Skip to main content

Doing Development Differently at Scale

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Knowledge, Politics and Policymaking in Indonesia

Abstract

In recent decades there has been an increasing recognition that politics and political institutions matter for development. There is also a much greater interest in contextually grounded approaches. This has stemmed from an acknowledgement that purely technocratic approaches to development often result in failure because they do not take into account the nature of political institutions. Nor do they take account of the context in a particular developing country and the interests and incentives of powerful national actors. Policy processes are embedded in specific social, political and organisational contexts. Approaches that focus on implementing universal best practices in evidence-informed policymaking are unlikely to be successful. Instead, what is needed is an approach that takes the local context as the starting point for understanding what issues are relevant to policymakers and developing contextually appropriate solutions. The authors of this chapter reflect on the management approaches and systems that may be required to enable and support large-scale development programmes to be flexible and adaptive to the local policy context and circumstances. The chapter argues that such programmes struggle to adopt adaptive management principle and that to do that at scale requires some changes in the way such programmes are managed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Other terms have emerged during the last few years, e.g. ‘Thinking and Working Politically’ and ‘Problem-Driven Iterative Adaptation’. We cluster them under the doing development differently umbrella of ideas.

  2. 2.

    See Grindle (2004), Briggs (2008), Ramalingam and Jones (2008), Rodrik (2008), Adler et al. (2009), Booth (2011), Pritchett et al. (2013), Ramalingam (2015), and Green (2016).

  3. 3.

    See http://qog.pol.gu.se/.

  4. 4.

    Doing Development Differently is a community of researchers and practitioners convened by the Overseas Development Institute and Harvard Kennedy School. Its manifesto calls for development to focus on locally defined problems, tackled through iteration, learning and adaptation (http://doingdevelopmentdifferently.com/).

    Thinking and Working Politically is a semi-regular convening of representatives from various donor agencies, think tanks and international NGOs that discusses the use of politically aware approaches to aid and development work (https://twpcommunity.org/).

    Global Delivery Initiative (GDI) is a cross-donor collaboration led by the World Bank to deepen the know-how for effective operational delivery of aid and development (http://www.worldbank.org/reference/GDI/).

    Global Partnership for Social Accountability (GPSA) was established by the World Bank in 2012 and funds and convenes civil society organisations and governments to discuss social accountability initiatives (http://www.thegpsa.org/).

    Making All Voices Count (MAVC) is a 5-year programme that started in 2013, funded by multiple development partners (i.e. UK Department for International Development, USAID, Swedish International Development Agency and the Omidyar Network) to find, fund and learn from innovations that support accountable governance (http://www.makingallvoicescount.org/).

    Transparency and Accountability Initiatives is a community of practice composed of transparency and accountability practitioners from many countries (http://www.transparency-initiative.org/workstream/impact-learning).

    Analysis-Driven Agile Programming Techniques (ADAPT) is a collaboration between Mercy Corps and the International Rescue Committee to identify, develop and spread the use of adaptive management approaches in complex aid and development projects (https://www.rescue.org/adaptcasestudies).

    Smart Rules is an internal initiative that started in 2014 at the UK Department for International Development, which acknowledges that complex interventions require a different approach to programme management that can adapt to and influence local contexts and support evidence-based decision-making (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dfid-smart-rules-better-programme-delivery).

    Collaborating, Learning and Adapting (CLA) is the USAID framework and internal change effort for incorporating collaboration, learning and adaptation at its missions and among implementing partners (https://usaidlearninglab.org/faq/collaborating-learning-and-adapting-cla).

  5. 5.

    Booth and Unsworth (2014) looked at seven programmes implemented between 2000 and 2014 in different parts of the world to identify positive lessons for adopting an iterative and adaptive approach to programme implementation: the Western Odisha Rural Livelihoods Programme in India (WORLP); the Rural Livelihoods Programme; Land Titling in the Philippines and the Tax and Health Reform Programme in the Philippines by The Asia Foundation; the Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration in DRC Peace Direct in North Kivu led by the Centre Résolution Conflits (CRC); the European Union Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan; the Pyoe Pin programme in Myanmar; and the Enabling State Programme in Nepal.

  6. 6.

    See http://www.dddworkshop2017.org.

  7. 7.

