Dialogue in Pursuit of Development - Are you looking for one of ...

149
establishing different review processes which go beyond any individual
project implementation unit. Although, taking a long view, the performance
appraisals required probably provide good training grounds for ministry
staff, where these are carried out by what often becomes an elite group
within the Ministry concerned with the programmatic, as opposed to the
project, aid, different problems and tensions are created. Too great a focus
on producing documents, rather than on deepening the discourse and dialogue
between partners to increase trust between them, can also detract
from the dialogue itself.
A final weakness of the development community relates to the focus on
technical assistance, as well as the development advisers placed in situ, and
the consistency of the development agency’s policies. The institutional development
that is required for programmatic aid and for successful dialogue
supporting such modalities relates no less to the development partners than
it does to the recipient governments. Though this is recognised, it is not
necessarily addressed comprehensively. One manifestation of this problem
is the prevalence of agency representatives not appropriately orientated to
the new aid modality, who act in ‘project mode’. Another is the technical
assistance that is offered as a ‘stop-gap’, plugging holes in implementation
capacity, rather than developing sustainable capacity. Those empowered to
engage in dialogue or capacity building for strengthening government systems
must be competent, but must also be committed to such modalities.
Competent, but inappropriately focused individuals can lead to great frustration
in the implementation of programmatic aid. Feedback from donor
representatives in many countries in sub-Saharan Africa, as well as Latin
America and Asia, confirms the institutional inconsistency within several
development agencies, of policies made at headquarters, but implemented
with substantial variation from headquarters policy, in-country. Agencies
must alter their own performance evaluations to recognise policy implementation
in practice, and not merely competencies for jobs that do not get
carried out because of poor implementation interfaces.
The accompanying box, detailing dialogue surrounding an education
‘SWAP’ in Zambia, will help illustrate many of the points made above.
Concluding remarks
Clearly, there are considerable experiences and weaknesses of dialogue taking
place under the new programmatic aid modalities, weaknesses of both
the development agencies and the recipient governments. It is to be hoped
that what we are seeing at present, is a transitional phase of the new approach:
that despite the capacity development needed in the recipient countries
and despite there being insufficient coordination and harmonisation
of the development community, the strides being made to engage in farreaching
dialogue with recipient country governments and other stake-