Peter J Evans

Dr. Peter J Evans is a governance, political economy, and anti-corruption specialist. After a PhD in urban health in Tanzania, and 7 years living and working in Kolkata working on urban governance, then water and sanitation, he spent 20 years as a social development and governance adviser in the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID), posted in Lilongwe, Dhaka and Delhi. Between 2014 and 2021 Peter headed DFID/FCDO's HQ team commissioning governance, inclusion, conflict and humanitarian research, where he designed and led research programmes on themes including migration, disability inclusion, violence against women, tax, conflict, African Cities, and the globally-renowned ‘Anti-Corruption Evidence’ (ACE) programme. In method these ranged from major new investments in RCTs (crime, conflict, humanitarian), through longitudinal research, to applied political economy research in sectors such as health, education, climate change and growth. All had a strong focus on policy relevance and real-world impact. This work led to his appointment as an impact specialist in the UK REF sub panel for social anthropology and international development. 

On leaving the UK government Peter spent two years as Director of the U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre in Norway, and is now a consultant and adviser working in governance, political economy, anti-corruption and research impact for government, multi-lateral, private sector and academic clients. Peter writes (and draws pictures) about practical political economy analysis as ‘Not That Peter Evans’ (ie not the far more famous American political sociologist). 

Peter is co-founder and Executive Director of Oxford’s new initiative for mainstream, open access political economy analysis – the 'Open Political Economy Analysis (Open-PEA) Programme’. 

What motivates me at Open PEA

At risk of being UK development’s ‘Whaddabout the politics?’ guy, my motivation for instigating Open PEA is to get the mainstream of public policy, development, growth, and aid to think about, talk about, and act on small p and Big P politics.

I want a great leap forward, not more worthy, incremental change. I’m too old for that!

From the first sparks of an idea, Open PEA's strapline was ‘get politics out of the shadows and into the mainstream of growth and development, and so unlock greater effectiveness’.

This meant political analysis for all – regardless of who is paying. Open PEA is firmly not just about, or even mainly about, aid. It’s about squeezing more out of the huge financial flows from revenue, debt, private investment, philanthropy, remittances, and aid (in that order) that are spent on public policy globally.

It’s about open access, plain language, mainstream public goods that anyone can use to better understand their sector and the enduring binding constraints – and do something to overcome them.

A great leap forwards may seem rashly ambitious. But why aim for less?

I’ve tried this kind of framing before. Transformative hooks attract political momentum. They can shift the equilibrium, disrupt the status quo.

The Anti-Corruption Evidence (ACE) programme immodestly set out to raise the bar on the quality and relevance of global anti-corruption research. It was born out of frustration with the dominance of conceptual research that loved studying the problem more than it sought real world action. A ‘global’ ambition helped secure the start-up funds from a sceptical minister.

The African Cities Research Consortium (ACRC) had a vision of stepping beyond the norms of atomised urban research (lots of small things in lots of different cities). It focuses on a few cities, understands each as a system, funds integrated bodies of research to tackle specific system problems (health, growth, education etc), and puts politics at the start and centre, not the margins. The slogan was: ‘city as a system, politics at the centre’.  

I am biased, but 10 years later I think ACE and ACRC are punching hard and high.  

However, they were both funded by the UK taxpayer. This brought great benefits, but also limitations. ACE and ACRC were part of an evolving line of political economy framed research programmes that also offered policy engagement and advice. DFID built this political economy research production line – and also nurtured its upstart sibling, political economy analysis (PEA). Quicker, dirtier, and hopefully even more policy relevant. But PEA has been largely private.

Even before the crisis in bilateral aid, Open PEA’s vision was to make politics relevant, salient, and investable to all, including other funders – particularly foundations and philanthropists. This can also help break PEA free of being, or being perceived as, a foreign policy tool.

In the current funding environment Open PEA won’t be too sniffy about any cash on offer. But the dream is a core budget with a healthy mix of funders, with philanthropists preferred, and not directed by any government.

The practical politics of [insert your priority here]

I think that Open PEA can usefully tackle the practical politics of more or less anything – health, education, climate finance, public procurement, lead (Pb) elimination, infrastructure – and offer propositional advice for doing things differently. Politically feasible reform. We have great networks to help us work with the right experts if we cannot deliver things in-house.

I also know that politics can be scary, and  Open PEA's potential users need reassurance. Open PEA aims to say the quiet parts out loud, but carefully and with reassurance that this can help us all do better. We aim to engage, not enrage.

Open PEA is my final campaign – then I’ll step back, hopefully tired but happy.