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

201
While problems such as poverty, social insecurity, HIV/AIDS, political
instabilities, etc. in Africa, Asia and Latin America have been aggravated rather
than ameliorated, the budget of Japanese ODA has continuously been cut
back for the past few years due mainly to the ongoing problems facing
Japan’s economy. In theory, ODA projects depend on recipients’ requests;
yet in practice, they depend in large part on the Japanese government’s
economic and political status. Needs identification and needs-based project
planning are important aspects of dialogue in practice. These efforts, however,
can bear fruit only if enough resources are secured for the activities
they suggest. Without resources, any efforts at genuine dialogue may be in
vain. Budget-driven development hinders needs-centered dialogical development.
In addition to the budgetary issue, the relationship between development
projects and national interests also shapes project contexts. The objectives
of development projects are not necessarily limited to supporting countries
in need. The United States Agency for International Development
(USAID), for example, recognizes the advancement of US foreign policy
objectives as one of its major organizational missions. Since Japan’s ODA
budget originates from tax revenue, ODA projects must be accountable to
taxpayers. Naturally, because taxpayers are citizens of a nation with its own
distinctive interests, development projects have to be justified in light of
these national interests.
Both budgetary concerns and national interest frame the donors’ stance
toward projects and limit their ability to respond flexibly to recipients’
ideas and concerns. These contexts can thus work against dialogue.
Dealing with multiple accountabilities
A development practitioner must be accountable to multiple stakeholders
with different perspectives and concerns as well as different capacities. One
common challenge facing practitioners implementing projects is that the
interests of the project’s various stakeholders are often not merely diverse
but conflicting. A practitioner must adjudicate conflicting interests in a justifiable
manner.
In fact, conflicting interests may not necessarily become apparent because
different stakeholders — such as, in this case, MOFA and the Ishigaki islanders
— do not usually come into direct contact. A practitioner who does have
direct contact with different stakeholders, however, can sense the latent
conflicts among them. The practitioner then plays a mediating role among
stakeholders and seeks to reflect their concerns in the project in practical
ways.
In the case of IIRP, the major stakeholder groups were MOFA, FASID,
the study group members and the Ishigaki islanders. Because MOFA was a
funding agency and FASID was an implementing organization, FASID was