    The original value of the first phase of the program was AUD 100 million (c US$75.7 million). This was amended in 2015, following adjustments to Australia’s aid program. The pilot programme to inform the design of KSI – implemented by The Asia Foundation – commenced in March 2010 and included core funding and technical, advocacy and organisational capacity-building support for eight Indonesian policy research organisations over a period of 18 months. The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (then Australian Agency for International Development or AusAID) also commissioned a range of diagnostic studies on the state of Indonesia’s knowledge sector. These are available at http://www.ksi-indonesia.org/en/news/detail/diagnostic-studies-on-the-knowledge-sector.

  8. 8.

    Within Bappenas, the programme is managed under the Deputy Minister for Economic Affairs and within the Australian Agency for International Development by the Minister Counsellor for Governance and Human Development.

  9. 9.

    The 16 policy research partners were AKATIGA, Article 33, CSIS, ELSAM, Institute for Research and Empowerment (IRE), Komite Pemantauan Pelaksanaan Otonomi Daerah (KPPOD), Pusat Kebijakan dan Manajemen Kesehatan Universitas Gadjah Mada (PKMK UGM), Pusat Penelitian HIV/AIDS Universitas Atma Jaya (PPH Atma Jaya), Pusat Pengkajian Islam dan Masyarakat Universitas Islam Negeri (PPIM UIN), Pusat Studi Hukum dan Kebijakan (PSHK), Pusat Studi Agama dan Demokrasi Universitas Paramadina (PUSAD Paramadina), Pusat Kajian Politik Universitas Indonesia (Puskapol UI), Sajogyo Institute (SAINS), Seknas FITRA, SMERU Research Institute and SurveyMETER. Short profiles of the 16 partners can be found at http://www.ksi-indonesia.org/files/1444374225$1$BTXGW$.pdf.

  10. 10.

    The six management tools described in Section 7 of the paper by Faustino and Booth (2014) are ‘1) a table to describe the political economy analysis of the interventions called technically sound, politically possible reform; 2) a theory of change; 3) a table to describe the link between project intervention and outcomes; 4) a timeline table to record significant events, key milestones or progress markers achieved and relevance, setbacks and other major changes; 5) a table to describe the team of development entrepreneurs; 6) a mapping of coalition attitudes toward reforms and influence’ (29–30).

  11. 11.

    See https://usaidlearninglab.org.

  12. 12.

    See https://usaidlearninglab.org/faq/collaborating-learning-and-adapting-cla.

  13. 13.

    A closely linked issue here is that an upfront plan with predetermined indicators is more in tune with a ‘logframe’ mindset than with a more adaptive ‘theory of change’. The former makes adaptation more difficult, as it may result in less flexibility to design new pilots as opportunities emerge.

References

  • Addison, T. (2005). Development policy. An introduction for students (Discussion Paper No. 9). Helsinki: World Institute for Development Economics Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adelman, I. (2000). The role of government in economic development. In F. Tarp (Ed.), Foreign aid and development. Lessons learnt and directions for the future (pp. 48–79). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adler, D., Sage, C., & Woolcock, M. (2009). Interim institutions and the development process: Opening spaces for reform in Cambodia and Indonesia (Working Paper No. 86). Brooks World Poverty Institute, University of Manchester. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1421808. Accessed 12 Mar 2017.

  • Algoso, D. and Hudson, A. (2016). Where have we got to on adaptive learning, thinking and working politically, doing development differently etc.? Getting beyond the People’s Front of Judea. From Poverty to Power Blog, http://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/where-have-we-got-to-on-adaptive-learning-thinking-and-working-politically-doing-development-differently-etc-getting-beyond-the-peoples-front-of-judea/. Accessed 19 Mar 2017.

  • Andrews, M., Pritchett, L., Woolcock, M. (2012). Escaping capability traps through problem-driven iterative adaptation (PDIA) (Working Paper 299). Washington, DC: Center for Global Development. http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/1426292. Accessed 21 Mah 2017.

  • Andrews, M., Pritchett, L., & Woolcock, M. (2015). Building capability by delivering results: Putting Problem-Driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA) principles into practice. In A. Whaites, E. Gonzales, S. Fyson, & G. Teskey (Eds.), A governance practitioner's notebook: Alternative ideas and approaches (pp. 123–133). Paris: OECD-DAC Network on Governance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, M., Pritchett, L., & Woolcock, M. (2017). Building state capability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Arndt, H. W. (1987). Economic development. In History of an idea. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barder, O. (2014). Evidence and scale. Notes for remarks to the CIFF Board dinner, 16th May 2014. http://cf.owen.org/wp-content/uploads/2014-05-16-CIFF-Board-Dinner-Evidence-and-scale-as-delivered2.pdf. Accessed 18 Mar 2017.

