IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/devpol/v37y2019is1po16-o32.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Lessons from Nigeria for improved thinking and working politically in the extractives sector

Author

Listed:
  • Elisa Lopez Lucia
  • Joanna Buckley
  • Heather Marquette
  • Neil McCulloch

Abstract

Despite the wealth that comes from being the biggest oil producer in Africa, Nigeria has some of the worst development indicators in the world. From 2011 to mid‐2016, the DFID‐funded Facility for Oil Sector Transparency and Reform (FOSTER) programme's unique design aimed to reduce incentives for the capture of oil revenue by elites and international oil companies, restoring the potential of those revenues to accelerate economic and social development. This article asks what lessons FOSTER's successes and failures offer for improved “thinking and working politically” (TWP). It examines the outcomes from five “clusters” of interventions: three viewed by the FOSTER team as successes and two as failures. The article identifies factors for successful TWP‐based programming, including the need for local ownership rooted in staff with a combination of technical expertise, a deep knowledge of the local political context and excellent networking abilities. The research used a qualitative and inductive approach. Field research was undertaken with 44 semi‐structured qualitative interviews during one month of fieldwork in Abuja and Lagos. The research also included reviews of FOSTER's internal documentation and evaluation frameworks, as well as analysis of newspaper articles and grey literature on the oil sector in Nigeria. The project offers important lessons for politically informed programming about how interventions were implemented (process), what was actually done (content) and how the project responded to changes in context that created or blocked opportunities for reform (responsiveness). The article identifies factors for successful TWP‐based programming, including the need for local ownership rooted in staff with a combination of technical expertise, a deep knowledge of the local political context and excellent networking abilities. The findings have important implications for programme design. They demonstrate the value of built‐in flexibility that allows staff to choose and switch the partners they work with and the channels they work through. They also show that a key aspect of TWP‐based programming is implicit acceptance that some failure may be unavoidable, since this permits staff to balance risk against opportunities. Finally, a better understanding of FOSTER's failures reveals the challenges of a TWP‐based approach and the trade‐offs it demands.

Suggested Citation

  • Elisa Lopez Lucia & Joanna Buckley & Heather Marquette & Neil McCulloch, 2019. "Lessons from Nigeria for improved thinking and working politically in the extractives sector," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 37(S1), pages 16-32, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:devpol:v:37:y:2019:i:s1:p:o16-o32
    DOI: 10.1111/dpr.12441
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12441
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/dpr.12441?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kearrin Sims, 2021. "Risk navigation for Thinking and Working Politically: The work and disappearance of Sombath Somphone," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 39(4), pages 604-620, July.
    2. Roll, Michael, 2021. "Institutional change through development assistance: The comparative advantages of political and adaptive approaches," IDOS Discussion Papers 28/2021, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:devpol:v:37:y:2019:i:s1:p:o16-o32. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/odioruk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.