Can aid donors really ‘think and work politically’? Plus the dangers of ‘big man’ thinking, and the horrors of political science-speak

Spent an enjoyable  couple of days last week with the ‘thinking and working politically’ (TWP) crew, first at a follow up to the Delhi

Adrian Leftwich 1940-2013
Adrian Leftwich 1940-2013

meeting (nothing earth shattering to report, but a research agenda is on the way – I’ll keep you posted), and then at a very moving memorial conference for the late Adrian Leftwich (right), who is something of a founding father to this current of thought.

Regular readers of this blog will know that I’m a big fan of this line of thinking: understanding and engaging with the underlying issues of power and politics should be the heart of any serious work on development.

But based on last weeks exchanges, I’ve got some concerns too – here are some reflections:

First some choice quotes:

‘Governance people are in retreat at the moment. It’s quite shocking – the transformation agenda has been scrapped in favour of ‘let’s buy some results’

‘The one thing we learn from history is that we never learn from history’. Best not to think about that too hard.

As in Delhi, one very clear message was the very real institutional constraints on how far aid agencies, especially official ones (governments and multilaterals) can go on this agenda. TWP means taking risks, jumping at opportunities, finding and backing maverick ‘development entrepreneurs’ and accepting failure as the price of occasional success. Is that an institutional possibility for large agencies? Compare with this rather jaundiced (and Chatham House) description of how an aid donor works:

“There are three power centres in any aid organization: policy, risk control, spending. At the policy level, the underlying assumption is that country teams will not do the right thing unless you make it mandatory, so the role is to lobby for my bit in programme implementation. As a result, the organization builds up a labyrinth of mandatory controls, frameworks, strategies etc.

The risk and control power centre focuses on eliminating corruption; they feel that spending teams cannot be trusted to follow value for money, or do sufficient due diligence in avoiding corruption, when they also have to avoid any underspend (the ultimate crime). So the risk and control people add more controls and mandatory guidelines.

So where does that leave people trying to spend the money (and achieve change) at a country level? They generally react to the ever-proliferating controls in two ways – they either become completely immobilised and push every decision up to their bosses, or they work under the radar and hide a lot of what they actually do.”

We need to understand much better how donors actually function (or fail to) if we are to convince them to adopt the TWP approach, and at least some of the researchers present are planning to do a full political economy analysis of a donor – that will be interesting (if it’s ever published). DLP logo

The conference was organized by the Developmental Leadership Program, a research initiative founded by Leftwich to explore a much neglected topic,  ‘the critical role played by leaders, elites and coalitions in the politics of development’. It’s doing some great work, some of it reviewed on this blog, including some fantastic case studies on the origins of leaders in countries such as Somaliland and Ghana (more on that to follow).

But I’m torn over this increasing recognition of the importance of individuals in driving change. There’s no doubt (as I’m currently finding in my conversations in Tajikistan – more of that next week) that ‘development entrepreneurs’ who can think, act, seize opportunities, sell ideas and inspire (all at the same time) are not exactly growing on trees, and we need to understand how they emerge, and have impact.

But are we also falling into the trap of some kind of micro Big Man syndrome? – as Lant Pritchett so eloquently explains, we all prefer to think in terms of agents, rather than complex systems. How change happens is really complex, so let’s give our aching brains a rest and say it’s all about leaders. Think Paul Kagame and the tendency for politicians to see the world in terms of ‘decent chaps’. That sounds awfully like those British technocrats who admired Mussolini for making the trains run on time. To be fair, the DLP has a much more nuanced understanding of the word leadership, as this paper explains, but the issue still nags away.

Linked to this, there is a worrying tendency among the TWP crowd to take a perverse pleasure in jettisoning the accumulated ‘best practice’ of the development business, claiming it is both counter-productive (inhibits innovation and stops the emergence of hybrid institutions that function and last, even if they are second best from, say, a rights perspective) and an irritating outbreak of political correctness.

But however irritating the more unthinking outbreaks of tokenism and political correctness may be, the underlying ideas are substantial and important. Things like accountability, inclusion, gender rights, and participation are not political correctness, they are the stuff of development (Sen’s ‘freedoms to be and to do’). It may well be that we have to depart from them at times to achieve specific ends (e.g. if you’re negotiating a difficult peace settlement in Northern Ireland, publishing the minutes of every meeting is probably not going to help). But that departure should be temporary, for a clear purpose, and should eventually return us to a better place from which to recommence the struggle for all those good things like rights and transparency.

And finally, there’s the jargon problem, which seems particularly acute with this epistemic community. Oops, now I’m doing it. How

Jacob Zuma's new house, or a political settlement?
Jacob Zuma’s new house, or a political settlement?

would normal people translate these over-used phrases (my suggestions in brackets)

  • political settlements (= villages with lots of politicians living in them, or maybe just one – see right)
  • developmental regimes (= my perfect abs routine at the gym)
  • emergent change (= butterflies hatching in the spring, awww)

We really have to find better ways to communicate our ideas if we are to convince the non-wonk world.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information about our privacy practices, please see our .

We use MailChimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to MailChimp for processing. Learn more about MailChimp's privacy practices here.