  • Booth, D. & Unsworth, S. (2014). Politically smart, locally led development (Discussion Paper). London: Overseas Development Institute. https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/9158.pdf. Accessed 28 Mar 2017.

  • Booth, D. (2011). Aid effectiveness: Bringing country ownership (and politics) back in (Working Paper 336). London: Overseas Development Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, X. (2008). Democracy as problem-solving: Civic capacity in communities across the globe. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burkeman, O. (2016, April 8 How to love your daily commute. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/apr/08/how-to-love-your-daily-commute-oliver-burkeman. Accessed 25 Mar 2017.

  • Escobar, A. (2011). Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the third world. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabella, R. V., Faustino, J., Mirandilla-Santos, M. G., Ciatiang, P., & Paras, R. (2011). Built on dreams, grounded on reality: Economic policy reform in the Philippines. Manila: The Asian Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faustino, J. & Booth, D. (2014). Development entrepreneurship: how donors and leaders can foster institutional change (Working Politically in Practice Series – Case Study No. 2). London: Overseas Development Institute and San Francisco: The Asia Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, D. (2016). How change happens. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Grindle, M. (2004). Good enough governance: Poverty reduction and reform in developing countries. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, 17, 525–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschman, A. O. (1967). Development projects observed. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J. (2000). The nature of economies. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • KSI. [Australia-Indonesia Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy: The Knowledge Sector Initiative]. (2017). About KSI. http://www.ksi-indonesia.org/en/pages/knowledge-sector-initiative. Accessed 18 Mar 2017.

  • Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parfitt, T. W. (2002). The end of development? Modernity, post-modernity and development. London: Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellini, A. (2007). Decentralisation policy in Cambodia. Exploring community participation in the education sector (Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 1235). Tampere: University of Tampere.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellini, A. & Shaxson, L. (2017). Doing development differently means doing monitoring, evaluation & learning differently too. BetterEvaluation.org. https://goo.gl/4ocNgy. Accessed 10 May 2017.

  • Pritchett, L. (2013). Folk and the formula. Fact and fiction in development. Helsinki: World Institute for Development Economics Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchett, L., Samji, S., Hammer, J. (2013). It’s all about MeE: Learning in development projects through monitoring (“M”), experiential learning (“e”) and impact evaluation (“E”) (Working Paper 322). Washington, DC:. Center for Global Development. https://www.cgdev.org/publication/its-all-about-mee-using-structured-experiential-learning-e-crawl-design-space. Accessed 23 Mar 2017.

  • Ramalingam, B. (2015). Aid on the edge of chaos. Rethinking international cooperation in a complex world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramalingam, B., and Jones, H. (2008). Exploring the science of complexity: Ideas and implications for development and humanitarian efforts (Working Paper 285). London: Overseas Development Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrik, D. (2008). Second-best institutions. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 98(2), 100–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rondinelli, D. A. (1989). Development projects as policy experiments: An adaptive approach to development administration. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rostow, W. W. (1960). The stages of economic growth: A non-communist manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlingheider, A., Pellfolk, E., Maneo, G., Desai, H. (2017). Managing to adapt. Analysing adaptive management for planning, monitoring, evaluation, and learning. London: London School of Economics and Political Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, W. T. (1962). Investment in human capital. In E. S. Phelps (Ed.), The goal of economic growth (pp. 106–120). New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1988). The concept of development. In H. Chenery & T. N. Srinivasan (Eds.), Handbook of development economics (Vol. I, pp. 9–26). Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, H. W. (1964). Education and economic development. In H. W. Singer (Ed.), International development: Growth and change. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheelan, C. (2002). Naked economics. In Undressing the dismal science. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, T. (2015). Change in challenging contexts (How does it happen? Research report). London: Overseas Development Institute. https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/9829.pdf. Accessed 28 Mar 2017.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arnaldo Pellini .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Pellini, A., Karetji, P.C., Soekadis, A. (2018). Doing Development Differently at Scale. In: Pellini, A., Prasetiamartati, B., Nugroho, K., Jackson, E., Carden, F. (eds) Knowledge, Politics and Policymaking in Indonesia. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0167-4_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0167-4_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-0166-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-0167-4

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics