Leni Wild :
2015 is an important year, as U.N. member states gather to agree a new set of international development goals.
But projections based on current rates of progress show that for many poor people, the question is not whether they will have access to basic things such as access to primary health or education or adequate sanitation by 2015 or even 2030, but by 2090 or even later.
For example, in Kenya – one of sub-Saharan Africa’s fastest growing economies – it will take almost five generations to achieve complete sanitation coverage. In Ghana, another county that has experienced recent high economic growth, there is a 76-year gap between when the richest and the poorest are projected to have access to a skilled health professional – well over two generations.
Our new report, “Adapting Development – Improving Services to the Poor,” is therefore calling for a different approach to development to ensure further and faster progress.
We highlight three ways development organizations can support doing development differently.
1. Be politically smart and problem driven: This means tracking down problems, avoiding ready-made solutions and understanding what is politically feasible and possible.
In Nigeria, the U.K. Department for International Development has supported the State Accountability and Voice Initiative. Unlike traditional “demand-side” programs, SAVI chose not to provide grants to civil society but rather to identify specific problems (such as disability access in Lagos and control of corruption in Jigawa) and to build genuine partnerships of like-minded and reform-committed actors, from government and outside government, to take action on these problems.
2. Be adaptive and entrepreneurial: Because many development problems are complex and uncertain, allowing for cycles of doing, failing, adapting and (eventually) getting better results is key.
In a short film that accompanies the report, we document how three entrepreneurial activists, with assistance from international nongovernmental organization The Asia Foundation, were able to support significant reform, resulting in a 1,400 percent increase in residential land titling, and helping the poorest who had previously risked losing their properties. This was achieved through an entrepreneurial approach – one which tried multiple options, eventually ending support to ideas that had less promise and focusing on those that got traction.
3. Take action that is locally led: Change is ultimately best led by those who are close to the problem and who have the greatest stake in its solutions, whether this is central or local government officials, civil society or private sector groups, or communities themselves. While ownership and participation are often namechecked in development, this has rarely resulted in change that is genuinely driven by individuals and groups with the power to influence the problem and find solutions.
In Malawi, we highlight an example from Plan’s community scorecard program, which built capacity for local problem-solving and greater support for collective action. It facilitated groups to come together and find solutions for problems, such as teacher housing initiatives, which are problem driven, adaptive and locally led; and financial and other support that is fit for purpose.
There are already examples of aid support that aims to be more flexible and adaptive, and to bring more learning to its approach. DfID’s Better Delivery agenda is a promising attempt to mainstream some of this across an agency too. Yet it is still not the norm for much development practice.
First, attempts to do more adaptive programming should start with those problems where “learning by doing” is the best option – where outcomes are uncertain or unpredictable, where solutions are unknown.
Second, it requires donors to be facilitators rather than managers of these processes – and this means the role of intermediaries or implementers is key. Having the right people and groups who can broker and support locally led action is a necessity and requires careful identification and assessment.
Third, it means supporting a “learning culture” within development agencies – creating space for strategy testing, being open and honest when failures occur, and being incentivized to be adaptive when needed. This requires a more open and honest debate on the role of aid and development with the public too, and an explicit refocusing on how aid works, not the total volume spent.
Finally, doing development differently needs a renewed but changed focus on results. It means not only tracking Millennium Development Goal-style outcomes but better monitoring of those changes in process that are most effective in improving outcomes too. Measures of how adaptive or locally led aid programs are would be a good start.
2015 is an important year, as U.N. member states gather to agree a new set of international development goals.
But projections based on current rates of progress show that for many poor people, the question is not whether they will have access to basic things such as access to primary health or education or adequate sanitation by 2015 or even 2030, but by 2090 or even later.
For example, in Kenya – one of sub-Saharan Africa’s fastest growing economies – it will take almost five generations to achieve complete sanitation coverage. In Ghana, another county that has experienced recent high economic growth, there is a 76-year gap between when the richest and the poorest are projected to have access to a skilled health professional – well over two generations.
Our new report, “Adapting Development – Improving Services to the Poor,” is therefore calling for a different approach to development to ensure further and faster progress.
We highlight three ways development organizations can support doing development differently.
1. Be politically smart and problem driven: This means tracking down problems, avoiding ready-made solutions and understanding what is politically feasible and possible.
In Nigeria, the U.K. Department for International Development has supported the State Accountability and Voice Initiative. Unlike traditional “demand-side” programs, SAVI chose not to provide grants to civil society but rather to identify specific problems (such as disability access in Lagos and control of corruption in Jigawa) and to build genuine partnerships of like-minded and reform-committed actors, from government and outside government, to take action on these problems.
2. Be adaptive and entrepreneurial: Because many development problems are complex and uncertain, allowing for cycles of doing, failing, adapting and (eventually) getting better results is key.
In a short film that accompanies the report, we document how three entrepreneurial activists, with assistance from international nongovernmental organization The Asia Foundation, were able to support significant reform, resulting in a 1,400 percent increase in residential land titling, and helping the poorest who had previously risked losing their properties. This was achieved through an entrepreneurial approach – one which tried multiple options, eventually ending support to ideas that had less promise and focusing on those that got traction.
3. Take action that is locally led: Change is ultimately best led by those who are close to the problem and who have the greatest stake in its solutions, whether this is central or local government officials, civil society or private sector groups, or communities themselves. While ownership and participation are often namechecked in development, this has rarely resulted in change that is genuinely driven by individuals and groups with the power to influence the problem and find solutions.
In Malawi, we highlight an example from Plan’s community scorecard program, which built capacity for local problem-solving and greater support for collective action. It facilitated groups to come together and find solutions for problems, such as teacher housing initiatives, which are problem driven, adaptive and locally led; and financial and other support that is fit for purpose.
There are already examples of aid support that aims to be more flexible and adaptive, and to bring more learning to its approach. DfID’s Better Delivery agenda is a promising attempt to mainstream some of this across an agency too. Yet it is still not the norm for much development practice.
First, attempts to do more adaptive programming should start with those problems where “learning by doing” is the best option – where outcomes are uncertain or unpredictable, where solutions are unknown.
Second, it requires donors to be facilitators rather than managers of these processes – and this means the role of intermediaries or implementers is key. Having the right people and groups who can broker and support locally led action is a necessity and requires careful identification and assessment.
Third, it means supporting a “learning culture” within development agencies – creating space for strategy testing, being open and honest when failures occur, and being incentivized to be adaptive when needed. This requires a more open and honest debate on the role of aid and development with the public too, and an explicit refocusing on how aid works, not the total volume spent.
Finally, doing development differently needs a renewed but changed focus on results. It means not only tracking Millennium Development Goal-style outcomes but better monitoring of those changes in process that are most effective in improving outcomes too. Measures of how adaptive or locally led aid programs are would be a good start.
(Leni Wild is the public goods and services team leader at the Overseas Development Institute. She is an expert in political economy and service delivery, accountability and aid, focusing on fragile and post-conflict countries. )
