Using process tracing to evaluate stakeholder disputes: The case of tender award dispute in Nepal’s forestry

Abstract

In donor aid programs, the claims of causal links between inputs and outputs are crucial to establish the effectiveness of aid. As a result, there has been ample research on the degree and direction of correlation and causality between aid and poverty reduction. While evaluating end outcomes has its merits, this article aims to assess how some donor aid programs come under early criticism and/or are dropped or modified in order to ensure their continuation. This article examines a tender award dispute in a forestry program in Nepal, and traces the causal contribution of actors and actions that obstructed and changed the decisions related to the program implementation plan of this multi-million-dollar initiative. The article employs the process tracing method to search, collect, and assess evidence on the tender dispute case of the selected program. By tracing the logical sequence of evidence, this study establishes causality, linking the hypothesized causes and their effects to explain how the tender award decision that was announced by the lead donor and endorsed by the Government of Nepal was eventually nullified.

Keywords

environmental governance and politics international aid and development process tracing stakeholder disputes

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adhikari

(2005) Media and democracy in Nepal: A case for public-oriented journalism. Global Media Journal 4(7). Available at: https://www.globalmediajournal.com/open-access/media-and-democracy-in-nepal-a-case-for-publicoriented-journalism.php?aid=35150 (accessed 29 November 2019).

Ahlborg

Nightingale

(2018) Theorizing power in political ecology: The ‘where’ of power in resource governance projects. Journal of Political Ecology 25(1): 381–401.

Asian Development Bank (2012) Strengthening participation for development results: An Asian Development Bank guide to participation. Mandaluyong City: Asian Development Bank. Available at: https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/institutional-document/33349/files/strengthening-participation-development-results.pdf (accessed 30 October 2019).

Baumgartner

Jones

(1991) Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems. The Journal of Politics 53(4): 1044–1074.

Beach

(2017) Process-tracing methods in social science. In Oxford Research Encyclopedias of Politics. Oxford University Press. Available at: https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-176 (accessed 30 October 2020).

Beach

Pedersen

(2013) Process-tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Bennett

Checkel

(2012). Process tracing: from philosophical roots to best practices. In: Bennett

Checkel

(eds) Process Tracing in the Social Sciences: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–38.

Bennett

George

(2005) Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Busetti

Dente

(2017) Using process tracing to evaluate unique events: The case of EXPO Milano 2015. Evaluation 23(3): 256–273.

10.

Collier

(2011) Understanding process tracing. PS: Political Science & Politics 44(4): 823–830.

11.

Department for International Development (DFID) (2013) Annual review report of the Multi Stakeholder Forestry Program. Kathmandu, Nepal, August. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/67327/Multi-stake-forestry-prog-ann-rev-2012-1.pdf (accessed 29 June 2018).

12.

Embassy of Switzerland in Nepal (2012) Press release: Tender to implement the MSFP cancelled and a new process to be initiated. The Himalayan Times, 27 July, p. 12.

13.

European Commission (EC) (2007) Aid delivery methods: Guidelines on the programming, design & management of general budget support. Brussels: European Commission. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/methodology-aid-delivery-methods-programming-design-general-budget-support-200701_en_2.pdf (accessed 1 November 2019).

14.

European Commission (EC) (2011) Increasing the impact of EU development policy: An agenda for change. Brussels: European Commission. Available at: https://www.aics.gov.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/agenda_for_change_en.pdf (accessed 1 November 2019)

15.

Falleti

Lynch

(2009) Context and causal mechanisms in political analysis. Comparative Political Studies 42(9): 1143–1166.

16.

Jones

McBeth

(2010) A narrative policy framework: Clear enough to be wrong? Policy Studies Journal 38(2): 329–353.

17.

Lofland

Snow

Anderson

, et al. (2006) Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.

18.

Luintel

(2006). Do Civil Society Organizations Promote Equity in Community Forestry? A Reflection from Nepal’s Experiences. Hanging on the Balance: Equity in Community-Based Natural Resource Management in Asia. Bangkok and East West Centre: Regional Community Forestry Training Center (RECOFTC), pp. 122–142. Available at: https://www.eastwestcenter.org/sites/default/files/fileadmin/stored/misc/HangingInBalance09Nepal.pdf (accessed on 30 October 2020).

