Introduction: The reform paradox revisited
Across Malawi and much of Sub-Saharan Africa, reform is constant.
Public Financial Management systems are getting a much-needed upgrade. We’re seeing revisions to policy frameworks, the launch of new strategic plans, and the reworking of institutions to better serve their communities. Development partners are stepping in to provide technical assistance, while consultants are developing diagnoses and reform roadmaps aligned with global best practices.
On the surface, everything seems to be moving in a positive direction. However, when we look closer at the outcomes, things often tell a different story. Budgets tend to reflect the political priorities of the moment rather than focusing on genuine developmental needs. Despite implementing new systems, institutions frequently fall short of their potential. Although accountability mechanisms are in place, they are not enforced effectively. Reforms may be officially adopted, but their impact is often weakened by poor execution.
This is the enduring paradox: Reform is abundant, but transformation is scarce.
To grasp this paradox, we need to start with two key ideas. First, consider the example of maize versus livestock: public spending often doesn’t hinge on what’s technically efficient or what a sector truly requires. Instead, it tends to be influenced by factors such as political visibility, the desire to win elections, institutional biases, and various economic interests. Secondly, as discussed in the context of public finance, budgets aren’t just neutral tools for distributing resources—they reflect the dynamics of power. They’re shaped by negotiations, conflicts, and the incentives at play.
These insights converge to suggest a crucial point: Institutional reform tends to fall short when it seeks to alter systems without addressing the underlying incentives and power dynamics that sustain them. In simpler terms, to truly make lasting change, we need to tackle not just the rules but also the motivations and authority that drive those in power.
1. The technocratic model of reform and its limits
Many reform attempts often follow a typical pattern: first, we identify problems within institutions, then we develop well-researched solutions. After that, we implement new systems or rules and provide training to help people adapt, all with the hope that things will improve. This approach tends to view institutions in a very technical way, as if they were neutral machines that could be fine-tuned for better performance. However, it often overlooks the human element involved in these systems and the real-world complexities that can affect outcomes.
In this framing:
- Weak procurement is due to poor systems
- Budget misalignment is due to weak planning tools
- Corruption is due to a lack of controls
- Inefficiency is due to capacity deficits
This interpretation doesn’t tell the whole story. It overlooks the reality that institutions aren’t just neutral frameworks; they’re actually filled with power dynamics. They’re influenced by various competing interests, unwritten rules, political negotiations, and the history that has shaped them. Because of this, even reforms that seem technically sound can fall flat if they clash with the underlying political landscape they aim to transform.
2. The Political Economy of Reform: Interests, Incentives, and Power
To understand why reforms fail, we must analyse three interlocking dimensions:
- Interests: Who gains and who loses
Every reform has the potential to change the way resources, authority, information, and access are distributed. For instance, when we reform procurement processes, as with the introduction of the Malawi National Electronic Procurement System (MANEPS), we limit officials’ discretion over contracts. Budget transparency helps prevent hidden reallocations, and when we adjust subsidies, we often shake up established distribution networks. This leads to some people benefiting while others may feel the adverse effects.
Reforms may be particularly threatening to those who rely on political patronage, engage in rent-seeking behaviours, or maintain bureaucratic control. As a result, individuals and groups who profit from the existing system often have powerful reasons to resist changes that could jeopardise their benefits. This may explain why Public Sector Reforms championed by the late Vice President Dr Saulos Klaus Chilima between 2020-2023 were choked and suffocated.
- Incentives: Why actors behave the way they do
In any system, the people involved—politicians, technocrats, business leaders, and donors—make decisions based on their own motivations and interests. Politicians often focus on staying in power, delivering visible results, and achieving short-term wins. Bureaucrats tend to emphasise following rules, maintaining their institutions, and avoiding risks. Business leaders seek opportunities to secure contracts, gain regulatory advantages, and achieve stable profits. Meanwhile, donors are concerned with getting measurable results, being accountable to those who fund their projects, and adhering to timelines.
If a reform does not echo with these motivations, it’s likely to face significant challenges in getting support and making an impact.
- Power: Who can shape the outcome
In the reform process, not everyone carries the same weight, which shapes whose voices are heard and how changes are put into action. In Malawi, power is shared among various key players, each with its own roles that connect in important ways.
Political leaders often set the agenda, prioritising issues based on public opinion and the pressures they face. This ability to direct focus can affect both urgent needs and the country’s long-term aspirations. Meanwhile, senior bureaucrats implement these policies. They have a deep understanding of how government works, but sometimes they might resist changes that could disrupt their established positions.
Economic actors, such as businesses and investors, also play a significant role. They can influence reform through their financial backing, which is often crucial for success. However, if they oppose certain reforms, they can create significant hurdles. Additionally, donors, including international organisations, offer financial support and expertise but may have their own agendas, which can sometimes clash with what local communities prioritise.
In the end, the success of reforms in Malawi really depends on how these various groups interact with one another. Building and navigating these relationships is essential to fostering genuine, lasting change.
3. Why good reforms fail in practice
- Compliance without commitment
Many reforms may look good on paper, but in practice, they often fall short. For instance, procurement rules might be followed in the technical sense, yet informal manipulations may be occurring behind the scenes. Budgets may be created in accordance with official guidelines, but political pressures often lead to adjustments during execution. Even when audit findings are recognised, they’re frequently ignored, especially in government ministries, departments, and agencies. This situation can create a facade of reform, while genuine change remains elusive. It’s a reminder that real progress requires more than just following procedures; it demands a commitment to meaningful action.
