 I wanted to say thank you to the Vice President of the Republic of Ghana for such a warm welcome, as well as to Professors Areiti and Tarp for inviting me to share some of the research we've been engaged with myself and colleagues. This is a wonderful opportunity for us to share ideas from different parts of the continent. I'm very excited to be here. I did take the liberty of changing the presentation very slightly when I saw who was in the audience. Although in my abstract I indicated that I would speak specifically about trafficking, the trafficking work I wanted to speak about was part of a broader study aimed at understanding how policy gets changed in the global south. I think I'll speak to some of the broader lessons and draw on three case studies, in fact, not just the one. In the research I want to share with you this morning, we began with a very simple question. Seemingly simple question. And that was a question of how does policy get changed? What causes a policy to change when we're engaged in research? How do we engage in such a way that it can have impact? And we came to this question through our partnership with the Migrating Out of Poverty Consortium. This is a consortium coordinated by the Institute for Development Studies at the University of Sussex and has a number of partners which I'll tell you a bit more about as I continue. This research consortium has a number of questions that it seeks to answer, but the ones that I'm going to focus on here are those to do with policy change. As I said, we began with what seems to be a very simple question. How does policy get made? How does it change? How do we affect change? We came to this through a number of concerns that we've been talking about but not empirically studying for far too long within our research centre. And this is a concern that perhaps the theories that exist of change do not quite fit the context in which we're working initially in South Africa but also in other contexts. And there are a number of reasons for this. I think they're very well summarised by the work of a colleague of mine, Kuda Van Joro, who has expressed some of these concerns and picking up the baton from him, we went on to look at, OK, if we know that there are concerns about the theories of change that we're working with, then how could we adjust them? What kinds of theories of change might we be looking for? His concerns around using northern-based theories of policy change in the global south come from a number of sources. The one is that he points out that there are two assumptions often implicit in policy change efforts. The first is a knowledge-oriented assumption and the second is a problem-oriented assumption. So in the knowledge-oriented assumption, we work from the assumption that if we as researchers produce knowledge and present it to policy makers, that should create change. In the problem-oriented assumption, the assumption is that if we're able to identify a social problem and present it, that too should create policy change. Now, the problem with both of those is that it hasn't panned out in reality and he points to a number of possible reasons including issues of resource poverty, issues to do with institutional weakness, for example, the strength of bureaucracies to effect policy change, to implement it and highly politicize policy contexts. I don't think I would need to tell anybody here that migration has become a highly politicized topic in recent years and migration policies are largely unpopular and that's why we started by terming this research unpopular decisions, unpopular policy decisions get made. Nevertheless, I think as researchers we're facing increasing pressure to show the relevance of our work, to show that there's uptake, to show that there's impact and much of this is policy impact and so there's real work to be done in understanding how it is that we can make this impact. Just to give you an idea of the studies that have been done using the advocacy coalition framework, one of the more common theories of policy uptake, 84% of studies using this framework and trying to implement it in a policy environment come from either the US or Europe and so we lack an understanding of whether these frameworks can be used in our context and if so how, if not how they need to be adjusted. And that was the emphasis for the research. I want to begin by just giving you a very, very brief sketch of the methods. I don't have time here to go into much of it. I'm going to, when I draw the broad conclusions I do towards the end of this presentation, I'm going to ask you in some ways to trust that it is based on very detailed empirical studies in each of the three contexts I'll speak about and there are full reports on the website of the Migrating Out of Poverty website which I gave you the web address of in the previous slide. I don't want to look at any of the individual country reports that would be available to you free to download. We engaged in qualitative methods using process tracing which I think many of you will be familiar with. In our particular case we used three primary methodologies. The first and one of the countries the second was a process of document analysis. Where we could we looked at parliamentary minutes, we looked at debates and this was really to assess how it is that certain ideas came to be popular, came to dominate policy discussions and we also from that began to do a stakeholder mapping of who were the key stakeholders who were influencing a policy change. So and then from there we were able to identify key informants who we needed more information from about the nature of the change that took place. And so in many ways we used what some of you will be familiar with is called the three eyes framework where you map three eyes namely the institutions, the ideas and the interests that might shape a policy change. And in using that as some authors have described a kind of methodological checklist we were able to go through a rigorous process of mapping how it is the policy came to be changed. Alright so let me give you a background to the three case studies that informed the conclusions I'll present to you in a moment. In Bangladesh which was one of the countries in which the work was done and it was done by the refugee and migratory movements research unit at the University of Dhaka they did an in-depth study into the domestic workers and welfare policy which was passed in by the Bangladeshi government in 2015. This is something that's very interesting