UN-NGLS Publications: Development Dossier

One of the questions which may arise has to do with evaluation, and poverty. What has been said thus far is all very well, but it says nothing of poverty, of the eradication-or at least alleviation-of poverty; and surely this, after all, is the whole thrust of the development endeavour. Development interventions are ultimately about reducing poverty, are they not? So it's all very well making fine points about the development process, but how does this relate to people's needs, and how can we claim that "the evaluation of development interventions must take place against the background of the specific development process which has been intervened into", rather than in terms of whether it has made any material difference in people's circumstances? What does it help that "people gain an understanding of themselves" if we have not been able to improve their material circumstances?

We could reply that, after decades of conventional development practice which has been governed by this economistic perspective, the levels of poverty in our world-as economically defined-have increased rather than decreased.

We could also say-as indeed we have already-that helping people gain an understanding of themselves is done in order that "they are better able to take control of their own future and to themselves arrive at effective solutions to questions, problems and concerns, including economic and political marginalisation".

We could say too that there are many ways to combat poverty, or achieve political change, but not all of them are particularly or specifically developmental. Whilst the political activist and economic reformer may play roles of incalculable value, and whilst development practitioners may also choose to play these roles as well as their own, nevertheless these are all different ways of dealing with poverty, and not all of them leave people in a better position to move with confidence into their own future. In other words, while the reduction of poverty may certainly feature prominently in judgments on development interventions, it cannot be the only measure, and indeed, it may at times be an inaccurate measure.

So we could use all these arguments, and in fact we do, but in a sense, despite their validity, they are slightly beside the point; at least beside one of the major points which emerges from this kind of discussion of development. And this is that the material, economistic perspective on poverty is only one way of framing the subject, and a culturally specific one at that. Put another way, there are many forms of poverty, economic poverty being only one of these. And the question arises as to how much "other" poverty we create when our goal is narrowly defined as the alleviation of economic poverty. When all values are subsumed to the economic, as they increasingly are, particularly within a conventional development paradigm, how much do we lose with respect to social values, to artistic values, to cultural and language diversity, to biodiversity? We must surely recognise by now that the world we are creating with our fixation on the economic is becoming immeasurably poorer with respect to everything which lives outside of the economic.

And the reason that the three arguments mentioned previously are slightly beside the point is because the general fixation on the economic creates another, much more insidious, type of poverty-lack of choice. Increasingly, people are being expected to toe the economic line, and freedom to choose "other", to opt for culturally different priorities, is frowned upon as in some sense deviant. In this sense we are all being co-opted towards the creation of our own poverty, in the name of poverty alleviation!

Yet a real development practice, the efficacy of development interventions, must be judged on other grounds. People-centred development is about increasing, not decreasing, choice. If it is about enabling people to become more conscious, to understand themselves and their context such that they are better able to take control of their own future, if it "must leave people in more control of their circumstances, whatever those may be, and not subservient to those circumstances, however advantageous these may be", then it cannot narrowly define itself as poverty alleviation in the conventional sense.

Therefore judgments on the efficacy of specific development interventions, while they must include the element of (conventionally defined) poverty alleviation, must also go beyond, and "take place against the background of the specific development process which has been intervened into". The development endeavour is about poverty alleviation, yes, but in a much wider sense than is currently acknowledged. Development interventions, surely, should not result in a reduction of the world, but in an increase of possibilities.

Given all that has been said above, the question emerges as to how then one actually apprehends development, and the development process. Earlier in the text we have, on a number of occasions, referred to the idea of "reading development". We would like here to elaborate this concept.

Conventionally, we have learned not to intervene until we have done a needs assessment, or a needs analysis; until we have done an inventory, or an audit; until, through questionnaires or more participatory techniques we have ascertained the parameters of a situation. These methods, and the information they are intended to elicit, remain valid and relevant, but are not sufficient. "Reading development" implies something more.

CDRA's experience in capacity-building, with respect to organisation, community and individual development, has yielded a certain perspective on capacity, which is our entry point into understanding this concept of "reading". We will summarise briefly.

