Participatory learning by doing

Subject: [IKD] Participatory learning by doing

Date: Sun, 11 Apr 99 11:56:39 +0900

From: "Inst. of Com. & Envi." <gxcao@km.col.com.cn>

Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org

To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org

 

In responding to the week 8's topic, I want to discuss the role of

international institutions based on some experiences from China.

 

I think that international institutions emerged under the complex

interaction between political, socioeconomic, and environmental factors. It

means that international institutions are facing the great challenge, hoping

to achieve great objectives (making the uncompatibles compatible) pushed by

high outside expections. Taking this in mind, it may help to understand two

seeminly conflict views: international institutions achieve a lot because it

does from zero, and international institutions achieve little because there

is too big gap toward expectations. I want to address following two points:

 

1. Learning by doing. The complex of the reality particularly in rural areas

almost made impossible for any organization to easily achieve big success if

not failure. The reason is simple, we don't know how to address the issue,

how to take a practical approach to make a sensible entry. I should say that

at least the past learning experiences deliver a clear message, we should

make change for a more  success and we should continue to learn. Positively,

the past developing experiences by international institutions have also made

some achievements, which clearly justify their continual commitment on

future involvement. From my experiences in China, I can say that

international organizations have introduced many good things in China along

with the failure outputs, and have significantly increased the capacity of

many local intitutions and individuals. Therefore from a Chinese

perspective, I would like to see more international involvement in China's

development, which of course should be based on the continous understanding

of local condition. Then how to do this and how to learn?

 

2. Participatory working strategy. Once talking about the role of

international institutions, there is a belief that the international

organizations should try to identify the nich to better provide help. If you

look into the field practices, some other stories come out. I often heard my

Chinese colleagues say that World Bank and others' projects have helped them

to learn more of the advanced techniques and good management skills, but it

was just very difficult to put into practices in current Chinese condition.

Others even said that perhaps not much the international organizations help

local communities, but the local communities helped the international

organizations to achieve success. The reasons are complicated. At least one

is clear: the macro strategy and microstrategy are quite different, in which

international organizations focus the former and local community the later.

The participatory methodology could bring two together, which has been

discussed by other individuals in this discussion. Therefore the logic

suggestion seems that if participatory methodology can be adopted under the

current political and institutional structure of international organization,

a better learning by doing process could be forseen. For achieving this, a

clear understanding process in terms of research and others is necessary.

 

Cao, Guangxia

ADDRESS: Institute of Community and Environment (ICE)

         c/o SOUTHWEST FORESTRY COLLEGE

         KUNMING 650224

         P.R. CHINA

         Tel: 86 871 3862525

         Fax: 86 871 5615879

         Email: gxcao@km.col.com.cn

 

 

Subject:

Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 04:39:24 PDT

From: "Javed Ahmad" <jsahmad@hotmail.com>

Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org

To: IKD@jazz.worldbank.org

 

I have not seen new messages since April 5. I wonder if the discussion

on IKD has come to a close? This is my first input into a very

interesting discussion that I have been following for several weeks

now. May I say that far from suspecting the World Bank for starting

the discussion, I am surprised for their initiative of opening up to

the internet community and perhaps beyond.  What I knew of the Bank,

it is totally unlike the Bank to open up forums such as these.

 

With respect to giving information or knowledge to the poor, may I say

that it seems as practically no one in real power, is making real

effort to give it to them.  Let me explain. Many people in the rural

areas who own a working radio, mostly turn it on to listen to news.

The quality of news is another matter. Problem of batteries aside,

with few exceptions, programmes on development issues are poorly

designed, too broad in scope and lack human interest content.  In one

study I was involved in an African country, respondents said that

programmes on radio were not comprehensible because people spoke too

fast.    Problems of vocabulary, language, terminology, are on top of

that.  Print materials including newspapers, are fine except who can

afford them? Only a miniscule fraction of rural people can afford to

buy a newspaper.  What do they look for in a newspaper is another

issue because the ones with photographs in colour sell most.   Public

organizations responsible to educate people in matters of health and

agriculture, for instance, print brochure and booklets, but in tiny

quantities, and even at that, they may never reach intended audience.