because in fact advocacy around domestic workers in Bangladesh has a long history from the 1970s so it was by no means a new issue but it gained new energy among particularly civil society in 2006 where domestic workers were excluded in the Labour Act from protections within the Labour Act that was passed during that year. And so it gave a new energy to questions and concerns about protection for migrant domestic workers. In Bangladesh in this particular case study the domestic work that we're talking about is largely a result of internal migration from rural to urban areas and is often a familial arrangement so may well be a young person from a more impoverished background in a rural area going to a family member in the urban areas with great opportunities on the one hand but also in exchange for their labour. And so one of the central debates that shaped the Bangladeshi case study was the extent to which this was indeed work. Was this a labour contract or was this a family arrangement? Did the state have any role to play in trying to regulate such arrangements between families? And that was one of the central ideas if I return to the three eyes framework that circulated and as you'll see that was common in the other case studies as well. What we also saw were two clear coalitions emerging by coalitions I'm drawing on Sabatiya's idea of advocacy coalitions for those who work in the policy change arena. The first was the domestic workers rights network. This was a network an umbrella organisation representing domestic workers and it was one that was largely animated by the exclusion of domestic workers in the Labour Act. On the other hand the second coalition that formed was the Bangladesh Employers Federation that really emerged to represent the interests of employers of domestic workers. Bangladesh in fact let me rather say that in fact what was really interesting and this is true of all three case studies is that Sabatiya talks about these two coalitions that are almost inevitable in a policy change process and I think that's very useful for us. But there were two other clear coalitions that are not evident in the existing research. The first was that of international organisations. So the ILO at the time was producing Convention 189, the domestic workers convention and although Bangladesh had ratified other conventions they were reluctant to ratify this one. There was strong pressure particularly from UNICEF to ratify this convention but the concerns from the Bangladeshi state were that whether it was feasible to implement and so there was a reluctant to sign. And it's very interesting to me comparing it to the South African context where often the critique has been that the signing of international conventions doesn't map onto actual policy change and so it was a very different approach. There were also key concerns raised about national sovereignty and the role that international organisations can and should play in policy change around the globe and I think this is a question we're going to have to delve into in more detail if we're going to understand migration policy change in the African region because it is such a globalised phenomenon, the process of policy making on migration. Alright, so the other very interesting group that emerged as a key stakeholder which I'll talk about more towards the conclusion were in fact the policy makers themselves and I think that's another mission in the existing literature. It assumes that in some ways policy makers and particularly the bureaucrats implementing policies somehow do so in a mechanistic way without their own investments in a policy without their own concerns about what it means for their lives and their work and this is also something that I'll flag later. Okay, so that's the Bangladeshi case study. The other case study from which I'll draw my conclusions was done in Singapore. It was conducted by our colleagues the Asia Research Institute which is based at the National University of Singapore and we investigated a mandatory day off policy for migrant domestic workers. The context here is that Singapore is heavily reliant on migrant domestic workers. At the moment the estimates from the Ministry of Manpower in Singapore are that there are 231,500 migrant domestic workers in the country at the moment. In Singapore there is an aging population with very high levels of formal employment which means that childcare and care for the elderly becomes a very central social issue. Again, we saw a case where renewed activism began because migrant domestic workers excluded from the Employment Act and so there began to be concerns around human rights issues, employment conditions and so on. So in 2008 there were a number of leading civil society organizations that took up this issue. Our colleagues have drafted this report to explain in great detail how there's a very strong Singaporean state. It's a very dominant state and these civil society organizations required the state to buy into the policy before the advocacy began. However, in their research they point to three things that really resulted in the policy being adopted. The first was sustained activism and I'll talk more about the amount of time that it actually requires for policy change, something that I think many of us who work in the sector know but it does require reiterating. The second was that there was a strong influential debate put forward that not implementing the mandatory day for migrant domestic workers would harm Singapore's international reputation and this issue of international reputation was quite powerful. And then the third finding was that there was a real realization from the Singaporean state that migrant domestic workers had choices to go to other countries where their rights were better protected and the dependence on migrant domestic workers really was one of the issues that pushed for this policy to be passed. And then the third case study that I'll draw on is the one I spoke about more in my abstract which is the South African case study and we looked at the Trafficking in Persons Act. What's very interesting about the Trafficking in Persons Act is exactly as in the other two cases we saw two clear coalitions formed. However, the coalition formed by those who were pushing for the Trafficking in Persons Act to be passed was not as centrally drawing on a human rights debate as in the other two contexts. It was largely one that profiled the abuses faced by trafficking victims and interestingly the group that was