Development management

in the developing world

Past pathways and future trajectories

 Development Management
• Thomas (1996: 6): The nature of the task in hand, and
its context, will determine which is more appropriate.
• For example, to achieve quick and effective promotion
of humanitarian relief in an emergency it may be
essential to think of management in terms of
‘command and control’, while the management of a
successful agency giving advice and assistance to small
businesses may be better thought of in terms of
‘empowerment and enabling’. This seems to unite the
two views into the simple idea of management as
getting the work done by the best means available.
 Development administration: the incipient
stage in
development management
• Much of the literature does not distinguish between development
administration (DA) and development management (Thomas, 1996;
Esman, 1991).
• Indeed, Esman (1991) sums up this position when he argues that the
rebranding of development administration as development management
was rather cosmetic as it was not informed by any change in substance or
methodology.
• In short he believes that scholars could hardly point to any reason for the
change in name. Others view DA as a precursor to DM (Dwivedi, Khator
and Nef, 2007; Brinkerhoff and Coston, 1999).
• This chapter supports the widely held view that although some
differences may exist upon close scrutiny, the introduction of
development management in no way meant the end of development
administration. In fact, the former is a refinement of the latter.
 ‘Engine of development’
• The conventional wisdom which surrounded the crave
for urgent development initiatives in the third world
following World War II was the primacy of the state as
the ‘engine of development’.
• It was believed that the problem of the developing
world was administrative in nature (Stone, 1965),
hence the need to equip public sector bureaucrats who
could lead a conscious planning process aimed at
development (Riggs, 1970).
• This acquisition of ‘a new lustre’ by the bureaucracies
(Siffin, 1966) resulted in the birth of development
administration.
 Definition
• According to Riggs (1970: 6–7), regarded as the earliest
proponent of DA: Development administration refers
to the administration of development programmes, to
the methods used by large scale organizations, notably
government, to implement policies and plans designed
to meet development challenges.
• Another definition put forward by Schaffer (1973: 245)
viewed DA as being in respect of: development
programmes, policies and projects in those conditions
in which there are unusually wide and new demands
and in which there are peculiarly low capacities and
severe obstacles to meeting them.
 Western model of
rational administrative authority’
• In reality, the emergence of development
administration was a re-introduction of the principles
of modernization theory since it was based on a
‘Western model of rational administrative authority’
(McCourt and Gilrajani, 2010: 2).
• Put differently, development administration ‘was a
form of administrative engineering imported from the
West and embodying faith in the application of
rational scientific principles and the efficacy of
Keynesian welfare economics’ (Turner, Hulme and
McCourt, 2015: 15).
 Western model of
rational administrative authority’
• The approach to development in this era followed the path
of ‘external inducements, the transfer of technology, and
training by foreign experts’ (Dwivedi, Khator and Nef, 2007)
as the surest way of transforming the third-world public
services from the moribund traditional state to the ideal
modern bureaucracy.
• Hulme and McCourt (2015) point out that development
administration proceeded on the notion of ‘big
government’ highlighting its similarity with bureaucracy.
Two, development administration relied on the so-called
elite comprising politicians, planners and other technical
experts who would engineer a trickle down of development
from the urban to the rural centers through bureaucratic
 Western model of
rational administrative authority’
• machineries. The idea was for such a minority group to constitute
the critical mass of people who could provide direction and focus in
planning aimed at ‘transforming their societies into replicas of the
modern Western nation-state’ (Turner, Hulme and McCourt, 2015).
• The third approach to development administration was to ensure
that where the requisite tools of plan and programme
implementation were lacking, transfer of administrative skills and
competence was done to fill the gap.
• Fourth, the transfer of the tool bags or ‘administrative capability’
was deemed as possible through aid from the West to the
developing countries.
• The fifth approach to realizing development outcomes through
development administration was to moderate, if not supplant, the
effects of traditional culture which was deemed to be inimical to
development.
 Western model of
rational administrative authority’
• The emphasis on bureaucracy as the engine for
administering development was not based on mere
obsession to expand the involvement of the state in
development.
