[Original post from 24/3/2014. Reposted for fun factor]
The journal Development Policy Review will publish in May my article on the types of aid donors and their impact on institutional change. It will have been a little over two years since I first presented the argument at the Midwest Political Science Association with the help of Conan of Cimmeria, Saruman the White, the Black Knight, and the criminal genius Vizzini. Continue reading Is your development agency Conan or Saruman?
Whenever I am in writing mode my mind makes strange leaps to justify a connection between work and fun. Take these two things: my fondness for DC Comics superheroes, and my work in international development. And here’s the leap: in this (recycled) post I argue – in a totally unscientific manner – that the international development community can reflect on its own potential and shortcomings through the lens of super-powered humans. Let me tell you how it works. Continue reading Is foreign aid more like Superman or Batman?
It turns out there are some things in life that will limit your online presence. Here are my excuses:
I want to write at some point about 2 in some detail. But right now I wanted to offer a little teaser about 3.
Earlier this year I finally submitted the full manuscript of my potential book Why We Lie About Aid: Development and the Messy Politics of Change to Zed Books. Then two months ago I received a really positive set of reviews and comments, including an actual endorsement for the back cover. I won’t reveal who wrote this just yet, but I will shamelessly copy here the reviewer’s opening words:
This is one of the most exciting books about development aid in many years: original and timely, closely argued and evidenced, and beautifully written.
I have finally managed to complete the revisions, and it is now up to the editor to give it a final green light. If everything goes well, we are talking about a February 2018 release date in paperback. Both ESID and GDI are super excited about it, so expect a bit of promotional work in the second half of this year.
As time goes by I will post here particularly juicy excerpts from the manuscript. For now I will only copy here the table of contents:
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: The theatrics of aid debates
Chapter 3: The banality of certainty
Chapter 4: The ugly politics of change
Chapter 5: The limits of donor influence
Chapter 6: The paradoxes of development diplomacy
Chapter 7: The struggle of thinking politically
Chapter 8: Understanding the messy politics of change
Chapter 9: Conclusion
Stay tuned for more previews.
It is now official: I am writing a book under contract with a publisher. Until the end of the year I will be posting updates and excerpts as I write it. But I can start today with the initial pitch:
Donor publics have been misled about the nature of development: for decades they have been told that it is about charity and technical fixes, when in fact it is as much about fights as our own policy-making is at home. Aid practitioners work in a world of struggles for reform, but they are forced to misrepresent and obfuscate the reality of development in order to comply with very restrictive and selective interpretations of principles like accountability, transparency, ownership or harmonisation. That is the dysfunctional aid system that we in donor countries have built, and then shackled with a discourse that mistakes short-term results for long-term transformation. A different approach is possible, and indeed has been quietly applied by innovative development practitioners around the world who provide political coverage for reformers or build coalitions that open up spaces for change. With real stories from aid practitioners in Britain, the US, Spain, Uganda, Honduras, Nigeria, Liberia, Rwanda and Ghana, this book explains what lies behind the much-criticized pathologies of aid, and challenges us to have a more honest conversation about development assistance.
La organización AidData ha publicado una encuesta de líderes y responsables públicos en países receptores de ayuda en la que se les pregunta si consideran que los donantes con los que trabajan son útiles, sirven de ayuda, o influyen sobre la agenda de desarrollo. El documento final está disponible online. Varios investigadores del Center for Global Development han decidido revisar los resultados en base al número de respuestas recibidos (por ejemplo, Luxemburgo aparece como el cuarto donante más útil, pero este resultado se basa solamente en 18 respuestas de un total de 6.731 participantes). Esta es una de las tablas revisadas por el CGD:
Esta semana ha aparecido en 3500 Millones un post mío que parece haber causado un poco de revuelo en la comunidad de cooperación al desarrollo en España. El argumento original era sobre especialistas vs generalistas; pero inevitablemente una de las interpretaciones ha sido funcionarios vs profesionales (un campo de minas en el que ya me adentraré más adelante). Entre las respuestas más ofendidas se cuenta una persona que decidió que mi idea era que solamente se trabajase en cooperación si se tiene un doctorado: se nota que no conoce a muchos académicos, que apenas pueden hacer funcionar sus propios departamentos! Y tampoco sabe lo cómodo que se está analizando desde fuera, en lugar de tener que lograr resultados en el mundo real. En fin: debate generado, misión cumplida.
Respecto al modelo británico como panacea… Tampoco hay que glorificar a nadie. Aunque por un lado acaban de aprobar una ley para cumplir el 0,7% en cooperación, y por otro son capaces de reírse de sí mismos así:
