Comment s’adapter à un monde en transformation?

Le forum annuel du Conseil canadien pour la Coopération internationale porte cette année sur le thème du développement et de la transformation sociale, une responsabilité partagée. Cette première journée interpelle toutes les organisations de la société civile, car elle aborde leur avenir. Les défis auxquels font face les organisations sont grands dans cet environnement en évolution. 

Le point de départ de cette réflexion débute avec l’essai de Michael Edwards, chercheur principal distingué à Demos et rédacteur en chef de Transformation@openDemocracy. Celui-ci s’intitule « Réflexion axée sur l’avenir : quatre questions qui interpellent les ONG ». Les participants ont pris part en matinée à un exercice de visualisation où ceux-ci étaient invités à imaginer le monde dans lequel ils voudraient vivre dans le futur. Michael Edwards conçoit les relations mondiales en termes local-global et non nord-sud.

Pour Anabel Cruz, directrice fondatrice de l’Instituto de Comunicación y Desarrollo en Uruguay, le concept d’aide étrangère n’est pas le terme à utiliser, car il implique une idée de supériorité. Selon elle, les organisations non gouvernementales (ONG) devraient plutôt promouvoir la coopération horizontale, par exemple entre les différents pays d’Amérique latine. La situation politique de cette zone a beaucoup évolué depuis une trentaine d’années. Désormais, plusieurs gouvernements sont de tendance progressiste. Cette coopération devient donc possible et souhaitable. Elle réduirait ainsi leur dépendance envers l’influence des puissances occidentales. Nous devons nous interroger sur les capacités qui ont été développées par le passé et construire à partir de ces bases.

La transformation de l’aide étrangère depuis vingt-cinq ans et plus récemment avec la réorientation des priorités de ses bailleurs de fonds publics oblige les organisations à repenser leur structure, leurs pratiques et leur ancrage au sein de la société civile canadienne. Pour certaines, cela signifie qu’elles doivent trouver de nouvelles sources de financement pour continuer leurs activités nationales ou internationales. La transparence de leur financement devient donc un élément essentiel du lien de confiance qui les unit à la société civile. Comme l’indique Anabel Cruz, les organisations doivent accepter les politiques gouvernementales pour survivre. Le financement public de la responsabilité sociale des entreprises, notamment des compagnies minières, semble être à la mode. Par conséquent, l’impact des décisions gouvernementales est très important sur le mandat des organisations. De plus, le financement public oblige maintenant les organisations à obtenir des résultats plus rapidement. L’âge d’or du développement international est révolu.

L’explosion du nombre d’organisations non gouvernementales indique également que les barrières à l’entrée sont très faibles. Barbara Levine, professeure adjointe à l’École de politique publique et d’administration de l’Université Carleton pose la question du besoin d’alliances stratégiques. D’après elle, ces alliances ne doivent pas être forcées, mais plutôt créées dans une perspective de vision commune de l’avenir.

La pertinence de ces organisations est également mise en doute. Anabel Cruz indique qu’il est important de revitaliser les liens des ONG avec les réalités locales. La plupart d’entre elles sont déconnectées des mouvements qui transforment la société (exemple : la place Syntagma ou le mouvement étudiant chilien).

La définition de client est également examinée. Selon Brian Emmett, économiste en chef à Imagine Canada, la dichotomie des donateurs et des États / organisations récipiendaires place les organisations dans une position difficilement soutenable. Les donateurs ne souhaitent plus traiter par un intermédiaire et souhaitent que leur contribution ait des résultats concrets à court terme. De l’autre côté, les récipiendaires ne souhaitent plus être passifs dans l’attente d’une solution deus ex machina. Il existe plusieurs exemples de partenariats avec des organismes locaux qui sont impliqués dans l’élaboration de solutions (exemple : venir au Canada pour travailler de concert avec l’ONG) et qui visent à les rendre autonomes. 

En conclusion, dans un contexte de changement structurel et de crise économique mondiale, la transformation semble inévitable. De nouveaux modèles d’aide internationale, humanitaire ou d’aide au développement doivent être développés. Il semble pour l’instant y avoir plus de questions que de réponses. Cependant, les organismes se devront d’être proactifs s’ils désirent conserver leur influence, mais surtout s’ils désirent renouer avec leurs racines. Les ONG doivent se réinventer et elles devront en payer le prix, au risque de perdre leur identité. 