- Parallel systems and informal practices
When formal systems impose strict rules on how things should be done, people often find ways to work around them. This can lead to the creation of informal systems. For example, you might see things like off-budget spending, casual procurement agreements, or political orders that sidestep official processes. While the formal structure remains in place, the way things actually operate tends to unfold alongside it.
- Reform overload and fragmentation
In many situations, we see several reforms rolled out simultaneously, including public financial management (PFM) reforms, decentralisation efforts, sectoral changes, and donor-driven initiatives. This can create a sense of exhaustion within institutions as they struggle to keep up. When these reforms overlap, it often leads to confusion and a lack of clear direction. Instead of working together and supporting one another, these reforms can end up competing with one another, making it harder to achieve meaningful progress.
- Misalignment with political cycles
In Malawi, the journey of reform is often a long and winding road. True progress takes time, and it often demands a steadfast commitment from leaders, gradual changes within our institutions, and consistent investment from both the government and the community. However, our political landscape is shaped by short electoral cycles, where leaders face immense pressure to deliver immediate results. This disconnect can create challenges: sometimes essential reforms are abandoned too early, priorities shift unexpectedly, and policy implementation becomes inconsistent. For lasting change to take root in Malawi, we must align our reform efforts with the realities of our political environment, prioritising long-term goals over short-term gains.
4. The Malawi Lens: Reform without realignment
The situation surrounding the maize versus livestock debate in Malawi serves as a clear reminder of the complexities involved in agricultural reform.
Reform Objective: Shift agricultural investments toward livestock farming to generate more income, diversify farming practices, and enhance farmers’ resilience to climate shocks.
Technical Logic: Livestock farming typically yields higher long-term financial returns, provides better nutritional benefits for families, and supports robust value chains in rural economies.
Actual Outcome: Despite these clear advantages, maize continues to dominate Malawi’s agricultural landscape. The government subsidies primarily promote maize production, leaving livestock farming significantly underfunded and overlooked.
Why is this happening? The challenges stem from conflicting electoral incentives. Politicians often cater to the immediate needs of their constituents, which often revolve around maize production because of its status as a staple. This focus disrupts existing subsidy networks that many rely on, while reforming these systems lacks the political visibility that would garner public support. Additionally, donor measurement frameworks often prioritise short-term maize yield outputs over the long-term sustainability offered by livestock investment.
This situation highlights that the issue isn’t a lack of understanding of what’s needed; rather, it’s about the difficulty in realigning incentives and power structures that have been in place for so long. For farmers in Malawi, transitioning toward a more balanced approach between maize and livestock isn’t just a strategic goal; it’s also about improving livelihoods and ensuring food security for future generations.
5. Institutions do not change overnight: The role of path dependency
Institutional change is often limited by the weight of history. The idea of path dependency holds that past choices shape the options we have today. This means that the norms we’ve established over time stick around, and informal practices can persist even when we try to change things.
For instance, if a system is heavily reliant on subsidies, it creates political and economic dependencies that can be hard to break. If an organisation’s structure is centralised, there may be strong resistance to moving towards a more decentralised model. Additionally, long-standing patronage networks can become deeply rooted, making it difficult to introduce new practices.
When reforms overlook these realities, they often underestimate the amount of resistance they might face and assume that changes can happen more quickly than they actually can. Change is a complex process that requires understanding and navigating these historical influences.
6. Donor-Driven Reform: Strengths and Limitations
Donors are crucial players in reform processes, providing not just funding but also valuable expertise and a wealth of global experience. However, their goals often don’t match up with local political realities. They tend to prioritise short-term measurable results over the bigger, systemic changes that are often needed. This focus on short project cycles can clash with the longer timelines required to build solid institutions.
As a result, while it may appear that reforms have been adopted on paper, there’s often no real sense of ownership among local stakeholders. This leads to systems that function well during the life of donor-funded projects but fall apart once the funding ends.
7. Toward Politically Informed Reform
To successfully enact political reforms, it is imperative to adopt a strategic approach commensurate with the inherently political dimensions of these reforms. The following key considerations should be taken into account:
1. Align Incentives: Create reforms that provide clear benefits to key players involved. This means reducing their perceived risks and highlighting the tangible gains they can achieve. When the incentives align, it becomes easier for everyone to get on board.
2. Build Coalitions: Remember, reform is rarely the work of one person; it’s a collaborative effort. Identify champions of change, supportive stakeholders, and potential allies who can help advance the reform agenda. By building a strong coalition, you’ll enhance the chances of success.
In short, addressing political reforms requires a thoughtful approach that encourages participation and collaboration from various actors involved.
3. Sequence Reforms: Avoid attempting everything at once. Instead, prioritise high-impact, feasible changes, build momentum gradually and consolidate gains before expanding
4. Adapt to Context: Avoid wholesale importation of external models. Instead, tailor reforms to local realities, integrate with existing systems and respect institutional constraints
5. Focus on implementation, not just design: The real challenge is not drafting policy, it is changing behaviour. This requires monitoring, feedback loops and adaptive management.
Conclusion: Reform as a political process
Many reform efforts falter not by chance but because they overlook crucial elements. When we ignore the incentives at play, underestimate the influence of power, and disregard the existing institutional landscape, we set ourselves up for failure. Even well-intentioned reforms can miss the mark when they treat deeply rooted political issues as if they can be solved solely with technical fixes. It’s a reminder that genuine change requires a deeper understanding of the dynamics at work.
Closing Reflection
Reform goes beyond making better rules; it’s really about rethinking who benefits from those rules, how they’re put into practice, and why people decide to follow them. If reform doesn’t directly address issues of power, motivation, and the institutions involved, it might generate a lot of activity without creating any real change.
Leave a Reply