 

 

If  people who controlled resources really wanted poor to have

information and knowledge, instead of controls and restrictions, they

would have supported dissemination of information. They would have

facilitated, through subsidized paper and printing facilities, through

tax and other incentives and by encouraging setting up of community

radio and TV stations.  Literacy would be eradicated even before small

pox, and telephone lines would be made easily accessible in every

village.   Academic institutions would be producing well trained

educators and communicators in larger numbers than military cadets.

In other words, development priorities would be different.

 

Of course, the key question is: if people were generally empowered

through information and knowledge, would development objectives be

achieved faster? Or slower?  Your guess is as good as mine.  I only

feel that eventually, to eradicate poverty we might be better off

empowering people through information, knowledge and decentralized

governance.  Given a chance, people may, then, find ways to eradicate

poverty themselves, faster and better than well wishers like us.

 

Javed S. Ahmad

Adviser on Labour & Population (IEC)

UNFPA CST, Kathmandu, Nepal

e-mail: jsahmad@hotmail.com

 

Subject: [IKD] International Institutions

Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 09:46:14 -0400 (EDT)

From: Kevin Lyonette <lyonette@bluewin.ch>

Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org

Organization: SDS

To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org

CC: DMC@hq.iucn.org, cap21@tricom.net, cieca@aacr.net

 

As Carl Dahlmann points out in his Introduction to this week's debate,

we now reach the core of the problem - what can international

institutions do to improve the achievement of "development", especially

in the area of relevant knowledge?

 

In all fairness to the Bretton Woods institutions, the meaning given to

the term "development" has been subject to fairly constant change since

the end of the 2nd World War.  In the period 1948-90, the essential

emphasis - but never actually explicit for obvious reasons - was on

material, economic growth so as to demonstrate the superiority of

capitalism over communism.  The failure of economic growth to bring

equity, poverty alleviation and welfare (in its original definition)

provoked the formulation of ever more anti-statist ideas, culminating,

in my view, in the declaration by the Bank in the World Development

Report 1991 that "the effective state is a very scarce resource to be

used very frugally and only where it is most needed".  In my view, this

is a major and very damaging mis-conception of the societal role of the

State.

 

Since the advent of glasnost and the de-(or uni-)polarization of the

world, it is acknowledged that issues such as poverty and environment

must be addressed - either because of the need for future markets and

consumers or because of altruism. The real answer is probably a mix of

both attitutdes, with strong emphasis on the former.

In this continuing confusion, what can and should the international

institutions do ?  Some few suggestions :-

 

        be clear about their aims - from Barber Conable to Jim Wolfensohn,

there has been a constant see-sawing re-definition of aims and

priorities.

        be inclusive in the approach to development - economic growth per se

is

not sufficient. Social and enironmental costs and benefits must be

factored into development plans and equations from the start. In this

respect, while I, for one, applaud the thinking behind the new (January

1999) Comprehensive Development Framework, it is sad and a major mistake

not to include environmental factors in it. Perhaps the new Environment

and Sustainability programme of the Bank will fill this gap but, without

an integrated approach from the start, the development equation is bound

to be deficient.

        be consistent in action - there is still an internal dichotomy, if

not

schizophrenia evident in the Bank/IMF where thematic or policy divisions

will formulate topical approahes but the real-life, field operations of

those institutions continues to show an exclusive emphasis on economic

growth as such.

        be modest - as many other commentators have said.  Neither the bank

nor

the IMF has all the answers and there is no mass-production blueprint of

development.  Local knowledge, empowerment and ownership are crucial to

success.  The highly centralized structures of the Bank/IMF militate

very strongly against such an approach.

        emphasize quality over the ability to quantify.

 

K.J.Lyonette, SDS

1a Sentier des Morettes

1197 Prangins, Switzerland

Tel +4122 361 9739, fax +4122 361 8164

lyonette@bluewin.ch

 

Subject: [IKD] IK & Project Cycle

Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 09:48:25 -0400 (EDT)

From: "A. Winkels" <aw240@hermes.cam.ac.uk>

Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org

To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org

 

Most development agencies working for rural development, sustainable natural

resource management, etc. adhere to the dominant western/scientific

knowledge system and are limited to available funding and pre-determined

time-frames.  It is a tall order to expect current development thinking and

practice to reject modern ideas completely.  On a more practical level,

however, it would be very interesting to see how the `Project Cycle´ could

be adapted to truly incorporate the dynamic, embedded and evolving nature of

indigenous knowledge and practice.

