Message-ID: <19980215175658.25870.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 09:56:55 PST From: abdus samad <mailto:samad_100@HOTMAIL.COM> Subject: Re: Donors vs. Domestic capacity To: mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU
A number of people agreed with my proposition that there is some crowding out of doemstic capacity to think with the donor efforts to help out with policy even though such efforts may be purely altruistic. The mere fact that the donor consultant is developing policy initiaives, can incapacitate the domestic effort.Someone suggested that we chould have broader discussionon the subject. I certainly hope we will as this is an important subject and should recieve attention from the wider development community.
Let me add another dimenstion to this puzzle.
I have often puzzled over this fact that even as I go about my business in the US, I find a large number of low-income country professional manning key positions. For example, in the US, the largest contingent of overseas doctors is Indians. There are also a large number of Pakistani, Nigerian and Ghanian doctors. Mind you these are all specialists and not just ordinary pill-dispensers.
Many key positions in the US corporations including that of the CEO are occupied by low-income coutnry nationals. Take Hotmail, which I am using, is a creationof an Indian.
What is interesting that the countries where all these very competent professionals are coming from, those are the countries that the donors are attempting to develop through what the World bank calls, knowledge diffuesion. Yet in this knowledge based development, the brain drain does nto participate. In my survey of a 100 such people, none of them have been approached by donors for their views. Quite a few of these people, some even working in the international agencies feel impotent when it comes to talking to the donors.
I wonder whether these phrases such as "knowledge-based" and "particpation" are not meant to only keep the poor countries hooked on to the drug. Or is it that we are looking at the participation that man Friday had with Robinson Crusoe. I put it to you that the poor countrie can have no particpation until they have their thinking capacity and thier best brains interfacing with the donors.
>From mailto:dalyj@erols.com Sun Feb 15 06:06:43 1998
>Received: from default (207-172-146-109.s109.tnt3.ann.erols.com
[207.172.146.109]) > by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA01582
> for <mailto:samad_100@HOTMAIL.COM>; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 09:17:15 -0500 (EST)
>Message-ID: <mailto:34E6F602.6F1B@erols.com>
>Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 09:04:50 -0500
>From: John Daly <mailto:dalyj@erols.com>
>Reply-To: mailto:dalyj@erols.com
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-KIT (Win95; I)
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: abdus samad <mailto:samad_100@HOTMAIL.COM>
>Subject: Re: Donors vs. Domestic capacity
>References: <mailto:19980204034619.22809.qmail@hotmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>abdus samad wrote:
>>
>> I got a lot of interesting responses to my msgs listed below. There
is a >> fair amount of anecdotal evidence in support of the fonors crowding
out >> domestic capacity. Many practitioners who have actual experience of
>> development appear to find merit in it.
>>
>I also think the hypothesis has merit.
>
>> However, what perplexes me is that even now I find many donors
resistant >> to change that encourages domestic talent. Why? I cannot accept the
>> conspiracy theory argument. There are a lot of decent commited folk
in >> the donor agencies such as the World Bank. They are however, arrogant
>> and too rich to take the whole development process seriously enough.
>>
>Some possible reasons:
>
>1. They just don't get it!
>2. Donor systems do not see multiple values in the project development
>process. Thus they are unwilling to accept possible delays, risks,
>costs, or loss of control in the project development process in return
>for building developing country capacity.
>3. You are missing a significant movement toward "participatory
>development" which is under way in the World Bank and other donors.
>
>By the way, I think that the efforts to wire developing countries to
the >Internet may make things worse, as it will be easier to go to
foreigners >to do the thinking.
>--
>------------------------------------
>John A. Daly
>Consultant
>Science, Technology and Development
>14205 Bauer Dr.
