Attend Spring Meetings on development topics from Apr 18-23. Comment and engage with experts. Calendar of Events

Syndicate content

Add new comment

Very good and useful post, Michael and Peter, making a number of fine points regarding such matters as more realistic M&E, longer M&E time frames, and integrating social accountability into health projects. I'm going to cite and quote it later today in weighing in on plans for an overseas meeting on monitoring, evaluation and development research. The one part in which your analysis is incomplete even to the point of being unintentionally misleading (or intentionally politic) is "Why has there been little progress in operationalizing a different approach to justice reform?" In addition to the factors you correctly identify, a number of others are at play. These include: 1. Current approaches serve the interests of many governments: They are politically safe; they overlook or even mask the how corruption, gender biases, patronage, elite control and other undue influences shape justice systems; and they keep funds flowing to government personnel and projects when at least some such funds might be better spent on civil society and other independent efforts. 2. Current approaches serve the interests of many development practitioners, whose advice is based on what they know how to do rather than what might need to be done: These approaches pour funds into what many such practitioners know about, which is providing technical assistance rather than political economy analyses and solutions; and by avoiding alternative and potentially more effective development strategies and activities, they avoid posing threats to such practitioners' expertise and employment. 3. Current approaches serve the interests of many international development institutions: It is often far easier to maintain good relations with a high government officials by telling it what it wants to hear and funding programs accordingly, as opposed to challenging their perspectives, prerogatives and priorities. I don't want to be too sweeping in this critique. As we all know, the extent to which any factors are at play vary from country to country, institution to institution, and official to official. And as you point out, technical analyses and solutions are part of the picture (though I would argue that in some contexts the international community's ability to effectively promote them is limited or nonexistent until other issues are dealt with). It's just that they are often overestimated to the neglect of addressing more fundamental political, economic and social problems...and the solutions and strategies appropriate for grappling with them.