 

In my opinion this rigid structure has to be abandoned in favour of more in

depth analysis of the knowledge and available solutions held by local

people.  Anthropologists and sociologists are becoming increasingly involved

at the planning stages of development projects, yet they are still very

limited by pre-determined objectives and time-frames.

 

My  concern is, therefore, twofold; 1) what does a more open an flexible

project structure look like, and 2) how do we balance a more flexible

structure, which is necessary to appropriately elicit any relevant local

knowledge and determine local needs AND subsequently act upon it, with the

need to be accountable to the donor agencies.

 

Best regards,

Alexandra Winkels

 

******************************

Alexandra Winkels

MPhil Environment & Development

Department of Geography

University of Cambridge

Ph: +44 (0) 1223 302 414

Email: a_winkels@hotmail.com

******************************

 

Subject: [IKD] Re: Introduction to Week 8

Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 19:27:00 -0400 (EDT)

From: "M. Gordon Jones" <mgjones@cwix.com>

Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org

To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org

CC: mike enskat <menskat@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>

 

Thanks to all involved in this exercise. I have gained some better sense of

IKD in the past six weeks -- but now, I fear,  the temptation toward really

irrelevant polemics is taking over the dialogue. The ghost of David Malthus,

dead these two centuries, manifested itself in the contribution "des Herrn

Lubbers." I do not want to compromise the tone of our conversation. No

sustainable development? Only through "de-development" will the Third World

come to higher living standards? We are at 10-20 times the putative human

impact that he sees as sustainable?

 

Just for starters: assuming the developing nations arrive at a realistic

response to the Kyoto Protocol's  mechanisms responding to the threat of

climate change (admittedly, an optimistic assumption), much of the

CO2-generating industrial base will begin to shift to those countries. Herr

Lubbers may not be pleased, but that not-unrealistic prospect means NOT

de-development of the industrial countries -- BUT RATHER, through emissions

trading (i.e., sale of credits for reduced pollution in efficient new

facilities), a financially attractive transfer of such output to appropriate

sites.

 

By the way, is this a radical new theory? No, it's the "product life cycle"

of classic economics; re-read your Kindleberger (the course used to be

called International Trade 101), folks. It still works...

 

M. Gordon Jones

Senior Associate

Global Business Access Ltd.

Washington, DC

mgjones@cwix.com

 

Subject: [IKD] Ecologically Healthful Development

Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 19:29:24 -0400 (EDT)

From: Reid Harvey <ceramics@AfricaOnline.Co.Ci>

Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org

To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org

 

I appreciate the urgent concerns pointed out by Helmut Lubbers. The need to

use

the world's diminishing resources intelligently cannot be over-emphasized.

However, to state that "sustainable development does not exist. . ." is

extreme

and misleading.

 

Imagine that here in Cote d'Ivoire I begin cultivating timber bamboo for

building construction. I plant this in places where the rich soil needed for

a

farm has been erroding away. Harvesting the bamboo that is now mature, which

I

planted, three years ago, our community constructs its buildings and

shelter. I

cannot imagine how I have contributed towards resource depletion, since I

have

used a material that is readily renewable. My community has grown materially

and economically without any deleterious effect whatsoever.

 

Also troubling to me is the idea that "any development of the third world

must

be offset by a de-development of the rich world. . . " Do I have to contact

somebody in the rich world before I continue with my bamboo project? Who

created this mess anyway? Development in my part of the world tends to be so

small scale by comaprison to the massive projects of industrial countries,

that

I cannot help but believe that preventing what I am doing is like going

after a

bug with a sledgehammer.

 

The points raised for the suggested ecological assessment should consider

development that IS sustainable. Planting timber bamboo to prevent errosion

is

one of many examples available. Otherwise we should just fold up our tents

and

climb a high mountain, never to return.

