Syndicate content

Development

Five myths about governance and development

David Booth's picture

In some areas of development policy, deep-rooted assumptions are extremely hard to dislodge. Like science-fiction androids or the many-headed Hydra, these are monsters that can sustain any number of mortal blows and still regenerate. Capable researchers armed with overwhelming evidence are no threat to them.
 
The importance of good governance for development is one such assumption. Take last month’s enquiry report on Parliamentary Strengthening by the International Development Committee of the UK parliament. It references the UN High Level Panel’s opinion that ‘good governance and effective institutions’ should be among the goals for ending global poverty by 2030. It would have done better to reference the evidence in 2012’s rigorously researched UN publication Is Good Governance Good for Development?
 
Here are five governance myths about which the strong scientific consensus might – eventually – slay some monsters.

Quote of the Week: Diane Ackerman

Sina Odugbemi's picture

“Our new age, for all its sins, is laced with invention… We have tripled our life span, reduced childhood mortality, and for most people, improved the quality of life…Our mistakes are legion, but our talent is immeasurable.”
 

-Diane Ackerman, a poet, essayist, and naturalist. She is the author of two dozen well-regarded works of nonfiction and poetry, including The Zookeeper's WifeA Natural History of the Senses, and the latest New York Times bestseller, The Human Age: The World Shaped by Us.
 

Next Wave of Economic Reforms in India

Varun Sridharan's picture
Dr. Denis Medvedev, the World Bank Group’s Senior Country Economist, spoke at the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta on the Next Wave of Economic Reforms in India on 20th November, this year.  The talk focused on the challenges facing the Indian economy in achieving inclusive growth with a special focus on reducing poverty in the lower income states.
IIM Calcutta Discussion
Photo Credit: Roli Mahajan

Multiple Pathways – How "Why" Matters

Brian Levy's picture

Once upon a time, development seemed straightforward. Sound technical analysis identified what to do– and the rest followed. But experience has taught us that it is harder than that. As Shanta’s recent post signals, there are three competing camps – the ‘whats’, the ‘hows’ and the ‘whys’. I wonder, though, whether in clarifying the differences, we might be missing the chance to learn across these different perspectives?
 
Certainly, the differences are large. At one end are the old-time-religion ‘whats’, who confidently prescribe ‘best practices’ to help countries stay on the right path – and who sometimes turn to the ‘whys’  to identify  the political and institutional blockages to good policies.  At the other end, the ‘hows’ argue that every country is unique, that the crucial knowledge for shaping and implementing policy is local, and tend to be dismissive of  efforts (especially by outsiders) to analyze political and institutional obstacles.
 
My new book, Working with the Grain  tries to steer a middle ground.  The book explores a small number of alternative development pathways that are very different from  each other – with each characterized by a distinctive set of political and institutional incentives and constraints, and thus distinctive options for policymaking and implementation.

Can “Resource Financed Infrastructure” Fix the Natural Resource Curse?

Håvard Halland's picture
Resource Financed Infrastructure
Source: Getty Images/Sam Edwards.
 

In Africa, estimates indicate that an annual investment of $93 billion is required to address the continent’s basic infrastructure needs – more than double the current level of investment.

The lack of productive investment of resource revenues, with spending of these revenues often heavily tilted towards consumption, is a critical component of the so-called resource curse, the observation that countries rich in natural resources frequently have slow long-term growth. Following oil or mineral discoveries, as the expectation of increased wealth spreads, pressures to spend typically become hard for politicians to resist, public sector salaries go through the roof, wasteful spending increases, corruption may flourish, hidden foreign bank accounts may be established, and the number of unproductive “white elephant” projects grows.

How can resource-rich countries ensure that a large share of oil, gas, and mining revenues are used for productive investment rather than excessive or wasteful consumption?

Making Development Edutaining

Swati Mishra's picture

Development is not easy; making it sustainable, even more difficult. Take for example road traffic rules. We can build better roads and install traffic lights, but cannot guarantee adherence to traffic rules. Even with laws in place, people may be more willing to pay fines than stop at a red light or wear seat belts. How do you make people value their own lives or their betterment? To succeed, we have to motivate people rather than just educate them.

Back from Dakar: An update on CIWA’s expanding and deepening program

Gustavo Saltiel's picture
After a successful set of consultations around Africa’s pre-eminent gathering of water experts, policy makers, and civil society, the Cooperation in International Waters (CIWA) program is back from the 5th Annual Water Week (AWW) convened by the African Ministers’ Council on Water in Dakar in late May.

The Interview: Silvio Waisbord

Roxanne Bauer's picture
Exploring ideas, innovations and fresh approaches to our world is at the heart of the public sphere. People, Spaces, Deliberation brings you significant voices from academia and the practice of development through a series of interviews.

How can the development sector be more innovative? 

According to Professor Silvio Waisbord, an expert on global media, development, and social change, one of the critical roadblocks to overcome is the mismatch between "organizational demands" and "how change is possible." 
 
Professor Silvio Waisbord on Innovation in Development

The High-Risk, Low-Risk Scenarios for Russia’s Economic Future

Birgit Hansl's picture

I discussed our most recent Russia growth outlook at a roundtable at the Higher School of Economics Conference on Apr. 2 with a number of Russian and international experts. This conference is one of the most important and prestigious economic conferences in Russia, and traditionally, the World Bank co-sponsors it as part of its outreach to other stakeholders.

 

The room was packed...

Measuring Development Success in Difficult Environments

Laura Ralston's picture

The challenge of moving from conflict and fragility to resilience and growth is immense. More than half of the countries counted as low income have experienced conflict in the last decade. Twenty per cent of countries emerging from civil conflict return to violence in one year and 40% in five years.

While the use and production of reliable evidence has become more common in much of the international development debate and in many developing countries, these inroads are less prevalent in fragile and conflict-affected situations (FCS). Programming and policy making in countries affected by conflict and prone to conflict is often void of rigorous evidence or reliable data. It is easy to argue, and many do, that it is impossible to conduct rigorous evaluations of programs in conflict-affected states. However, in spite of the very real challenges in these environments, such evaluations have been conducted and have contributed valuable evidence for future programming, for example in Afghanistan, the DRC, Colombia, northern Nigeria and Liberia.

My unit Center for Conflict Security and Development, (CCSD) is teaming up with the Department of Impact Evaluation (DIME), as well as the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie), and Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA), in a series of activities to enhance the evidence base on development approaches to peace- and state-building challenges. A first goal is to scope out where our evidence base is thinnest: what are the programs and interventions that remain least tested, but have theories of change suggesting great potential? We are hoping to take stock of what we and other donor institutions have been doing in this area of development, and map this into what we have learnt and what we most need to learn more about. USIP, USAID, IRC as well as leading academics in this field and IEG, are kindly helping in this endeavor, and we hope to be able to share some initial findings at our fragility forum later this year.


Pages