Action in the Real World

Subject: Re: [IKD] WHAT IS NEXT?

Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:31:22 -0400 (EDT)

From: Durval Olivieri <olivieri@seplantec.ba.gov.br>

Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org

 

Greetings,

 

I kindly ask permission to disagree. The World Bank can promote the further

disucssion, yes, and as people get somewhat tired and leave other people

with other ideas may come in and update the concepts. On the other hand

what the IRDB does with the information and knowledge fostered in the

networks may or or may not be used by IRDB in execution or implementation,

but just the fact the public participation is open that will certainly

imply both in strategic and tactical changes for better, we all hope.

 

Take for instance the importance of regulation and self-regulation as

comlementary factors. Take the recent warns from adamant people on the weak

points of the concept of sustainable development and the corelated

importance of ecosystem management and promotion of biodiversity and

genome management. The role of the international financial institutions,

etc. Based on Jefferson the concepts on which humans will sustain their

societies have to evolve in a similar way that a grown up man will not wear

this short pants of childhood. Of course we know that something will come

out of these discussions but we have to learn that participating in the

discussion will not directly imply in getting into the affairs of the Bank.

In a certain way to criticize one will actually have to be always

separate.

 

Many thanks and best regards,

 

Durval Olivieri, Bahia, Brazil.

 

Subject: Re:[IKD]Response to Elisabeth Graffy

Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 15:00:00 -0400 (EDT)

From: P J Dixon <P.J.Dixon@durham.ac.uk>

Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org

 

One addition to Elizabeth Graffy's musings. Amongst other things she

(and indeed many others contributing to this discussion) suggest that

historically development has been driven by the interests (and from the

perpectives) of the donor countries. In brief 'transformation' has implied

top-down, tranfer-of-technology, and economistic solutions. Graffy then

asks why should it be any different now, unless the culture of

international organisations has changed? And she suggests that there needs

to be a 'different way of doing business' - one that will level the

playing field (ie. power relationships) - if development is to be

sustainable (and locally-meaningful) in other countries.

 

I noted in a previous response (to Michael Benfield) that the culture of

the World Bank is changing, as indicated by the address of Koch-Veser (MD

of the Bank) to the Social Development Forum in June 1998. His address

stresses that the Bank has moved from a technology-driven to a

people-driven process, and in particular to one which has a stress on

the participation of stakeholders, on clients as partners, so that the

Bank's strategies reflect their interests.  (The current discussion of

course is part of this new process of open and transparent development).

 

The implication of the process for the way the Bank, other donor-bodies,

and partner governments 'do business' has still to be worked out - how the

statement of 'culture-change' by the MD is mainstreamed in development

practice. Graffy is right to suggest that there are implications for

procedures, resourcing, etc. etc. There is evidence that the Bank is

mainstreaming the participatory process and is grappling with

the implications of this culture change. An example worth looking at is a

Bank paper by Clark J.D. and Dorschel W, of SDVNG in April 1998 'Civil

Society Participation in World Bank Country Assistance Strategies (CAS) -

Lessons from Experience, FY97-98' which is available on the net at

wbln0018.worldbank.org/essd/kb.nsf...ed50cf996e898525669000488616 (I hope

that's right).

 

The objective of that paper is to provide an assessment of the main

benefits and costs of the consultation/participatory approaches and

distill key 'best practice' lessons for future CASs.  The main findings

are that benefits exceed costs; impacts are mostly seen in policy

formulation; preparation and organisation are essential elements to the

consultation process and require allocation of adequate resources, time

and commitment to the process by all stakeholders; the sharing of

information is key to any consultative exercise. The paper identifies

strengths and weaknesses in the process, and suggestions for how it can be

done better. The good practice guidelines stress preparation and the

organisation of consultations as important to ensuring all stakeholders

get the most out of the process, there is ownership of the process and of

the output (the CAS), there is consensus building, and that ongoing

partnerships are formed and strengthened.

 

Contrary to some discussants to this forum, I believe the Bank and others

donor bodies are beginning to get the process right, to put in place a more

level playing-field - indeed to 'pass the stick' (as Robert Chambers

says). There is still more work to be done to ensure participatory processes

lead to outcomes that fit all stakeholders' agendas (eg. environmentally

sustainable practices, pro-poor growth, and local autonomy). But the

message coming through from the Bank is that Top-down is out, and that the

exact details of how and what 'development' should take place  will be

country-specific and worked out on the ground with partners and on the

principle of social inclusion of all stakeholders.