• Rather, the motivation seemed to have been influenced by
the absence of or distrust in an effective private sector in
the fledgling independent developing countries
(Hirschmann, 1999).
• Thus, ‘development placed its hopes on bureaucracy’
because it provided ‘the prime location of skills, education,
organization and initiative, provider of public equity, and
generator of development’ (Hirschmann, 1999: 3).
 Western model of
rational administrative authority’
• In their bid to ensure ‘high efficiency and effectiveness’ through ‘the entrenchment of
bureaucratic standards’ (Dwivedi, Khator and Nef, 2007), therefore, developing
countries embraced the new model.
• Consequently, various strategies were adopted. Earlier attempts looked to de-
bureaucratize the public sectors in a way that made them more innovative and less
risk-averse.
• However, the third-world bureaucrats still clung to their old process; nor were they
given the requisite support by politicians for the reform processes despite the
rhetoric of the latter (Hirschmann, 1999).
• It turned out that third-world bureaucrats, rather than being the engines of reforms
aimed at development, were rather concerned with serving their personal interests.
• As Hirschmann (1999) has pointed out, the bureaucrats would seize every
opportunity to call for localization, training and professionalization at the expense of
refining or reconceptualizing their roles and responsibilities in the new development
agenda.
 Western model of
rational administrative authority’
• Attempts at circumventions, re-orientation, and decentralization did very
little to transform the bureaucracy for effective administration of
development as had been envisaged.
• Following from the above, many studies have concluded that the
development administration paradigm began to ‘crumble’ since the belief
that developing countries could champion their own development had
been dashed.
• This was particularly so in the period immediately following the UN Second
Development Decade.
• Here, the spread of immense political, socio-economic (the oil price
shocks), as well as cultural and ideological crises (Dwivedi, Khator and Nef,
2007) stagnated economic growth.
• As scholars began to appreciate the ‘deadlock’ in development
administration (Schaffer, 1969), it became apparent that a bureaucracy full
of ‘patronage and rent-seeking’ could hardly serve as the vanguard elite in
addressing underdevelopment in the third world. The search for a new or
better paradigm was therefore imperative (McCourt and Gulrajani, 2010).
 The transition from development
administration to
development management
• The growing discontent with development administration necessitated
the introduction of, or transition into, another approach to development
known as development management.
• Despite this transition and skepticism of some scholars, development
management lays claim to some distinctiveness in approach.
• Brinkerhoff and Coston (1999: 348–349) point to some of the distinctions
when they observe that development management attempts to break
away from ‘technocratic, universalist, public sector administration model’
which was characteristic of the earlier development administration, to a
more holistic ‘bureaucratic re-orientation and restructuring, the
integration of politics and culture into management … participatory and
performance- based service delivery …’.
• According to Thomas (1996), the concept of development management
could be analyzed based on two views of development, namely,
development as a historical process and as a conscious or deliberate
attempt at progress.
 The transition from development
administration to
development management
• The former leads to a conceptualization of development management
as management in the context of the development process whereas
the latter relates to management of the development effort.
• To these was added the concept of development management as
management in the quest to shape development outcomes (Thomas,
1999).
• In another study, Brinkerhoff and Coston (1999) point to development
management as representing four related aspects as follows: a means
to foreign assistance agendas, a toolkit, values and process.
• The foregoing implies that the meaning of development management
includes, but is not limited to, applying best practice to achieve better
development outcomes mostly through interventions from and
collaborative efforts by development partners.
 The transition from development
administration to
development management
• Development management was largely influenced by a new set of doctrines which
constituted New Public Management.
• Here, the pathway to development was to borrow so-called best practice from the
private sector and bring it into the public sector. Given that earlier assumptions or
experiences viewed the public sector largely as more of a ‘problem than a
solution’ (Dwivedi, Khator and Nef, 2007: 120), developing countries aimed at
development through ‘privatization, downsizing, localizing, and outsourcing …’
(Dwivedi, Khator and Nef, 2007: 119).
