The Effects of Institutional Innovations

Abstract

Claus et al confirm the results of the last chapter when they state how they perceive the ideal development administration: “As development policy should in any case be regarded as an aspect of foreign policy, responsibility for development cooperation should rest with the Foreign Ministry, where a (small) department should do the groundwork on the policy. The actual planning and management of development cooperation should be left to an agency, which though subordinate to the Foreign Ministry, enjoys considerable autonomy. It should also be responsible for the implementation of development cooperation measures and provide the staff for the external offices, which should do the preliminary work for it and act on its behalf. (...) Specialized ministries should be involved only when their expertise is needed.”¹ Likewise Glagow concludes that a multiple agency approach bears the danger of a “systemic self blockade.”² Schimank warns that “development fails to the extent the genuine development oriented rationality is dominated by diplomatic or trade-related rationality.”³ That means, while a single agency or ministry is obviously desirable, at best it should also be independent of the Foreign Ministry.