 

Joseph Stiglitz, Senior V-P and Chief Economist of The World Bank Group,

says the world economy is in the process of transformation from an

industrial economy to a knowledge economy. The present forum seeks to

ensure the developing world is included in this transformation on terms

acceptable to all stakeholders while addressing the Bank's primary

strategic goal of poverty reduction. The World Bank is mainstreaming a

participative, inclusive process. While we may still criticise elements

of Bank practice, the challenge for all stakeholders now is to

operationalise mechanisms for knowledge creation, dissemination,and use

(between all stakeholders) for social  and economic development. As

Graffy notes this will need a soft-systems perspective as much as a

hard-systems (technological) one; something that the Bank is possibly

still unfamiliar with. In brief, in embracing a people-first approach,

staff of international institutions must embrace the principle of

difference between people (both at the local and national level).

'Different strokes for different folks', attention to context in designing

delivery mechanisms, and above all consultation of the target

beneficiaries, must be watch-words even where development professionals

suggest best institutional practice (as requested in this forum).

 

Peter Dixon

Dept. of Anthopology

Durham

UK

 

Subject: Re: [IKD] Re: Action in the Real World - Response to Reinald Dobel's response to Alfonso Gumucio

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 13:04:27 +0100 (BST)

From: P J Dixon <P.J.Dixon@durham.ac.uk>

Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org

To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org

 

I'm all for action in the real world (Gumucio) and for more abstract

thinking (Dobel).  The point, as I think Dobel illustrates with the story

of the 'wise ruler' (which is found wherever there are hierarchies of

political authority), is that power corrupts (in dissimulating

appearances). Why? Because there are special interests groups

(elites) close to the seat of authority who have their own agendas, are

primarily interested in promoting those interests, and have little

interest in promoting the interests of others who are not represented at

court. (This results in 'dualism', whether in Indonesia under Suharto or

UK under Thatcher,  and is one reason, as Kevin Lyonette reminds us, why

the World Bank is concentrating more on strengthening civil society rather

than the state). The 'wise ruler' (if representing the whole nation rather

than being merely the head of a particular class) will therefore seek

perspectives and opinions from all groups in the nation when formulating

policy (either by going out in disguise, listening to his 'clown' (as in

Shakespeare) or Eshu-Elegbara (the trickster in Yoruba tales), or holding

'focus group' sessions and so on). Not to do so is to risk social

disorder.

 

I'm sure Dagron Gumucio knows all this. It is no different at the

micro-level. Community development recognises that there are a range

of interest groups that have to be taken into account when formulating

interventions. Hence stakeholder analysis.

 

But here's the rub. Dobel suggests that we need to reach out, make

contact, and do what we feel is right in our heart of hearts. This, I

guess, is at the centre of a 'rights- based approach' to development (with

which I agree), but we need to be very aware that others may regard

attempts to press the interests of the poor and disadvantaged as a threat

to their interests, position, status etc. Again, as Dagron Gumucio (and

the World Bank, Change Managers, and 'the wise ruler') know only too well

policy/intervention formulation is one thing, implementation is quite

another. It is not just a case of doing what is right, and of

collaborating with like-minded people, it is a question of making little

steps (incremental change), of negotiation (or conflict management), and

of seeking to achieve transparency (not dissimulation) in the process.

And the latter is very difficult to achieve when there are

issues of power. We jump through World Bank hoops in order to get project

money; villagers jump through hoops and 'butter us up' to get a particular

kind of project in their village.

 

Lessons? In the development field there is a renewed stress on

evidence-based policy and practice. In a post-positivist world we no

longer ask 'what is the evidence' but 'how was this evidence constructed',

by who, through what methods, and for what ends? (ie. whose interests are

being served here). (One reason of course why there has been debate

earlier in this forum about the World Bank's purpose in holding it).

Triangulation (in science through using different research instruments, in

social policy through inclusive, transparent, participatory practice)

enables us all (both 'wise rulers' and 'the poor') to see that 'evidence'

is at issue (is multifaceted), but that there may be some common ground

which will allow us to move forward together. An example would be the

discovery that while some in the West prioritise economic development,

other communities have different priorities - such as environmental

sustainability; or in Bangladesh (where I am working) that farmers,

fishers, women, and the landless poor have very different needs and

interests when it comes to natural reources development.

 

So attention to the process as much as to outputs is crucial. As I noted

in a previous email, the World Bank now recognises this (in its

people-first approach), but still has to fully work though the implications

for its working practices. And here is a final lesson for 'the wise

ruler. S/he no longer 'rules', but assists (with 'the people') in putting

in place the framework to enable social inclusion and equal opportunity

for all (and that is fundamental to the 'rights-based' approach).

