PEA

Political economy analysis (PEA) of the evolution of politics, financing, and practice affecting MNH.

Maternal and newborn health (MNH) has been largely neglected in low-income, conflict-affected settings, as demonstrated by limited donor funding and research. Existing studies rarely examine the unique challenges of delivering health care in conflict-affected settings. These challenges are related to insecurity, political will/stability, and severe funding gaps – all of which impact how issues are prioritized, and policies are developed and funded. A careful examination of the political and financial factors driving MNH policymaking in the country will shed light on the factors that shape policy design, implementation, and funding.
Objective:
To understand how political and financial dynamics at the national / subnational level affect prioritization of MNH services in LI-CACs, and how those dynamics change over time, including during times of conflict or shock.
Methods:
Examining the political and financial factors driving MNH policy making in the country will shed light on the various factors shaping policy design and their implications. We will conduct gendered PEA to understand power dynamics affecting MNH services and practices in the country, integrating into our methods existing guidance on political economy, power, gender, and social inclusion analyses such as DFID’s PEA How to Note and literature from Research in Gender and Ethics consortium. These dynamics have rarely been explored at the policy level in LI-CACs where multilateral bodies like Clusters and UN agencies occupy influential roles. Gender and social inclusion analyses will be of particular importance, given the gendered topic of pregnancy. A context-specific literature review will be conducted annually and key informant interviews (KII) biennially with careful attention to language around health equity in MNH. The conclusions derived from WS 1 will serve additional roles: formative data for designing of other work-streams and research uptake (RU) strategy, identification of windows for policy engagement, and evaluation of uptake of Research Programme Consortium (RPC) generated evidence into MNH policy, practice, and funding prioritization. The engagement with stakeholders through this WS will also support the path to scale of MNH interventions. While we recognize the importance of demand-side factors, we have chosen to focus the WS scope on the supply side, given that supply side factors are more affected by health system disruptions resulting from conflicts.