Learning from International Development Programmes

Participatory methods

A public agency commissioned a programme to help the long term unemployed back into employment. The programme is at risk of not delivering. I was made aware of the issues recently and it made me return to some audio material we had on our Open University B822 course on approaches to development work using less traditional management styles and more participatory methods.

The audio programme interviewed a number of people engaged in development work in developing countries. It particularly focused on the work of Action Aid and juxtaposed this with the work of the World Bank.

The programme made the point that the often overly bureaucratic and hierarchical approaches of institutions such as the World Bank were as much to blame for the failure of programmes to bring about change as the perceived weaknesses of providers and staff on the ground.

As if to suggest an alternative, the audio programme made much of the participatory action approach (for example the work of Robert Chambers at Sussex University) that is increasingly being used by agencies such as Action Aid. The point was that using such an approach helped unlock local capabilities. It appeared a longer and more drawn out process but the results appeared far more satisfying.

The audio programme went on to reveal the results of a survey at the World Bank which showed that the culture was more often attuned to focusing on larger projects with quicker turn around and that this was seen as key to promotion within the organisation.

Does this story hint at what maybe wrong with what has been happening closer to home. It strikes me that public bodies can seek quick wins as opposed to doing the necessary development work. One likely result of this approach is that local areas can miss out.

Problems without simple solutions
Maybe it is better commissioning that is needed? Is the argument that it is the providers fault, a false argument?

A Trust folds or a commissioned service does not deliver to expectations so a public body can take a decision not to go down this route again. Is that right?

Surely some form of ‘competition’ between providers is needed particularly on problems without any simple solutions, for example working with young people outside of school. Traditionally a role covered by the youth service is it fair to leave this to just one agency?

Recently it’s been interesting to read about what appears a mushrooming of initiatives trying to provide new solutions to public service challenges.  For example Croydon and Brighton councils commissioned Participle to develop a youth programme called Loops. Loops aims to engage young people beyond their usual peer groups getting them to experience their wider community in new ways, for example from being shown how a large hotel works, to helping to organise a music festival to meeting a novelist.

Maybe we need to appreciate that unless we let the market mature in terms of providers (and commissioners) we are not really allowing real public sector reform to take place. Do we need to braver?

Maybe in many service areas we need to prepare in house services to deliver as external services and then when appropriate ask them to be ready to compete in an open market? At the same time maybe we need more commissioners to emerge and not rely on the few large public body commissioners?

Maybe all this is part of a wider shift in focus that is needed, a shift from aid to self sufficiency. Maybe there are lessons from international aid and development, for example the work that has been done on developing micro finance through programmes such as those pioneered by the Grameen bank?

It has been suggested that micro finance schemes have been a better way to make development happen as opposed to traditional ‘hand outs’. As we now tackle our own challenging finances approaches from elsewhere may be far more appropriate and acceptable here in the UK than before?

Peak State

Steven Toft writing in the Guardian refers to the work of blogger Adil Abrar who makes the point that similar to arguments that we have reached a point of peak oil production a similar argument could also be made about the state. In this case the argument runs that it’s not that the resources of the state have run dry but rather it’s just not efficient any more.

According to Anatole Kaletesky in his new book ‘Capitalism 4.0: The birth of a new economy‘, government has run out of money. He argues that what has been revealed is that states can no longer satisfy advanced society’s complex demands for healthcare, education and personalised retirement planning. Figures quoted from the IMF of the cost of ageing to the British government are calculated as 335 per cent of GDP.

Kaletsky argues that quite a lot of current state spending on healthcare in the UK is consumed by the relatively affluent elderly and that this basically represents a transfer from poor to rich. He believes that a reduction in spending on those on middle incomes would not necessarily damage the quality of life as long as there was high quality acute care available for all.

Kaletsky’s key argument appears to be that Britain (and others) commitment to government funded health, pensions and long term care cannot be honoured. If Britain continues down this policy line many public employees will lose their jobs and more households will sink into poverty all to ensure that the NHS can keep growing (NHS spending was 6.6% in 2001 and is not almost 10% of GDP in 2010). If the new coalition wants to provide a wider safety net and serve the interests of other sectors apart from health than NHS reform is inevitable including its partial privatisation. The suggestion is that a more mixed model of public and private provision should be further developed.

Steven Toft points to the poor prognosis for UK public finances where it is predicted that paying off the government’s debt will take decades and future liabilities for pensions (£770 bn) and Private Finance Initiatives (£200 bn) look particularly grim. He suggests that the challenge for the public sector will be to find clever ways (e.g. through social innovation and total place type initiatives) to deliver services for much less money whilst at the same time managing the expectations of the many who do not realise that the state has peaked.

The new challenge in what Kaletsky terms capitalism 4.0 will be to demand that government must expand and contract at the same time. The point seems to be that where the ‘market’ can be found to deliver better this needs to be pursued, whilst at the same time ensuring that the state can intervene for example in education to provide pupils from poorer backgrounds with pupil premiums, means testing, needs blind admission and scholarships.

To distribute or to re-distribute, that is the question?

Recently I was able to catch the Moral Maze on the Big Society. The Moral Maze discussion between the panel and witnesses appeared to focus on a division between the distribution of power and wealth and the re-distribution with those on the political right arguing for the former and those on the left the latter. In some ways it was an argument between those arguing that the state had played a key role under New Labour in re-distributing wealth and resources to the poor against those who felt that the state both under Labour and before had a ‘paralysing’ effect especially on the poorest.

Matthew Taylor (RSA) was agreeing that the Big Society as an idea could have a key role in positively changing the ‘culture’ of the country but was very concerned at the speed at which this experiment was being carried out. Michael Portillo made a point he has made before that without addressing the culture of dependency all aspirations would come to nothing.

Philip Blond (ResPublica) was keen to highlight a new role for the state as facilitator (not as provider), however, there was concern from around the table that getting councils and civil servants to pilot Big Society initiatives would do little to break the top down stranglehold that the coalition has said it wants to change.

Nick Pearce (former head of No 10 Policy Unit) made much of the progress New Labour had made on education whilst Melanie Philips was keen to point out that schools had been left in a very poor state. Nick’s argument was that where the state was strong and active, such as Scandanivan countries, there was evidence that there was greater fairness. However there was more debate about whether the culture in the UK could be compared to that in Scandinavian countries and whether it was the absence of a strong religious driver here that was contributing to break down in our communities and not how much or how little the state contributed per se.

Arguably the most interesting and inspiring contribution was from Silla Carron (Chair of the tenants association at Clarence Way Estate) who had helped transform her estate so that people were encouraged to speak out; children were involved in decisions and the estate had become a place where tenants were proud to live and no longer felt it was a ‘no-go’ area. As she said to the Moral Maze panel it’s not enough to sit in an office and work with a community, you need to go and spend time living and working in the community to really bring about the changes that are needed. Maybe Cilla is right?