much more cautious about the policy was one that drew very centrally on a human rights debate. This was largely because of concerns around the human rights particularly of sex workers in South Africa. So I can go into more on that if people would like to hear. But for now what I want to flag is that again we see very strong international influences. Two key triggers in the passing of the South African Act were one when South Africa was demoted on the US Trafficking in Persons report that's issued by the Department of State. We were demoted to the tier two watch list which meant that a further demotion could even result in sanctions or ceasing aid. Now we did some very interesting interviews that shows there wasn't a simple punitive measure but a complex set of relationships between the US and South African government including for example the fact that South African government is the highest recipient of PEPFAR funding which in theory has no relationship to trafficking but made for a particular set of international relationships. We also see in 2010 South Africa hosting the FIFA Football World Cup which also became a strong impetus for renewed activism. What we see that I'll also come back to when I talk about our learnings from these three case studies is incredibly shaky research evidence. In all cases the role of research was not particularly clear and I think it's something we have to ask ourselves as researchers. But in the South African case the evidence that was used was really very weak and often has been heavily, heavily critiqued. So I'll come back to that point. However the act was still passed and to a large extent it was passed because of very high popular support for counter trafficking campaigns and for doing something about trafficking as well as a strong political commitment. The fact that even in 2005 the South African government had written into the Children's Act issues of trafficking even though that particular clause was not at that time implemented that we were always going to develop a counter-trafficking policy. So I'm going to give a brief overview because it's such a multidisciplinary audience about how I feel understandings of policy change have shifted in the academic literature. It's going to be wholly inadequate, a single slide to try and describe a whole body of literature but it helps to put us on the same page when I talk about what I think we've learned about how policy change happens outside of the global north. I think it's fair to say that the early work on policy change from the 1970s relied very heavily on focusing on networks and institutions. So if we think about the level of analysis, it was largely at the level of organization or at the level of institution. I think that by the mid-1980s we had started to see a number of authors writing much more about cognitive and normative frames and much more understanding that really when we're talking about policy change we're talking about change in perceptions. This is if a policy is going to change, it is first and foremost a change in perceptions, understandings and being able to shape the way a problem is seen. As Surrell who offers a very useful summary says, the influence of ideas, general precepts and representations above social evolution and state action based on the belief that cognitive normative elements play an important role in how actors understand and explain the world is common to most approaches or most theories of policy change. So the quote I've put up here really is one that shows that if we're going to try to understand policy change what we're essentially doing is trying to understand the importance of the dynamics of the social construction of reality in shaping historically specific and socially legitimate frames and practices. Now I've written in other ways specifically about trafficking, about how it is that we've come to understand forms of exploitation and social problems which have always been understood as social problems, don't get me wrong, but frame them within the language and ideas of trafficking. And this is something that's been at the heart of the policy change we've seen globally. Most of us, many of us use our quantitative research in particular and believe that it has a very strong power to influence as it should. But what's very clear from the research we've been doing is that this is largely a process of altering perceptions and that means that we have to find ways of making our research relevant to the perceptions, principles and socially legitimate frames and practices that policy makers are working with. And that's really the complexity. What we found was that in all three case studies we did make a decision that we would try to work with the three eyes framework, both as a way of testing its value in context outside of the global north but also that we would use it very loosely and we would adjust it as we needed to as a way of learning how we could understand policy change better. So we found it very useful precisely because it's much less prescriptive than some of the other theories of policy change that exist. In a sense, it doesn't speak about... Sorry, I should have changed that. In a sense, it doesn't speak about what causes policy change in any universal way. What it does rather is map out where we should look if we want to understand change in a policy. And I think that is very, very useful. We added very key ideas from other theories. We found that Reese's notion of norm socialization precisely because it speaks to this interface between the global and the local and the international influences on local policymaking was extremely interesting and important. It hasn't been tested very extensively but we thought that perhaps this is something that as researchers in the global south we need to take up further. So norm socialization, those who don't work in that field really speaks to the process of how after a convention and signed, for example, the norms and principles of that convention might become popular discourse or become popularized in a local context. So how does that process happen? By which something that's written in a convention seems to be the way we understand our society, our reality in a particular country. So we found that very, very interesting. We also really realized the extent to which sustained activism is necessary for that norm socialization to take place. What we also found though is that most of these new theories, even though they critique the simplistic and rather linear models which