IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Mapping the policy process in Nigeria

Listed author(s):
  • Aberman, Noora-Lisa
  • Schiffer, Eva
  • Johnson, Michael
  • Oboh, Victor

How research contributes to the policy process in developing countries in general, and in Nigeria more specifically, is not well understood. Yet such understanding is a critical part of doing effective policy research. This has become especially critical for the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), which has set up a country office for policy research in Nigeria. A key challenge for IFPRI, and other research organizations in the country, is how to better integrate research results into policy and communicate research results to Nigerian policymakers. To gain some useful insights into how research does, or does not, influence policy in Nigeria, we examined a case involving the process leading up to the adoption in 2006 of Nigeria’s National Fertilizer Policy. Rather than focusing on how research influences policy in general, examining a particular policy allowed us to trace the actual policy process that took place, the actors involved, and the types of links and interactions between them. A diverse group of stakeholders (government, donors, the research community, farmer organizations, and the private sector) undoubtedly debated the content of the fertilizer policy. Thus, its successful formulation and adoption offered a useful opportunity to examine how it came about in spite of competing vested interests (both for and against it) and what role, if any, research-based information played in developing it. The policy covered some highly contentious political issues, most prominently the issue of privatization of the fertilizer sector in place of the large-scale and long-standing subsidy program. How the actors engaged and appeased people with vested interests who would normally oppose the policy, and the degree to which research-based information played a role in policy development, is of interest to IFPRI and others engaged in policy research. To study the policy process that led to the formulation and adoption of the National Fertilizer Policy, we used a network-mapping tool, Net-Map. Drawing on social network approaches, the tool is particularly suitable since it can help highlight the actors and formal and informal interactions involved in the policy process, as well as examine the flows of information from researchers to help determine the pathways of research-based information. In support of the Net-Map method, we also undertook a content analysis of published and grey literature on fertilizer policies in Nigeria in the years prior to the passing of the fertilizer bill. This provided a context for the knowledge-based and policy discussions, who was involved in them, and who funded or drove them.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) in its series IFPRI discussion papers with number 1000.

in new window

Date of creation: 2010
Handle: RePEc:fpr:ifprid:1000
Contact details of provider: Postal:
1201 Eye Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005-3915

Phone: 202-862-5600
Fax: 202-467-4439
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

in new window

  1. John Young, 2005. "Research, policy and practice: why developing countries are different," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(6), pages 727-734.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fpr:ifprid:1000. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ()

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.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.