From our work with organisations-which is our starting point-we ascertained a number of elements which must be present and coherent for an organisation to be said to have capacity, or to be effective. These are-arranged sequentially in a hierarchy of importance-the following:
--    A conceptual framework which reflects the organisation's understanding of the world;
--    An organisational "attitude" which incorporates the confidence to act in and on the world in a way that the
       organisation believes can be effective and have an impact, and an acceptance of responsibility for the social
       and physical conditions "out there";
--    Clear organisational vision and strategy, and sense of purpose and will, which flows out of the understanding
       and responsibility mentioned previously;
--    Defined and differentiated organisational structures and procedures which reflect and support vision and
       strategy;
--    Relevant individual skills, abilities and competencies;
--    Sufficient and appropriate material resources.

We have subsequently, both through our own work as well as in dialogue with other development practitioners
working in many different areas, affirmed that this hierarchy of importance holds its validity, although with slightly different slants and angles, across community and individual capacity as well.

The aspect of this hierarchy which is relevant to our discussion here is this. That if you look towards the bottom of the hierarchy, you will see those things which are quantifiable, measurable, elements of capacity which can be easily grasped and worked with. They belong to the realm of material things, easily assessed and quantified; they belong to the realm of the visible. If however, we turn our attention to the top of the hierarchy, we enter immediately an entirely different realm, the realm of the invisible. The elements at the top of the hierarchy are ephemeral, transitory, not easily assessed or weighed. They are to a large extent intangible, observable only through the effects they have. It is these aspects which by and large determine capacity.

To this we must add two further points. First, that while every individual or grouping may share similar features, nevertheless each is unique, both in itself and in terms of its stage of development, and this uniqueness demands unique, singular and specifically different responses. And second, while the framework presented above may adequately describe the elements of capacity and even the order of their acquisition, it cannot predict or determine change processes, which are complex, ambiguous and often contradictory.

"Reading development", then, apprehending the particular dynamics of an individual's or grouping's development trajectory or process, given that so much of it lies beneath the surface, veiled and continuously mutating, demands far more than the kinds of techniques we have become used to, for these are only designed to elicit the material, the tangible. In reality, one needs intelligence, acuity, mobility and penetrating perception to be able to read the particular nature of a specific developmental process. The development practitioner needs genuine observation and listening skills, and the ability to combine an open and non-judgemental approach with enough understanding to make sense of, and draw insight out of, what one is observing. We need to take the time, and have the flexibility, to read specific situations in this way in order to design appropriate and necessarily transitory (necessarily because the individual or grouping being worked with will develop beyond a particular intervention as a result of the effectiveness of that intervention) interventions based on such intelligent reading. A reading of development must remain supple, subtle and nuanced; it must be iterative and gradual; it must be reflective and reflexive. We must penetrate, but softly, so that we can intuit underlying movements; and do so in such a way that the individual or grouping is itself enabled to come to such awareness and understanding.

Such capacities, such competencies, are new abilities which we as development practitioners need to develop-they are not skills in which we can be trained. The conventional development paradigm sees only skills in which practitioners can be trained-along the lines of engineers or technicians. The alternative development perspective demands a more developmental approach to building the capacity of its practitioners; it demands the original skills but adds abilities which may perhaps-by way of contrast-be described by analogy as artistic.

This ability to read is therefore not to be gained on training programmes, although these may provide a useful starting point. This set of abilities must be achieved gradually, through guided reflection on action, through facilitated self-critique, through mentoring and sharing with peers, through observing one's own development and through learning to make use of alternative modes of description in order to penetrate beyond-metaphors, similes, images and narrative. Developmental readings cannot be obtained within the cold and dry parameters of the conventional reporting format; warmer and more human forms must be developed, to support the reading itself.

Given all the implications drawn out of an alternative perspective on development practice, the final area to which we must make reference concerns the management of such a practice. This will also lead us to address the question of the development project, which is a management tool which we have criticised as being "the repository of all that is wrong with conventional development practice, and the greatest stumbling block to effective development interventions". If this is indeed the case, then what would we recommend to replace it?