>Rockville, MD 20853
mailto:>dalyj@erols.com >(301) 460-6364
>------------------------------------
>
Jan 31
>Donors out of altruistic motives start aid programs to help develop
poor >societies. They create programs invest in projects and send experts on
>technical assistance to attempt to get the poor societies to develop
>faster. Is it possible, that such programs may stifle domestic
>initiative and hence inhibit capacity growth for insitutional
>development. This is an important issue that I have found some
evidence >for. I am actively researching this issue and would like input,
>evidnece, anecdotes relating to this. I would apreciate your thoughts
>and help on this.
Dear Conference participants; >This is a great subject for discussion and debate. Would it be too
much >to ask if each poster and respondent would identify their background
for >the opinion they render ? This should serve the group better and make
>for developing collective wisdom that results and growth for us all.
Our >organization has 100+ volunteers working on projects in disadvantaged
>countries of the world helping nationals learn safe water development
>strategies.
>Transferring technology and equipment to another culture is difficult
at >best but the Haves of this world must assist the HaveNots if we are to
>make friends instead of enemies.
> Excuse me if this is out of line, I'm new to these open forms.
Bill Ashe Director
On Sun, 1 Feb 1998 09:29:31 PST abdus samad <mailto:samad_100@HOTMAIL.COM> writes: >Perhap an example will illustrate. In many low income countries,
>policy
>analysis is done by donor consultants. The domestic professionals are
>forced to be minor functionaries in teh process. The universities
>were
>not involved. There were not hinktanks of any merit. Later all
>domestic professionals on any merit were involved only as consultants
>under the direction of donor representatives. They are never in
>charge
>of their own agendas. Nor do they have their own networks, peer
>review
>and iniitatives other than those conducted under donor supervision.
>The
>result is that the best people run away to donor headquarters. Those
>that remain are dispirited and lack the incnetive to fully develop.
>
>Like a child that is over-protected, they do not grow.
>
>
Feb 3
I have seen the syndrome described by Abdus Samad many times in many countries. Under normal circumstances it is an almost natural occurrence: - donors are very reluctant to support the core operating costs of research institutions in developing countries because of a shortage of funds for assistance, because of growing inability to make long term commitments, and because of frequent incapacity of host governments to make serious co-investments in local talent. So local policy research networks do not gain much experience or credibility. By the way, long-term support does not automatically translate into research effectiveness and credibility. - when ideological issues are at stake, it is safer to work with known quantities. - when an international aid bureaucracy is in a "hurry up and wait" mode (as many are), the decision to disburse or let a contract takes a long time to come, and then the results must be available yesterday. Experienced, reliable consultants can take this kind of timing in stride. They don't like it, but they can deal with it. -a lot of bilateral aid is tied to the purchase of goods or services from the donor country, hence the frequent presence of foreign consultants. - local policy thinktanks, when they do exist, are almost always associated with a local political faction - usually the one in power, if the think tank is getting any domestic money. Although many governments cite tax issues to explain their reluctance to allow the establishment of private not-for-profit research foundations (i.e. ones with some financial independence), the issue of political control is not far from the surface. Use of international consultants helps to sidestep this sort of situation, at least from the international agency's point of view.
These comments are made with respect to "high" or sensitive policy issues such as economic reform, privatization, restructuring of the higher education system, etc. I have seen such policy issues treated successfully by agencies such as the OECD and the World Bank when the comprehensive diagnostic part of the exercise is performed by local experts and the later assessment and preparation of policy proposals for consideration is performed by invited international experts, with open public debate.
Regarding mechanisms for the development of local technical and management talent, several agencies have experimented with programs to match local and foreign consultants on projects. In fact sometimes a specified role for a local partner must be provided to win a contract. This can result in some pretty nice deals for local partners who may or may not actually be expected to deliver services other than fronting.
The development business has no monopoly on virtue. I think that the kind of learning described by Abdus Samad can happen when an agency develops the right kinds of contracting goals and procedures, and local policymakers are supportive of them.
Sorry to be so discursive but the query touched a subject close to my heart.
______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com