EQUITY AND INCLUSION IN POLICY PROCESSES (EquIPP) ANALYSIS OF THE FLAGSHIP PROGRAMME

10.5 EQUITY AND INCLUSION IN POLICY PROCESSES (EquIPP) ANALYSIS OF THE FLAGSHIP PROGRAMME

10.5.1 Overall Performance

Figure 5 - Rating of EquiPP Key Actions in the Flagship Programme

Overall, it can be said that the Flagship Programme has over 90% coverage of the 17 EquIPP key actions relating to inclusiveness. It fared very well in areas of cross-sectoral cooperation and flexibility.

10.5.2 Theme One: Meaningful Participatory Policy Procedure

There is no evidence to suggest participation of beneficiaries is a consideration for project approval, nor being part of a project monitoring requirement. The project selection process is not explained in detail in the accompanying documents, except for the fact that it shall be based on competitive bidding. There is lack of clear direction of the research themes in the call for proposal, with little or no emphasis on engagement as part of the proposal selection process. Whereas there is possibility of beneficiary engagement where ethics is concerned, this is not clearly stipulated. Clarification from the fund managers suggest that cycles of engagement sessions are usually conducted before the project is approved. For purposes of ensuring optimal outcome and judicious distribution of grants to parties that have the capacity to accomplish results, the restrictive eligibility criteria may potentiate “elite capture” – exemplified by requirements of grant application: “…each team member…must provide a CV clearly…. highlight the tremendous success.” Alternative methods of capturing value/strengths of

potential grant holders such as pitching should be considered for a fairer and inclusive participation. The inclusion of various stakeholders by imposing a minimum criteria of three institutions that must include academic, research and industry, and must be multi-disciplinary in the makeup of the research team is commendable. However the community/beneficiary party is not included in this minimum criterion.

10.5.3 Theme Two: Cross Sectoral and Intergovernmental Cooperation

The granting of the research funds is related to cross-sectoral linkages and partnerships. However it lacks detail on how to integrate and to what extent. The project monitoring setup as explained in the documentation does suggest alignment of initiatives is being attempted as exemplified by having specific evaluation committees for each research priority area and an emphasis on accounting for sectoral/national impacts of the project. For this to occur, coordination of different levels of government is implied as the project delivery is assumed to be tied closely to policy. Examination of hidden policies that influence the monitoring and direction of the project should be attempted.

10.5.4 Theme Three: Matching Social Need and Provision

It is implied that the needs matching is done by virtue of Section D ix. In the application form that requires the detailing of project benefits from the social and economic point of view. Monitoring and final report requirements also suggest that some form of matching to needs is done. The formulation of focus research areas does indicate some thinking into social inclusion, though indirectly assumed. Some of the sub-areas have the potential to level the playing so to speak, but there is lack of emphasis that is the challenge to be tackled.

10.5.5 Theme Four: Social Budgeting

Arguably there is fair distributional equity in place, but the process is unclear. There is a detailed and deliberate mechanism in due diligence of budget and spending, but it lacks the notion of sustainability. The short span of the program and regular budget reviews do indicate comprehensive monitoring and due diligence in place. Measures of stakeholder satisfaction if at all present are only taken into account at the end of the project.

10.5.6 Theme Five: Responsive and Flexible Implementation

There is considerable opacity on how a decision is reached by the selection panel. There appears to be measures to indicate inclusiveness is a consideration in the application forms, but whether these truly play any role in the decision making process is unclear. As there is a specific Project Monitoring Team assigned to each project and a regular review schedule and a clause for extension, it appears that responsiveness and flexibility are parts of the process.

10.5.7 Theme Six: Partnerships and Inter-Agency Cooperation

The rather detailed screening process of both proposer and collaborators does indicate selection of the most appropriate implementation partners is given the highest priority. Civil Society and Community organization is missing in the collaborator classification, but is featured in the proposer entity classification. This suggests room for improvement for better engagement of stakeholders and beneficiaries. Overall the tone of the grant documentation indicates greater partnership and interagency co-operation, there is no stipulation to reach a comprehensive solution to any form of social exclusion. The administration of similar funds in MOSTI represents a trend toward a deep engagement process with multiple partners, which likely translate to how this grant is managed.

10.5.8 Theme Seven: Multidimensional and Context Performance Indicators

The use of indicators is not mentioned, or considered mandatory. There are indications of attempts to use certain outcomes as measures, but this has never been part of the overall policy. There are no standards explained in detailed with regard to data quality and governance at the policy level.

10.5.9 Theme Eight: Data Fit for Purpose

There is no evidence of qualitative data being part of the picture. There is also no suggestion of the use of a centralized open research database. Even though there is a large amount of data being accumulated in the general sense, but to access this requires familiarity with the project in question.

10.5.10 Theme Nine: Comprehensive and Inclusive Dissemination System

There is engagement with the public on “MOSTI open days”, a public outreach event usually held within the community over a period of less than one week. It is questionable however that the public

would understand the meaning and impact of the information on their daily lives. However it is clear that much effort has taken place to try to engage the public through various channels; only that the goal of engagement is not apparent. The policy documents supplied includes comprehensive list of projects spanning more than 5 years. It is noted that the Malaysian Science and Technology Information Centre (MASTIC) plays a clearinghouse function for all data and activities relating to its parent ministry (MOSTI) which includes a function to provide a detailed annual report of all STI activities including information regarding the grants administered by this ministry. However, detailed data on monitoring and evaluation that includes stakeholders and beneficiaries are not readily available.