A Time for Change in International Development? Exploring New Approaches to International Cooperation

By Andrea Mrazova – Associate Researcher at Includovate
The global protests following the killing of George Floyd and the Diversity, Equality and Inclusion (DEI) movement demonstrate the widespread awareness of inequity and a willingness to do something for equality. The principles of anti-racism are being incorporated into development aid, with increasing efforts to “shift the power” and recognise that local actors have unique knowledge, expertise and insights into the challenges faced by their communities. While it is an important  approach, the issue is far from simple. Local actors often operate in countries where it is legally forbidden and punishable by law to freely express their identities, sexual orientations or opinions.

Who am I?

As a human rights lawyer and researcher, I have spent more than two years in Includovate working together with many different colleagues, including researchers from Global South with invaluable experiences and knowledge. I am fortunate to be surrounded by colleagues from many different cultures, with a variety of opinions and backgrounds. While it is natural for me to recognise their inspirational knowledge and innovations, I came to realise that this is not always a shared sentiment across the international development space, where researchers from the Global South are often under-represented (1).
Western research is mistakenly considered more “accurate” in comparison to research from the Global South. This idea is reproduced in academic journals – a 2020 study of the Journal of Refugee Studies, found that scholars based in the Global North authored 90 percent of the articles (2). The irony of this is that during the same period, 85 percent of the world’s forced migrants were to be found in the Global South. Hence, those with the experience of migration are not the ones publishing. The lack of involvement of local authors has been criticised in the past (3). Many scholars, such as Arturo Escobar, Gustavo Esteva and Serge Latouche question the origins and construction of the concept of “development” as such. According to them, the way we understand development is rooted in the earlier colonial discourse that depicts the North as “advanced” and “progressive” in contrast to the South, which needs “developing”.
Development as an ideology holds Western economic structure and society as a universal model for others to follow. These same Western models of industrialisation are unsustainable in this world of limited resources, and not reflective of the local, cultural, and historical contexts of the people to which they are applied. There are a number of post-development theorists who see development and its practice as an imbalance of influence or domination by the West, and are calling for system reform.

Is There Potential for System Reform?

Various approaches aim to change the current development system that has started to be systematically used to reform development cooperation. The concept “thinking and working politically”, stresses the importance of obtaining a better understanding of local power relationships and political context to bring about sustainable development. While a great philosophy,  development agency officials struggle to put it into practice because it challenges the existing rules and procedures guiding overseas development assistance (4). Other similar ideas, like Problem Driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA) and Doing Development Differently (DDD), also face problems with their implementation, as these require reform to existing processes and to build the capacity of aid workers (5).
Similarly, the concept of “Locally Led Development Initiatives” was introduced by USAID as part of community-driven development approaches in the 1980s, yet it experienced several operational challenges. The concept aims to enhance local leadership and ownership to tackle power imbalances. The approach faded away with critiques of failing to engage in meaningful participation, lack of a solid understanding of power and how to facilitate qualitative (inclusive and co-created) methods.
Yet again, in 2020, locally-led approaches are back. USAID set a target of 25 per cent of assistance going directly to local partners by 2024; the agency also pledged that by the end of the decade, 50 per cent of programming would place “local communities in the lead to either co-design a project, set priorities, drive implementation or evaluate the impact of their programs.”  (6) This could be a positive development, depending on how it is implemented and how much capacity development is provided (by who, on what topic and to whom). Such approaches still require a solid understanding of power. Moreover, no one should evaluate their programme as evaluations need to be independent to be credible.

Another attempt to change the current development system constitutes feminist development approaches. On 9 June 2017, Canada adopted a feminist international assistance policy as an approach to reduce poverty and build a more inclusive, peaceful and prosperous world. Committing to no less than 95 per cent of Canada’s bilateral international development assistance initiatives will target or integrate gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls by 2021-22 (7). According to the Results Report, this target was not only met but exceeded (99 percent). In 2022, the German Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development introduced the German Feminist Development Policy (8) as a directive of Germany´s foreign policy. The aim of the policy is the promotion of the “equal political, economic and social participation of all people – irrespective of gender, gender identity or sexual orientation” and investing increased financial means for gender-focused programming. While the feminist approach is an important step to shift the power to those who are excluded, there is less focus on supporting feminist participatory approaches in co-designing the terms of reference and objectives for projects, methods and evaluation processes.