 

Reid Harvey

Abidjan, la Cote d'Ivoire

ceramics@AfricaOnline.Co.Ci

 

Subject: [IKD] IKD: Implications for International Inst

Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 20:16:51 -0400 (EDT)

From: James Deane <jamesd@panoslondon.org.uk>

Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org

Organization: *

To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org ("ikd@jazz.worldbank.org")

 

(MODERATORS' NOTE:  Our apologies to all who received a "blank"

version of James Deane's message, due to a technical glitch.  And

apologies to James Deane as well!!!!)

 

Implications for International Institutions

 

In its recent report on the effectiveness of aid, the World Bank defined

development assistance as a combination of money and ideas (or

knowledge).  There is one key message that emerges from this debate.

While the money may still need to originate from the North, the

opportunity that the information or knowledge revolution provides is for

the ideas to be increasingly generated from and debated by developing

world societies.  Creating the best possible conditions where that can

happen should be our first priority.

 

Drawing on some of the arguments running through the discussion we have

had to date, my own assessment is that the following are some logical

conclusions of our debate vis a vis international institutions:

 

The Knowledge Bank?:  Several factors have led to the increasing focus on

the role of knowledge in development, most notably the growing

integration and globalisation of the world economy, and developments and

rapid deployment of communications technologies. One response from the

World Bank and other institutions has been to stress how substantial its

own reservoir of knowledge and expertise is in solving development

problems, and to make that knowledge and expertise increasingly

accessible and available.   In itself, this is a bold and valuable

strategy which promises to make the information the Bank possesses more

impactful and the Bank itself more transparent.  The problems start when

the Bank implies, as it does when it refers to itself as Êthe Knowledge

BankË, that the knowledge that it possesses is inherently superior to

that of other institutions and partners, including those whom it is

trying to assist.

 

This strategy of making information, analysis, knowledge more accessible

is insufficient at best, and harmful and disempowering at worst if it is

not balanced by a vigorous, ambitious strategy of building capacities

within developing countries to sift through and create knowledge.

International institutions need to invest more in nurturing an

environment for positive change and less in determining what that change

should be.

 

Helping to create a level playing field: the growing role of civil

society and the increasingly decentralised nature of societies means that

international institutions such as the World Bank are, if they are to be

effective, going to have to engage in and win their arguments in the

public arena.  They are going to have to do so not only in front of their

critics in the West, but more importantly in the developing world.  It is

in the interests of everyone, not least these institutions, that the kind

of contentious public debate that this often involves is as informed,

inclusive and constructive as possible.  That means that these

institutions also need to invest more heavily in helping to create the

conditions where critical, constructive informed public debate can take

place. It also suggests that the Bank should be rather more muscular in

its deployment of argument, and less so in its deployment of power.

 

Engaging the debate:  To win their arguments, international institutions

need to become more willing to engage more openly in public debate. In

this connection, this discussion has demonstrated two things.  First the

Bank has, in my opinion, been consistently open, constructive and willing

to publish criticism in this debate both in its comoderating role and in

its own contributions. (For the record, as the comoderator, I can say

there has not been a single instance where Panos has had to exert

pressure to ensure certain messages were posted, or when we have felt

under any pressure to refuse any, even when they might have proved

embarrassing to the Bank.  My comoderators have been totally committed to

making this an open and constructive debate on the role of information

and knowledge).  On the other hand, there has been hardly any wider

engagement in the debate from other Bank staff, which would have been

particularly valuable over the more contentious issues such as financing

of education, when the Bank was explicitly asked  to contribute but chose

not to do so. This has sometimes constrained the discussion.

 

A locus of debate? This IKD discussion is part of a wider strategy in

which the Bank is seeking to position itself as a key locus of debate on

development issues. The experience of this debate is that this can be a

very valuable process, especially when the discussion is comoderated with

another independent organisation.  This only works, however, if the Bank

acknowledges that it is not a disinterested actor in this debate.

Institutions such as the World Bank are not, and should not pretend to

be ÊobjectiveË - in their analysis nor in their work. They have an

agenda. They need to be transparent about this.   Being a locus of debate

does not make the World Bank a neutral actor in it.   Nonetheless, the

Bank's willingness to foster such debates is a welcome first step toward

that openness.

 

James Deane

Director, Programmes

Panos Institute, London

Jamesd@panoslondon.org.uk