Emilie Carrier

Inspired or deflated? Discussing the future of Canadian development aid

As a fly on the wall, or as my badge has it, a volunteer, at the Annual Forum of the Canadian Council for International Cooperation (CCIC) I’ve gotten to listen in on discussions and debates on the most pressing issues to Canada’s development CSO (Civil Society Organization) community. It is clear that Canada’s foreign development sector is entering some interesting times, and I do mean interesting in the most attention-grabbing form. Not only is CIDA amalgamating with DFAIT, but also the global development landscape is changing in front of our very eyes. The economic ascension of developing countries is rearranging the traditional relationship between providers and receivers of aid. With this in mind, I have witnessed discussions with an atmosphere of urgency, but also with a lining of optimism. As this forum goes on I hope this urgency will lead to a sense of a common purpose.

One of the more grand ideas behind this year’s gathering is the idea of shared responsibilities, or as Mathias Fiedler (whose paper provides a fundament for some of the discussions) puts it, the “One world approach”. Keynote speaker Michael Edward describes this concept as a bridge. This bridge rests on foundations that are equal at both ends and people are able to cross over in both directions. Development needs to happen in both hemispheres with a global participation and sense of responsibility. This week, over 150 leaders and participants gather here in Ottawa to discuss where Canadian organizations can fit into this picture.

This concept of shared responsibilities got me thinking. How would I feel as a citizen of Canada, if a group from for example China came to Ottawa to influence the development of my surroundings? Obviously, the answer to this question depends on the approach, methods, and area of interest (among many other factors) of the organization in question. If the bridge allows passage both ways, “developing” countries should be allowed to make what might at first be unwelcome demands of “developed” countries. The first of these should probably be to ask developed countries to stop referring to themselves as developed and recognize their own need for change. As Kathy Vandergrift proposed to the forum’s emerging leaders, maybe Canada is at a point where instead of sending aid workers abroad, we need to ask other countries to come here to help us reinvigorate the public discourse on for example sustainable consumption.

Canadians should not be afraid to challenge themselves, particularly in handling some of the more uncomfortable discussions. This means that aid should be an important topic at all levels of society, and also that us in the CSO environment should be open to discussing new development methods. As these ideas are being discussed here at the forum, I hope they do not get caught up in too much idealism (and perhaps a fear of offending), but that they also remain well planted in the reality of things. As Mr. Fiedler warns, the development discussion has a tendency to foster sycophants and self-congratulation. The CCIC has done a good job in seeking to avoid this, particularly through Wednesday’s debate.

A particular point of contention has been Canada’s role in the changing aid landscape. Our government is shaping its policies to try to keep up (or withdraw as some will have it) with these external changes. How can the new combination of strategic interests, trade, and aid be successful? Wednesday’s debate participants seemed to share the opinion that the new structure is functional, but depends on the actors inserted into it (think passionate leaders). Lucien Bradet ceded that the current personnel did not make his job of arguing for the new policy easier. Across the table, John Mckay to some extent in agreement, accepted that a cross party commitment, as seen in Britain, would make the new policy more persuasive.

In agreement or not, the situation remains that the Canadian CSO community will imminently find itself working within this framework. After hearing some of the ideas discussed today, I am left with the image of a turning of the ages. As the extinction of the dinosaurs brought on the ascension of the mammals, I am sure that the restructuring of the Canadian aid policies will see the fall of some outdated ideas, but I am also hopeful that it will see the rise of new innovative methods that will strengthen the plethora of Canadian aid organizations.

After taking in the impressions from the first day of the Annual Forum, I am left, after an influx of ideas, at a point of reserved optimism. Yes Canada’s CSO community is entering uncharted waters, however, from the signs of today’s discussion, it is not doing so without a will to adapt and prepare for a thorough exploration of these new territories.

Peder Soeraas

Who says trade and growth will lead to development?

This article first appeared on the Ottawa Citizen blog on aid and development.


Aid hasn’t done much for development, and even less for sustainable growth in countries. In fact everything but aid – trade liberalization, productivity and technology gains, income redistribution, remittances, the new “gangnam style” dance (ok, I made that bit up) – have been at the heart of the dramatic improvement in living standards in a number of emerging economies in recent years.

