Abstract
The present vogue of ‘managing for development results’ is an expression of a historically dominant mode of thought in international aid – ‘substantialism’ – which sees the world primarily in terms of ‘entities’ such as ‘poverty’, ‘basic needs’, ‘rights’, ‘women’ or ‘results’. Another important mode of thought, ‘relationalism’ – in association more generally with ideas of process and complexity – appears to be absent in the thinking of aid institutions. Drawing on my own experiences of working with the UK Department for International Development and other aid agencies, I illustrate how despite formally subscribing to the institutions' substantialist view of the world, some staff are ‘closet relationists’, behaving according to one mode of thought while officially framing their action in terms of the other, more orthodox mode. In doing so, they may be unwittingly keeping international aid sufficiently viable – by the apparent proof of the efficacy of results-based management – to enable the institution as a whole to maintain its substantialist imaginary.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
