Communicating Results to Policy-Makers

Policy memoranda and oral reports are essential aspects of good policy analysis. If done effectively, they are the basis of the development of strong working relationships and mutual trust between economic technicians and policy-makers. Ultimately, economic analysis will be used importantly by policy-makers only if they are convinced that the analysis has been done correctly, has been based on all available information, and has been interpreted in ways that illuminate the choice they face. Effective communication, therefore, is a critical final step of policy analysis.

Some analysts are very good at the first three parts of policy analysis-understanding methods, collecting information, and interpreting results-but their effectiveness is limited because they are unsure how to explain the results to policy-makers. The inability to write a good policy memo is only rarely caused by the analyst's lack of skill in writing. Instead, it is often an inability to state information in ways that are easily understood by policy-makers.

Policy-makers as a group are busy people. Most have not studied economics at all (or lately), and some seem to believe that economics and economists exist more to cause problems for them than to help them make better-informed decisions. Only the few highly trained economists among them have any patience with technical economics jargon, and usually the few policy-makers who have been formally trained in economics are the only ones who receive much intellectual excitement from understanding the intricacies of economic methods. For many policy-makers, therefore, an inherent distrust of economics is combined with an intense dislike of economic jargon and methods. This common situation puts most economic analysts at a severe disadvantage. They must be able to communicate clearly, or they may be ignored.

Brevity and clarity in composing policy memos are aided by the use of consistent principles of organization. Busy policy-makers want to be sure that all relevant topics are covered in a logical order. For this reason, analysts are well advised to adopt a standard format to use in writing policy memos. One format for presenting the essential elements of policy memos is summarized in the seven numbered paragraphs below. The remainder of this section discusses each of the seven elements of this format. By following this organization for policy memos, analysts who have experienced difficulty in communicating with policy-makers should be able to improve the clarity and shorten the length of their memos. A series of short examples in the format is presented at the end of the section.

Box 12.8. Profitability and Technological Change in Rice Production in Three West African Countries

The table presents the results of partial budgeting analyses that investigated the social gain or loss from the introduction of alternative labor-saving technical changes in rice systems located in Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger. The table was constructed with detailed information on several labor constraints, which appeared in the article from which the table is drawn. The results show the possibility of social gains from the introduction of animal traction, improved manual equipment, and small motorized threshers and the likelihood of social losses from the introduction of motorized techniques, which saved labor time but reduced labor productivity. This kind of analysis is also very informative for project planners or allocators of research funds, if the technical changes they might introduce would attempt to break labor constraints in the rice-farming systems. With relatively little effort beyond the initial construction and analysis of the budgets, the analyst can thus point out both baseline efficiencies and likely social gains or losses from specific technical changes.

Net savings over manual cultivation from changes in techniques, inland countries* (in francs per hectare, except as noted)
Description	Laborsaved(days)	Value of labor saved	Other indirectsavings	Additionaldirect costs of techniques	Other indirectcosts	Possible yieldeffects	Netgain
Basic manual system dam irrigationd	250	50,000	0	104,108	0	3.5	0
Ox land preparation and transport	36-41	7,800,	812(	5,264	112	Ambiguous	3,236
Power tillers	45	9,000	860(	14,410	576	Nil	-5,1268
Tractor plowing, seeding, and transport:
Compared to	95	19,000	1,760	21,0518	2,697	Negative	-2,988
transplanting
Compared to	58	11,600	3,024	22,209	521	Ambiguous -	8,106
broadcasting
Manual rotary	12	2,400	48	223	0	Nil	2,225
hoe
Ox-drawn seeder
and weeder:
Compared to	55	11,000	720(	972	2,186,	Negative	8,562
transplanting
Compared to	20	4,000	2,140	972	2	Positive	5,166
broadcasting
Herbicides	30	6,000	120	7,070	274	Nil	-1,224
Small motorized
threshers:
2.5 metric ton	23	4,500	0	2,120	0	Positive	2,380
per hectare yield
3.5 metric ton	32	6,300	0	2,968	0	Positive	3,332
per hectare yield
Large-scale station-
ary threshersi:
Without	27	5,400	0	13,045	0	Negative	-7,645
transport
With transport	37	7,400	0	17,122	0	Negative	-9,722
by tractor

Source: Charles P. Humphreys and Scott R. Pearson, "Choice of Technique in Sahelian Rice Production," Food Research Institute Studies 17 (1979-1980): 254-55.

a At 200 francs per day.

b .Includes estimated interest on working capital for labor and other inputs saved.

c. Includes the estimated value of charges for working capital on expenses for operation and maintenance of new equipment and on other additional inputs.

d. Values are totals per hectare, not incremental savings or costs.

e.,Based on thirty-nine labor days.

f. (Includes 500 francs saved because there is less use of hand tools.

g. Assumes double cropping.

h. Requires ₃₅ horsepower tractor, disc plow, disc harrow, seed drill, and trailer.

i. Includes 1,000 francs for hand tools.

_,j. Includes ₃₅ kilograms of extra seeds for drilling.

k. lncludes ₂₅ kilograms of seeds saved by drilling.

l. Assumes yields of _3.5 tons per hectare.