Syndicate content

Behavior Change Campaigns

What explains advocacy success in setting global agendas? Comparing Tobacco v Alcohol and four other global advocacy efforts

Duncan Green's picture

Oxfam researcher/evaluation adviser Uwe Gneiting introduces a new set of case studies

It’s an age-old puzzle – why do some advocacy and campaigning efforts manage to influence the political agendas of governments, international institutions and corporations but others don’t? What explains the difference in attention, resource mobilization, and policy traction of some issues (e.g. anti-Apartheid, HIV/AIDS) compared to others (e.g. the limited success of gun control advocacy in the U.S.)?

The technical response to these questions is that it’s an evidence problem – issues gain traction if there is sufficient evidence regarding their severity, cause and an effective solution. But as has been discussed elsewhere (including on this blog), focusing on evidence alone neglects the role of power and politics in explaining which issues gain attention and policy traction and which ones don’t.

This was why a group of researchers (including me) recently published a set of studies that put forward a more nuanced explanation for the variation in advocacy effectiveness. The way we approached the task was to analyze and compare pairs of issues (we focused on global health) of similar types and harm levels but varying attention (newborn vs maternal mortality, pneumonia vs tuberculosis, and alcohol vs tobacco). We ended up with ten factors across three categories that in conjunction help to explain varying levels of advocacy success (see table below)

The Things We Do: Why Habits Stick and How to Fix Them

Roxanne Bauer's picture

"In the gap between intentions fading and habits forming, interventions fail.”
 
These are the wise— and scientific— words of Wendy Wood, a Professor of Psychology and Business at the University of Southern California, who presented her research on how habits guide behavior at a brown bag lunch at the World Bank.
 
Standard interventions are generally successful at increasing the motivation of people to change as they raise awareness and understanding around behaviors we'd like to change and new behaviors we'd like to form. However, they often fail to develop long-term habits for people.
 
According to Professor Wood, even if you can change behavior for a short period, old behaviors may be stickier and reappear after a while. The formation of new habits is often analogous to climbing a mountain and returning back down again: the new habit is performed at the start of an intervention but then falls off again as intentions are overcome by other factors.

The People Who Can Connect the Dots – Graduates of 2013 Summer Institute

Shamiela Mir's picture

The Third Summer Institute in Communication and Governance Reform came to a close on June 7, 2013. The participants completed a very intense yet extremely enriching two weeks of learning from world-class researchers and thinkers in strategic communication in a close-knit setting.

As mentioned in my previous blog, the program was developed with an understanding that successful implementation of policy reforms requires behavior change which can only be induced when non-technical, real life issues that relate to people and politics are treated as priority along with technical issues.  Human behavior is at the core of why things happen the way they do, whether we are talking about why some people smoke, or why some politicians implement policies that are detrimental to their country.