You are here
The global economic landscape has evolved dramatically since 2000: developing and emerging economies have been driving global growth, new sources of development finance have mushroomed and the diversification of actors, instruments and delivery mechanisms has continued. Transformations in the poverty map and new forces on the supply side of development finance are challenging the international development architecture. This paper aims to stimulate debate on the future of this architecture.
At a 1999 workshop on "Operational Approaches to Institutional and Capacity Development," 70 participants from national policy research institutes across Africa, together with members of the DAC Informal Network, reviewed and drew lessons from case studies on capacity building practices. This "Overview" of conceptual and operational issues introduced the case studies. The event was organized by the African Capacity Building Foundation (ACBF), the European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM) and the DAC Informal Network on Institutional and Capacity Development.
This article examines struggles over information between two non-governmental organizations (NGOs) ín India and their key internatíonal funders. The author outlines both the strategies used by international funders to increase their control over information generation within NGOs and the strategies used by the NGOs to resist these interventions.
The author examines the concept of accountability through various disciplinary lenses in order to develop an integrated understanding of the term. Special attention is devoted to principal-agent perspectives from political science and economics. The analysis draws from the experiences of both Northern and Southern nonprofits, that is, organizations based in wealthy industrialized regions of the world (the global North) and those in economically poorer areas (the global South).
One of the major challenges facing the international development community is creating a capacity development (CD) architecture built on solid evidence. Here, the authors argue that, although a significant body of evidence on CD is being produced, the knowledge is poorly captured and managed. As a result, CD practice and policies fail to take full advantage of lessons and experiences that could lead to better results.
The thousand-flowers-blooming approaches to rural innovation and learning as adopted over the past decade have led to an endless list of "good practices." But these, with a few notable exceptions, did not add up to deliver impact at scale. Improving on institutional efficiency and enhancing development impact are therefore two daunting challenges currently facing governments and like-minded partners amidst growing concerns about the sustainability of mixed progress towards Millennium Development Goal 1 targets.
Reviewer David Sogge writes that "This study's main questions concern the consequences for organizations lower on aid chains as they respond to conditions set by those higher on aid chains. In particular, what happens to African NGOs and their relationships with the people they are supposed to be helping? ...However, the study's chief concerns, and freshest insights, are in revealing how donor power shapes NGO relationships, structures and methods.
"Development" projects in Lesotho have consistently failed to achieve their stated objectives, not least because they are based on a "construction" of the country that bears little relation to prevailing realities. They do, however, succeed in expanding the field of bureaucratic state power in people's everyday lives. Recognition that this often unintended consequence of "development" is its main achievement argues for a new politics of opposition.
"On 1 December 2011, the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation 1 was adopted at the end of the 4th High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, held in Busan, South Korea. This Partnership opened a new chapter in a process which began almost a decade earlier to address falling levels of aid and widespread weaknesses in the aid system. In contrast to its predecessors, the Partnership was negotiated with strong input from developing countries, from new donors, and from civil society. It represents a welcome break from an agenda dictated by a few large OECD donors.