Memorandum submitted by Hans Peter Ulrich,
Civio Public Policy Consulting
— Concerns On DFID Work in The Times
of 19 March Not Without Merits
— DFID's Work Lacking Sound Methodological
Foundation
— Process Control in UK and International
Development Policy Through Donor Country Parliaments and Their
Committees
ODI and the Africa All Party Parliamentary Group
presently run a meeting series on parliaments and development.
The focus is on parliaments in developing countries.
Having researched the topic of aid effectiveness
for the last 10 years I am convinced that the role of parliaments
and their committees in donor countries is even far more critical
in the fight against poverty. While parliaments in developing
countries often are under the control of authoritarian leaders
or part of a "predatory" establishment (in the terms
of Evans), parliaments in donor countries represent the citizens
who provide the resources which can initiate change and reduce
poverty. Parliaments in donor countries are for the development
system like the hinge for a door. Only if parliamentary control
in donor countries is effective, it is ensured that the overall
development system operates effectively and resources are not
wasted. The question is, how to ensure that control of government
operations through parliaments is effective.
With great interest I have read the discussion
on recent newspaper commentaries which suggest that its is questionable
whether DFID is the "right outfit to spend" development
resources and whether DFID is "spending the money the best
way". (The Times, 19 March).
DFID's work and commitment certainly deserve
praise in many respects. Due to my research, however, I regret
I have to support the critical stance concerning the work of DFID.
I am of the opinion that DFIDs approach to development policy
lacks a fully coherent and firm methodical foundation and that
due to this deficit many resources and chances to help are wasted.
The statement of DFID overseas operational staff that they cannot
handle the "plethora of policy papers" coming out of
DFID (ODI, UK Aid Policy Debates, 2004) confirms in my opinion
a lack of structure in the policy approach.
The crucial drawback in DFIDs development policy
approach, like in international development in general, appears
to be that a commonly accepted and tested comprehensive definition
of "development management" is missing.
If a board of directors in a company does not
know what the management of a company requires, then they can
not lead this company effectively.
The same is valid in international development
and for DFID.
In my view this is the point where parliamentary
process control needs to come in. The relevance of "management
for results" in international development has been formulated
at the 2002 Monterrey conference for development. The OECD/DAC
write in their 2004 report that, while the necessity for "management
for results" has been recognised in international development,
there would be no agreement on what the concept should mean. No
agreement means in effect that the concept has not been clarified.
While the deadline of the MDGs is approaching with threatening
speed, even now, five years after the Monterrey conference there
is no generally accepted and officially declared definition of
management for results, required for harmonisation and for setting
up an effective international development system.
An understanding of the requirements of development
management as the foundation for effective development policy
depends on the exact analysis of the development goals and the
parameters affecting these goals. Development management must
make sure that all parameters which affect the achievement of
the development goals are in place, in as far as policy can shape
these parameters at all. It is our responsibility to not give
up in examining over and over again where and how we can still
make a change to certain parameters and have an effect.
In order to ensure that DFID uses adequate and
effective processes for its policy approach, I recommend that
the International Development Committee puts the following questions
forward to DFID:
1. Which processes does DFID have in place
to ensure that its policy processes are optimal?
How does it examine and incorporate suggestions
from the wider development community in its processes?
Does it have adequate know-how in management and
problem solving methodologies as well as sufficient resources
to examine all possible approaches and procedures?
2. What are the precise operational goals
of DFID's policy approach? Which systems am in place to ensure
that DFIDs policy effectively addresses the preferences of the
population in developing countries?
By which key and decision making processes does
DFID decide on its policy priorities?
I would like to make the committee aware that
"reduction of poverty" or the MDGs are not suitable
as goal definitions to ensure the overall effectiveness of development
operation. "Poverty" as a goal is too general, it contains
a number of different aspects, the MDGs do not cover these aspects
in a comprehensive manner. Furthermore they are in contradiction
to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights which rightly
assures "adequate standards" of living to all people
in the world. The MDGs are only an intermediate operational goal.
After thorough examination of the goal discussion
in development, I recommend to adopt well-being, needs fulfilment
and contentment as prime goals of the development system. A detailed
description of the individual needs according to the hierarchy
of human needs described by Maslow appears to provide a suitable
and operational definition of the goals of the development system.
Ensuring freedom, peace and stability are further key system goals
in themselves and serve the fulfilment of other needs.
3. Which parameters affect the achievement
of each of these goals in DFID's opinion?
To generate a valid understanding of what development
management requires drawing up a complete list of factors of relevance
for the achievement of each goal is necessary. Many development
projects fail because certain parameters of relevance for goal
achievement have not been examined and included in the policy
approach. The Economist for example speaks of "systemic shortcomings"
in the design of development projects. Such potential shortcomings
need to be identified up front to ensure effectiveness of development
policy.
4. What definition for development management
has DFID so far? Does it reflect all the parameters relevant for
goal achievement?
5. In how far does
the organisation of British development policy and of DFID in
particular reflect and incorporate all parameters of relevance
for the achievement of the goals defined?
Does DFID have the systems in place and resources
to address all parameters of relevance for the achievement of
its development goals?
