Different development: walk the talk

14th April 2015

Spent the day at a ‘Doing Development Differently’ event recently and, while it offered a great opportunity to meet and hear from fascinating, dedicated, thoughtful people, I came away somewhat disheartened. Why? Because:

a) the consensus seemed to be that ‘what we have done so far hasn’t worked, so we need something different, something new’, and

b) everything was framed from the perspective of problems.

'Practice too often reverts to technocratic delivery that concentrates largely on spending money and counting numbers.'

For years, the development industry has spoken at great length about ‘empowerment’ and strengths-based programming, but too often on-the-ground work has focused on problems to be ‘solved’ and gaps to be filled. I think we need to start doing what we say we do, rather than saying one thing and doing another. And yes, this is a very broad brushstroke; apologies for tarring everyone with the same brush.

However, drawing on more than 15 years’ experience in South East Asia, I can say that much of the work I have seen/participated in/evaluated only looks great on paper. We say that community members have been engaged in the design, implementation and evaluation of interventions. We say that projects have built on local knowledge and local culture, and that they have made a difference to the lives of the most vulnerable and marginalised. Practice, however, too often reverts to technocratic, bureaucratic and pragmatic delivery that concentrates largely on spending money and counting numbers. Those numbers are rarely disaggregated in ways that allow us to see whether those who have been reached are, indeed, the most vulnerable and marginalised.

The way in which ‘big data’ can work to obscure inequality is most clearly demonstrated by the MDGs. ‘It is possible to achieve most of the targets without addressing extreme poverty of the most excluded in a society’ notes Malcolm Langford in a report on Human Rights and MDGs in Practice (161 KB PDF). The UN’s own Special Expert on Minorities has noted that the focus on the MDGs has masked the problems faced by ethnic minorities (628 KB PDF), albeit unintentionally, because of the way in which data is aggregated.

When I asked my Doing Development Differently colleagues why problems were our focus (Problem Driven Iterative Adaptation, to give yet another much-loved development acronym, PDIA, its full name), several were bemused. What else, I was asked, could we focus on?

The answer, as any good community development practitioner would tell you, is assets (578 KB PDF). Assets can be:

•    The practical skills, capacity and knowledge of local residents;

•    The passions and interests of local people that give the energy for change;

•    The networks and connections in a community;

•    The effectiveness of local community and voluntary associations;

•    The resources of public, private and third sector organisations available to support a community;

•    The physical and economic resources of a place that enhance wellbeing.

An asset-based approach sees a half-full glass. Yes, there are problems (of course), but we need to focus on the resilience and experience and knowledge of those who are living with those problems.

'An asset-based approach sees a half-full glass ... we need to focus on the resilience, experience and knowledge of those who live with the problems.'

Doing Development Differently promotes practice in which local people lead the process of identifying and ‘fixing’, with some external help. I applaud this; it is, after all, what we in the development industry have been saying we do for many a long year. Even so, focusing on problems is disempowering, no matter who gets to identify the problem.

I also understand that a problem-focused approach can be seen as a positive response to existing challenges. The World Bank’s Good Practice Framework (665 KB PDF) is front and centre here. As Verena Fritz argued in a World Bank blog last year:

 … a “problem-driven” approach means starting from a specific issue rather than focusing on a broad analysis. Such a focus gives the analysis a clear scope and helps arriving at conclusions and recommendations that are actionable for Bank teams and/or the government counterparts.

And yet a problem-driven approach is still a deficit approach. Something is missing, or malfunctioning, or misunderstood, and has to be fixed. A deficit approach, say Foot and Hopkins:

… designs services to fill the gaps and fix the problems. As a result, the community can feel disempowered and dependent; people can become passive recipients of expensive services rather than active agents in their own and their families’ lives.

An asset-based programme can still effectively address issues, but the focus is on using what’s already there and building on it. As noted in a Glasgow Centre for Population Health paper:

Asset-based approaches value the capacity, skills and knowledge and connections in individuals and communities. They focus on the positive capacity of individuals and communities rather than solely on their needs, deficits and problems. These assets can act as the foundation from which to build a positive future.

That’s empowerment, in practice.

Image: Kitengela Glass (Photo: Flikr user Wendy Tanner)

1 Comments

1.