Another recent initiative, the Global Public Investment (GPI) Concept, is still a work in progress. The Expert Working Group on GPI (9) emphasises co-creation and includes representatives from all the world’s major regions and across the political spectrum, who work as policymakers and community activists, as well as members of national government agencies, non-governmental organisations, and multilateral bodies—including UN agencies and philanthropic foundations. The Expert Group published its first report in July 2022 explaining the concept, according to which public money is being used to invest in goods and services that are of global benefit with the aim to better respond to global threats such as environmental catastrophes, international wars, or pandemics. The central idea is that all contribute, all benefit, and all decide and it is supposed to propose a new way to finance Sustainable Development Goals. Its critics however question its feasibility, and point to challenges in effective coordination, possible market distortions or political tensions. Other innovative financing mechanisms in international development, like sector-wide approaches, cash-on-delivery and pay-for-results have come and gone.
Was Audre Lorde right when she said: “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house?”

Conclusion

There are always new ways to address inequality, but some of them come and go like trends. Some, like human rights, last for generations as they are embedded in laws and multilateral institutions like the United Nations. Some foreign aid donors make development aid conditional upon the fulfilment of human rights compliance. However, the adherence to human rights and international law appears to be selectively applied (10).
Advocating for inclusion or attempting to change power inequities will always come with critique, backlash and other challenges. How can one be sure that what they are advocating for is free from bias and coercion? Similarly, how can one be sure that ‘localising’ does not mean propping up an elite or corrupt regime?
Self-awareness and institutional diversity and inclusion that respects all colleagues from diverse backgrounds will be necessary but not sufficient. Creating time and space to listen to all opinions and debate any biases will be needed, no matter how uncomfortable. Leaning into the discomfort this may bring and challenge oneself to stay present and absorb a different way of seeing things .
With time, more organisations like Includovate -that give voice and power to researchers from Global South who have been previously marginalised- will emerge. I hope to see a global world that co-creates development solutions that are inclusive, decolonised and truly sustainable.

About the Author:

Andrea Mrazova is Associate Researcher at Includovate. She holds a Master’s degree in Law from the Czech Republic and a European Master’s degree in Human Rights from Global Campus of Human Rights. She worked as a consultant for UNHCR monitoring conditions in immigration detention centres and asylum reception centres in the Czech Republic. She contributed to various publications in the area of human rights, and her research on the procedural rights of LGBTI asylum seekers was published internationally by Springer.

References:

(1) Liverpool, Layal. “Researchers from Global South Under-represented in Development Research.” Nature. 2021. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02549-9.

(2) McNally, Rachel and Nadeea Rahim. “How Global is the Journal of Refugee Studies?” LERRN: The Local Engagement Refugee Research Network. 2020. https://carleton.ca/lerrn/2020/how-global-is-the-journal-of-refugee-studies/.

(3) See e.g. Shikwati, J. “Stop Aid to Africa and Save the Africans.” In Nebe: Herausforderung Afrika. See also Easterly, W. “Can the West Save Africa?” Journal of Economic Literature 47(2), 373-447.

(4) McCulloch, Neil and Piron, Laure-Helen. “Thinking and working politically: Learning from practice. Overview to Special issue.” Development Policy Review. 2019.

(5) Andrews, M. et col. “Building capacity by delivering results: Putting Problem-Driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA) into practice.” OECD, 2015. https://www.oecd.org/dac/accountable-effective-institutions/Governance%20Notebook%202.3%20Andrews%20et%20al.pdf

(6) Ingram, G. “Locally Driven Development: Overcoming the Obstacles.” 2022. https://www.brookings.edu/essay/locally-driven-development-overcoming-the-obstacles/.

(7) Government of Canada. “Canada´s Feminist International Assistance Policy.” https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/priorities-priorites/policy-politique.aspx?lang=eng

(8) German Development Institute. “Three Cornerstones for Germany ´s Feminist Development Policy.” 2022. www.idos-research.de.

(9) Expert Working Group on Global Public Investment. https://globalpublicinvestment.org/.

(10) Dasandi, Niheer: The flag and the stick: Aid suspensions, human rights, and the problem of the complicit public. World Development, Volume 168, August 2023.