If the complete range of parameters is not addressed
in the policy design, then there is basically no use in investing
any resources at all in the development of a country. (A strategy
might include, however, an allowance for certain wastage of funds.
A cost-benefit analysis might still show that measures are useful.)
The question underlines the critical importance
to find a basis and formula for harmonisation and co-operation
in development. One country alone does not have enough resources
to provide solutions for 800 million people who suffer from hunger
and for the 2.4 billion people who live on less than two dollars
day.
Because of the relevance of international co-operation
for the effectiveness of development policy of a single county
such as the UK the following further questions are important:
6. Which measures does DFID undertake to
ensure that the international development system adopts an operational
definition of development management as a common denominator for
harmonisation and a basis for co-operation?
Note: The OECD/DAC and the World Bank have produced
a Sourcebook on "Management for Results in Development"
since Monterrey 2002. It describes development management as "diverse,
adaptive, creative, and inclusive" which is correct but too
general to be operative. The suggestion that development management
is centred on a strong notion of causality must be specified to
be operational. A specification of management for results by a
number of examples of good management as further attempted in
the sourcebook is not effective as a definition of development
management, since these examples cannot capture the huge diversity
of conditions under which development happens.
What is required in my opinion is a definition
of development management, to which all donors formally subscribe
and which then can serve as the joint foundation for building
an effective international development architecture. There cannot
be an effective development system without such a foundation.
7. What is DFID's model for the optimal architecture
of the international development system, which would ensure a
maximum of effectiveness and efficiency in development?
Which actions does DFID take to promote such a
model in the international development community?
What are the next steps planned?
Has DFID set a target deadline for establishing
a more effective international development system? (deadline crucial
in the light of the extent of world poverty, hunger and the MDGs)
8. Who is supposed to have the control function
in DFID's eyes in the international development system?
Which systemic function does the UN have in the
eyes of DFID in the international development system?
How should the international development system
and the UN be aligned to ensure effectiveness of the international
development system?
Which systemic function should the World Bank
have in the opinion of DFID? Is it effective to have two control
units at the international level?
If not, how would the optimal set-up look?
These are some of the fundamental questions
concerning development management, the set up of effective national
development policy processes and structures, and an effective
international development system.
Since the effectiveness of the overall development
system depends on the effectiveness of its subsystems, some detailed
questions which would also need to be addressed are:
Which proposals does DFID have to maximise the
effectiveness of subsystems both in the UK and internationally
such as:
— The financing system for international
development,
— The knowledge management and
research system, and
— The capacity building and training
system.
Which measures is DFID taking to put these proposals
forward in the international development system and to arrive
at feasible solutions?
The question about the financial system is of
relevance since we cannot win the fight against poverty and hunger
without sufficient resources. The present system including the
0.7% goal has been in place since the 1970s and has not produced
the necessary results. The system is ineffective and needs to
be improved or replaced urgently.
What appears rather puzzling is that we take
ample endeavours for capacity building in developing countries,
while the OECD/DAC states that the donor nations do not have a
clear and agreed understanding of what "management for results"
means at all. Only if we have a definition of development management
can we train the people effectively in the required disciplines
or recruit the required personnel.
In the same token, only if we have a clear understanding
of the required capacities and know-how in development management,
can we establish effective know-how management and research systems.
I hope these suggestions can contribute to the
activeness of the process control function exerted by the International
Development Committee and most of all ultimately contribute to
more effectiveness in the fight against hunger and poverty. We
are obliged to the people who hunger and who live in poverty to
examine in detail all our options for establishing a better and
a more just world.
In my opinion the International Development
Committee could provide a forum for debate on the questions raised,
for example in the form of a new meeting series. The topic might
be: How to ensure maximum effectiveness of the international development
system—What is required? Where can and should we take action?
The aim of the International Development Committee must be, however,
to establish an effective system to ensure that suitable answers
to the questions raised above are found. Also people, who do not
attend the meetings, may be able to provide valuable input. Like
through DFIDs public hearings it must be ensured that their opinion
is heard. These opinions also must be thoroughly examined and
possibly be included in the outcome.
In the debate on The Times comments it
has been put forward that DFID has been praised for its work by
OECD Peer Reviews and also in a recent Capability Review. After
thorough examination of the process of OECD Peer Reviews I am
of the opinion that the International Development Committee can
not rely on these assessments. Effective control requires independence,
one criterion which the peer reviews definitely lack OECD member
countries would be too polite to state clearly that the policy
approach of others is wrong. Peer reviews are not embedded in
a normal reporting chain, in which the stakeholders in a process
initiate audits by independent auditors and examine their reports.
Parliamentary committees must find ways to ensure effective systems
and procedures of supervision. Further supervision is carried
out by national audit agencies, but their control work is often
limited to certain aspects of policy making.) Finally as a key
draw back of peer reviews, a methodological yardstick for the
suitability of a donor approach is missing, since an accepted
definition of development management does not exist.
I have not examined the Capability Review in
detail, but it appears that its results may not be valid, if the
report does not incorporate a substantial examination of the points
and questions raised above.
One last caveat must be mentioned: Even
if we were to arrive at some point at the "perfect"
understanding of development management and the "perfect"
organisational set up, abolishing poverty will by no means be
easy. We have to keep trying to get better at our work, however.
| 
