"Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the mounth" - M. Tyson

Source:

http://www.moninoaviation.com/g7.html

Planning and Managing Development. This is the title of one of my courses (modules) for term 2 (which started on Monday, January 31, 2011) – it’s also the subject of the last few chapters in Small is Beautiful. Assuming we know what development is (and this, as Kurt and I have shown is a grand assumption), this module looks at ways in which it can be planned and managed.

The idea that we can plan anything should be met with some skepticism. After all, we have no idea what the future holds – none whatsoever. We can look backward and see how things have happened.  We can observe patterns and cycles from the past and make statements such as: “barring this or that, we expect such and such to occur in the future...” In a highly controlled environment, such as that of the chemistry lab, we can make very accurate predictions about what will happen if we follow certain steps.  And we can make up procedures that, if followed correctly will very likely always produce the same result in the future. But what about in the world of human development, can we extrapolate our experiences from the natural sciences to the worlds of economic and social development?

I say we can’t.  And I wonder that the same people, who jumped up and down with glee when it was ‘proved’ in 1989 that centrally planned economies can never work, had been in the business of centrally planning the economies of developing countries for years. Finally they too had to admit that their version of central planning didn’t work either.  And out went structural adjustment programs. To be sure, the International Financial Institutions have not altered course drastically, only slightly – still holding onto the basic idea that if only the market or the government or participation can be ‘got right’ struggling economies and millions of poor people can get ahead in the world.

Source: 

http://www.polyp.org.uk/cartoons/democracy/polyp_cartoon_IMF_Structural_Adjustment.jpg

In terms of planning development, maybe we can look to the past to find patterns that can be replicated. But looking to the development histories of countries like the UK and Canada, there is no pattern that emerges, no formula, no central plan that our forefathers pulled out of the air and set about to implement. No, what occurred in changing Britton from a feudal mess of mass poverty, huge inequality and low life expectancy into the prosperous nation it is today was a messy, unplanned, often unfair, sometimes bloody, always unpredictable process of social evolution.

But that said, Kurt and I are both doing these degrees so we can be involved, in some way, in the planning of projects we think will help other people get somewhat closer to the standard of living we enjoy (I don’t like to say it like, but I think it’s true at one level). So, do we think we can do it better, find another way beyond the standard Development model for top-down planning of big projects employing ‘best practices’.

I think so. But I don’t yet presume to know how.  Attempts at what was called ‘process planning’ (in the 1980s) prove that non-linear planning is fraught with difficulty. It involves very long time-frames (like 20 years, not 5), committed staff, willing to put their professionalist pride aside and see project stakeholders as equal contributors, a messy, unpredictable learning cycle, full of surprises. Process planning involves planning to work yourself out of a job.  It’s not glamorous, it might not pay that well and it will probably mean that you (the planner) will learn as much as the stakeholder, if not more (Bond and Hulme 1999).  It means treating poor people like human beings.

Jordan (Manchester)

Reference:

Bond, R. & Hulme, D. (1999) ‘Process Approaches to Development: Theory and Sri Lankan Practice’, World Development, 27(8), pp.1339-1358.