Some perspectives on development

GRO WTH DYNAMICS: TRANSITIO NS IN YEARS AS A FUNCTIO N O F THE GRO WTH RATE

0

100

200

300

400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

GRO WTH RATE %

YEAR

S

POOR TO ADVANCED

POOR TO MIDDLEINCOME

Common CharacteristicsPolitics and Leadership

•Leadership, Governance, and Effective Government•Political leadership and effective, pragmatic and when needed activist governmentA focus on inclusive growth: combined with persistence and determinationWillingness to experiment, act in face of uncertainty about policy impacts, and avoid paralysisGovernment that acts in the interests of all the citizens of the country – as opposed to itself or subgroups

Where do we come from in development cooperation

•Start 1949: technical assistance through UNDP in Indonesia

Where are we now?

Full fledged programme with:

•Transfers of cash•Technical advice•NGO funding•Profit sector engagement•Multilateral financing•Knowledge build up•Debt relief• ….

How did we proceed?

• Thinking in development cooperation shifted, based on experience

To be distinghuished:– Role of donor– Role of partner– Paradigm

The real start: 1960’s

• Poor countries lacked financial, physical and human resources to catch up with developed countries.

• The gap analysis was the driving force for action

• A strong geographical feature in development thinking

After the start

• As from 1970 we can distinguish between different phases:– Basic needs: micro perspective strong– Structural adjustment: macro perspective strong– Human development: service delivery strong– Governance: ownership strong– Integrative approaches: security strong– Throughout: trade/aid balance shifting

4 typical programmes (1)

• 1970’s : countervailing power• Characteristic: the expert

Features:– Gap thinking– Purpose to build uip countervailing power– Technical advise– Modesty by donor

4 typical programmes (2)

• 1980’s: counterparts• Characteristic: social mobiliser

Features:– From gap to cooperation and exchange– Donorship– Island approaches– Focus shifted to constraints

4 typical programmes (3)

• 1990’s: ownership

• Characteristic: the advisor

Features:– Connectivity: linking micro, sector, macro– Sectorwide approaches– Governance focus

4 typical programmes (4)

• 2000: holistic, integrated approaches• Characteristic: security-development nexus

Features:– Defense, diplomacy, development– Accountability– Partnership– multitakeholder

Paradigm shifts (1)

• Gap thinking– investments

• Capacity building– technical assistance

• Social mobilisation – from power to governance

• Resolving constraints– technocratic solutions

Paradigm shifts (2)

• Donorship-ownership-partnership -conditionality

• Multistakeholder approaches – ngo’s and private sector

• Delivery modus to knowledge modus

• Scaling up

Policy shifts (1)

• Poverty at the core – shifting ideas what poverty is :issue-itis– DAC model of poverty with 5 dimensions

• Governance at the core– Public sector reform– Public finance management– Right based approaches

Policy shifts (2)

• From economic growth to service delivery and back again

• From governance to accountability

• From eonomic stability to governance stability

• From delivery to cooperation

• From development to aid and back again

Shifting approaches (1)

• Broadening– DAC poverty model– Aid + coherence isues + knowledge– Multiple stakeholders in donor and partner

countries– Channels for aid delivery: bilateral,

multilateral, civilateral and comercial

Shifting approaches (2)

• From solidarity to investment– Bussineslike approaches: contracts– Conditionality: from throughput conditions to

results conditions– Policy space: a new agenda of building trust– From technics to politics

Shifting approaches (3)

• From partner focus to donor focus– From projects to programmes: process

orientation– Paris agenda and Accra: results and evidence– Donor coordination: reducing costs only?– Trust in donor institutions diminishing– New grounds for multilateralism?

Some conclusions (1)

• Development is back into public debate

• Development is as much about ‘ them’ as about ‘ us’ .

• Shifting ideas, paradigms and approaches are a sign of learning, not of experimentation

• Development is a global interest

Some conclusions (2)

• How to organise poverty reduction as a global public good?

• Global public goods are affected by all public policies

• Coherence, knowledge and aid are intrinsinkly linked

• How to shift development thinking to the core of public policy making