> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://research.ambitiousimpact.com/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://research.ambitiousimpact.com/ambitious-impact-eval/stakeholder-mapping.md). # Stakeholder mapping Contributors: Morgan Fairless Mapping stakeholders is strongly encouraged for [persuade-leaning ideas](/explainers-and-house-views/our-charity-taxonomy.md), such as contested-influence and prioritization-dependent ideas. This exercise can help understand feasibility and narrow down locations where the intervention is more tractable. At this stage of the research, we are not attempting an extraordinary level of detail, nor are we trying to devise precise strategies for stakeholder engagement.
Mapping without a target country Our prioritization- and evaluation-stage work rarely has a specific implementation location in mind. This complicates stakeholder analysis. In practice, you will need to characterise each actor type by the interests and leverage that typically attach to that role across the plausible target location set, and note the range rather than a single value, e.g. "regulatory gatekeepers range from a rubber-stamp in some LICs to a binding multi-year constraint in others." **Tips**: * Work at the level of “actor types”, rather than named institutions. * The point is to identify the roles in the system that any version of this intervention will have to contend with, because those recur across geographies even though their names, strength, and disposition may vary.
## Suggested step-by-step {% stepper %} {% step %} ### Derive the actors from the Theory of Change Go through each causal link in the ToC and ask: who has to adopt, fund, permit, deliver, or refrain from blocking this step for it to hold? Make sure you identify the usual suspects and then push yourself to find some other actors who may be relevant. **Usual suspects:** * Implementing body / partners / individuals / frontline staff and their professional associations * Budget holder * Gatekeepers (local politicians / regulators / etc.) * Anyone who may lose out if the intervention is successful {% endstep %} {% step %} ### Characterise each actor The main output or artifact from a stakeholder analysis may be a table with identified actors and analysis. Columns may include: * **Stakeholder name** * **Role in the ToC**-— Describe which causal step of the ToC they sit on, or what role they play as a stakeholder. * **Interests-—** What they actually want, separated from what they say (this gap between stated interests and underlying motivations is usually very important). * **Power/leverage**-— What they can do to advance or block: budget control, veto, delivery capacity, informal influence. This is where the tractability note's "how many veto players" question gets made concrete, identify who they are and over which step. Note the typical range across geographies. * **Position and salience**-— Supportive, neutral, or opposed, and how much they actually care. Base this on observed behaviour and track record, not rhetoric. A powerful actor who is indifferent is a very different proposition from a powerful actor who is invested against you. {% endstep %} {% step %} ### So what Make your conclusions from carrying out the exercise explicit, including what known unknowns you have identified. Pay particular attention to: * Number of veto players. As a rough rule of thumb, policies or legislation that face higher numbers of veto players tend to have lowers odds of survival. * Key points of failure. If you have identified a stakeholder who is a single point of failure, its important to have clarity on what their disposition is and what likely actions will be. * General level of disagreement or incompatible incentives from stakeholders. * Aspects of the ToC that may be adapted to eliminate unnecessary interactions with "difficult" stakeholders. {% endstep %} {% endstepper %} ## How to find out actors' interests ### Desk research * Descriptive studies can be helpful - e.g., "perceptions by X on Y" type studies, expert survey exercises, qualitative process-tracing studies, and political economy analyses. * Finding representative professional associations and looking at their stated positions. * Revealed behavior can also be useful (e.g., what types of projects has the stakeholder backed, what do they emphasize in public communications) {% hint style="info" %} If you identify things that require further on the ground work, remember that we have potential contractors available for this type of work ahead of the incubation program. State clearly that you'd expect further on the ground research to validate your research, and what exactly that would involve. {% endhint %} ### Expert interviews Experts who have worked in or alongside these systems can often tell you what a given actor type actually cares about and where the bodies are buried, far better than desk research. **Useful prompts:** * Who tends to resist this kind of thing, and what's really driving that? * When this has stalled, where did it stall and why * Who has to say yes, and what do they want in return? ### Reason Reason from the actor's structural incentives. Even without a named country, you can often infer interests from the role itself: how the actor is funded, what they are rewarded or punished for, whose budget grows or shrinks if the intervention succeeds, what they are accountable to and on what timescale. A finance ministry's relationship to a recurrent-cost programme is structurally predictable across most settings. State these inferences as inferences, and flag the ones most likely to vary by country.
--- # Agent Instructions This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com. ## Querying This Documentation If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation by asking a question. Perform an HTTP GET request on the following URL with the `ask` and `goal` query parameters: ``` GET https://research.ambitiousimpact.com/ambitious-impact-eval/stakeholder-mapping.md?ask=&goal= ``` `ask` is the immediate question: it should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language. `goal` is what the user is ultimately trying to achieve, the reason they need the answer. Sharing it helps GitBook give you a better, more relevant answer. A goal is most helpful when it describes the outcome the user wants rather than restating the question. For example, with `ask=how do I create an API token`, a goal like `automate deployments from our CI pipeline` lets GitBook tailor the answer to that use case. The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation. Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.