pia 2501 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
PIA 2501 PowerPoint Presentation

PIA 2501

0 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

PIA 2501

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. PIA 2501 Development Policy and Management WEEK FIVE

  2. 1983-2000 Special Focus • Structural Adjustment with or without a “Human Face”

  3. End of development model assumption • Orthodoxy: Overseas capital investment • Accepts Foreign or "Pariah" group ownership and control of trade and commerce • A New Reality: Local soft political institutions, weak private sectors

  4. Change: the Neo-Orthodoxy • The Realities: To End of 1980s- Focus on anti-Marxist, growth regimes • Korea, Taiwan, Brazil, Chile, South Africa (newly emerging States) • Politics not important

  5. Neo-Orthodoxy • No development management- development programs are “bad” • Can’t make planning better • Neo-Orthodoxy and privatization

  6. To what extent is the state planning approach possible? • Bureaucratic, administrative and political constraints constitute a major limitation • Development strategies often parallel but ignore political realities • “Looking for a Rule to Follow”

  7. Neo-Orthodoxy View of Development Management • Five year plans of over 1500 pages for a country of less than a million people • Part of unfulfilled rhetoric of development • National Planning to be replaced by local and regional planning (and Projects

  8. Failures of Development Planning • A Problem: The limits on political compromise and local level autonomy • Failure of Development and the limits of the econometric model • Failure of planning blamed on weak planning and administrative capacity • Planning was a “shopping list”

  9. Counter-Orthodoxy Argument Bureaucracies are socio-economic actors Good example: Land reform and bureaucracies A study of 25 major land reforms--in 15 cases the bureaucracy was major beneficiary in the process

  10. PICARD “Unpaid Editorial”

  11. The Problem (1): Bad Planning and Foreign Aid 1. Bureaucrats/practitioners ignored development theories & ideas 2. LDC Development Institutes were largely irrelevant as training centers--donors used overseas training 3. International Organizations (UNDP, IMF and World Bank) promoted Programs that were unworkable.

  12. The Foreign Aid Meeting

  13. The Problem (2) • Development administration did little to deal with issues of population control, food production and rural development • Foreign aid was seen as little more than a front for foreign policy

  14. Anti-Planning: Neo-Orthodoxy: The Problem (3) • Planning illustrates problem of soft-state and inability of state to impose its will on society- • Planning Part of the Problem • But the Problems are real

  15. Land Reform and Women’s Rights

  16. But…. • Donors Need Planning Skills (Still) • “National Program Support Office, Afghanistan” (October, 2005) • Project Management Unit (PMU)

  17. Autonomous Work Packaging Model

  18. “End of Editorial”

  19. The Middle View • The Moderate Interpretation of Development Administration Failures • Goal: Realistic Decision-Making based on sufficient knowledge (strategic planning) “Mixed Scanning” • Balance Public-Private Partnerships

  20. The Twenty-First Century Model

  21. The Problems of Development Management: Discussion Quote of the Week: "The Human Condition being what it was, let them fight, let them love, let them murder, I would not be involved."  Graham Greene Return to Issue in Discussion Is Strategic Planning (involvement) possible?

  22. Structural Adjustment Policies1985-2001- Redeux Failure of the Developmental State: Goran Hyden Linked to “pre-scientific modes of production of peasants”—Economy of Affection Failure of State and “Exit Option” (See work of Albert O. Hirschman) Problem of Endemic Patronage and Corruption

  23. Structural Adjustment Policies1985-2001 The Structural Adjustment Argument- Need to stabilize currency and markets (getting the prices right) Promote Free Trade Need to refocus role of state from development to law and order and deregulation Address the problem of Debt and Structural Adjustment reforms (IMF and World Bank)

  24. Structural Adjustment, Cont. • Reduce the size of the public sector (infamous 19% cut) • Promote Privatization or “NGOism”—Negative on the State • Privatization (Rambo vs. Effete) • Faith in Capitalist Entrepreneurialism • Neo-Orthodoxy had a purist element

  25. Structural Adjustment Policies1985-2001 The Argument for “NGOism” Left wing Privatization (Private Voluntary Organizations, Cooperatives, Community Based Organizations, Non-Profits) Energy of NGOs Structural Adjustment Public Sector Reform—Reduce size and restructure state Populist

  26. Summary: Development Management in 2000 Concern about incapacity: Questions raised about efficacy of state approach Critics spoke of negative state Government had become a negative Debates focused on privatization, public sector reform and NGOism Need to address issues of external vs. internal solutions to development problems (domestic capacity vs. international redistribution)

  27. Summary: Development Management in 2000 Focus should be on issues of sustainability and institutional development- not projects Need to search for a creative, flexible, and innovative management system Difficult to separate development from politics Implementation had become the neglected component of development policy (Pressman and Wildavsky) Question: The appropriateness of the U.S. case study as lessons for development action?

  28. Choices: • Contracting Out and Privatization • NGOism and Grants • Capacity Building (HRD) • A Mixed Scanning Approach


  30. Internal Capacity Issues(Bryant & White) • Debates: the “Attitudes Problem” in LDC? • How to get people to think developmentally? • Changes in programmatic values have an impact on LDC elites • Problem of the Organizational Bourgeoisie: Bureaucratic values unchanged from colonial period as domestic elites manipulate public policy (Picard)

  31. Internal Capacity Issues(Bryant & White) Debates: the “Attitudes Problem” and the Public Sector • Myth of civil service neutrality: Bureaucratic elites have interests “Statism” • At best what results is benign neglect, at worst resource extraction • Problem: failure to develop and indigenous capitalism

  32. Problem: The Expanding Civil Service • Civil Servant Component of the total Current Budget • 10 to 15% in MDCs • 30 to 60% in LDCs • South Africa in 2001, 46% • Benin in the 1980s, 64% • Central African Republic in the 1960s, 81%

  33. Private Sector • Limited to settler, pariah groups—Jews and Roma in Eastern Europe, Chinese in much of Asia, Lebanese and East Indians in parts of Africa and Latin America (See Books of V.S. Naipaul)

  34. Gypsies (Roma) in Europe

  35. Internal Capacity Issues(Bryant & White) • Debates: the “Attitudes Problem” • Indigenous Elites- Sometimes referred to as “Comprador” classes or “dependent elites,” since they have been co-opted and are linked to Northern Tier states- Cronyism • Expatriate Attitudes?

  36. Internal Capacity Issues(Bryant & White) • Debates: the Bureaucratic “Attitudes Problem” continued • How developmental are bureaucrats? • Can the state be used for SOCIAL ENGINEERING? • Is the private or non-profit sector better at development?

  37. Social Mobilization Training

  38. Internal Capacity Issues(Bryant & White) Basic Needs Assumptions: Problem • Need for increased capacity of public, parastatal and private sectors • State should remain central to development planning and management • Need for administrative reform to develop more creative development structures

  39. AMTRAK- Public or Private?


  41. From “Mister Johnson”

  42. Denis A. Goulet, 75, died December 26, 2006: Appropriate Theory and Practice

  43. The Discussion Debate Joyce Cary, “The Two Faces of Progress” Denis Goulet, “The Cruel Choice” The Development Message? Is Progress the Answer?

  44. Late Colonial Philippines