1. PIA 2501 Development Policy and Management WEEK FIVE

2. 1983-2000 Special Focus Structural Adjustment with or without a “Human Face”

4. End of development model assumption Orthodoxy: Overseas capital investment Accepts Foreign or "Pariah" group ownership and control of trade and commerce A New Reality: Local soft political institutions, weak private sectors

5. Change: the Neo- Orthodoxy The Realities: To End of 1980s- Focus on anti-Marxist, growth regimes Korea, Taiwan, Brazil, Chile, South Africa (newly emerging States) Politics not important

7. Neo-Orthodoxy No development management- development programs are “bad” Can’t make planning better Neo-Orthodoxy and privatization

8. To what extent is the state planning approach possible? Bureaucratic, administrative and political constraints constitute a major limitation Development strategies often parallel but ignore political realities “Looking for a Rule to Follow”

9. Neo-Orthodoxy View of Development Management Five year plans of over 1500 pages for a country of less than a million people Part of unfulfilled rhetoric of development National Planning to be replaced by local and regional planning (and Projects

11. Failures of Development Planning A Problem: The limits on political compromise and local level autonomy Failure of Development and the limits of the econometric model Failure of planning blamed on weak planning and administrative capacity Planning was a “shopping list”

12. Counter-Orthodoxy Argument Bureaucracies are socio-economic actors Good example: Land reform and bureaucracies A study of 25 major land reforms--in 15 cases the bureaucracy was major beneficiary in the process

13. PICARD “Unpaid Editorial”

14. The Problem (1): Bad Planning and Foreign Aid 1. Bureaucrats/practitioners ignored development theories & ideas 2. LDC Development Institutes were largely irrelevant as training centers-- donors used overseas training 3. International Organizations (IMF and World Bank) promoted Programs that were unworkable.

15. The Foreign Aid Meeting

16. The Problem (2) Development administration did little to deal with issues of population control, food production and rural development Foreign aid was little more than a front for foreign policy

17. Anti-Planning: Neo- Orthodoxy: The Problem (3) Planning illustrates problem of soft-state and inability of state to impose its will on society- Planning Part of the Problem But the Problems are real

18. Land Reform and Women’s Rights

19. But…. Donors Need Planning Skills (Still) “National Program Support Office, Afghanistan” (October, 2005) Project Management Unit (PMU)

20. Autonomous Work Packaging Model

21. “End of Editorial”

22. The Middle View The Moderate Interpretation of Development Administration Failures Goal: Realistic Decision-Making based on sufficient knowledge (strategic planning Balance Public-Private Partnerships

23. The Twenty-First Century Model

24. The Problems of Development Management: Discussion Quote of the Week: "The Human Condition being what it was, let them fight, let them love, let them murder, I would not be involved." Graham Greene Is Strategic Planning (involvement) possible?

25. Structural Adjustment Policies 1985-2001 Failure of the Developmental State: Goran Hyden Linked to “pre-scientific modes of production of peasants”—Economy of Affection Failure of State and “Exit Option” (See work of Albert O. Hirschman) Problem of Endemic Patronage and Corruption

26. Structural Adjustment Policies 1985-2001 The Structural Adjustment Argument- Need to 1. stabilize currency and markets (getting the prices right) 2. Promote Free Trade 3. Need to refocus role of state from development to law and order and deregulation 4. Address the problem of Debt and Structural Adjustment reforms (IMF and World Bank)

27. Structural Adjustment, Cont. 5. Reduce the size of the public sector (infamous 19% cut) 6. Promote Privatization or “NGOism”—Negative on the State Privatization (Rambo vs. Effete) Faith in Capitalist Entrepreneurialism Neo-Orthodoxy had a purist element

29. Structural Adjustment Policies 1985-2001 The Argument for “NGOism” Left wing Privatization (Private Voluntary Organizations, Cooperatives, Community Based Organizations, Non- Profits) Energy of NGOs Structural Adjustment Public Sector Reform—Reduce size and restructure state Populist

31. Summary: Development Management in 2000 Concern about incapacity: Questions raised about efficacy of state approach Critics spoke of negative state Government had become a negative Debates focused on privatization, public sector reform and NGOism Need to address issues of external vs. internal solutions to development problems (domestic capacity vs. international redistribution)

32. Summary: Development Management in the 2000 Focus should be on issues of sustainability and institutional development Need to search for a creative, flexible, and innovative management system Difficult to separate development from politics Implementation had become the neglected component of development policy (Pressman and Wildavsky) Question: The appropriateness of the U.S. case study as lessons for development action

33. Choices: Contracting Out and Privatization NGOism and Grants Capacity Building (HRD) A Mixed Scanning Approach

34. Books of the Week Khushwant Singh, Last Train to Pakistan Kurban Said, Ali and Nino

35. The Authors Kushwant SinghKurban Said

36. Discussion: Assessment of Development Policy Progress? (Joyce Cary) Is progress the answer? Violence? (Kushwant Singh) Is development the answer?

37. From “Mister Johnson”

38. Discussion Stanley Karnow: “In Our Image?” Joyce Cary, “The Two Faces of Progress” Denis Goulet, “The Cruel Choice”

39. Denis A. Goulet, 75, died December 26, 2006

40. Late Colonial Philippines

41. Discussion: Stanley Karnow In Our Image (France, U.S., Portugal) Is assimilation the answer? In the Philippines, South East Asia, Middle East / Africa? Latin America: Just Spain?

42. TEN MINUTE BREAK