By Enrique Mendizabal. Originally published November 3, 2025 by the Land Portal Foundation as part of the Land Facility Decision Support Unit’s Ground Rules series. Republished from the original article under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.
Related project: The Land Facility.
Ground Rules E02
Editorial note: This is the second blog in the ‘Ground Rules’ series, an ongoing initiative that explores how ‘thinking and working politically’ can support more adaptive and effective programming in land governance and beyond. The series is curated by the Land Facility Decision Support Unit (DSU) in collaboration with the Land Portal Foundation.
Enrique Mendizabal, founder of On Think Tanks and member of the Land Facility’s Political Economy Advisory Group (PEAG), moderated a discussion on this topic during a DSU-hosted internal learning session.
Quick read: To engage Ministries of Finance, this blog proposes four concrete steps for development programmes and policy advocates:
- Map the ministry. Understand its internal dynamics, whether it leans transactional or policy-oriented, and who really makes decisions.
- Frame evidence politically. Translate sectoral priorities into fiscal and political terms that resonate with finance officials.
- Support weaker ministries. Equip them with arguments, allies, and data to strengthen their negotiations.
- Invest in champions. Identify and support individuals inside finance ministries who can carry reforms forward.
In September 2025 I had the chance to moderate a fascinating discussion as part of the Land Facility’s quarterly learning series. The theme was one that has preoccupied me for some time: how to engage with and influence ministries of finance.
For those of us working on policy reform—whether in land governance, health, education, or other sectors—ministries of finance are crucial allies. They decide how resources are allocated, set the fiscal tone for the entire government and often shape national policy priorities. Yet, as several participants reminded us, Ministries of Finance remain under-engaged by many of the actors trying to promote reform.
The discussion was led by Philipp Krause, Visiting Fellow at the University of Potsdam and Director on the board of the African Economic Research Consortium, and Oswaldo Molina, Associate Professor of Economics at Universidad del Pacifico in Peru and founding director of the think tank, Red de Estudios para el Desarrollo (REDES) [Network for Development Studies].
Ministries before finance
One of the session’s key takeaways came from Philipp, who has worked extensively with Ministries of Finance around the world. He reminded us that Ministries of Finance are, first and foremost, ministries—subject to the same civil service laws, organisational logics, and political imperatives and pressures as any other.
They are staffed by civil servants with careers, incentives, and bureaucratic cultures, and they spend much of their time negotiating with other ministries. Their identity as ‘ministries’ shapes how they operate just as much as—if not more than—their function of overseeing public finances.
At their core, they are also ministries of balancing: they manage the tension between spending and taxation. Their responsibility is to keep the fiscal system stable, which means they often play the role of the “no” ministry—pushing back against the constant financial demands from other sector ministries. Their job is not about obstruction but about ensuring sustainability.
Philipp presented this and several other principles that can help make sense of finance ministries across contexts:
- They are ministries first. Their behaviour is shaped by bureaucratic norms, hierarchies, and civil service structures.
- They are the counterweight. Their job is to balance spending and taxation, not to champion one sector over another.
- They have two core functions. Budget management (where most sector ministries interact with them) and macro-fiscal policy (which usually dominates internally and politically).
- Their roles vary between transactional and policy orientations, depending on the country. Some Ministries of Finance are tasked with managing detailed financial transactions and controls, others focus on broader policy frameworks.
- Policy is not the same as evidence. Finance ministries may be policy-focused, but that does not necessarily mean they are evidence-focused.
These principles already challenge some common assumptions. Too often, advocates for development causes treat finance ministries as if they were neutral arbiters of evidence or technical merit. In practice, however, they are institutions embedded in politics, bureaucracy, and short-term pressures.
Policy ministries vs. evidence ministries
This distinction merits special attention.
A policy-oriented ministry—such as finance—is primarily concerned with steering the machinery of government, ensuring fiscal sustainability, and delivering on economic and political priorities. Its work is about making political trade-offs, aligning taxation and expenditure, and arbitrating between competing demands.
An evidence-oriented ministry, by contrast, would be one that relies heavily on research, data, and evaluation to determine what programmes deserve support. Health and education ministries, at least in principle, operate closer to this model. For example, evidence of cost-effectiveness or health impact can directly shape funding decisions and legitimise reforms.
