Political Economy and Conflict Sensitivity Analysis (PECSA) of Local Governance and Tender Processes
Analysis of the political economy and conflict sensitivity of local governance systems and public procurement practices in post-conflict Ukraine. The analysis provides an evidence base for inclusive and conflict-sensitive recovery planning at the local level.
Nationwide
Project goals:
- Assess the political, institutional, socio-economic and conflict-related constraints affecting the design and implementation of local community recovery plans.
- Examine the influence of power dynamics and conflict factors on local governance and public procurement processes.
- Analyze tender processes for social infrastructure facilities for fairness, transparency and corruption risks.
- Map the actors — authorities, CSOs, the private sector and donors — and their influence on recovery outcomes.
- Develop practical recommendations for inclusive recovery planning, procurement transparency and strengthening social cohesion.
About the project:
Effective recovery of Ukraine at the local level depends on understanding the complex political, institutional and social dynamics that shape decisions in communities. The project fills this gap through comprehensive field analysis that combines political economy tools with conflict-sensitivity approaches adapted to the Ukrainian context.
ToP is responsible for developing the research methodology, conducting fieldwork, synthesizing insights from authorities, civil society and the private sector, and validating the results with project partners.
The analysis covers hidden and informal power structures that influence recovery planning; the risks of excluding vulnerable groups, including women's CSOs; the capacity and integrity of local contractors; the potential of participatory planning to strengthen social cohesion; and trends that may affect recovery outcomes.
The project analyzes tender processes for small and medium-sized social infrastructure projects — schools, outpatient clinics, community centers — in terms of fairness, transparency and corruption risks. It separately examines the impact of decentralization on the implementation of local recovery plans in selected regions.