Jim Smith

16th April 2015 at 10:20

Great points well made, the principle applies beyond development programs as well. Problem based approaches negative feelings and internal defense mechanisms and hence resistance, asset based approaches trigger feelings of hope and hence further improve resilience and sustainable outcomes

Leave a comment

The views expressed in Opinions posts are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of DLP, the Australian Government or DLP's partner organisations.

Documents

Author

Gillian Fletcher

Gillian Fletcher

Gillian is a DLP Research Fellow with more than 15 years’ experience of working in, researching, and evaluating international development. Her PhD examined the gaps between rhetoric and practice in HIV prevention in Myanmar. Methodologically, Gillian has a strong commitment to participatory action research and reflective learning. She is based at La Trobe University's Institute for Human Security and Social Change. 

Read more

Related items

Being 'there': reflections on fieldwork in the DRC

Fieldwork in fragile places part 1: the security dilemma

Opinion by Suda Perera5th November 2014
Opinion by Heather Marquette9th March 2015

Corruption: is the right message getting through?

The unintended consequences of raising awareness of corruption

Opinion by Caryn Peiffer12th August 2015

Taking the Results agenda to the next level?

On new book The Politics of Evidence and Results in International Development

Opinion by Chris Roche15th July 2015

Authoritarianism, democracy and development

What does the evidence say?

Opinion by Tim Kelsall27th November 2014

Innovation: transactional or transformative?

Given the fascination with 'innovation' in the field of development, it's time to discuss what the word might mean.

Opinion by Chris Roche23rd March 2015

Indonesia and the political settlements trap

The challenges of 'resettling the settlement'

Opinion by Graham Teskey17th July 2015

International donors - aiding or abetting?

The 'donor's dilemma' is discussed in a new DLP paper.

Opinion by Niheer Dasandi10th September 2015

Security and justice – the mismatch between policy and practice

What hinders more politically nuanced security and justice programming?

Opinion by Shivit Bakrania21st July 2014

Politics shape services; and services shape politics

How governance and sector specialists can help each other understand the politics of service delivery

Opinion by Richard Batley19th June 2014

Overcoming premature evaluation

Guest post in From Poverty to Power

Opinion by Chris Roche15th November 2016

Do donors have realistic expectations of their staff when it comes to 'thinking and working politically'?

Is learning to ‘think politically’ like learning a new language? 

Opinion by Heather Marquette9th June 2014

Cancer and the links between medicine and development

Guest post for From Poverty to Power

Opinion by Chris Roche15th April 2015

Corruption: do we target the servant or the paymaster?

Guest post for The Guardian on UK aid watchdog report

Opinion by Heather Marquette5th November 2014
Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal26th April 2016

Inclusive political settlements: who and what gets included, and how?

First of six posts on political settlements by researchers, policymakers and practitioners.

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal13th July 2015
Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal24th November 2014
Opinion by Caryn Peiffer5th February 2015

Parliamentary strengthening: the IDC report

Having presented evidence to the UK's International Development Committee, what of the final report?

Opinion by Tam O'Neil9th February 2015

Masculinity and sexual violence in India

Will the shocking Nirbaya case shift attitudes?

Opinion by Martin Rew16th September 2015
Opinion by Heather Marquette10th November 2014

Politics - the problem and solution to poor services?

Why - and how - does politics trump everything else in service delivery?

Opinion by Claire Mcloughlin13th March 2014

Identifying rebels with a cause (and effect)

'Power, politics and positive deviance' is the theme of DLP's 2016 annual conference.

Opinion by Chris Roche1st December 2015

Neither 'good guys' nor 'bad guys': Positive engagement with armed groups

Final post in a series on 'Power, politics and positive deviance', theme of DLP's 2016 Annual Conference.

Opinion by Suda Perera5th February 2016

‘Crows who come in search of dollars’: NGO legitimacy in conflict zones

Do political dynamics affect NGO legitimacy more than performance?

Opinion by Oliver Walton19th August 2014

What do we do on Monday? Political settlements in theory and practice

The value of the political settlements framework

Opinion by Edward Laws15th July 2015

Does talking about corruption make it seem worse?

Guest post for The Guardian's Global Development Professionals Network

Opinion by Susy Ndaruhutse11th September 2014

Is education a magic bullet for addressing corruption? Insights from Papua New Guinea

This post for Devpolicy unpacks the findings of a new Development Policy Centre / DLP paper 

Opinion by Grant Walton17th June 2015

Political analysis as the practical art of the possible

Bringing politics back into PEA - a new paper with Adrian Leftwich

Opinion by David Hudson24th July 2014