• The pathway to development was to ensure effectiveness and efficiency in the
provision of public services.
• On the one hand the public sector re-oriented itself, at least on the face of it,
through market-centred managerialism in the performance of its mandate.
• In reducing the cost of project and programme implementation, for Downloaded
byinstance, government business was largely decentralized internally and
externally.
• More importantly, the public sector attempted to create the enabling
environment for the private sector to thrive.
 The transition from development
administration to
development management
• Another characteristic pathway of development management was the
expansion of the space for non-state actors such as civil society organizations
(CSOs) or NGOs to operate.
• Whilst serving as a complementary force to addressing the development gaps,
the NGOs also provided expertise to and watchdog roles in the
implementation of development projects and programmes.
• The emergence of the NGOs was particularly important as they were seen as
the best provider of ‘welfare services and micro-enterprise initiatives’
(Hirschmann, 1999: 17)
• Till date, evidence of the emergence of local and international NGOs can be
found in almost all developing countries across the world. From their
contribution to healthcare provision in Bangladesh to leading the advocacy for
better livelihoods of default custodians of oil-rich Niger Delta in Nigeria or
mining areas in Ghana’s Western Region, the contributions of NGOs have
been so ubiquitous or overwhelming that developing countries can no more
imagine how they could have survived without NGOs.
 The transition from development
administration to
development management
• As the development management movement continues to
explore ways of becoming more relevant in the twenty-first
century, it has embraced the concept of participation as a
means of enhancing development effectiveness.
• It has been contended that previous approaches took it for
granted that beneficiaries of development programmes
would remain passive recipients of such interventions.
• However, such assumptions, influenced by so-called best
practice experience from the developed world, were
challenged by practical realities in the developing world
which called for the need to plan with, rather than plan for,
beneficiaries.
 The transition from development
administration to
development management
• Thus, recent development interventions emphasize the
significance of getting members of potential beneficiary
populations involved from the design stage to the
implementation stage.
• This approach is also believed to provide such a form of
empowerment to beneficiaries as to ensure that there is
accountability, transparency and value for money in project
implementation.
• Notwithstanding, evidence abounds in most developing
countries that the requirement for participation is usually
adhered to by project and programme designers in their
quest to satisfy donor requirements. The result is that such
requirements are hardly implemented.
 The balance sheet of development
management:
implications for future trajectories
• Development management has been criticized as being
replete with ‘policy failures and operational mishaps’
(Dwivedi, Khator and Nef, 2007: 2).
• It has been suggested that whilst development
management had some prospects, it appeared part of
the reasons for its failures was the reluctance of public
sector bureaucrats to relinquish their hold on the
development machinery.
• After all, as Dwivedi, Khator and Nef (2007) have
argued, bureaucrats were often threatened because
the call to development management was an invitation
to preside over their own doom.
 The balance sheet of development
management:
implications for future trajectories
• Other scholars believe that the context of developing
countries made it almost impracticable to imbibe the
doctrines of New Public Management on the basis of
which donors conditioned their aid and other
interventions.
• But as developing countries explore new approaches
to and future trajectories for managing development
(Frankel, 2005), several overlapping and sometimes
cyclical recommendations have been proffered.
• Some of these recommendations are also informed by
the changing character of managing development in
the developing world.
 The balance sheet of development
management:
implications for future trajectories
• One, some scholars believe that attempts at reforms
have often been an invitation to bring back more of
the same approaches that created the problems they
seek to address (Dwivedi, Khator and Nef, 2007).
• For instance, it is obvious that the public sector cannot
afford to stand aloof from the development front. And
in order to enhance its role, it has been recommended
that the bureaucracy needs to be brought back as a
strong driving agent for future development
interventions (Hirschmann, 1999).
• In this regard, ways are being sought to make the state
an effective entity is pushing inclusive development.
 The balance sheet of development
management:
implications for future trajectories
• Another suggestion for future direction is for development
management to be receptive to practical realities
accumulated by third-world development practitioners
instead of the straitjacket, restrictive approaches.
