book1

community. This is where eff ec� ve management of aid takes place and can
produce development result.
The process of customiza� on involves cost, technology and capacity,
which can be a� ained by help of fl exible programma� c aid that can care for
local system, ins� tu� ons, other context and mutually agreeable framework
of incen� ves. Choices off ered by this approach help avoid weaknesses
and adopt strengths of both the ‘exogenous’ and ‘endogenous’ extremes.
Ul� mately, the choices and fl exibility around ownership, leadership, use of
country system, and respect to each other's norms, values and structures
would ease the customiza� on process moulding with the demand of
stakeholders, � me, and global and local policy thrusts.
Studies carried out during early1960s, late 1980s, late1990s and
more recently in 2010 support the argument of ‘customized’ approach of
development. To recapitulate, Riggs (1964) envisages “meso-prisma� c”
society in between ‘endo-prisma� c’ and ‘exo-prisma� c’ society and hints for
the mix up of two extremes. Galtung (1979) pleads for localized approach
to avoid nega� ve side eff ects of foreign technology and prescribes for a
right mix of “alpha” and ‘beta” as appropriate technology. Wight (1997:
390) suggests for par� cipa� ve implementa� on modality where foreign
technology and development model can be tailored to local need in local way
of doing business. Case studies carried out by FWP/FNDI (2006), suggests
a tailored approach, where blending of ‘exogenous’ technical support and
‘endogenous’ idea generates direct benefi ts to the recipient and minimize
the project risks.
Thus, development is a dynamic concept passing through paradox of
‘exogenous’ and ‘endogenous’ approaches. It has symbio� c rela� onship
with ‘development aid’ and its eff ec� veness. Despite a� rac� ve agendas of
‘aid eff ec� veness’, the implementa� on side appears reluctant. ‘Exogenous’
approach dominates the recipients and distorts their benefi ts. This approach
does not take into account the recipient-incen� ves. Donor side prefers
‘exogenous’ approach to 'endogenous' because it is easy to implement,
commercially, poli� cally and strategically benefi cial, and iden� fi able.
‘Endogenous’ approach, on the other hand, is ambi� ous and does not
take into account the donor-incen� ves. The donors pretend to obey the
‘endogenous’ approach because of global policy direc� ons. On opera� onal
level, donors are reluctant because of inadequate incen� ves. The new
paradigm of development manifested in ‘aid eff ec� veness’ is designed
exogenously but bears ‘endogenous’ a� ributes making it biased to the
recipients. Weak capacity at local level further fuels the reluctance of donors.
Capacity has causal rela� onship with aid eff ec� veness. In lack of capacity
and incen� ves, coopera� on may not last long in interna� onal rela� ons. Once
both sides perceive incen� ves, they ac� vely par� cipate in implementa� on.
This process may be possible in the ‘customized’ development approach.
References:
Akira, Nishigaki and Shimomura Yasutami. (1998). The Economics of Development
62
Changing paradigms of aid eff ec� veness in Nepal