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)
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)
No comments:
Post a Comment