My mind is quite a few places these days (including my upcoming series of posts!) but Jordan's comments do bring a few thoughts to mind.
1. "[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."
I found the paper online and skimmed it. I saw a few patterns that emerged. All five of the projects were started by local people (it seems like they were often fairly charismatic) either from a business or government background. I did not see any mention of IMF, World Bank, UN, USAID, etc. These successful initiatives were all by local people who had a vested interest in the outcome. We have similar business and political figures here in Canada. A politician who took on a particular cause as their own and really ran with it.
My point is that, at what point does standard entrepreneurship and governance become development work? I met a couple of expat businessmen in Tanzania who were helping "develop" the country simply through their industries. This is the case for lots of businesses in Africa. And similarly to the developed world - some fundamental components of our society (national parks, social services) can be traced back to individuals who championed a cause. So why are we surprised when that's how it works in other places as well?
2. My second thought comes from again from another way of achieving a proper fit. The last part of Jordan's post talks about how connected the planning process is to the ground. The triangle of program - organization - beneficiaries, the comments about using various subcontractors and finally the comment about the time involved for successful projects (20 years) all point to locally initiated endeavors. The only people who will really be able to understand the connections between the stakeholders, or who will plan and implement the process with sincerity and stick around to make sure things work out are those with a vested interest - ie local people. (And I would say that someone who has moved into a community and stayed for 20 years is pretty much a local.)
And the examples seem to back this up. The successful projects all had vast amounts of continuity compared to what we think of as development projects now-a-days. I wonder if this criteria alone would go a long way to mend what isn't working in our current development model. "All development workers and projects are expected to continue for a minimum of 10 years, usually 15 to 20." Ok, rereading that I realize that wouldn't solve everything but it would be interesting.
My only last comment is to read the one comment by I.:.S.:.http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif - that whole white flag comment strikes as quite appropriate. I wonder if, in the future, people will look back at North America as "winning" the during the 20th and 21st centuries.
Jordan, as usual, thanks for a very well thought out and professional line of thought.
For those who really want to read the report here is a open link to the paper:
References:
Korten, D. C. (1980). Community Organization and Rural Development: A Learning Process Approach. Public Administration Review, 480-511.
Finally, I hope we haven't lost all of our readers due to my slow responses. Over the next few posts I will try to approach development from the first world perspective. In other words, what progress and changes should we be trying to bring about in Europe, North America and the rest of the developed world in order to really qualify as "developed" and a target worthy of the rest of the world to shoot for.
Kurtis (in Waterloo)
No comments:
Post a Comment