Transcript Dia 1

Aiding Development
Alleviating Poverty or Fostering Growth?
Session 8 – Sept. 23rd
UvA-IDS Lecture Series 2010-2011
Red Line of the Series
• “Alleviating Poverty or Fostering growth?
- Invest in projects that foster economic
development instead of poverty alleviation
- Make a “poverty diagnosis”
- Thus: don’t invest in Health or Education, but
for instance invest in agriculture
- Don’t see AID in isolation, search a “public
common goods approach” (examples, climate
change, security).
Some characteristics of the WRRreport
• National state oriented
• One-dimensional view of what
development is
• Does not sufficiently cover complexities
What did the sessions
contribute?
– Pronk: historical overview higlighting
complexity and COOPERATION is more than
AID
– Voice Over
– Biekart: MORE actors than the national state
(focus of WRR report) – complexities /gray
zones are most interesting. Are CSO the
channel?
– Lundsgaarde: AID-Landscape changed: new
donors (both states and private donors)
Block Two
• Richards: support to agriculture YES, but
tailor very carefully (NOT necessarily agribusiness
• Vd Geest: Health-development nexus not
proven. Many micro-factors in health-care
provision not adequately understood
• Sayed: Aid SHOULD support the
educational sector – but not for
instrumental (= growth related) only, also
important from an equity point of view!
Block III
• Working with local actors
• “Development without AID”
– CHINA
– Brazil
• Africa
• Public Good argument of WRR -> climate
change
• Final session
Text
• Cooperation at different scales:
challenges for local and international
water resource governance in South
Africa
– Mirumachi and van Wijk (2010)
Essence article
• Interaction between different stakeholders at
multiple levels is a time-consuming process. The
state (in all its different levels) still plays a major
role in the process. Cooperation does not
necessarily address the power-differentials
between actors.
• The “NEW” actors are visible, but have little
decision making power
• Donors play a significant role in this case of
multilevel governance
Lessons learned from case studies:
• Decisions among less powerful actors should be
taken jointly to endure (case Sablie region)
• Activism/joined campaigning crucial in having
some success in influencing state decisions
• “empowerment differentials” (i.e. differing
starting conditions between interest groups in
terms of knowledge, resources, access etc) are
threatening in the process
Central concepts:
Power, interdependency, risk:
Power:
• power-differentials are potential a threat for cooperation
• Transparency/information and knowledge sharing so far
have had a positive effect
Interdependency:
• Interdependencies in water governance are complex and
sometimes disguised
• In interstate relations Interdependencies are not
inherently good or bad
• In relations between different sort of actors participatory
processes are crucial in achieving results
– Face-to – face cooperation essential in cooperation and social
learning
Risks:
• Risk in non-participation (being left behind)
• Most actors perceive a risk of low return on all
time and other resources invested in the process
• Risk of non-compliance of one of the partners
(SA or Lesotho)
• Cooperation not necessarily addresses the
power differentials between actors
• Participatory processes at local level might need
backing/embeddedness at higher levels
Conclusion
• Cooperation not necessarily addresses the
power differentials between actors
• Participatory processes at local level might
need backing/embeddedness at higher
levels