Abstract

This article provides a critical review of the evidence on ‘thinking and working politically’ (TWP) in development. Scholars and practitioners have increasingly recognised that development is a fundamentally political process, and there are concerted efforts underway to develop more politically-informed and adaptive ways of thinking and working in providing development assistance. However, while there are interesting and engaging case studies in the emerging, largely practitioner-based literature, these do not yet constitute a strong evidence base that shows these efforts can be clearly linked to more effective aid programming. Much of the evidence used so far to support these approaches is anecdotal, does not meet high standards for a robust body of evidence, is not comparative and draws on a small number of self-selected, relatively well-known success stories written primarily by programme insiders. The article discusses the factors identified in the TWP literature that are said to enable politically-informed programmes to increase aid effectiveness. It then looks at the state of the evidence on TWP in three areas: political context, sector, and organisation. The aim is to show where research efforts have been targeted so far and to provide guidance on where the field might focus next. In the final section, the article outlines some ways of testing the core assumptions of the TWP agenda more thoroughly, to provide a clearer sense of the contribution it can make to aid effectiveness.

Highlights

  • A long-standing criticism of development assistance has been its technocratic focus

  • Over the past two decades, in a bid to improve aid effectiveness, major donors have sought to engage more explicitly with the politics of the contexts in which they operate (Carothers & de Gramont, 2013). This turn to politics by aid donors and other development organizations—which is discussed in detail by Carothers and de Gramont (2013)—has been labelled ‘thinking and working politically’ or ‘TWP’

  • A stronger evidence base that demonstrates clearly and robustly that TWP contributes to more effective development practice and, importantly, improved outcomes would certainly strengthen the case for donors to adopt more politically informed, adaptive approaches to development assistance, and as such could contribute to efforts to overcome these challenges

Read more

Summary

Introduction

A long-standing criticism of development assistance has been its technocratic focus. This technocratic approach can be traced back to the origins of modern development assistance after the Second World War, which was in part based on the belief that ‘underdevelopment is a function of a lack of resources—usually financial, and technical or human—and that this can be tackled with a sufficient infusion of capital’ (Hudson & Dasandi, 2014, p. 239). An international TWP Community of Practice3—bringing together leading experts from donor agencies, NGOs, the private sector, think tanks and academia—has been meeting periodically since late 2013, with a ‘sister’ DDD group meeting periodically since 2014.4 Several case studies have been published (discussed in more detail below) Despite this growing interest in TWP among development organisations, a crucial issue that has received less attention is the extent to which adopting the ideas and practices associated with TWP have succeeded in improving the effectiveness of development programmes. A stronger evidence base that demonstrates clearly and robustly that TWP contributes to more effective development practice and, importantly, improved outcomes would certainly strengthen the case for donors to adopt more politically informed, adaptive approaches to development assistance, and as such could contribute to efforts to overcome these challenges. That this strong evidence base does not yet exist

What Does the Evidence Base Currently Look Like?
Political Context
Sector
Organisation
Is There a ‘Good Enough’ Evidence Base on TWP and Aid Effectiveness?
Conclusions
Full Text
Paper version not known

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 call

Disclaimer: 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.