This is the main premise of the Globe & Mail’s March 29 editorial, “Towards better, smarter foreign aid”, on their rationale for why merging the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) into one Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development makes total sense.

Forget building bridges, roads and dams. Together, aid can better used to promote trade, which in turn will lead to more sustainable growth and long-term development. Just look at Brazil and Mexico and South Africa, the Globe says.

So I did.

In recent years, there has been a growing body of evidence that has analyzed some of the factors that encouraged sustained and inclusive growth and development in many emerging and developing economies.

The World Bank -sponsored 2008 Commission on Growth and Development drew its “strategies for sustained and inclusive growth” from 13 developing economies that enjoyed a sustained (25 years) period of strong growth (seven percent) and human development. The UNDP’s 2013 Human Development Report on “The Rise of the South” was released just one month ago. It taps the experience of 40 countries that had “done better than expected” in terms of both income and non-income dimensions of human development.

Both reports (like me) unequivocally agree that while trade and growth are important, growth is an insufficient condition to ensure long-term, positive and sustainable human development.

So what then? Each report highlights a number of key factors that contributed to the success of these economies in terms of both positive growth and human development outcomes. They overlap in three areas worth highlighting:

1)      Strong leadership and an active government and society  – While the private sector has an important role to play in development, both the Commission and UNDP reminds us of the necessity of a pro-active developmental state and society. Supported by a talented and well compensated public service, the Commission’s cases identified the importance of active governments that were invested in, and committed to, long-term plans to bring about inclusive growth in their economies and to effective institutions to deliver on this commitment.  But governments also need social policy that promotes inclusion, adds the UNDP, to ensure non-discrimination and equal treatment. As the Arab Spring has reminded us, this also requires space for people – in particular young people - to voice their concerns and demands, influence and shape policy, participate in political processes and demand accountability.

2)      A healthy questioning of unfettered liberalization – While the Commission acknowledges the need for open markets and a responsive economy that supports innovative new industries and dumps obsolete ones, it acknowledges that none of the countries they studied were free market purists (nor was the US and UK, for that matter). These countries developed industrial strategies to promote investments in new sectors, subsidized industries that otherwise wouldn’t have emerged, managed their exchange rates, implemented capital controls, and built up their reserves. (It is enough to make Adam Smith roll over in his grave.) Although neither the UNDP nor Commission advocate for such policies long term, they do recognize that there is a time and a place for such policies. Likewise, while the UNDP notes that tapping global markets is key, “success is more likely to be the result not of a sudden opening but of gradual and sequenced integration with the world economy, according to national circumstances, and accompanied by investment in people, institutions and infrastructure.”

3)      Impressive levels of public investments – Both the Commission and UNDP underscore the importance of investing heavily in people (quality education and skills development, in particular for girls, and nutrition and health care), and in infrastructure (roads, ports, airports, electricity, telecommunications). But this must also be accompanied by a strong focus on job creation and equality of opportunity that can shape (and be shaped by) the nature and pace of the job market, in synch with the skill-set of the new workforce. Furthermore, social safety nets, legal empowerment and access to basic services help smooth the transition for people between jobs. According to the Commission, this produces “healthy, educated workers, passable roads, and reliable electricity” and actually crowds in private investment, creating what the UNDP calls “virtuous cycles in which growth and social policies reinforce each other.”

Which leaves me wondering: wouldn’t “better, smarter foreign aid” have more leverage and impact if it aligned less with how we think growth and development works, and more with how it is actually happening – and quite successfully – in many parts of the developing world?

What do you think?

This blog was written by Fraser Reilly-King, Policy Analyst (Aid), CCIC. The views expressed are his own, and do not necessarily represent the views of CCIC or its members.

Human Development Report 2013: Operationalizing Sen’s Development Framework through the Multidimensional Poverty Index

Development is frequently framed solely in terms of economic growth. Welfare and poverty measures’ paramount focus has been on income, consumption of goods, and availability of resources. Hence, development processes have traditionally been evaluated and quantified using economic indexes such as the Gross Domestic Product. Likewise, poverty is defined by a threshold of income, or alternatively of household commodities consumption, that one must cross in order to escape from being labelled “poor.”

