Understanding APRM Research: Planning, Process and Politics

This practical handbook, published by the South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA), provides guidance for Technical Research Institutes (TRIs) tasked with conducting research for the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM). It outlines the chronological process of creating Country Self-Assessment Reports (CSARs), offering strategies to manage the technical, managerial, and political challenges inherent in evaluating national governance.

• The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) is a voluntary process where African governments and citizens analyze systemic governance problems across four thematic areas: democracy and political governance, economic governance, corporate governance, and socio-economic development.
• Technical Research Institutes (TRIs) have become a standard part of the APRM process, typically performing three roles: conducting desk-based assessments using international benchmarks, incorporating public input, and developing the text for Country Self-Assessment Reports (CSARs) and Programmes of Action (PoA).
• The 88-page APRM Self-Assessment Questionnaire is described as a complex and non-user-friendly instrument that often requires TRIs to reformulate or customize it for local contexts and specific target groups, such as women and youth.
• The self-assessment process is frequently delayed beyond the recommended six- to nine-month window due to unrealistic deadlines and political pressures, which can compromise the quality of the final reports.
• TRIs face significant political challenges, as the APRM is a highly politicized process. Issues include managing sensitivities around controversial topics, avoiding data collection during election periods to prevent distortion, and maintaining professional independence from government funders.
• Effective research methodology for the APRM requires a mix of desk research and field approaches, including expert surveys, citizen surveys, focus groups, and public conferences, while rigorously testing the credibility of international and national data sources.
• To improve the quality of the Programme of Action (PoA), the handbook recommends establishing working groups early in the process to develop measurable, achievable reforms rather than assembling them hastily at the end.
• The handbook suggests dividing the broad APRM questionnaire into smaller 'issue clusters' (such as managing conflict, media freedoms, or energy) to better match research tasks with specific expert skills.

APA

Katito, G. (2008). Understanding APRM Research: Planning, Process and Politics. South African Institute of International Affairs. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/Occasional-Paper-4.pdf

Chicago

Katito, George. Understanding APRM Research: Planning, Process and Politics. South African Institute of International Affairs, 2008. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/Occasional-Paper-4.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Katito |first1=George |title=Understanding APRM Research: Planning, Process and Politics |publisher=South African Institute of International Affairs |date=June 2008 |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/Occasional-Paper-4.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{katito2008understanding, author = {Katito, George}, title = {{Understanding APRM Research: Planning, Process and Politics}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, year = {2008}, month = jun, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/Occasional-Paper-4.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }