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

164
In the Lusophone countries, the Portuguese established enclave administrative
structures essentially to facilitate the exploitation of resources. Local
systems and structures, mostly undeveloped, were simply ignored.
Independence in all countries was followed by rapid growth in the public
service and in the number and range of institutions created to manage new
programs of development. However, the growth in institutions was not
matched by the development of an indigenous capacity to manage these
programs and the increasing level of resources that would flow from the
colonial power to their allied states. Thus, post independence ‘dialogue’ in
the ex-colonial states amounted to not much more than discussions or information
exchange between officials of the beneficiary countries and representatives
from the partnership colonial countries as to the policies and
programs to be undertaken in promoting the country’s development. In
many cases, those policies and programs were intended merely to serve the
interests of the colonial partners. Thus more of colonisation than dialogue.
Post independence – the evolution in aid
Independence brought a weakening in the direct domination of the colonial
powers in aid decisions as the multilateral institutions, particularly the
Bretton Woods Institutions, took on a more important role in the formulation
of policies and establishment of priorities. Buoyed by huge amounts of
capital raised in the world capital markets, the Bretton Woods Institution
soon replaced the colonial allies as the prime external stakeholder in the
‘dialogue’ relating to development. However, the quality of country participation
in the dialogue did not change significantly, given the generally
low level of capacity to understand the implications and the internal and
external dynamics of the development processes. It was thus considered a
normal and acceptable practice that policy prescriptions in the form of Letters
of Intent to be signed by country authorities were prepared in Washington,
most frequently with conditionalities that failed to recognize country
specificities. In those limited cases where a discussion or dialogue on the policy
Traditionally, ‘negotiations’ between country representatives and those of
the IMF and the World Bank on the country’s economic plans and progress
took place at the Fund/Bank headquarters in Washington D.C. or at the
Annual Meetings and were limited to officials of the Ministries of Finance,
Economic Planning, Budget and the Central Bank. Other sector ministries
or agencies were involved only marginally. Little or no discussion, dialogue
or exchange through the media, Parliament or, with those affected by or
benefiting from the adopted policies and programs. As a result, when they
failed to work many such policies and programs were reversed, sometimes
inspired by public rioting.