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

era are a case in point. They could be carried out over a long period of time,
be very complicated and full of conflicting arguments – a real dialogue. I
personally many times issued instructions to the Swedish representatives
for such discussions. But what we wrote down was one thing – the reality
something totally different. Sometimes issues were brought up that we
couldn’t find a solution to. The delegates then had to return to Stockholm,
find new solutions and receive new instructions in time for the final negotiations
based on a government mandate. At that time, questions should
have been cleared, but that was not always the case. The term ‘dialogue’
seems a bit idyllic – it should probably rather be called a discussion on the
content of the aid package.
HFJ: What we are really interested in is a dialogue where donors can
present their ideas on development and poverty reduction strategies but
where it is left to the partner country to judge these, put forward their own
ideas and make their own decisions – including designing national poverty
strategies that are to their liking. This is extremely difficult in practice. On
the one hand donors have quite definite ideas about what is conducive to
poverty reduction and what should therefore be included in PRSPs, and on
the other hand partners are in dire need of our money in order to do what
they themselves think is necessary. In the light of this asymmetric relationship
and in the light of capacity shortages and our partners’ need for time to
internalise new ideas, it is perhaps particularly important for us donors to
show restraint in this dialogue and curb our urge to push what we see as
good ideas.
GBA: In order to carry out a dialogue, all parties have to acquire certain
basic knowledge adapted to the specific situation of each case. As donors,
we continuously have to develop our capacity for analysis in order to better
understand the world, relations between people as well as the development
process. In order to do this, we have to broaden our work on policies and
strategies. The Swedish Foreign Ministry is at present following up on its
policies towards Africa. Important tools in this process are the international
work on norms and strategies brought up in connection with UN conferences
on different important issues. Preparing these conferences, all countries
(developed as well as developing) work together, creating a common
understanding on central issues. I see this multilateral work, which lately has
been supplemented by the extensive development work within the European
Union, as central for improving development in all countries. This
process creates a jointly owned value system as well as ways to analyse and
understand how development is going to be tackled. It’s a base when we
get to the dialogue on more mundane and practical issues. Also, with this
kind of preparation, we create legitimacy. When we get into any development
discussion – or dialogue – we can legitimate our issues by referring to
joint understandings, built on agreed norms and conventions within the
fields of, for example, human rights, rights of the child or environmental
59