If politics is supreme, the state is both weak and soft, and the Big Man rules, it is no surprise that policy making tends to take on qualities not associated with conventional models. The “gold standard” of how to set goals, define problems, judge policy solutions, and evaluate outcomes is not automatically applicable in that context. The endless efforts by analysts and consultants to use these standards in devising policies in Africa leave us with a paradox, however: two different interpretations cannot both be true. Such is the policy-making reality in Africa, where political leaders offer one interpretation, and analysts and consultants another. This paradox is not unique to Africa. Stone (1998) discusses it with reference to the United States, where a model of political reasoning also stands in conflict with the canons of economic or technical rationality. The African version of the paradox is an extension of conventional wisdom about policy making in modern society being pushed by international analysts and consultants, typically with an economics background.

When Americans and Europeans think of policy, they usually associate it with a rational measure to solve a particular problem within the limits of what public resources permit. Making policy involves a careful calculation of how means relate to desired ends. It is about such principles as feasibility, sustainability, and efficiency – all in one. Policy analysis, as conventional textbooks confirm, is the application of economic principles to the political process. But, as the African and American experience suggests, policy making in practice does not always follow an economic rationale but rather one based on political grounds. Motives often drive policy regardless of costs.