“Early morning sunshine tells me all I need to know…”
When the Ramble was a student of development, way back in the day, one of the most frustrating things about study was the seemingly interminable timelag between breakthroughs in academia and their impact on policy making in the developing world. A widely deployed policy from one of the major multi-lateral organisations is proven in a number of journals, from the esoteric to the mainstream, to be a costly failure - but implementation continues for five, ten years before it is abandoned. It was the source of much gnashing of teeth and much wringing of hands. Other times, it might be that a growing body of work persuasively argues that a positive policy change, for example towards consolidating farmholdings, has beneficial effects. Yet, the policy isn’t implemented or even discussed at the level that matters, the practical level, for years.
Why this inertia? Partly, of course, it has to do with people; new ideas take time before they become wider currency. When people stake their reputations on the realisation of a policy they have been championing, they resist pressures to abandon these ideas for new ones. Even when the pressure tells, it takes time to wind up policies and implement new ones. The other major reason is quite simple: most people who have worked in a civil service can tell you that the mixture of fire-fighting and large projects tends to consume your working day, and for many of us, spills out even to those days when you really shouldn’t be working. As a result, it’s very difficult to keep abreast of the latest happenings in the Journal of Peasant Studies or Development Policy Review.
This is frustrating on a number of levels. A lot of what academia is producing in this field is immediately and directly relevant to the work we do in Government, and the more conversant we are with recent publications the more effectively we can argue our viewpoints with donors. Even if, like me, you think the best economics of transition was done in the 19th Century, you need to keep on top of things – much of the most interesting development economics these days is revisiting old ideas in new contexts.
* * *
This isn’t a completely random rant. Recently, we’ve been dealing a lot with donors who are in the process of developing their assistance strategies for Malawi. These strategies govern the spending patterns of donors for a multi-year period, and their formulation should involve significant Government input.
Looking over some of these programmes of work, you rarely feel that any individual projects are ill-advised, but you struggle to see the unifying theory, the vision that underpins these programmes of work. Of course all of these documents, like all strategies these days have ‘vision statements’ and ‘narratives’, but beyond trite sloganeering (‘eradicating poverty in a sustainable manner, through gender-sensitive policy making’ and the like) it can be difficult to spot a rigorous theoretical framework. Such frameworks are often agreed and produced by the central office of a donor, but these are not really translated to individual countries in a meaningful way. Most donors are now, rightly, taking the lead from Government when planning their activities. It thus falls to Government to provide the coherent theoretical framework underpinning development policy. And when Government tries to do this, politics is as important as evidence and logical reasoning.
Which brings us neatly back to academia – work which attempts to look at economic growth and transformation in isolation from politics and the social makeup of a country are never really going to capture the reality of development. So policy-makers really need to keep up with the latest in academic work to criticise and introduce a dose of realism to augment the good work many people are devoting significant periods of time to.
* * *
Yes, I know I’m late again. More car trouble. Will elaborate another time. In the meantime, a little patience, and please excuse my shoddy grammar and any inconsistencies until I proof read this post.
Why this inertia? Partly, of course, it has to do with people; new ideas take time before they become wider currency. When people stake their reputations on the realisation of a policy they have been championing, they resist pressures to abandon these ideas for new ones. Even when the pressure tells, it takes time to wind up policies and implement new ones. The other major reason is quite simple: most people who have worked in a civil service can tell you that the mixture of fire-fighting and large projects tends to consume your working day, and for many of us, spills out even to those days when you really shouldn’t be working. As a result, it’s very difficult to keep abreast of the latest happenings in the Journal of Peasant Studies or Development Policy Review.
This is frustrating on a number of levels. A lot of what academia is producing in this field is immediately and directly relevant to the work we do in Government, and the more conversant we are with recent publications the more effectively we can argue our viewpoints with donors. Even if, like me, you think the best economics of transition was done in the 19th Century, you need to keep on top of things – much of the most interesting development economics these days is revisiting old ideas in new contexts.
* * *
This isn’t a completely random rant. Recently, we’ve been dealing a lot with donors who are in the process of developing their assistance strategies for Malawi. These strategies govern the spending patterns of donors for a multi-year period, and their formulation should involve significant Government input.
Looking over some of these programmes of work, you rarely feel that any individual projects are ill-advised, but you struggle to see the unifying theory, the vision that underpins these programmes of work. Of course all of these documents, like all strategies these days have ‘vision statements’ and ‘narratives’, but beyond trite sloganeering (‘eradicating poverty in a sustainable manner, through gender-sensitive policy making’ and the like) it can be difficult to spot a rigorous theoretical framework. Such frameworks are often agreed and produced by the central office of a donor, but these are not really translated to individual countries in a meaningful way. Most donors are now, rightly, taking the lead from Government when planning their activities. It thus falls to Government to provide the coherent theoretical framework underpinning development policy. And when Government tries to do this, politics is as important as evidence and logical reasoning.
Which brings us neatly back to academia – work which attempts to look at economic growth and transformation in isolation from politics and the social makeup of a country are never really going to capture the reality of development. So policy-makers really need to keep up with the latest in academic work to criticise and introduce a dose of realism to augment the good work many people are devoting significant periods of time to.
* * *
Yes, I know I’m late again. More car trouble. Will elaborate another time. In the meantime, a little patience, and please excuse my shoddy grammar and any inconsistencies until I proof read this post.
posted by the Maradona of Malawi at 10:43 PM
