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

178
Are things that bad? The answer would seem to be yes; things really
have to be bad for the World Bank to recognize that knowledge sharing is
in a mess. Or for certain bilaterals to wonder seriously if the growing trend
for integrated joint donor action and funding is not in fact generating a
line of minimum least resistance in which nobody is really satisfied but
where everybody can write their back to office reports, money can be
handed over, results accounted for on a logical framework chart and careers
can progress.
In many settings, such self-reinforcing cycles of proto-dialogue can go on
forever, even generating mediocre increments of apparent change. Here hope
lies in the possibility that many of those involved are aware of what is happening
and have not given up seeking where possible to find a way through.
But despite such good will present throughout the complex matrix of different
donor and aid recipient organizations and actors, the poor are getting
poorer, social exclusion is rampant, women continue to be totally unrepresented,
hundreds of different peoples remain prey to cultural,
economic and even physical annihilation and the environment is being ripped
off at an alarming rate.
Working at dialogue in a local context
The confirmation that dialogue cannot be taken as a given, came in a very
practical way to my colleagues and I in some work we have been doing to
explore possibilities for local action in poverty reduction in Brazil. We are
doing this in two ways: firstly, through identifying cases and describing what
is being done and, secondly, gathering together those directly involved in
the experiences along with academics, activists and local government practitioners
to debate the practices and their results in order to build guidelines
for future action (Camarotti and Spink, 2001 a).
The approach that we developed drew on a variety of sources, amongst
which were large group dynamics, town meetings and gatherings of social
movements. The idea, as we expressed it, was to bring together different
knowledges, experiences and ideas within a climate of dialogue and mutual
respect. Over the space of a year, we gathered together some 130 academics,
activists, NGO workers, local government officials, community leaders and
people directly involved in programs and projects that had a direct impact
on poverty in four meetings of between 35–45 people, each of which lasted
two days. Three of the meetings looked at specific aspects of poverty and
social exclusion at the local level: urban services, socio-economic urban and
rural development, generation of income and employment. The fourth sought
to pull the stands together and was attended by over 50 people from the
previous meetings.
The following are examples of some of the 23 experiences that were in
debate: