Case Studies
of Previous Projects

Toolkits

Bibliography


"Professionals who are used to exercising their expertise within the confines of their disciplines are now challenged to confront issues at the interface of their expertise and the expertise in allied fields of knowledge." - Colin I. Bradford, Beyond the Washington Consensus
GH Briefing Note #1

Development Projects that Didn't Work: The Perils of Narrow Approaches to Complex Situations

by Courtney Keene

How is the continuous failure of development projects related to a lack of collaboration across disciplines and sectors?

Over fifty historical and contemporary cases of unsustainable development projects have been reviewed and analyzed. Globalhood’s research demonstrates how the lack of collaborations across disciplines and sectors has led to 1) a shallow understanding or complete disregard for the broad and often complex contexts in which projects exists; 2) un-holistic, un-strategic plans that are either too sectarian, over generalized or superficial; or 3) a cultural paradigm that perpetuates unsustainable development based on narrow-mindedness, uneven power dynamics, exclusion, rigidity and a lack of feedback and accountability. Globalhood is aware that there is no panacea to solve the problems and flaws of the development industry. Collaborating across disciplines is just one aspect of reform that the industry needs to start producing real, lasting change.

The lack of collaboration across disciplines and sectors often contributes to insufficient due diligence or a lack of knowledge of the broad and complex contexts in which development projects exist

A classic flaw of development projects and perspectives is the ignorance of project planners of the historical, political, social, economic and environmental contexts of a given community, country or region. Development projects or funds can intentionally or unintentionally contribute to corruption, escalating violence or general political unrest (i.e. Mobotu in Zaire, the Duvalier family reign in Haiti, the still-standing dictator, Paul Biya of Cameroon…etc). This is especially true if the project was designed and implemented without any multidisciplinary research, assessment and ground work in order to understand realities that will inevitably have an impact on and/or be impacted by the intervention. An understanding of a project’s complex context is important for the success and ultimate sustainability of the projects. For example, as anthropologist consultant to the World Bank, Phillip Conrad Kottak analyzed sixty-eight completed rural development projects from the 1960s and 1970s in order to assess the affects of the absence of socio-cultural expertise in project planning and implementation. He found that the average economic rate of return for the many socially incompatible projects was much lower (9%) than those of the socially compatible projects (19%).

The lack of multidisciplinary collaboration leads to development projects and policies that fall short of being holistic or strategic – even when these may be the stated objectives of project planners.

The ideal development project is one that is both holistic and strategic. Holistic, meaning projects based on a broad, multidisciplinary definition of development, seeking positive change in the economic, environmental, social, political, physical, psychological and spiritual realms. Although it may be overambitious to achieve all of this in one project, an ideally strategic design places interventions precisely where they are most needed and will have the greatest impact in all of these realms. Development projects often fall short of this ideal. Too often project planners gravitate towards large-scale, utopian plans instead of strategic interventions. This was the case for the IMF in its attempts to aid Indonesia recover from its economic crisis of the late 1990s. The IMF’s harsh economic conditionality led to conflict between economic classes, along ethnic lines. In the end, all of the IMF’s financial ‘solutions’ only further depressed the Indonesian economy, making it even less attractive to potential investors. Economist Joseph Stiglitz noted that “a greater appreciation of the social and political context would have led to better policies” and that if one doesn’t “use aid to support existing institutions then aid will help to undermine these existing institutions.” Overarching plans become blueprints used to apply to various situations, no matter how diverse they are. Other projects may focus on technical or solely engineering solutions to complex, multidisciplinary problems; ignoring the fact that the real world is quite fluid and not divided into sectors.

The insularity of the development industry has led to a development culture and mentality which contributes to the cycle of un-holistic, sectarian and unsustainable development projects.

In his book, The White Man’s Burden, noted economist William Easterly sets up a dichotomy between Planners and Searchers. He argues that Planners dominate the development industry. The Planner is characterized as a good-hearted, but isolated bureaucrat who, rather than go out and work with others, seeking solutions wherever they might be, resigns himself to reformulating problems so that they seem to fit the solutions he has devised. On the other hand, the Searcher is depicted as adventurous and bold, and most importantly, in tune with reality, its whims, resources, demands and many competing interests on the ground. Examples of the development planner’s culture abound: the lack of accountability when technical solutions like water pumps break down; the top down implantation of a fish factory in a pastoral region of Kenya without the participation or cultural consent of the nomadic population; dividing a Malian community by rigidly going ahead with the plan to install a mill even after discovering that a local mill is already being run.

The research conducted by Globalhood will help development planners recognize the value of collaborating with other disciplines, sectors and industries. This realization will increase the effectiveness of the development industry as a whole and ultimately produce more positive results.

Recommendations:

 

(1) Kottak, Phillip Conrad. “Culture and ‘Economic Development.’” The American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 92, No. 3 (Sept. 1990).
(2) Stiglitz, Joseph. “Building Bridges in International Development,” The Columbia Club, New York, April 11, 2007.

 

This organization is a 501(c)3 tax exempt organization
Copyright ©2007 Globalhood. All rights reserved.