Economic Development Features in Poor Countries - Assignment Example

My Final Exam Question1 One of the influential narratives on economic development features that poor countriesface poverty traps, which they can move out of through a substantial push detailing enhanced investment (industrialization and economic growth) in order to attain a takeoff in per capita income. Critics point out that this model has failed since the institutions fashioned to promote the development from the top had themselves turned out to be the greatest hindrance to development. The principal target in this criticism was the state; however, other institutions were to blame too, especially market institutions. Bottom-up mode, on the other hand, rooted for rural development and distributional issues through small-scale bottom-up projects that directly engaged the urban and rural poor population in income-generating schemes. The advocated activities are envisaged to generate profit, savings, and investment at the grassroots level, thus reducing the need for income to trickle down via the market hierarchy (United Nations 2009, p.4). Bottom up initiatives highlight the participation of the local community in development initiatives and empower the communities to establish their own goals and the means of attaining those goals. One of the most significant and critical issues regarding international development is getting the right resources to places where they are needed most, and guaranteeing that the resources remain integrated in a sustainable manner. In fact, some authors assert the catastrophe of aid is the absence of accountability and meaningful investment. The authors assert that the massive monetary allocation to developing countries projects has failed to deliver the envisaged objectives, and the countries manifests shockingly minimal growth. This may flow from bureaucratic interventions by governments, foreign agencies, or multinationals, which frequently impose top-down solutions that ignore the needs and wishes of the bottom. Conversely, acknowledgement and addressing of community issues through community-developed remedies is critical to the understanding of the delicate intricacies of local issues, as well as to the success and sustainability of such projects (United Nations 2002, p.65). Participation and Capacity Building Capacity building can be delineated into four interventions directed at producing sustained change. These include top-down approach; bottom-up approach; partnership approach; and community organizing approach. Participatory approaches to development require redefining of the relationship between donors, development workers, beneficiaries, and partners. Participatory approaches pursue shared ownership of decision-making (Eade1997, p.9). This approach remains crucial to top-down approaches to development where power and decision-making is principally in the hands of external development professionals. The participatory process pursues to change the balance of power to guarantee that rights and aspirations of participants remain respected, acknowledged, and used as the reference for dialogue. The approach also seeks to generate a shared understanding of challenges, priorities, and possibilities and avail a platform for achieving change and action (Eade1997, p.12). Similarly, such an approach celebrates achievements develop strengths and generate a shared learning. Transformative Potential of Capacity Building Capacity building can be regarded as purposeful, external intervention that reinforces capacity overtime by catalyzing change. Capacity building should be regarded as a means of strengthening communities to perform developmental activities. Capacity building can be considered as a process (through the process of reflection, leadership, inspiration, adaptation, and enhanced coherence in the project’s mission, structure, and activities); and capacity building as ends (strengthen communities to implement projects that survive and fulfill their mission (World Bank 2005, p.4). Local participation/ownership/enthusiasm for aid projects is critical to the success of social changes and is a driver of social change within communities. Many programs have been criticized for their overly “top down” approach (imposing foreign designs on local communities) with the suggestion that more bottom-up programs (enlisting local people to participate in the proposition of implementation of programs) would yield real and lasting change (Haines and Andrew 2004, p.394). These initiatives also guarantee community ownership, commitment, and accountability to the development efforts. This is true since participation in capacity building endeavors shapes a platform to initiate self-mobilized action. Individuals should perceive development as people-centered and non- hierarchical; thus, unless capacity building engagements is participatory, development may not be successful (World Bank 2005, p.6). Guaranteeing stable partnerships for all participants to experience an enhanced measure of ownership can contribute to the success of developmental initiatives. Grassroots development shapes the path in which communities can have a voice, invested interest, and ownership with regard to the development of the economy, education, rights, and values. The underpinning of sustainable development features that paying attention to community members needs, reinforcing their belief in change, and working beside the community members in the formulation and implementation of practical solutions can deliver real growth rather than result in donor reliance and further disempowerment (McGillivray 2008, p. 23). Conclusion Although political and economic engineered factors play a part in influencing development, participation bears a significant impact on addressing inequities. Development is multidimensional manifesting social, political, or economic aspects. Thus, development efforts should be undertaken to attain greater benefits across various sections of the society. This necessitates the utilization of approaches that facilitate interaction and dialogue among all levels, all of which should be shaped by participation and persistent capacity building. Development demands synergy between initiatives undertaken at the top and bottom, which requires implementation of collaborative efforts among the government, market institutions, and the NGOs through employment of comparative advantages of each form of the institution and minimization of the institutions’ comparative disadvantages. Question 2 How AusAID Addresses Millennium Development Goals in its Development Programs The international effort to attain Millennium Development Goals (by year 2015) has led to an enhanced emphasis on foreign aid. Millennium Development Goals underline the Australian aid program. Australia government remains committed towards availing a more and better targeted assistance to developing countries (especially within Asia-Pacific region) in poverty reduction and sustainable development (Kilby and Olivieri 2008, p.329). Although, poverty has fallen as a result of poverty alleviation projects, progress in the pursuit of MDGs remains largely uneven with most goals remaining