Noting this distinction, Krause reminded us that policy work is different from evidence work. Policy in a of finance often means deciding whether transport should receive more resources than housing, or whether debt sustainability requires cutting programmes despite their social benefits. Those choices cannot be made purely based on technical evidence; they are inherently political.
A good example is found in infrastructure. Evidence of the poor economic returns of a specific project may convince a housing minister to pause a particular project. But if that evidence was first presented to the finance ministry, officials may reply: “This is a matter for the land and housing ministry; infrastructure is the government’s priority, and we will continue allocating resources to that budget.” Evidence itself rarely shifts finance ministry priorities, unless it is translated into fiscal or political terms.
This reality does not make Ministries of Finance “anti-evidence.” Rather, it means evidence needs to be framed differently. Messages that will resonate are not necessarily those that reference the internal rate of return of a land titling programme, but those that can demonstrate how return rates align with fiscal sustainability, political commitments or short-term revenue needs.
The allocators and policy shapers
Oswaldo, who served in government before founding a think tank in Peru, expanded the context around Philipp’s principles, painting a vivid picture of finance ministry operations.
Because of the pressing social and economic needs of developing countries, the balancing role that Ministries of Finance play is especially strong. Oswaldo described finance ministries in these contexts as both allocators and policy shapers. The Ministry of Finance often decides which projects even make it onto the table, and, through the budget, it determines which policies will expand, stall, or die. No social programme, infrastructure project, or reform can survive without its endorsement.
He compared finance ministries to jugglers, constantly balancing demands to:
- on one hand, contain spending pressures and maintain fiscal discipline while;
- on the other, shape proposals from sector ministries into cost-effective options that can survive political and fiscal scrutiny.
In Peru, for example, no matter what the health or development ministry might propose, Oswaldo observed that nothing moved forward without the ‘green light’ from the Ministry of Economy and Finance. This centrality, which Philipp suggested is very particular to Peru, makes finance ministries essential partners for every sector, as well as arbiters of which priorities matter.
Who influences finance ministries?
Although Ministries of Finance have a lot of power to decide which initiatives receive funding, they are also highly influenced by forces beyond their walls. As Philipp reminded the discussion group, Ministries of Finance are never purely technocratic “evidence ministries”; they must reflect the political priorities of the current national government.
Therefore, the cabinet and head of government are perhaps the most direct sources of influence on finance ministries. When the president or prime minister declares that a sector—say, transport or infrastructure—is a political priority, the finance ministry must ensure that priority is reflected in the budget. This is part of finance ministries’ delicate political balancing act: aligning fiscal discipline with the promises on which the government was elected.
The legislature is another critical player. In countries like the United States, Congress holds overwhelming authority over spending decisions, leaving the Treasury relatively weak. Even in systems where finance ministries are formally very strong—Philipp mentioned Chile as an example—they must still secure legislative approval for the annual budget. This process forces negotiation and compromise and creates space for parliamentarians and their constituencies to shape allocations.
There are also less formal but persistent pressures on finance ministries:
- Media and public opinion can elevate or sink spending priorities.
- Local governments and other ministries lobby hard for resources and use public narratives to push their cases.
- Development partners and donors can create fiscal incentives, especially when loans or large grants are on the table.
Finally, as one participant pointed out, finance ministries are deeply aligned with the political calendar. They rarely take on reforms that will make the sitting president unpopular, especially if the pay-off lies beyond the current electoral cycle. This short-termism is not a design flaw but a reflection of their role; they must keep the government’s programme on track, both fiscally and politically.
People, not machines
Both Oswaldo and Philipp insisted on something that we in the evidence-to-policy world sometimes forget: ministries are made up of people.
Officials are not neutral bureaucrats who calmly weigh the recommendations of long research reports. They are individuals under immense pressure with limited time, short tenures and political constraints. Many Ministries of Finance act as firefighters, responding to daily crises and looking for quick wins.
For outsiders, this means three things:
- Empathy matters. Understand the pressures officials face and the incentives that drive them.
- Pragmatism matters. Offer ready-to-use comparative examples rather than long-term research projects.