 

Peter Dixon

Dept. of Anthropology

University of Durham

 

Subject: [IKD] LIST SUMMARY

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 18:43:40 -0400

From: moderator1@worldbank.org

Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org

To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org

 

Dear IKD List Members:

 

We would like to extend our deepest thanks to you for participating in the

discussion, contributing your ideas and experiences, and making it into a

valuable learning experience for all of us.  We would like to propose

keeping

the list open for another week for comments on the following summary and

closing

remarks.

 

James Deane, Carl Dahlman, and Kerry McNamara

 

SUMMARY OF THE IKD DISCUSSION LIST

 

This is a summary, prepared by the co-moderators, of the IKD discussion.

This

was a dynamic, multi-layered discussion lasting over 10 weeks and a short

summary such as this cannot begin to encompass all the insights and comments

that were made in the more than 500 contributions to the discussion.

Nevertheless, we have tried to capture both some of the character of the

discussion and the key points raised.  The whole discussion is archived on

the

World Bank website at http://www.globalknowledge.org/worldbank/ikd/current.

 

The role of knowledge and information in development is a large subject.  To

focus the discussion, the co-moderators suggested a structure which split

the

discussion into different weeks, each of which was to examine a specific

range

of issues.   Please note that, while the summaries reflect this structure,

the

actual discussions often tended to cross over and feed into each other.

 

Week 1: What are we talking about?

 

The discussion this week focused on two main areas.  First, the definitions

of

knowledge and information and their role in development; and second, how

those

definitions depend on a broader understanding of the context in which

knowledge

and information flows  within societies and within the broader global

economy.

It centered on six  overlapping themes.

 

i. Knowledge and Information "Gaps": The Dangers of a Patronizing Approach:

 

Several participants warned that the discussion risked implying that people

in

developing countries possessed less knowledge, or knowledge of less value,

than

those in developed countries.  They pointed out that a discussion of the

role of

knowledge and information in development needed to be explicit about the

model

of development it posited, in order to avoid simply condemning the more

traditional, but equally rich, knowledge resources of the poor.   Several

participants cautioned against an approach that would have the developed

countries decide what information and knowledge was important for developing

countries.

 

ii. Different types of knowledge and the role of indigenous/traditional

knowledge

 

Several participants gave examples (traditional mettallurgy, herbal

medicine) of

traditional/indigenous knowledge that was alternately scorned and

appropriated

by developed countries, and pointed out that developing countries need to

find

ways to realize the full value of, and protect their claim to, their stores

of

indigenous knowledge.

 

iii. The relationship between knowledge and information

 

Several participants pointed out that the relationship between knowledge and

information is complex and by no means unilinear.  While it is traditionally

held that information is prior to knowledge, several participants cautioned

that

new information can not be effectively absorbed without the proper

contextual

understanding (knowledge).  To give one example: new information about

peasants'

rights in land tenure cannot be absorbed (and hence acted upon) without

knowledge about legal systems and property rights.  Any "information and

knowledge for development" strategy, therefore, cannot simply focus on

providing

information to individuals and communities.  It also must focus on

developing

the contextual understanding and knowledge that permits individuals and

communities to convert new information into meaningful action.

 

iv. Global knowledge/information resources and local culture

 

Several participants cautioned that the enthusiasm for global information

and

knowledge resources and networks can obscure the damaging effect of global

information and entertainment resources on cultural diversity and local

contextual knowledge.

 

v. The political economy of knowledge and information

 

Several participants emphasized the importance of a political and

institutional

focus to the discussion of the role of knowledge and information in

development.

Poverty is not simply the result of the lack of access to (and proper

application of) knowledge and information; it is also a result of broader

political and structural phenomena. Therefore the analysis of the causes of

poverty and strategies for addressing it, and of the role of knowledge and

information therein, need to be frank and realistic about these larger

political

and institutional dimensions.

 

vi. Who defines what is and is not knowledge?

 

Several participants raised the question of who defines what is and is not

knowledge - whether it can be centrally defined and then disseminated or

whether

centrally produced material is information and only becomes 'knowledge' when

internalised either by individuals or by institutions.

 

Several threads of the discussion this first week point to the need to

devise

strategies for empowering individuals and communities to use information and

knowledge as tools in their own development.  With this in mind, the

discussion

turns in these next two weeks to issues of individual and institutional

capacity-building.

 

Weeks 2 and 3:  Building Institutional and Individual Capacities

 

With many postings to date emphasizing that applying knowledge to

development

problems rested heavily on the level of capacity within societies to adapt,

interpret and generate knowledge, the discussion moved on to how such

capacity

could be strengthened.  This section was divided into building institutional

capacities within developing countries (scientific capability, research and

academic institutions, think tanks etc) and individual capacities

(especially

through education).