suggest that if you give policy makers research they implement it, they still assume far too great a degree of evidence-based policy making and I'll speak to that in a minute. All right, so let me move on then to talk about what we did find from these three case studies. As I've said, there's a single report on each of the three country case studies on the website that I gave you the address of and I'll put it back up. So if you want the technical details of each methodology and the details of the finding you'll find them there. What I want to do now is say what did we learn overall in broad brush strokes about what we need to think about when we're trying to affect policy change. And the first thing that was very clear and there were six things we identified, six key factors. The first was that there needs to be a strong understanding of the nature of the policy that's being developed or made. In our case, and I actually think this is something of a limitation of the study, that I'd challenge others to pick up and try it out in other contexts, we were talking about protective oriented policy. So it was policy aimed at protecting a group that are deemed vulnerable, other migrant domestic workers, victims of trafficking in the South African case. So that shaped very much the nature of the policy that was developed. Nevertheless, in spite of this, it's still largely unpopular policy and I still think that presents a real question mark as to why implement a policy that's largely unpopular. So I can give you an example in South Africa, although there was a general sympathy for trafficking victims, nobody suggested that there was no problem with someone being trafficked. There was a lack of support for the policy precisely because there was a sense that this might open a floodgate, it might open a back door to the kinds of migration that the country's been trying to restrict. And so it wasn't an entirely popular policy. The gendered nature of all of the policies is really relevant and when we, using the Three Eyes framework, mapped the ideas that circulated in all three contexts, it was really interesting to see how much that influenced the nature of the debates that were happening. The nature of the debates were very much, and I'll talk about those now, they were very much about, is this even something that the state has a place intervening in? Or is this something about families, about private relationships, and so on? So for example, if I can give you an example of the day off policy in Singapore, one of the debates that was very central was that there's not much difference between migrant domestic workers and housewives. And if housewives don't get a day off, we don't say they're exploited. So how can this be exploitation? And so there was a real kind of questioning of whether this was relevant for the state to start meddling in, if you like. And of course, in each of these cases, there was huge public interest. For some kinds of policy, they seem very removed from people's everyday lives. They seem not to affect us sometimes, whether it's a migration policy that has to do with money laundering or other kinds of things. This is not the daily dinnertime conversations of most people. Whereas in this case, particularly in the two cases to do with the regulation of domestic work, it very much affected the average person in the street and it very much affected the people who are passing the legislation as employers of domestic workers. So the first area to understand in affecting policy change would be the nature of the policy being made. The second question would be the one of who the policy is for. And this overlaps a lot with what I've already said. As I mentioned, the fact that all these policies were heavily gendered had a strong impact on the nature of the ideas that circulated. We're talking about policies for poor women and for migrant women, and there was a strong emphasis on issues of morality in the debates that circulated. So, for example, the conflation often in the South African context between sex work and trafficking meant that there was a strong moral element. A lot of religious groups were very concerned about the trafficking legislation and it was often difficult to unpack what it was that we wanted the trafficking legislation to do. Was it about avoiding what had been deemed to be an immoral or inappropriate practice? Or was it about trying to address the exploitation that it goes with trafficking? Or was it about addressing the syndicates and the traffickers? So it was difficult to pull apart from the moral arguments what the legislation was supposed to do. There were also a number of examples from the Singaporean context and the Bangladeshi context actually where in Singapore, for example, if migrant workers were given a day off, there was a real concern about what would this mean? Would there be increased problems around domestic workers falling pregnant? Would they behave inappropriately in public spaces? So there was this incredible moralizing. It was really very strong around these. We've drawn a lot on Cohen's very famous work on moral panics, where very often the morality of a topic deflects from the broader structural aspects at play and I think that maps quite nicely to what we saw going on in this policy process. So the concerns about morality in some ways became a deflection from the concerns about labour regulation, which were much more difficult to get into public discourse. What was really interesting in our findings is that the fact that one of the case studies focused on internal migration and the other two focused on international migration made absolutely no difference. We didn't see a difference in the tone of the ideas that circulated. We didn't see a difference in the levels of public sympathy, for example, that circulated and that was a real surprise to me and I haven't completely figured out why. The groups that were largely pushing against policy change were largely doing so on the basis of debates that had to do with economic costs and benefits and the connection to the desirability of skilled or unskilled mobility. So, for example, in the Bangladeshi case, the groups that organised to represent employers were largely concerned about whether this would promote unskilled migration, which they deemed to be something largely negative, and whether the policy could be implemented given the economic costs of it. All right, so the third key thing that we learned that has to be accounted for in understanding