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

294
laments the difficulties in working toward it. In private moments, however,
that consensus evaporates. Government officials complain strongly about
the time required to deal with successive agency delegations and about the
multiplicity of procedures and forms required to report on funds received.
At the same time, some government officials are deeply concerned that
improved coordination among their development partners will result in a
strong alliance that will make it even more difficult to pursue national objectives
that are not in accord with external agency priorities or preferences.
Working with each agency individually is preferable, they insist, because
that approach leaves the government greater room to maneuver, even to
the point of seeking support from another agency for activities one agency
has declined to fund. Similarly, agency officials are troubled when they discover
that two agencies are supporting similar activities, commissioning overlapping
studies, and recruiting technical assistance with the same expertise.
At the same time, some agency officials are sharply critical of the philosophy
or approach or expectations or style of other agencies and work hard to
distance their own work from that of other agencies whose activities they
do not respect or approve. In sum, both government and agency officials
periodically conclude that less coordination is better.
Not surprisingly, there is little consensus on the obstacles to improved
coordination. Funding and technical assistance agencies resist and indeed
impede coordination, we are told, because each wants to plant its national
flag, that is, claim clear, unequivocal, and public responsibility for particular
activities. The government resists and indeed impedes coordination, we are
told, because it prefers to deal with agencies individually, hoping to play
one against another.
There are, it seems to me, several implications here. First, improved coordination
among funding and technical assistance agencies is not necessarily
or automatically desirable. The level and forms of coordination that
best suit government and external agencies must be determined in specific
settings rather than generalized across Africa. Second, there may be
large benefits in small improvements in coordination and co-operation. It
may be possible, for example, to make progress toward common reporting
procedures without envisioning common (‘basket’) funding or even a single
standardized reporting format. Third, improved coordination will require
finding ways to continue to highlight and value the activities of
particular agencies. Ultimately, each agency must report to its parent government
and citizens on what the assistance it has provided, rather than
foreign aid in general, has accomplished. That is likely to become even
more important where governments become more conservative and where
economic boom is replaced by slow or no growth. Whatever forms it takes,
improved coordination will need to respect the unique roles and contributions
of each agency.