tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6335146197342151188.post5933290068294707127..comments2024-02-29T13:07:00.519+00:00Comments on Development Horizons by Lawrence Haddad: Is "power to the people" a panacea?Lawrence Haddadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17265061444076801962noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6335146197342151188.post-18958274765345875522012-07-13T22:40:53.257+01:002012-07-13T22:40:53.257+01:00Concerning another cupboard being bare described i...Concerning another cupboard being bare described in People-centred M&E: Aligning Incentives So Agriculture Does More to Reduce Hunger, don't you think that Casley and Kumar's series on the M&E of agricultural projects back in the 1980's define some content? Whilst perhaps not placing beneficiaries centre stage, i always got gist of what they wanted to convey as: <br /><br />1) How hopelessly naive yet politically driven demands by donors, cowered to by M&E units and researchers, to 'validate' impact sought to demonstrate causal relationships between outputs and impacts that were analytically impossible to establish within the period required - the naivety of those who reported such information was surpassed only by those who believed it!; and <br /><br />2) Impressing upon the World Bank's then OED, the better returns intelligence monitoring processes could make 'generate' by providing space for beneficiaries to voice their subjective opinions on the relevance and quality of the service aid made available. Trying to assess 'profound' and lasting developmental impact, in the absence of effective feedback loops that focus on learning about the preferences, responses and behaviours of beneficiaries, and how these are differentiated, makes for a rather academic exercise. This is particularly so given how the sustainable success of interventions depends on the performance of the partner institutions, who are in the development process for the long run, in being able - and continuing - to offer a quality service as perceived by beneficiaries (Salmen in 1994). Cue outcome mapping six odd years later and when will we ever learn in 2006 that predictably led, in turn, to a return to the vanities surrounding RCTs and pseudo-experimental design so well peddled by JPAL and CGD.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00295507142184259342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6335146197342151188.post-31529193471291182782012-07-13T20:06:14.319+01:002012-07-13T20:06:14.319+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00295507142184259342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6335146197342151188.post-83701132603371377702009-12-01T16:41:19.196+00:002009-12-01T16:41:19.196+00:00I think your 4th point is particularly important a...I think your 4th point is particularly important and interesting, where you say, "Neither study looks at empowerment of the community per se, regardless of learning or health outcome."<br /><br />Improving literacy and lowering infant mortality rates are obviously good things. But is there a measure of these that we deem as "developed"? Globally we all want improvement and there is no foreseeable end to that desire. While we can argue for certain standards with respect to literacy and infant mortality, I think it's not so clear cut for other types of intervention. For instance in the sector I work in, ICT4D, is there a particular technical capability that should be the goal of any project? Not necessarily. <br /><br />What I'm trying to say is that participation is an end in itself. What is development if it is not the ability to choose how to use resources available to you?Alan M Jacksonhttp://www.aptivate.orgnoreply@blogger.com