policy change in our context is who the actors are. I think that the existing literature has focused on this quite a lot, but there were some new learnings for us and one of the main new learning was the role of international actors. It was very interesting because in South Africa there's been some criticism of the role of international actors, which is a policy I'm talking about, but it wasn't nearly as simple as this criticism is often made out. So, in all cases, there had been long-term local activism on an issue, and really what the international attention to the issue did, either, and by international attention, it could be the signing of a convention or it could be an international NGO that really bolsters an issue. What it did was to act as a trigger rather than to put the issue on the agenda. And what would be really important to try and understand is whether, if the issue was not already on the agenda, whether this international influence would be as strong. The other thing that was very key was that the kind of legal approaches were not necessarily more powerful than softer issues to do with international reputation and credibility. This came out very strongly in the South African case where South Africa has tried to cultivate a reputation for being a defender of human rights, and in the Singaporean case as well. And so it was often a softer issue than simply international pressure. The conventions were important, but what's really interesting is that they made no difference in speeding up policy development. So, if I could give you an example that I'm just trying to find so I can do it properly. In Bangladesh, the High Court had already implemented a range of conventions locally for migrant domestic workers that in many ways had done what the activists were trying to do, but not via the route that was imagined, not via the kind of assigning of the international convention on domestic workers. So that, I think, was very interesting. And on each of these cases, the policy change took an average of 10 years. So we're talking about timeframes that are often not... Well, it's not popular within development work but we're looking at 10-year timeframes to change policy. In terms of the role-players, it was also significant that... And I put the question here, which women? That the women affected by this policy change were not the advocates. In all cases, it was largely more middle-class women who spoke and acted as a conduit, largely through their representation of NGOs and coalitions. And I think that creates a number of complex sets of relationships but also really important to know. In all cases, it did require coalitions to be formed, and this seemed to be one of the more powerful ways of affecting policy change. These coalitions tend to include groups with very diverse skills. So it might be lawyers alongside human rights activists, alongside researchers, et cetera. But it was the point at which the advocacy really took off was at the point where coalitions were often formed. What is really interesting, though, and I'd be interested to hear in other contexts whether this is the case, because it was a surprise to me, was that although civil society was very good at getting an issue onto the policy agenda, and in seeing through the process up to when policy began to be drafted, none of the NGOs, except in South Africa, the legal NGOs and in Singapore as well, in fact then played a role in the actual drafting of the policy. They tended then to step back, and I think it does suggest that that might be a gap in the kind of policy process. And then, of course, the other surprise, as I've mentioned, was the role of civil servants in actually lobbying for a particular policy orientation, because, of course, they too have their own investments, and it was described in the Bangladeshi case as an invisible force, because it's not technically part of what we think of as policy change, but it actually mattered in the context. Okay. I can try to speed things up, because I think I've spoken quite a lot about the nature of the positions that were taken. In all three cases, the gendered nature of the policy meant that the positions taken were largely often moral ones with support from legal and human rights discourses. So very often it was about profiling policies and then responding to what was seen as a failure of human rights abuse. For those who were against a particular policy change or were more cautious about it, the debates were almost entirely focused on feasibility and the cost of policy change. What's also clear is that concessions are almost inevitable, and this is what's already in the policy change literature. In no case did any particular coalition get exactly what they wanted. And so factoring in the issues to do with concessions is a really important part of understanding how policy processes work. Finally, I come to some commentary about the role of research, which I thought this study would entirely be about. Research is ambiguous and sometimes ambivalent place in policy change. I don't want to overstate this because the policy makers we interviewed really did want research. It's not that there wasn't an interest in research. There was, and there was a desire to have research, but it was often used extremely problematically. I think the South African case was the most extreme example of how poor the quality of the research was. And as a result, we passed the policy without really knowing a great deal about the phenomenon we were developing policy on, and that was a real pity. The nature of the research that existed was about the abuses that this group faced. And that's fine in terms of getting an issue onto the agenda, but the research lacked focus on what kinds of policy approaches, what kinds of models of policy change might be the most effective. And with hindsight that perhaps would have been very useful research to have. Within policy makers we also noted that they have a very loose understanding of research or of evidence. So in the parliamentary debates it was as possible to use a kind of testimony as well as a research paper, and there were multiple sources of evidence that were drawn on. And that means some of the technical debates about whether a methodology was appropriate, whether a piece of research represented quality research, whether it was any good were largely lost in the actual policy debates. And I think that's a message for us to think about as researchers. The research was heavily contested, particularly in the