PIA 2501
Development Policy
and Management
WEEK FIVE
1983-2000 Special Focus

Structural Adjustment with
or without a “Human Face”
End of development model
assumption



Orthodoxy: Overseas capital investment
Accepts Foreign or "Pariah" group
ownership and control of trade and
commerce
A New Reality: Local soft political
institutions, weak private sectors
Change: the NeoOrthodoxy

The Realities: To End of 1980s- Focus
on anti-Marxist, growth regimes


Korea, Taiwan, Brazil, Chile, South
Africa (newly emerging States)
Politics not important
Neo-Orthodoxy

No development managementdevelopment programs are “bad”

Can’t make planning better

Neo-Orthodoxy and privatization
To what extent is the state
planning approach possible?



Bureaucratic, administrative and
political constraints constitute a
major limitation
Development strategies often parallel
but ignore political realities
“Looking for
a Rule to Follow”
Neo-Orthodoxy View of
Development Management



Five year plans of over 1500 pages for
a country of less than a million people
Part of unfulfilled rhetoric of
development
National Planning to be replaced by
local and regional planning (and
Projects
Failures of Development
Planning

A Problem: The limits on political
compromise and local level autonomy

Failure of Development and the limits of
the econometric model

Failure of planning blamed on weak
planning and administrative capacity

Planning was a “shopping list”
Counter-Orthodoxy
Argument



Bureaucracies are socio-economic
actors
Good example: Land reform and
bureaucracies
A study of 25 major land reforms--in 15
cases the bureaucracy was major
beneficiary in the process
PICARD
“Unpaid Editorial”
The Problem (1): Bad
Planning and Foreign Aid
1. Bureaucrats/practitioners ignored
development theories & ideas
2. LDC Development Institutes were
largely irrelevant as training centers-donors used overseas training
3. International Organizations (IMF and
World Bank) promoted Programs that
were unworkable.
The Foreign Aid Meeting
The Problem (2)


Development administration did
little to deal with issues of
population control, food
production and rural development
Foreign aid was little more than a
front for foreign policy
Anti-Planning: NeoOrthodoxy: The Problem (3)

Planning illustrates problem of
soft-state and inability of state to
impose its will on society-

Planning Part of the Problem

But the Problems are real
Land Reform
and Women’s
Rights
But….



Donors Need Planning Skills (Still)
“National Program Support Office,
Afghanistan” (October, 2005)
Project Management Unit (PMU)
Autonomous Work Packaging
Model
“End of Editorial”
The Middle View



The Moderate Interpretation of
Development Administration Failures
Goal: Realistic Decision-Making based
on sufficient knowledge (strategic
planning
Balance Public-Private Partnerships
The Twenty-First Century
Model
The Problems of
Development Management:
Discussion
Quote of the Week:
"The Human Condition being what it was, let
them fight, let them love, let them murder, I
would not be involved."
Graham Greene
Is Strategic Planning (involvement) possible?
Structural Adjustment Policies
1985-2001




Failure of the Developmental State: Goran Hyden
Linked to “pre-scientific modes of
production of peasants”—Economy of Affection
Failure of State and “Exit Option” (See work of Alber
O. Hirschman)
Problem of Endemic Patronage and
Corruption
Structural Adjustment Policies
1985-2001
The Structural Adjustment Argument- Need to
1.
2.
3.
4.
stabilize currency and markets (getting the prices
right)
Promote Free Trade
Need to refocus role of state from development to law
and order and deregulation
Address the problem of Debt and Structural
Adjustment reforms (IMF and World Bank)
Structural Adjustment, Cont.
5.
6.
Reduce the size of the public sector (infamous 19%
cut)
Promote Privatization or “NGOism”—Negative on the
State

Privatization (Rambo vs. Effete)

Faith in Capitalist Entrepreneurialism

Neo-Orthodoxy had a purist element
Structural Adjustment Policies
1985-2001

The Argument for “NGOism”
Left wing Privatization (Private
Voluntary Organizations, Cooperatives,
Community Based Organizations, NonProfits)




Energy of NGOs
Structural Adjustment
Public Sector Reform—Reduce size and
restructure state
Populist
Summary: Development
Management in 2000


Concern about incapacity: Questions raised about
efficacy of state approach
Critics spoke of negative state



Government had become a negative
Debates focused on privatization, public sector reform
and NGOism
Need to address issues of external vs. internal solutions
to development problems

(domestic capacity vs. international redistribution)
Summary: Development
Management in the 2000




Focus should be on issues of sustainability and
institutional development
Need to search for a creative, flexible, and innovative
management system
Difficult to separate development from politics
Implementation had become the neglected component
of development policy (Pressman and Wildavsky)

Question: The appropriateness of the U.S. case
study as lessons for development action
Choices:

Contracting Out and Privatization

NGOism and Grants

Capacity Building (HRD)

A Mixed Scanning Approach
Books of the Week


Khushwant Singh, Last Train to
Pakistan
Kurban Said, Ali and Nino
The Authors
Kushwant Singh
Kurban Said
Discussion: Assessment of
Development Policy

Progress? (Joyce Cary)


Is progress the answer?
Violence? (Kushwant Singh)

Is development the answer?
From “Mister Johnson”
Discussion
Stanley Karnow: “In Our Image?”
Joyce Cary, “The Two Faces of
Progress”
Denis Goulet, “The Cruel Choice”
Denis A. Goulet, 75, died
December 26, 2006
Late Colonial Philippines
Discussion: Stanley
Karnow

In Our Image (France,
U.S., Portugal)



Is assimilation the
answer?
In the Philippines,
South East Asia,
Middle East / Africa?
Latin America: Just
Spain?
TEN MINUTE
BREAK