off-target (Bond 2006, p. 346). Some of the reasons for the failure include inability of developing partners to match their monetary commitment; ineffectiveness of some developing countries which manifest corruption and poor governance; and, entrenched inequalities within the developing countries. AusAID’s Choice of either NGO or Commercial Consulting Firms in the Delivery of Development Assistance AusAID partners with commercial consulting firms to facilitate the delivery of its mandate. The partnership is critical to filling key gaps left by NGOs in the delivery of projects directed at alleviating poverty and promotion of national development. Commercial consulting firms possess the capability to enhance the scope and scale of aid delivery (Bond 2006, p.441). The incorporation of commercial consulting firms in international development is essential since commercial consulting firms have the potential, capital, and efficiency to influence diverse stakeholders positively. Market institutions are predominantly driven by the need for social control and profit while NGOs are mainly interested in building communities. In their community building initiatives, NGOs do not depend on coercive efforts or assume profit seeking mechanisms as is expected of market institutions. NGOs mainly invest in solidarity building in civil society, which is nurtured via decentralized and participatory decision making reinforced by voluntary, local efforts (Bond 2006, p.440). NGOs are mainly small in size and not bureaucratic in their management style, which makes them more efficient and responsive, compared to government agencies, in meeting poor populations’ specialized and diverse needs (Murphy and Bendell 1999, 10). The legitimacy of NGOs to the community facilitates innovativeness and awareness on the particularities of local resources and constraints. The partnership between commercial consulting firms has contributed to sustainable development and poverty reduction. However, while the partnership has had an overall positive force in facilitating the development, the partnerships also present some limitations. Global partnerships between commercial consulting firms and NGOs presents tensions since the changed environment bear implications, especially in the manner in which businesses think and work. This is informed by the fact the two have customarily been conflicting, instead of cooperating (Murphy and Bendell 1999, p.8). Commercial consulting firms and NGOs interaction was mainly confrontational, which created stereotypes such as NGOs perceiving commercial firms as being unreliable and dominated by self interest while commercial entities perceive NGOs as being idealistic and lacking discipline to function effectively in the market. Nevertheless, such partnerships have availed a number of benefits to both parties such as building image and credibility, financial sustainability and funding diversification, and creation of effective strategies that seek sustainability (McGillivray 2008, p.6). In contrast, the NGOs independence from either state or commercial consulting firms would render them self-reliant and sustainable; hence, enhancing the chances of self-reproduction. The Underlying Tensions Highlighted by the Partnership between NGOs and Commercial Consulting Firms One of the prominent causes of failure of foreign aid is that aid is dispensed in a hostile environment characterized by national and international bureaucracies. The hostile environment under which foreign aid is dispensed induce inefficiency and minimize effective supply of development services; thus, curtailing the noble intentions and commitment to development (Kilby and Olivieri 2008, p.322). The partnerships between NGOs and commercial consulting firms are mainly intricate and delicate. The partnerships present a set of challenges that must be addresses from the onset of the relationship such as sectoral ambiguity that explains the apparent problems of confused expectations, management tensions, and absence of sustainability (Murphy and Bendell 1999, p.5). The interaction between NGOs and commercial consulting firms may render the NGOs to be controlled and co-opted. Similarly, the NGOs may be influenced by market institutions and bear the potential to be driven by profit seeking motives, which renders community solidarity to disintegrate into market-based, exchange relationships (Narayan-Parker 2002, p.2). Challenges emanate from attempting to balance the interests and desired outcomes of both parties. The partnerships between NGOs and commercial consulting firms manifest problems of coordination and policy making between the diverse departments. Tension also emanates from the absence of a clear cut vision. Whereas NGOs boasts of rich assets (such as advocacy, legitimacy, vision, and expertise) commercial consulting firms may be skeptical by perceiving NGOs to be organizationally weak. Similarly, tensions may emanate from the absence of an effective institutional infrastructure, which in turn constrains creation of an effective plan of action and a shared road map for successful execution of projects (Gronemeyer 1992, p. 40). Conclusion The building and sustenance of partnerships demands that the partners work together as equals and minimize potential impacts of power imbalances (Haines and Andrew 2004, p.396). While NGOs strive to secure their independence and autonomy, they must also respond to the realities of working with commercial consulting firms. There is a need to avail structural and regulatory modifications that enhance the transparency of projects and render evaluation of commercial consulting firms-NGO partnerships easy. Bibliography Bond, Patrick. “Global Governance Campaigning and MDGs: from top-down to bottom-up anti-poverty work.” Third World Quarterly 27.2 (2006): 339-354. Eade, Deborah. Capacity-Building: An Approach to People-Centred Development. Oxford: Oxfam, 1997. Gronemeyer, Marianne. ‘Helping’ in Wolfgang Sachs (ed.) Development Dictionary. London: Zed books, 1992. Haines, Andy and Andrew Cassels. “Can The Millennium Development Goals Be Attained?” BMJ: British Medical Journal. Vol. 329 (2004): 394-397. Kilby, Patrick and Olivieri Kate. “Gender and Australian Aid Policy: Can women’s rights be advanced within a neo-liberal framework?” Australian Journal of International Affairs 62.3 (2008): 319-331. McGillivray, Mark. “The Millennium Development Goals: Overview, Progress and Prospects” in Mark McGillivray ed. Achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. Murphy, David and Bendell Jem. Partners in time? Business, NGOs and sustainable development. Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, 1999. Narayan-Parker, Deepa. Empowerment and Poverty Reduction: A Source Book. Washington: World Bank, 2002. United Nations (UN). Capacity-Building for Poverty Eradication: Analysis of, and lessons from, evaluations of UN system support to countries efforts. New York: The United Nations, 2002. United Nations. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2009. New York: The United Nations, 2009. World Bank. World Development Report 2006: Equity and Development. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Read More