- Champions matter. Reforms need internal advocates who can navigate the ministry’s internal politics and lend credibility to outside proposals.
As Oswaldo put it, identifying and nurturing an individual ‘champion’ inside the Ministry of Finance is often the difference between success and failure. Doing so requires consistent interpersonal engagement and trust building over years, activities which are made more difficult by short-term project cycles.
Context, politics and champions
Several participants offered powerful illustrations of how context and politics shape finance ministries’ decisions.
- In Peru in the 1990s, a major land titling programme was championed by the President himself. The Ministry of Finance supported it, not because the evidence was overwhelming, but because it delivered visible political wins and helped balance other reforms. Land titling became a quick, popular success that bolstered the government’s legitimacy.
- In the US, the Treasury plays a relatively weak role in budget setting. Instead, the Office of Management and Budget and Congress dominate. This shows why it is essential to understand the institutional landscape before deciding whom to influence.
- In Africa, land advocates often struggle to “speak the language” of finance. Ministries demand economic justifications and return on investment, which land specialists are often ill-equipped to provide.
These cases underline that Ministries of Finance and their roles in government are not uniform. Their power varies by country, their orientation by context, and their priorities by politics. But what unites them is their central role in deciding what gets funded and sustained.
Elevated status of finance ministries
Another participant noted that finance ministries sometimes operate with a sense of superiority over other ministries. Staff are treated as if they belong to a different government altogether, with higher status and influence—and at times higher salaries.
When compared to other public bodies, Ministries of Finance and central banks are often referred to as “islands of excellence.”
This, combined with their short-term political alignment with the president’s agenda, makes it particularly hard for weaker ministries—such as those responsible for land —to push long-term reforms. If land governance is politically unpopular or offers little short-term gain, it is unlikely to secure support from finance officials.
Looking ahead
This session reinforced something I have long argued: influencing policy is not about producing more evidence, but about understanding systems of power, incentives, and decision-making.
Ministries of Finance occupy a unique position in these systems. They cannot be bypassed, and engaging them requires a mix of:
- technical insight into fiscal and political trade-offs;
- political savvy to align reforms with broader government priorities; and
- relational trust built through champions and sustained engagement.
For the Land Facility, this discussion supported four concrete steps for engaging Ministries of Finance:
- Map the ministry. Understand its internal dynamics, whether it leans transactional or policy-oriented, and who really makes decisions.
- Frame evidence politically. Translate sectoral priorities into fiscal and political terms that resonate with finance officials.
- Support weaker ministries. Equip them with arguments, allies, and data to strengthen their negotiations.
- Invest in champions. Identify and support individuals inside finance ministries who can carry reforms forward.
If we want reforms in land governance—or any sector—to be sustainable, engaging Ministries of Finance is not optional; it is indispensable.
Additional resources:
Coalition of Finance Ministers for Climate Action. (2025). A Global Survey of Ministries of Finance: Economic analysis for green and resilient transitions (HP4 Report). Link
Oriol, A. M., Velandia, A. S. (2025). The Role of Evidence in Latin American Finance Ministries in Budgets and Crisis Response. ODI. Link
Hashemi, T. (2025). Yes, The Treasury Blocks Stuff… Bad Stuff – Bim Afolami. Policy Unstuck. Link
Krause, P. (2024). The Role of Fiscal Think Tanks in Fiscal Policy: Global Patterns and Lessons for South Africa. Southern Centre for Inequality Studies (SCIS), University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. Link
Rosengren, A., Shah, N., & Commodore, R. (2021). The Role of Evidence in Policymaking in Ghana: A Political Economy Analysis. African Center for Economic Transformation (ACET). Link
UNICEF. (2017). UNICEF’s Engagements in Influencing Domestic Public Finance for Children (PF4C): A Global Programme Framework. Link
***
This material has been funded by UK International Development from the UK government; however, the authors’ opinions in the ‘Ground Rules’ blog series do not necessarily represent the UK government’s official policies, nor the Land Facility programme’s view on political economy. Rather, these blogs are part of the Decision Support Unit’s mandate to facilitate global learning and knowledge exchange that can inform best practices across the land and development world.