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

8
penetrate most of the issues on the development agenda, such as structural
adjustment of the economy, human rights and poverty reduction strategies.
Hence, the donor sets the tone for dialogue and defines the knowledge
base for it (Spink). At the same time, the donor is often insufficiently aware
of, or even prepared to understand and/or accept, beliefs, traditions and
values that are fundamental to the cohesion of the society in the recipient
countries. In many cases, these values are considered detrimental to development.
However, it is important for a donor to understand and respect
limitations and possibilities shaped by the political, social, cultural and economic
context in which the development co-operation takes place (Morapaya,
Mysliwiec and Suzuki).
A genuine dialogue demands that both parties analyse and reflect upon
social and culture values and circumstances to see if they can be useful in
the implementation of projects and programmes. “Had foreign organisations
introduced human rights through Buddhist values and teaching, Cambodians
might have been more receptive and certainly, the human rights
NGOs would have encountered less difficulties (Mysliwiec).”
This latter argument leads us into the question of whose knowledge really
counts in a dialogue. Box and Swantz make the point that there is considerable
local knowledge available in most developing countries but it is
not sufficiently recognised by the scientists or aid practitioners. Mysliwiec
clearly puts this problem before us in her exposé of the recent developments
in Cambodia seen from the horizon of the dialogue or rather the lack
of dialogue. Or as Spink puts it: “It takes tremendous courage to stick to
your collective local knowledge doubts when the opposing arguments are
packaged in several million dollars of front loaded programme support expressed
in a power point presentation.”
Dialogue capacity
In view of the changed development agenda with new aid modalities, the
dialogue becomes even more important than before. Poverty Reduction
Strategy Papers (PRSP), Sector Wide Approaches (SWAP) and budget support
demand national ownership for a sustainable process to emerge. This
rests on the ability to carry out a qualified dialogue. However, dialogue
capacity is a rare asset in the most needy countries. Capacity building will
therefore be a first important step towards national ownership of the development
process. The capacity problem is touched upon in most of the contributions
and in a few, it takes a prominent place. Riddell, for instance,
treats the issue at length, looks beyond the weak capacity at the government
level, and reflects on what it means that it is even more limited among
other stakeholders.
Lopes stresses that for the PRSP to be effective, participation of all
stakeholders is necessary in the development dialogue. To be meaningful, it