Learning to fit in

A paper came out in 2002, after the latest invasion/intervention in Afghanistan was already under way, reflecting on the reasons why mainstream development projects, the ones with billions of dollars behind them, are still planned and managed in much the same way they have been for the past 50 years (Barakat & Chard, 2002). The paper chronicles how best practices in project design and management developed in the 80s have been repeatedly ‘rediscovered’, updated and ignored.

The Marshall Plan, that famous ‘injection’ of cash into the battered Japanese and German economies after World War 2 was based on a particular economic theory, planned and put into action. It was massive, quick and remarkably effective.  Before long the German and Japanese economic machines were running again and within 40 years they had achieved what looked like a development miracle going from their economic death-beds to being members of the global economic elite.  Wow!

Development planners in the 40s and 50s treated development like a natural science.  They developed a theory, then conceived a plan around that theory and implemented it.  Economic development was assumed to follow laws and proceed in a predictable, linear fashion, regardless of the context.  As long as the rules were followed, certain results were to be expected.

It seems ‘we’ are still running development that way despite considerable advances in sociology, anthropology and planning theory.

In 1980, David Korten published a paper proposing a novel planning method.  He called it the Learning Process Approach.  He based his theory on lessons learned from at least 5 highly successful rural development projects in Asian countries.  These projects were started by visionary individuals within developing countries. Korten identified two core elements of these projects that contributed to their long term success. 

The first element was fit (Figure 2).  Korten highlights the importance of fit between program (the set of plans or projects being implemented), organization (the one implementing the program, providing resources and management) and the beneficiaries (those intended to benefit from the program). It should be obvious that fit between these three elements of a project is a fundamental requirement for success.  But a quick read of the news coming out of Afghanistan and Iraq over the past decade will make it obvious that fit, if even considered in the first place, is very difficult to achieve and not just in conflict-affected countries.

(Korten 1980:495)

Another aspect of fit that should come as no surprise is that it may well take time to achieve fit and that the requirements for fit may change over time.  Thus the organization that learns how to learn and makes learning an organizational priority is much more likely to achieve fit in the long-run.

An organization that subcontracts someone to write a project plan, then, when the consultant has long gone, attempts to implement the plan by subcontracting the execution of it to someone else, is unlikely to learn anything about fit.  But that’s the way a lot of the development projects in Afghanistan and Iraq, and some parts of Pakistan, are being carried out at present – 30 years after Korten published his paper.

If fit is achieved and sustained then a project is likely to proceed through 3 stages  (Figure 4).

(ibid: 400)

Stage 1 involves learning to be effective, stage 2, learning to be efficient and stage 3 learning to expand.  These three phases are self-explanatory.  Transition between phases requires visionary, risk-taking, humble leadership and the whole process can take a lot of time, maybe 20 years.  This is a far cry from the 3-5 year project cycles still in wide use in development.

This is not to say that the learning process approach is fool-proof.  It is clearly a risky endeavour.  And there are projects where the blueprint approach (the mainstream approach described above) is appropriate  (large scale infrastructure projects, for example). The point I’m trying to make is that, especially in conflict-affected countries, billions of dollars are being thrown at ill-fitting, ineffective, unsustainable programming.  My question is, even if the only concern driving these billions is the security and peace-of-mind of middle class Americans and Brits, wouldn't it make more sense to invest the time to learn how to be effective development practitioners, learning together with project beneficiaries over the long term?

References:

Barakat, S., & Chard, M. (2002). Theories, rhetoric and practice: Recovering the capacities of war-torn societies. Third World Quarterly, 23(5), 817-835

Korten, D. C. (1980). Community Organization and Rural Development: A Learning Process Approach. Public Administration Review, 480-511.