what you get here

This is not a blog which opines on current events. It rather uses incidents, books (old and new), links and papers to muse about our social endeavours.
So old posts are as good as new! And lots of useful links!

The Bucegi mountains - the range I see from the front balcony of my mountain house - are almost 120 kms from Bucharest and cannot normally be seen from the capital but some extraordinary weather conditions allowed this pic to be taken from the top of the Intercontinental Hotel in late Feb 2020
Showing posts with label robert chambers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label robert chambers. Show all posts

Thursday, May 6, 2021

Futures Work anyone?

“How to restore the capacity for effective and responsible action in a world we no longer understand and cannot control” 

That’s how IFF expressed its mission statement all of 20 years ago when it held its first three-day session – remembered here. 

Coincidentally, a whole world away in Uzbekistan, I was at that very moment completing a short paper exploring 5 questions –

·       why I was pessimistic about the future and so unhappy with the activities of the programmes and organisations with whom I dealt – and with what the French have called La Pensee Unique, the post 1989 “Washington consensus”

·       who were the people I admired

·       what they were achieving - and what not

·       how these gaps could be reduced

·       how with my resources I could help that process

That paper was called “Window of opportunity for ordinary people” which morphed after a few years into the 30-odd page “A Draft Guide for the Perplexed” (2013) - incorporating a friend’s feedback and further thoughts and notes. Since then the thought-piece has got out of hand – with a slimmed-down version being available here   

Needless to say, I am no closer to answering particularly the last of the five questions! I still don’t know where to put what time, energy and resources I have left remaining to me…..Whereas a body such as the International Futures Forum (IFF) has used that time to develop very strongly – as you will see from their rich website. There’s a lesson in there somewhere..

I was able this morning to take part in a zoom meeting to which IFF had kindly invited me – my first ever such zoom meeting. 

I must confess I froze a bit when we were invited to share something about ourselves and our expectations….What we say in such moments is generally so meaningless – a combination of self-promotion, buzzwords and flattery

I naturally mentioned the capacity development work I had been doing since 1990 in about 10 countries - but failed to mention the path-breaking strategic work I had been doing since 1975. Nor did I share just how important my writing is – the various efforts I’ve made to make sense of the reform of the State….or of the breakdown of our current economic system (the “Dispatches” doc in the list of E-books in the top-right corner)   

IFF are in the business of helping organisations face up to the challenges of the future – which raises several fundamental questions viz –

-       How can this be most honestly done?

-       What are the pitfalls to avoid?

-       Where has this most clearly been written about?

As you might expect, I can answer the last question most easily. Two books spring immediately to mind – Can we Know Better? Reflections for development by Robert Chambers (2017) one of the best writers in the development field; and The Collected Papers of Roger Harrison, a rare organisational consultant willing to share his concerns.

Organisational consultants don’t have a good reputation – too many charlatans have spoiled their pitch as spelled out in at least two highly critical studies “Management Gurus” by Andrzej Huczynszki (1993); and “The Witch Doctors” by Micklewait and Woolridge (1996) which suggest a world of senior executives subject to fads and fashions and given to imposing their will on the work force in an autocratic way. This is even more likely to happen in public bureaucracies which have the additional problem of a political layer on top.

Development writers emerge as the most thoughtful of the bunch – with the OECD publishing a couple of interesting guides to the field a few years ago

Supporting small steps – a rough guide for developmental professionals (Nick Manning; OECD 2015)

A Governance Practitioner’s Notebook – alternative ideas and approaches (Whaites et al OECD 2015)

Friday, April 21, 2017

Power - the elephant in the room

My field of endeavour over the past half century has been “development” – but not of the international sort. I started with “community development”, moved through different types of urban and regional development to a type of organizational development; then left Britain’s shores and found myself dealing more with what is now called “institutional development” and, latterly, “capacity development”……
I have to report that the development world is…..full of funding bodies, Think Tanks and prolific writers – and that you have to crawl through a lot of shit to find any pearls of wisdom.

Robert Chambers (as the link shows) is one of the few guys worth listening to on the subject. For 40 plus years he has worked with rural people in the world’s poorest areas and shamed the “powers that be” to let ordinary people speak and take their own initiatives.  
 What follows is a table from his great book - Ideas for Development (2005) which captures what professionals in the field feel they have learned in those 40-odd years (and, no, I do not think it is too cynical to think that perhaps the one they have learned is a bigger vocabulary!!)
                                                     
Four approaches to development
Approach
1. Benevolent
2. Participatory
3. Rights-based
4. Obligation-based
Core concept
Doing good
Effectiveness
Rights of “have-nots”
Obligations of “haves”
Dominant mode
Technical
Social
political
Ethical

Relationships of donors to recipients
Blueprinted
Consultative
transformative
Reflective
Stakeholders seen as
Beneficiaries
Implementers
Citizens
Guides, teachers
accountability
Upward to aid agency
Upward with some downward
multiple
Personal
Procedures
Bureaucratic conformity
More acceptance of diversity
Negotiated, evolutionary
Learning
Organizational drivers
Pressure to disburse
Balance between disbursement and results
Pressure for results
Expectations of responsible use of discretion

One of Chambers’ early books was titled, memorably, “Putting the Last First”. As you would expect from such a title, his approach is highly critical of external technical experts and of the way even “participatory” efforts are dominated by them.
The unease some of us have been increasingly feeling about administrative reform in transition countries is well explained in that table. The practice of technical assistance in reshaping state structures in transition countries is stuck at the first stage (eg the pressure to disburse in the EC Structural Funds programmes!!) – although the rhetoric of “local ownership” of the past decade or so has moved the thinking to the second column.

Mention of vocabulary prompts me to put a plug in for my Just Words - a glossary and bibliography for the fight against the pretensions and perversities of power. Also well worth looking at is -

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

A useful table

Sadly, the blog does not seem to offer the facility of showing tables. I found this table a very useful one when I first saw it some years ago - and have not so far been able to work into my thinking.
The practice of technical assistance in reshaping state structures in transition countries is stuck with the characteristics shown in the first column – although the rhetoric of “local ownership” of the past 5 years or so has moved the thinking to the second column. The challenge, I feel, is now two-fold, to make that rhetoric more of a reality and then to design systems of technical assistance that move us into the final 2 columns. Hopefully the reader can follow the logic.

Four approaches to development

Approach 1. Benevolent 2. Participatory3. Rights-based 4. Obligation-based

Core concept
1. Doing good
2. effectiveness
3. Rights of “have-nots”
4. Obligations of “haves”

Dominant mode
Technical
Social
political
Ethical

Relationships of donors to recipients -
Blueprinted
Consultative
transformative
Reflective

Stakeholders seen as -
Beneficiaries
implementers
Citizens
Guides, teachers

accountability -
Upward to aid agency
Upward with some downward
multiple
Personal

Procedures -
conformity
diverse
negotiated
Learning

Organizational drivers -
Pressure to disburse
Balanced
Pressure for results
Expectations of responsible use of discretion

Source; Ideas for Development: R. Chambers (2005) p 208)