However, examining income alone is inadequate for describing human poverty. Utilitarian-focused poverty measures do not reflect concerns over other aspects of human deprivation, such as well-being, happiness, sustainability, freedom, capabilities, and the like. In short, these poverty measures’ preoccupation with setting the right components and prices in evaluating those metrics overshadow the non-economic aspects of human development.

Unsatisfied with current measures of poverty and welfare, and wanting to capture the full complexity of human capabilities, development economists such as Amartya Sen have expounded the capability approach throughout the past few decades. Sen’s work seeks to reorient development work to expand individuals’ capabilities in achieving valuable beings and doings. Departing from orthodox measures of poverty and the Rawlsian emphasis on primary goods or utility measures, Sen examines an individual’s level of functionings – that is, the “various things that a person may value doing or being.” This framework reorients human development to expand a person’s real opportunities or freedoms to live lives he or she has reason to value.

Notwithstanding his other contributions to the development discourse, Sen’s conceptualization of capabilities as a kind of substantive freedom is an advancement for those who are traditionally disregarded in decision-making processes. Recognizing the poor’s agency in voicing their own needs and laying claims to opportunities for living lives they have reason to value, the marginalized are cast to the forefront as actors – in lieu of passive beneficiaries of aid – within development processes. In sum, Sen’s philosophical reframing of poverty and development has the potential to effectively democratize development processes.

His conceptual framework laid the foundations for the Human Development Index, which was created in 1990 for the Human Development Report. This index is supplemented by the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) in 2010, which “identifies multiple deprivations at the individual level in health, education and standard of living” across 104 developing countries (UNDP). Its developers advocate for its use in order to complement income poverty measures. By measuring acute poverty instead of extreme poverty (based on the World Bank’s $1.25/day poverty measure), the MPI sheds light on those who “do not reach the minimum standards in several indicators at the same time” (Alkire and Santos 2011:30).

The legitimacy of the MPI stems from how it reflects the Millennium Development Goals in its indicator cut-offs, making it a more direct measure of human development aspirations that are internationally agreed-upon (Alkire and Santos 2011:30). Drawing from data sources such as the Demographic Health Surveys (DHS), the Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS), and the World Health Survey, the MPI focuses on the wider dimensions of poverty and underdevelopment than traditional income poverty measures. Unlike the Human Development Index, however, the MPI’s variables are linked to a particular household (i.e. same survey source). The MPI is also decomposable by population sub-groups, allowing policy makers to analyze poverty data and target their development policies to specific groups accordingly.

OPHI’s analysis of the global MPI 2013 spans four topics, of which one is an analysis of where the poorest “Bottom Billion” live using both national averages and individual poverty profiles. By identify where the poor are and how they are poor, the MPI 2013 can be used to divert resources effectively to meet the Millennium Development Goals and the post-2015 MDGs. The analysis is especially important in dispelling common assumptions of where the poor are: almost 10% of the poorest billion people live in High Income or upper Middle Income countries. This demonstrates the need for going beyond traditional monetary poverty measures for identifying the poor.

Because the MPI can be disaggregated, it can highlight inequalities across regions and social groups. If one examines national poverty levels, the MPI shows that the “Bottom Billion” live in 30 countries, with 66% of the poorest billion living in Lower Middle Income countries. An analysis of subnational poverty levels shows that the bottom billion live in 265 subnational regions across 44 countries. Finally, individual poverty profiles reveal that the poorest billion are distributed across 100 countries, with over 9% living in upper Middle Income countries. Geographically speaking, South Asia is home to the majority of the world’s poorest billion, ranging from 52 to 62%, depending on the level of disaggregation. Most of the rest of the “Bottom Billion” live in Sub-Saharan Africa.

From the discussion above, it is clear that the MPI is a crucial tool for analyzing the effectiveness of poverty alleviation efforts on national, subnational, and individual scales. Moreover, it provides a more comprehensive picture of human development and takes into account the voice of the poor. By focusing attention on people’s capabilities, the MPI is one step closer to realizing Sen’s call towards a development paradigm that centers on the poor’s agency in reframing what poverty means, thus bringing about a more inclusive development regime that truly addresses the deprivations faced by individuals.

Esther Kwan is a first year MPhil student at the Oxford Department of International Development.