Meet the consumer today's business needs to targe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Parliamentary BriefDevelopment could bemuch more effectiveif we started to thinkoutside of the boxCurrent approaches to effective aidassume that we are in control andthat change is predictable. Neitheris true, but such assumptions are blockingdonors from responding effectively to alargely unpredictable and dynamic policyenvironment. New ways of thinking aboutaid are now needed to make it more effective.International aid agencies have got stuckon a treadmill of a certain way of thinkingwhere the emphasis is on technical mechanismsof resources and architecture. A solefocus on these may render invisible possibleand useful approaches that, if recognised,could be nurtured and strengthened.Addressing power as central to aidrelationships allows for serious critical examinationof the organisational cultures andpractices that shape expectations of whatinternational aid can and should do. Relationalpower produces perverse consequencesin which the orthodox perspective confirmspreviously-held convictions.Evidence is sought to check that one isstill on track, not to ask whether there areother tracks. Alternative ways of understandingand tackling problems are ignored ordismissed as irrelevant. The choice of indicatorsis too often assumed to be just a technicalmatter. Power influences whose ideas countand what is deemed a ‘result’.Once this is recognised, opportunitiescan be opened up for dialogue and learning;aid becomes more effective once donorslook for and appreciate diverse perspectives.Governments and multilateral organisationscan improve the success of their aid relationshipsthrough adaptive learning, recognisingdiverse realities experienced by others and theexistence of political relationships in whichinternational aid is embedded.Aid can be more effective if factors suchas trust and relationships that recognise andaddress issues of power are taken into accountRosalind Eyben— in addition to the technical. For example,according to a UN official cited in a recentpaper, many of her agency’s most effectivecountry level interventions are those thathave not been reported because these wereconcerned with investing in relationshipsrather than achieving the kind of outcomesthat get included in logical frameworks.Perhaps aid is only as effective as it isbecause of what is today not going reported.How many opportunities are we missing formaking aid work better?Donors need to think about how power isoperating in everyday practice. For example,even in an international aid conference, theway in which the conference is designed, howdiversity is recognised and responded to andthe processes that can generate exclusion inthe room unless specifically addressed. Suchcritical reflection costs nothing and can starttomorrow.The following four steps do not requireany additional resources or re-arrangementsof development’s institutional architecture.These are simple low cost steps to more effectiveaid.1. Donors need to learn more about theparticular context in which they are working.What works in one place, may not work inanother or even in the same place at a differentmoment in history or with a differentgroup of donors. Such learning is becominga practical challenge for many donor staff,whose time is spent in donor co-ordinationmeetings or in reporting to their ownmanagement. Staff and their governmentcounterparts need to re-organise their time toget out of the capital city and listen to whatpeople tell them.2. Diverse perspectives need to be builtinto methodologies for defining and assessingthe success of aid. While there are someobvious arguments for better co-ordinationand more efficient use of resources, a balancehas to be struck between this and encouragingdiverse points of view for solving complexproblems.Both consensus and contestation aredrivers of pro-poor change. If the formerdominates, there may be a tendency to lookonly for a single diagnosis and solution, thusshutting out the possibilities of creative dialogueand the collaborative challenging ofimplicit assumptions about how the worldworks that hampers innovation and constrainsimagination.3. In addition to measuring results,donors need to assess the quality of relationsat project/programme, country and internationallevels against indicators agreed withpartners that could be regularly reviewedand widely commented upon. Because anemphasis on performance measurement canlead to mutual risk-adverse behaviour, compensatoryprocess indicators might include‘preparedness to take risks’, ‘embracing andlearning from failure’ and ‘willingness tochange one’s mind’.Such assessments could be supportedby country specific studies to bring to lightthe way relationships