 

The discussion on institutional capacities was a quiet one.  Academic

institutions in regions such as Africa were regarded as having a critical

role -

in maximizing indigenous knowledge, in adapting external knowledge to local

use

and in training and capacity building.  The problems they faced were not

only an

acute and declining low level of resources but also a lack of intellectual

freedom.

 

The discussion on education was more intense, resting on three main issues.

The

most contentious issue - over financing and resourcing education - focused

around a recent report that the Kenyan government had closed 25 primary

teaching

training colleges following World Bank advice to increase pupil-teacher

ratios

and save costs.  Following a number of requests from participants, the

moderators requested a response from the World Bank office in Kenya but none

was

forthcoming.  In absence of a response, the debate on the crucial issue of

financing of education did not progress significantly.

 

The second main issue was what the role of education should principally be.

A

distinction was made on education which involved the "absorption" of

knowledge

and that which strengthened capacities to interpret and generate knowledge.

Several postings focused on the importance of teaching to think and

question.

In the same vein, several participants emphasized the role of education as a

process, something that needed to be lifelong and to be rooted in

communities.

In this context, some cautioned about placing too much emphasis on external

educational resources such as distance learning and centrally/externally

defined

curricula since these have a tendency to homogenize, and not reflect the

diversity and reality of communities.   The importance of nurturing

indigenous

national and indigenous educational institutions was stressed.

 

Third, for all its importance, several participants cautioned about treating

education as a cure all magic ingredient.  People are not necessarily poor

because they lack access to education - they are often poor because they

lack

access to land, markets and resources. Education, information and knowledge

are

vital, but several participants argued that the roots of many development

problem were that wealth and power are too often concentrated in the hands

of

the few.   Knowing the solution to a problem does not always place you in a

position to solve it

 

Nevertheless, the importance of education was stressed throughout, not least

because it was a prerequisite for exploiting the opportunities provided by

communications technologies. There was also a discussion of the role of

English

in today's globalized society.  Opinion differed with some arguing that its

prevalence could be both useful and empowering providing a common means of

communication for diverse groups.  Others cautioned against homogenization.

 

Week 4:  The Role of the Media

 

This discussion tended to reflect an overall theme running through much of

the

debate, namely that public information needs to focus more on its role of

stimulating debate than on prescribing advice.

 

The role of the media in disseminating knowledge was emphasized and the

concomitant responsibility of those who possess knowledge to explain and

communicate it informs that could be readily understood (without jargon

etc).

There was a questioning of the assumption that media coverage of development

issues needed to be worthy or unpopular with several examples given of how

programming on important issues could also be compelling. The educational

use of

mass media (especially television) was felt to be under  rather than

over-utilized. Television works in delivering messages, is getting cheaper

and

easier to use and access, and is potentially much more participative.

 

What does not exist, it was pointed out, were the appropriate policy and

regulatory environments that could enable the media to produce genuinely

informative programming.  Discussion also focused on issues of ownership and

control of the media and of the opportunities, importance and potential of

more

community control of media.

 

The role of the media in ensuring good governance and accountability was

also

raised, and the problems of a lack of status and professionalism in

journalism.

An emphasis was placed on the importance of journalist training,

particularly in

fostering more investigative reporting.  Investigative reporting was felt to

be

an increasingly important complement to traditional (e.g.,) health education

and

promotion.

 

Access to the media was also discussed, although some discussants emphasised

that public demand for information (either through media or telephony for

example) was often intense and led to many innovative strategies of getting

access.  It was also noted that technology is becoming cheaper and thus both

television and radio were becoming  potentially more participative.

 

A note of caution was nevertheless sounded - in the poorest countries where

people still lack the most basic human needs, and where batteries even for

radio

are too expensive, the "urgent need to promote mass media" (as with

information

technology) needs to be seen in the context of the reality on the ground.

 

Complaints were made that there were far too few communication specialists

working in development agencies and that increasing this number could effect

real change on the ground.  This being said, the work of communication

specialists was having to evolve rapidly - changing media environments and

the

increasingly complex nature of development problems (such as HIV/AIDS) meant

that traditional strategies to achieve behavior change were no longer

sufficient.

 

These new media environments also created important opportunities (in that

they

were often more democratic, energetic, commercial, engaging, decentralized

and

potentially closer to the community) as well as dangers (concentration of

ownership, lack of transparency in who owns means of information etc).  They

also suggested that communication strategies should increasingly focus on

more

horizontal communication aimed at fostering discussion between people rather

than aiming messages at them.