book1

aid management fall within this combina� on. Unfortunately, lopsided
incen� ves are making it diffi cult. To make it easy, capacity development of
the recipient through organic process could be helpful (Dhakal and Ueta,
2007).
Combina� on of ‘exogenous’ and ‘local resources’ (ExL) is redundant
because there is no need to follow the ‘exogenous’ direc� ons if resources
for development are available locally. This combina� on normally does not
occur.
Combina� on of ‘exogenous’ and ‘foreign aid’ (ExF) is commonly found in
present day aid rela� onship. Interna� onal regimes prescribe the exogenous
approach on ‘one-size-fi ts-all’ assump� ons undermining local capacity
and ins� tu� ons. This approach is costly and unsustainable because of � ed
and condi� onal aid. Expenditure standards are set as per donor countries
purchasing power and development outcomes achieved with such approach
wither away in no � me as the outcomes cannot sustain fi nancially and
ins� tu� onally a� er donors' withdrawal. Most of the project type funding fall
within this combina� on. Unfortunately, this combina� on is an unsustainable
and ‘egocentric’ (Dhakal and Ueta, 2007).
Combina� on of ‘Customiza� on’ and ‘local resources’ (CL) is a natural but
utopian combina� on. On one hand it helps meet local needs and aspira� ons,
but on the other hand, a single country cannot off er abundant local resources
in this interdependent world. However, it is desirable combina� on because
the process of customiza� on would enhance knowledge and appropriate
technology. This is where every recipient country intends to reach but in
lack of local resources and capacity, they will have to depend on some role
of foreign aid (Dhakal and Ueta, 2007).
Combina� on of ‘Customiza� on’ and ‘foreign aid’ (CF) could be be� er
for both the donor and the recipient because availability of resources
and alignment of incen� ves could be possible in it. ‘Glocalizaiton,’ i.e., an
admixture of ‘globaliza� on’ and ‘localiza� on’ for thinking globally and
ac� ng locally, could be the mo� o in this combina� on. Iden� fying both
sides’ incen� ves by way of behavioural interac� on require capacity and full
informa� on.
The ‘new views’ of development, including ‘aid eff ec� veness’ principles
can be accommodated in this approach. Instead of building separate rigid
model, fl exible mixing of two approaches on country to country basis would
be pragma� c strategy for eff ec� ve aid management (Dhakal and Ueta, 2007).
Concluding Remarks
Having reviewed the literatures and studies carried out in the fi eld
of development and aid management, it is evident that the pragma� c
development approach rests in-between two extremes- ‘exogenous’ and
‘endogenous’ approaches. The mid-way approach can be developed on
country by country basis by ways of customiza� on process. Customiza� on
involves close review of two-way incen� ves system, which can mo� vate the
donors, the recipients, and the civil society, including academia and business
Changing paradigms of aid eff ec� veness in Nepal 61