"Bigger the better" or should it be "Value for money"

I have been having a conversation with Jamie Enoch, Research and Policy Analyst at the UKCDS, on a study that the UKCDS did for DFID on Mapping Infrastructure Research for Development.  You can read the exchange of words  on the Linked In AFCAP (African Community Access Programme) group if you are a registered member of Linked In, and are inclined to join the group. . 

Much of it is show casing the work of the International Forum for Rural Transport and Development (IFRTD), which, though supported by DFID for several years, received no mention in the report’s chapter on transport.   Despite this omission, it is good to know that another analyst, e.g. Steven Jones, an Associate Professor at the University of Alabama, working with AFCAP on identifying " rural transport issues in Sub-Saharn Africa (SSA) to be targeted for future research... aimed at developing a more comprehensive understanding of the overall health impacts (crashes, polllution. healthcare access etc) associated with rural transport provision" has found IFRTD' work to be "very helpful. In fact, I included material from several papers/reports listed there into my AFCAP final report".  [Here he is talking about IFRTD’s work on mobility and health]. 

Jamie tried to justify UKCDS omission on the grounds that though the work was very relevant "it might be slightly out of place in this mapping exercise, given its primary focus on ongoing rather than historic programmes".  The financial support to IFRTD was however reflected in the graphs in the UKDS report, and the SEACAP programme was mentioned, though it was significantly more historic than IFRTD in the DFID funding time line! The justification for the inclusion of SEACAP was the it was a £8 million programme!

This is the point of this blog.  Yes, IFRTD was definitely a smaller investment of the British Tax Payers' money than SEACAP, but what if the impact of the pounds was greater?  Should that not be be the criterion by which development assistance is evaluated? Surely, the British Tax Payer is interested in value for money?  And what if, just what if, smaller programmes like IFRTD that had potential to build capacity and make lasting changes in the minds of professionals and the public in more than 27 countries in the global south, gave higher returns for the bucks spent? Is this not something we would want to know?

I was reminded of the 1990s campaigns against the big dams (which incidentally are coming back - the dams that is, not sure about the campaigns!) One such that halted the construction of the Arun-3 dam in Nepal was vindicated by the fact that the projects that replaced the controversial big dam "provide a third more electricity at almost half the time it would have taken Arun-3 to come on line, and at half the cost".  What does it take to learn that bigger/larger/more is not always better?


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Will change come through red gates?

Image
My former schoolmates are pre-ordering their copy of a coffee-table book entitled Through the Red Gates, a celebratory volume of 125 years of Ladies College, the school we attended on Flower Road, which celebrates this landmark event in 2025.   Some former schoolmates (and others) are also agonising at the possibility that the gates to the country’s governance might turn red with a Malimawa/NPP/Anura Kumara Dissanayake victory in the Presidential election next week.   The fear of a NPP/AKD victory takes several forms: it evokes the spectre of violence of the JVP (the main party in the NPP) forgetting that JVP are not the only perpetrators of terror. The political space, since 1 971 at least, has been seeped in violence - the JVP of the 1980s was particularly vicious, but s uccessive state regimes have unleashed state violence and given head to extra-judicial violent e lements that were equally virulent.   As Lionel Bopage has said in a recent interview , the violenc...
Read more

Year 2014: Buddhist era 2557-2558

Image
There was an interesting debate among colleagues that was triggered by the simple fact that I shared the official government calendar for 2014.  The Calendar has, as it has had in the previous year, and possibly many years prior to that,  the sub title -  Buddhist Era 2557-2558. This triggered a discussion on whether it was appropriate to have that on the calendar or not.  The argument against seemed to be based on it being seen as an imposition by the State of Buddhism, into areas that are perceived as secular and non-religious. [Though of course, as was pointed out,  the Gregorian Calendar is not really secular at all, based on the fact that it counts the years from the birth of Christ!] What was interesting was that we were having this debate at all.  Obviously, the current context has made us all ultra sensitive to certain issues, and the whole question of a state religion led some of us to be uncomfortable, others to be resentful (not overtly ma...
Read more

Some thoughts on the White Saviour Complex of development consultancies

Image
photo taken from  https://e11e99.wordpress.com/2012/10/06/identity-in-a-post-colonial-world/ I am sharing some thoughts that I picked  randomly from a relatively progressive Christian facebook page (Sojourners)that I follow, mainly to help me counter the rather misinformed opinions of my true believer Christian friends (brown not white).  The article is called , 6 HARMFUL CONSEQUENCES OF THE WHITE SAVIOR COMPLEX, BY RYAN KUJA  and is so relevant to the northern development consultancy space that many of my (white) friends and colleagues occupy (and that I too sometimes venture into) that I thought to use it to write a blog post that I can share with that community.   R yan Kuja confesses that he was "never a missionary in the standard sense of the word, never proselytized or attempted to save souls"  but admits that "the engine driving [him] was the white saviour complex..... The other Westerners [he] worked with believed [they] had it al...
Read more