with the Third World. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
  • Ramalingam, B.; Jones, H.; Reba, T. and Young, J. (2008) Exploring the Science of Complexity: Ideas and implications for development and humanitarian efforts. Working Paper 285. London: Overseas Development Institute.
  • Richards, P. (1989) ‘Agriculture as Performance’, in R. Chambers, A. Pacey and L. Thrupp (eds), Farmer First. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
  • Room, G. (2011) Agile Policy Making for Complex Terrains and Turbulent Times. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  • Scott, Z. (2007) ‘The Changing Face of Drivers of Change’, Public Administration and Development 27 (1): 8590.
  • Thornton, N. and Cox, M. (2005) Review of the Uptake of the Drivers of Change Approach. Agulhas Ltd. Report for Department for International Development.
  • Unsworth, S. (2010) An Upside Down View of Governance. Brighton: Centre for the Future State, Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex.
  • Unsworth, S. (2009) ‘What's Politics Got to Do With It?: Why donors find it so hard to come to terms with politics, and why this matters’, Journal of International Development 21 (6): 88394.
  • Unsworth, S. (2008) ‘Is Political Analysis Changing Donor Behaviour?’. Paper prepared for Conference of Development Studies Association, London, 29 September.
  • Unsworth, S. (2007) ‘Can Political Science Speak to Policymakers?’. Paper presented at the 2nd annual conference of Development Politics Group of Political Studies Association, University of Birmingham, 26 January.
  • Waterman, R. and Meier, K. (1998) ‘Principal-Agent Models: An expansion?’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8 (2): 173202.
  • Williamson, V. (2009) ‘Perception and Practice: Participation, evaluation and aid harmonisation in Ethiopia’. Doctoral thesis, University of Bath.
  • Williamson, O. (2000) ‘The New Institutional Economics: Taking stock, looking ahead’, Journal of Economic Literature 38 (3): 595613.
  • Wood, G. (1998) ‘Projects as Communities: Consultants, knowledge and power’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 16 (1): 5464.
  • World Bank (2009) Problem-Driven Governance and Political Economy Analysis, Good Practice Framework. Washington, DC: World Bank, September.
  • World Bank (2008) The Political Economy of Policy Reform: Issues and implications for policy dialogue and development operations. Washington, DC: World Bank, Social Development Department, June.
  • World Bank (2007) Tools for Institutional, Political and Social Analysis of Policy Reform: A sourcebook for development practitioners. Washington, DC: World Bank.
  • World Bank Institute and CommGap (2010) The Political Economy of Reform: Moving from analysis to action, a global learning event. Washington, DC: World Bank and CommGap.