• Citing Gulrajani (2010) for instance, Turner, Hulme and
McCourt (2015) have called for a pluralistic and political
approach that helps practitioners to identify, and possibly
assert, their roles in the theatre of development.
• Perhaps one way of practicalizing this approach is to also
emphasize the relevance of third-world values and ethics as
enablers of development rather than the previous
antagonism to their incorporation into development
strategies.
 The balance sheet of development
management:
implications for future trajectories
• Turner, Hulme and McCourt (2015) further draw attention
to the increasingly fashionable emphasis by Acemoglu and
Robinson (2012) on the primacy of effective institutions.
• Whilst there is a call for strong institutions, instead of
strong men, as US President Obama pointed out in his first
official visit to Africa, the current discourse led by
Acemoglu, Robinson and others rather bemoans the
transfer of inappropriate institutions to developing
countries.
• Put differently, future efforts would require a departure
from importing and mimicking Western institutions in the
hope that they could achieve for the developing world
what they did for their developed counterparts.
 The balance sheet of development
management:
implications for future trajectories
• Development experiences in the developing world are
full of examples that give grounding to this caution.
• Abdulai and Hulme (2014) have noted, for instance,
that in Ghana, powerful elites and ruling coalitions are
able to capture the institutional design in order to
shape resource allocations to satisfy clientelistic
considerations.
• Thus, whilst the call for a redefinition of the
development management approach through effective
and locally engineered institutions holds good promise,
it would require more diligence to avoid likely traps.
 The balance sheet of development
management:
implications for future trajectories
• Indeed, in developing democracies, the design and
implementation of development policies are not
necessarily based on scientific or equity logic. Rather,
they are influenced by considerations that are deemed
to hold greater electoral promise for the political elite.
• So, as donor agencies and development scholars
attempt to reform the development management
agenda for better outcomes, they would have to
contend with the daunting task of either courting the
elusive logic of objectivity of politicians or seek to clip
their feathers.
 Conclusion

• Approaches to the development management and the theories that

undergird them have evolved in the last three decades or so.
• Whilst some confusion abounds in academic and donor circles
about what development management actually means, various
definitions revolve around management in the context of a
development process as well as management of the development
efforts (Thomas, 1996).
• Another strand of definitions also considers development
management as a deliberate attempt to achieve development
outcomes through effective and efficient means.
• In its infant stage, development management assumed the
nomenclature of development administration, placing its hopes in
the third-world bureaucracies as the engines of development
effectiveness.
 Conclusion
• However, the hopes of advocates of the development
administration paradigm, and developing countries in
particular, were dashed as the bureaucrats ended up
frustrating, rather than aiding development.
• There was thus a craving for a new approach resulting
in the re-packaging of the concept in the form of
development management.
• This time, the role of the public sector wasde-
emphasized, with increasing focus on the private
sector and a call on public sector organizations to
adopt best practice from the private sector.
 Conclusion
• This approach, which was largely influenced by the New
Public Management paradigm, was later to be reformed to
include elements of participation and empowerment.
• Despite these pathways, development management was
seen as having hit a ‘deadlock’. Others also saw the
approach as being littered with ‘lucklustre’ records, with
the result that new trajectories are not only predictable but
also necessary.
• The new trajectory incidentally includes bringing back the
state as a prime player in the development equation whilst
highlighting the significance of developing context-specific
institutions and strategies.
 Conclusion
• It is also envisaged that development management advocates
would rethink the rather erroneous assumption that development
could necessarily be effective by a mere application of managerial
principles without regard to partisan, clientelistic political realities.
• However, whilst the new trajectories promise the twin benefits of
building on the strength of the earlier pathways and avoiding their
associated mistakes, the growing evidence of the role of partisan,
competitive political considerations in shaping development
outcomes calls for more vigilance in preventing possible elite
capture.
• There is also a lot to be said for re-negotiating the role of
developing country ethical values in the development process in
order to address the vacuum created by earlier antagonistic
approaches which erroneously viewed traditional institutions as
inimical to development.