8 Responses to “Can aid donors really ‘think and work politically’? Plus the dangers of ‘big man’ thinking, and the horrors of political science-speak”
  1. Ian Falkingham

    Fascinated by the comments on leadership. Really interesting to see how difficult this remains for many of us. On the one hand we can see the need for effective leadership , but on the other the old idea of a “strong man” (or woman) is deeply unappealing.

    Interesting to compare to leadership theories in business where Jim Collins research over a decade ago underminded the old idea of the strong leader.

    Empirical research showed that the companies with the best results over 15 and more years were led not by charismatic egotists but by self-effacing, humble but committed leaders. They understood leadership to be about gathering the right people, building teams and a shared sense of purpose.
    Management may be about rules and control (as seen in all the controls agencies put in place to keep country programmes in line), but leadership is about shared purpose and trust.
    Now that sounds more palatable!

  2. Frances Stewart

    Development agencies should live with failure as well as success. We learn from failure and if we had no failures it would indicate a too conventional and non-experimental approach. The big question, though, is how to get the right amount of failure, and how to differentiate ‘good’ failures from ‘bad’ . A research agenda here.

  3. Peter Chowla

    I can’t help be feel nervous about this agenda. This is much the rhetoric that Jim Yong Kim is espousing at the World Bank. But I’ve lately been working on a case in Honduras involving human rights violations. The head of Dinant corporation could easily be considered a “leader” and “a maverick development entrepreneur” bringing palm oil plantations to central America. The IFC “took risks” on this one, meaning violated many of its own standards, “jumped at opportunities” by signing the loan just after a political coup in Honduras.

    Of course this one came out as a disaster – one of the “accepting failure as the price of occasional success”? When it has involved death squads, land grabs, and complete violations of the rights agenda, then we can we really accept that as the “price of occasional success”?

    Yes lets think and work politically but aid people need to bring a rights perspective about WHO to work with and on WHOSE behalf.

  4. John Sidel

    Sorry, but as a so-called ‘political scientist’ who was present for all these discussions, I think that the caricature is unfair and unhelpful. The presentations on specific cases did NOT focus on ‘great men’ AT ALL (instead on coalitions among a broader range of social forces and political actors), and did not rely on jargon whatsoever. In fact the critique (by the author of this blog in particular) was that individual cases were discussed in loving detail for their specificities rather than wildly extrapolated/exaggerated generalizability which presumably would have to require theorization (i.e. jargon). In the call for help in telling development practitioners ‘what to do on Monday morning’, then maybe the empirically rich case studies can help you yourself create a jargon-free how-to manual that is free of the pretentions of the proverbial ivory tower….

  5. Heather Lyne de Ver

    This may be yet another example of the jargon problem – and leadership, as we conceive of it, is difficult to convey simply – but what we (DLP) really mean by leadership is very far from the ‘big man’ idea.

    DLP’s argument, in fact, is that leadership as a political process has been poorly understood analytically thus far. The literature on leadership tends to focus too strongly on individuals and their qualities, traits, values etc. and not enough on leadership as a collective process, involving leaders’ relations to their followers and vice versa but also, critically leadership as a (small-p) political process. Leadership as an analytical concept used by DLP, is about more than ‘big men’ (or big women for that matter), ‘champions of reform’, or ‘picking winners’. As we conceive of it, leadership is about the interactions between coalitions, organisations, elites, those with power. It is a process that forges, embeds and legitimates institutions; it is informed by and shapes the context around it.

    One of our biggest problems – the jargon issue again – is that when most people hear the term leadership, they think of ‘the leader’, the organisational leaders, or the political leaders, of the powerful CEO or the strong President. This may be because research into leadership overwhelmingly comes from the fields of business or organisational psychology – along side some historical tomes recalling the ‘great men of history’. Leader-ship, particularly in the context of weak or fragile states, isn’t and cannot be only about individuals or about conventional rules-bound structured systems of management or hierarchy.

    I don’t like to use the old adage – if only you read my paper you’d understand! – but I’ve tried to set this out in my DLP background paper on Leadership, Politics and Development. You’re concern that our research agenda tends towards conclusions of ‘decent chap-ism’, however, makes me think we need to make this much clearer throughout our work, so thank you for pointing this out!

  6. Cornelius Chipoma

    Duncan, even the notion of political needs rethinking. Development agencies can do well to focus on the small political not the large state-associated political. Speaking of jargon, the term catalytic approach is becoming my favorite. Some feel it’s even a new paradigm which I feel still needs a theory of action. Indeed, as you note “…‘development entrepreneurs’ who can think, act, seize opportunities, sell ideas and inspire (all at the same time) are not exactly growing on trees…”

    According to Sanjay Pradhan (World Bank 2010, 2):

    “Equally important in this [catalytic] paradigm is the emphasis on institutional change instead of a passive focus on training, technical assistance and systems development. We are shifting from the traditional capacity development focus on individual skills and organizational systems towards higher units of aggregation—to entire leadership teams, multi-stakeholder coalitions, or broader or conflicting social groups to forge consensus for change.”

    For this perspective to materialize, I believe it is the small ‘p’ that matters. The small ‘p’ as Rosalind Eyben (2010) shows is about building and leveraging relationships to build trust and mutual accountability to achieve the results we desire.