Development planners do better than the Almighty?
The Congo experience has left me an aid-sceptic. Too much harm and not enough good has come out of the outside 'well-meaning' involvement into affairs they do not take the time to understand. Furthermore, accountability of most NGO rests with donors far way from the place of action... and comprehension. Last but not least, Schumacher's argument on the general philosophy on aid should lead us to think in other ways about what we go out to work on as development practitioners. He writes (in Small is beautiful):
"Could it be
that the relative failure of aid, or at least our disappointment with the
effectiveness of aid, has something to do with our materialist philosophy which
makes us liable to overlook the most important preconditions of success, which
are generally invisible? Or if we do not entirely overlook them, we tend to
treat them just as we treat material things – things that can be planned and
scheduled and purchased with money according to some all-comprehensive
development plan. In other words, we tend to think of development, not in terms
of evolution, but in terms of creation.
Our scientists incessantly tell
us with the utmost assurance that everything around us has evolved by small
mutations sieved out through natural selection. Even the Almighty is not
credited with having been able to create anything complex.
Every
complexity, we are told, is the result of evolution. Our development planners
seem to think that they can do better than the Almighty, that they can create
the most complex things at one throw by a process called planning, letting Athene spring, not out of the head of
Zeus, but out of nothingness, fully armed, resplendent, and viable."
Lesson #1 - Development takes time .... and more than a log-frame.
Lesson #1 - Development takes time .... and more than a log-frame.
Comments