South African example, but also in the Singaporean example where a human rights watch report was attacked quite heavily on the basis of its methodology. In both those contexts it was contested, but in some ways those contestations didn't map onto the kind of policy change we then saw. We saw it being contested among researchers, but the policy process continued nevertheless. And again I think there's a lesson in that for us. And then finally the research was largely passively consumed. And what I mean by that is not that as I said, policymakers kept saying to us, we want research. We want researchers to come to us and guide the process of policy change, give ideas, put forward ideas. But largely the onus was on researchers to take what they know to policymakers in all three contexts, rather than the other way around. And again that was very interesting. In South African Parliament we made a number of representations on the Trafficking Act. What was interesting about it was that our parliament doesn't have budget for bringing people to parliament. So it just happened that we had the resources and people to be able to do that, but other organizations may not have that. And so it's not always a good representation of what research exists out there, if only one or two people can make those presentations. And then finally the political environment. This is something that I don't think I have to speak on in much at great length, because I think migration has become such a complicated area to effect policy change. It took, as I said, approximately ten years for the policy to change in each of the contexts. And that is not really the pace at which a research cycle works. Many of us would say that after ten years research is outdated. And so it does create a complex mismatch perhaps between researchers and some of our guiding ideas and policy makers and some of their guiding ideas. But nevertheless that was the reality. The other key issue that came up in all three case studies was that the relationship particularly between NGOs and policy makers was key to whether there was any kind of influence on the policy process. In all cases the relationship was not hostile by any stretch of the imagination, but there were for example in the Singapore case they spoke about a particular member of parliament who had an interest in the issue and that had a good relationship with some of the groups that worked on the issue. And that was an avenue to access the policy making process. In South Africa it was perhaps more conflictual, although with hindsight I think that conflict was much more among different lobby groups than it was between parliament and NGOs. With parliament often coming down on researchers and saying well you're saying research is no good, we're saying that research is no good, we need something we can work with. So the relationship that civil society and particularly NGOs had with their members of parliament was absolutely key to whether there could be a constructive engagement. And then finally the ethos of the state and this is something that I won't pretend to know enough about, but it came up in the research and I think it's important for us to deliberate on. In some instances the approach as I said was to avoid for example signing conventions unless it was absolutely clear that those could be implemented and implemented efficiently and that was very much the argument in both Bangladesh and Singapore. South Africa we almost had the opposite case where we signed the convention quite early on but then didn't implement for a very long time until pressure was really quite intense and that's a different kind of ethos of what these instruments mean and what different states use them for. I also think that for example the presence of the bureaucracy in Singapore was far stronger than it was say in South African Bangladesh and that shaped what a policy meant as as I'm sure you can imagine. Alright so to summarize what I have tried to focus on is the ways in which policy changes in the global south what our research has shown us is that there are useful elements in existing theories from the global north that we can use but there are also significant differences in the ways that policy processes are constructed in our context and in order to perhaps offer a way forward for future research we've identified these six factors that we think anyone trying to understand and shape a policy process might need to take into account. We would really welcome other researchers then taking them up and saying no you're absolutely wrong about this point we need to rather focus on A, B and C but I think this was a way of getting a conversation going in the global south about how policy changes. A couple of conclusions that I want to flag which I feel are important came up as important but we didn't do justice to in our study yet is really to understand this relationship between global and local processes. It's not sufficiently evident in the international literature and yet it came out so strongly as something that shapes policy in our context and so we need to do more to figure out how exactly this works. We also found that this 3IS framework is useful precisely because of its lack of because of its flexibility. It's much less deterministic than many of the models out there and it operates as I said as a kind of methodological checklist and for that reason it's loose enough to be used but with adjustments that reflect the way the policy is changed in our context and as I said the approach we took in identifying the six key factors we did was to emphasize where to look for policy influence rather than what factors in some kind of universal way change policy. We looked and I haven't talked much about it but we did look at the advocacy coalition framework which I know many researchers here will be working with but we found a very rigid but nevertheless useful to use selectively so if I can give you an example in this advocacy coalition framework one of the concepts that identified is that of devil shift where often the so called losing coalition, the coalition who didn't get what they wanted out of a policy change imagine that the other group had far greater resources and far greater influence than they in fact had that was quite a useful concept but it was just selective cherry like of those concepts that we could use to understand policy change in our context. Alright so I will stop there I think we only have four minutes or so and thank you very much for your attention.