19.

Mahoney

(2012) The logic of process tracing tests in the social sciences. Sociological Methods & Research 41(4): 570–597.

20.

Multi-Stakeholder Forestry Programme (MSFP) (2012) Multi-Stakeholder Forestry Programme: Contributing to poverty reduction and tackling climate change. Briefing note. Kathmandu: MSFP.

21.

Nightingale

(2017) Power and politics in climate change adaptation efforts: Struggles over authority and recognition in the context of political instability. Geoforum 84: 11–20.

22.

Ojha

Timsina

Khanal

(2007) How are forest policy decisions made in Nepal? Journal of Forest and Livelihood 6(1): 1–16.

23.

Ojha

(2006) Techno-bureaucratic doxa and challenges for deliberative governance: The case of community forestry policy and practice in Nepal. Policy and Society 25(2): 131–175.

24.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (n.d.) The Paris Declaration on aid effectiveness: Five principles for smart aid. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/45827300.pdf (accessed 2 November 2019).

25.

Pandit

(2012a) Donor’s Rs. 1.27 billion awarded to their own company. Naya Patrika, 21 March, p. 12.

26.

Pandit

(2012b) Rs. 1.27 billion donor aid meant for Nepal’s development given to donors’ own staffers. Naya Patrika, 26 March, p. 12.

27.

Panta

Sapkota

(2012a) Donor assistance under the grip of forest mafia. Nepal Samacharpatra, 19 March, p. 12.

28.

Panta

Sapkota

(2012b) Parliamentary committee beings investigation. Nepal Samacharpatra, 20 March, p. 12.

29.

Punton

Welle

(2015) Straws-in-the-wind, Hoops and Smoking Guns: What can Process Tracing Offer to Impact Evaluation? CDI Practice Paper 10. Brighton: IDS. Available at: https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/20.500.12413/5997/CDIPracticePaper_10.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed 30 October 2020).

30.

Purdy

(2012) A framework for assessing power in collaborative governance processes. Public Administration Review 72(3): 409–417.

31.

Ran

(2018) Contingencies of power sharing in collaborative governance. The American Review of Public Administration 48(8): 836–851.

32.

Rankin

Nightingale

Hamal

, et al. (2018) Roads of change: Political transition and state formation in Nepal’s agrarian districts. The Journal of Peasant Studies 45(2): 280–299.

33.

Shahi

(2012a) Multi-million dollar forestry programme courts controversy. The Kathmandu Post, 21 March. Available at: http://kathmandupost.ekantipur.com/news/2012-03-20/multi-million-dollar-forestry-programme-courts-controversy.html (accessed 10 June 2018).

34.

Shahi

(2012b) Donors drop tender after controversy. The Kathmandu Post, 28 July. Available at: http://kathmandupost.ekantipur.com/printedition/news/2012-07-27/multi-stakeholder-forestry-programme.html (accessed 10 June 2018).

35.

Shanahan

Jones

McBeth

, et al. (2017) The narrative policy framework. Theories of the Policy Process 4: 173–214.

36.

Stone

(1989) Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas. Political Science Quarterly 104(2): 281–300.

37.

Subedi

(1 April 2012) Corruption in foreign aid. Nagarik Daily, p. 6.

38.

Timsina

Gotame

(2014) Political economy of forestry sector of Nepal: Analysis of actors' engagement and policy processes. Analysis Report, ForestAction Nepal- Multi Stakeholder Forestry Programme, Lalitpur, Nepal. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267499523_Political_Economy_of_Forestry_Sector_of_Nepal_Analysis_of_Actors%27_Engagement_and_Policy_Processes (accessed 20 March 2018).

39.

Ulvila

Hossain

(2002) Development NGOs and political participation of the poor in Bangladesh and Nepal. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 13(2): 149–163.

40.

World Bank (2017) Results and Performance of the World Bank Group 2016. An Independent Review. Washington, DC: World Bank. Available at: https://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/sites/default/files/Data/Evaluation/files/rap2016.pdf (accessed 30 October 2020).