We will not go into detail here with respect to alternative management methodologies and tools, as these must be created for specific organisational circumstances and needs. What we will concern ourselves with here are some indications as to the principles and attitudes which may guide our understanding of what constitutes good managerial practice for a new form of development.

If we are looking for a responsive development practice which is able to build appropriate and flexible interventions in accordance with nuanced and subtle readings, in a context fraught with ambiguity and uncertainty and continuous change, then a number of things follow. First, you have to develop effective development practitioners, practitioners who do not work out of books or project manuals, practitioners who do not "work primarily out of the specifications of the world from which they have been sent" but rather "out of an accurate and sensitive reading of the particular situation with which they are faced". And this does not mean training them in new techniques, but fostering their development through guided reflection on action, facilitated self-critique, mentoring, peer reviews, and so on-all already mentioned above. (Already, you see, most management practices, judged simply by this first guideline, will be found wanting.)

Second, they must be allowed the space to be creative with respect to their styles of "reading", their styles of reporting, their methods of facilitation (and yes, this applies to donor programme officers as well). Of course, this plays havoc with bureaucratic organisational styles, and requires a very fluid and responsive form of management. One which is simultaneously very "hands-on" and "hands-off". Rigorously "present", although with a very light touch. This is very different from the conventional. But how can we possibly expect a management style which is different from the form of development practice which it is attempting to manage?

Third, the supervision of these development practitioners, holding them accountable, must take a form which is different from the conventional "judgment by objectives" type of management. Of course, these criteria must be fulfilled; we have to know that the job is being done. But if the reading of development is what we have described it to be, if the evaluation of development interventions is as specific and nuanced as we have indicated, then supervision of the development practitioner is complex and intense. It requires, above all, that within the organisation as a whole, and between development practitioners, and between them and their managers, and between the managers themselves, a continuous conversation is kept alive, a striving to consciousness and awareness by the organisation and amongst its many parts. This kind of conversation can take many forms, some of which may be informal (which will be dependent on the fostering of the appropriate organisational culture), some of which may be formal and structured, following set procedures (presentations of case studies, group discussions around particular programmes, and so on); but such ongoing conversation constitutes the heart of appropriate management practice for development.

Fourth, and following from the above, management must be geared to ensure that the organisation is learning all the time, that it is open and flexible, guided by principle rather than by technique or methodology, by experience and practice rather than by academic theory or ad hoc fashion, by its own understanding rather than by its "back donors". Management has to ensure that organisational reflection and learning are not "add ons", not something done in addition to the real work, but in fact constitute the real work itself.

Fifth, and perhaps most important, responsibility and authority must be decentralised, devolved to the outer limits of the organisation, to as great an extent as possible. Frequently development practitioners, or fieldworkers, are marginalised due to the fact that they work on the periphery of the organisation, while power tends to concentrate in the centre. A responsive and flexible development practice can only be achieved by the organisation which has responsive and flexible practitioners out there, in the (development) field, reading the development process of its clients/counterparts and facilitating responsive interventions. To achieve this, power must move to the periphery. There are various methods for effecting this; suffice to say here that the first four points mentioned above are prerequisites for this kind of managerial stance.

So what of the ubiquitous and infamous "development project"? For the rest of us, we are entirely constrained by donor practice; until it changes, we have little freedom to choose. So far as donors themselves are concerned, we have regarded them throughout these discussions-as we do in our practice generally-as being development practitioners, along with the rest of us, albeit practitioners who provide a very particular development intervention. For them-although not only for them-the need for financial controls remains paramount. It may be difficult to imagine control being exercised outside the boundary of the project, although moves towards "programmes", or towards organisational rather than project funding, will help, and are not difficult to effect. More flexible methods, which will still satisfy the bookkeepers, can certainly be found if the organisational will is there. But the truth is more profound-and (perhaps) even less believable. If the five indications for an appropriate developmental management practice already mentioned are taken seriously by donors as well, then the development project will gradually metamorphose of its own accord, to be replaced by a form which we cannot clearly imagine at present. Which, indeed, is a perfect manifestation of a central aspect of the development process itself-that we first have to let go of the old before we can hope to take on the new, let alone quite know what it will be.