are managed and thelessons that can be learnt. Such studies willmake visible processes that may be reinforcingexisting power relations and thushindering the effectiveness of aid resourcesand instruments.4. Aid agencies need to develop thecompetences of staff in organisational andpersonal self-awareness, to develop soundunderstanding of the power, position andbiases they hold in relation to others. Powerhas an adverse effect when we impose ourown point of view. Alternative ways of understandingand tackling problems are ignoredor dismissed as irrelevant; those putting themforward feel disempowered and will drop outof the conversation. Organisational and individualcritical self-reflection delivers benefitsfor donors as well as the others they seek tohelp. Like them, donors also will learn andthink differently, to imagine new possibilitiesand to debate alternative choices.Rosalind Eyben has been a Fellow at the UKInstitute of Development Studies since 2002,after a long and varied career as an international aid practitioner and policy analyst,including serving as the first Chief Social Development Adviser for the UK’s Department forInternational Development. She has authored a number of publications on the internationalaid system including Relationships for Aid published by Earthscan in 2006.16OCTOBER 2008
Parliamentary BriefEight years ago we could never have imagined whatthe world would be like today. So how can we knowwhat it will be like in 2015?Half-way to what?Andy SumnerThinking back one or two years, whowould have predicted the currentturmoil in global markets for finance,food and fuel? Thinking back further, whowould have imagined the spread of theInternet, the collapse of the Soviet block orthe post-9/11 world?So what are our chances of predictingthe world in 2015? Not great but we cansay something. The current pace of globalchange is accelerating and creating bothchallenges and opportunities. There are somemajor global and regional transformativeprocesses and emerging issues the characterof which is marked above all by increasedinter-dependence between the North andSouth and East and West.Commentators have noted the tendencyof these to destabilize existing livelihoods,unravel social fabrics, create conflict andexclusion as well as disrupt internationalmarkets. These processes are also reinforcingthe diversity in what was once the‘Third World’: at one end of the spectrumthere is a group of accelerated developersin the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India andChina), the BRICETS (Eastern Europeand Turkey) and the Goldmans Sachs N11(the next countries expected to experiencefast economic growth). At the other endof the spectrum there are the 50-60 countriestermed LICUS (Low Income CountryUnder Stress) that might be classified as‘fragile states’.Distinctions between developed anddeveloping worlds are also changing— China is forecast to have overtaken theUnited States as the world’s largest economyby 2015, with India not far behind. Parts ofGlasgow have lower life expectancies thanSub-Saharan Africa. Four of the world’srichest billionaires are Indian. Many policyissues are common to countries at differentlevels of economic or social development.This increased global interconnectednessis expressing itself in a growing varietyof ways such as volatility in global markets(especially food, fuel and credit), climatechange, natural resources, technology(notably ICTs and industrial bio-fuels) andterrorism and security. The net outcomeof these is rapid and widespread change tolifestyles and livelihoods and potentially anincrease in conflict over resources and largescalenational and international migratorymovements.The MDGs have played a major role infocusing policy since their original incarnationin the 1990s and some bilateralagencies, notably the UK’s Department forInternational Development, have gone asfar as to judge the value of all their activitiesOCTOBER 2008 17
Page 2 and 3: W E S T I N G H O U S E H A S S O M
Page 4 and 5: BRUCE JENKSSet by world leaders in
Page 7 and 8: Parliamentary BriefWhatmust bedone
Page 9 and 10: Parliamentary BriefPhoto left: Adam
Page 11 and 12: Parliamentary BriefHORSESFORCOURSES
Page 13 and 14: Parliamentary BriefBig business has
Page 15: the private sector is ready to enga
Page 19 and 20: Parliamentary BriefJane NelsonIn 19
Page 21 and 22: Parliamentary BriefLearning to live
Page 23 and 24: When thepoor don’tpay butthere is
Page 25 and 26: Parliamentary Briefing the obstacle
Page 27 and 28: Parliamentary BriefOver the past ye
Page 29 and 30: We cannotchange theworld.But we do
Page 31 and 32: Parliamentary BriefStop the Traffik

Meet the consumer today's business needs to targe

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?