1

DevISSuesDevelopmentISSues Volume15/Number1/July 2013

Also in this issue:•Greening the ISS •Bridging Academia and Practice: Students’ Voices

on Possibilities and Challenges •Jos Mooij: an Academic Traveller

The FuTure oF DevelopmenT SySTemS: Trends Toward More Private Funding

2

DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE IN A TIME OF CRISIS

ISS is the International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam

NiNeteeN dollars per persoN per year. This is on average what the developed world transfers to developing countries. Actually, even that figure, which is calculated by the World Bank, is an overstatement. It includes even loans, as long as one-fourth of the total amount of the loan is in the form of a grant. It also includes tied aid in which grant funds never even leave the donor country, flowing straight to organizations and institutions based in the donor country for services provided to recipients. On the recipient side also, there are several problems, not the least of which is that foreign aid is siphoned off by corrupt politicians, bureaucrats and local strongmen.

Even before the financial crisis, there were severe problems with foreign aid. After the crisis, the aid system is appearing to break down. Faced with mounting economic and social pressures at home, wealthy countries are finding that cutting funds for develop-ment cooperation is the least controversial of their actions. In the Netherlands, the government has recently released its new policy on development cooperation which outlines not only major cuts but also the incorporation of international climate expenditure within this shorn budget.

For those who advocate cutting aid, it is popular, perhaps even comforting, to argue that foreign aid mostly creates a dependency in recipient countries and at worst sustains and promotes undemocratic and corrupt governments. These charges are exaggera-tions. For example, one commentator famously complains that Africa has been provided over $1 trillion in aid over the last 50 years but has little to show for it. It sounds like a lot, but again, working out the averages means that Africa has received around $20 per capita per year in aid. That’s not even enough to feed a person, let alone transform an entire continent!

The truth is that aid amounts have never been large enough to be transformative, but even these modest amounts do make a real difference in the lives of people. They provide communities clean drinking water, immunizations and other types of health care, including pre- and post-natal care, education and valuable technical assistance. They open channels for communication, the exchange of ideas and of people. They keep things from getting worse.

But even if the performance of development assistance is unsatisfactory, which according to many observers it is, then it would seem logical that we should try to better understand and fix the problems rather than taking the easy way out by cutting develop-ment assistance massively.

We are concerned about these cuts and it is for this reason that we chose to focus this edition of DevISSues on development assistance. In our feature articles on the future of development cooperation, several important trends stand out. The first is that de-velopment cooperation budgets are going to be cut, not just in the Netherlands, but in Europe as a whole. The second is that the geography of development is changing. Many countries, which were formerly poor and had stagnant economies, are becoming wealthier and are growing at enviable rates. Nevertheless, even in these countries, such as Brazil, China and India, poverty is still widespread. The third is that there is an increasing emphasis on the role of the private sector and trade in development. The fourth is the emergence of new actors on the stage, so that development assistance is no longer mostly a question of inter-governmental relations but instead a much broader engagement with different stakeholders in society.

In this context, all our contributors question, to varying degrees, the current orientation of development policies of the Netherlands and other wealthy countries, which try to incorporate a corporate cost-cutting efficiency-promoting rhetoric. Sander Verduijn, an ISS alumnus from the Netherlands who is now working for a development NGO in Nicaragua parses the language of the new Dutch policy on development cooperation and is critical. He questions whether the new focus on trade and the private sector is for the benefit of the developing countries. Kathleen Ferrier, a member of ISS’ advisory board, cautions against the Dutch government’s decision to cut development assistance budgets, saying that it may cost the country goodwill and reduce its influ-ence abroad. Nanno Kleiterp, CEO of FMO, the Dutch development bank, considers how development challenges are changing today with the emergence of a multipolar world where countries like the BRICS are entering the space being ceded by the indus-trialized countries and where the emphasis on creating good jobs means that a new and more central role has appeared for the private sector. This raises new challenges, especially in trying to balance the private sector’s quest for profits with development objectives. Finally, ISS rector Leo de Haan reminds us that development is a complex process and that it is becoming increasingly so with the appearance of new actors and new agendas.

With this issue we aim to continue the debate about how much and how to pro-vide development assistance. In these times of economic crisis, perhaps, ‘charity begins at home’ is becoming the new direction of development assistance, but with almost a billion people in the world still living on less than two dollars a day, it shouldn’t be so.

This issue’s cover shows the skyline of The Hague as seen from the roof of the ISS building. The painting is by Willem van der Hofstede based on a photograph taken by Dick de Jager. Thanks to Marie-Louise Gambon for adapting the painting for the cover.

About the cover

Contents

Page 4 / Minding (y)our own Business?! – Wordplay and

Defining Shifts in Development Aid…

P.J.A. (Sander) Verduijn

Page 7 / New Directions in Dutch Development

Cooperation?

Kathleen Ferrier

Page 9 / The New Development Cooperation: The

Importance of the Private Sector

Nanno Kleiterp

Page 12 / The Future of International Cooperation

Leo de Haan

Page 14 / Research Programmes

Page 16 / Jos Mooij: An Academic Traveller

Manabi Majumdar

Page 18 / Bridging Academia and Practice: Students’ Voices

on Possibilities and Challenges

Bolutife Adefehinti, Janneka Beeksma,

Natsuko Kobiyama

Page 21 / Greening the ISS

The views expressed in DevISSues are those of the original authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Institute.

The online versions of all articles with full bibliography can be found at www.iss.nl/devissues

4

Minding (y)our own Business?! – Wordplay and Defining Shifts in Development Aid…

P.J.A. (Sander) Verduijn

Nathaniel Hawthorne once said: ‘Words, so innocent and powerless…when standing in a

dictionary, how potent for good or evil they become in the hands of one who knows how to

combine them.’ Words are the basis for good intentions, bad choices and, unfortunately, also a

range of vagueness in between. Words are decisive in definitions, in decision-making, in policy

development.

5

The field of development, sporting its own ‘dictionary’ is no exception regarding the potent power of words. Development theories and policy pro-cesses are shaped by words, thoughts and explanations guiding decision-mak-ers in addressing the ‘development’ aid agenda for the future. Combinations of words are used to define and set shifts in the agenda. They both create and close space for development actors and focus areas in development. Words are at times, however, rather vague, leaving one to wonder… what or who is this agenda really about?

The power of words can be observed in recent shifts in the development aid agenda of the Dutch govern-ment. And behind these shifts? A 2010 WRR (Dutch Scientific Council for Government Policy) report, expressing: ‘…Dutch development aid should be less pretentious and more ambitious’ (translated from WRR, 2010). At first sight this seems well-intended, maybe even noble. Less pretention, more ambition, most development actors wouldn’t argue with that. Those four words though were apparently chosen in such a manner as to pave the way for several important policy decisions in Dutch development Aid. Alongside a narrower country and programme focus (not discussed here), less pretention and more ambition is leading apparently to a shift in focus towards what some have started calling the ‘new donor darling’ - the private sector (Kindornay and Reilly-King, 2013: 1). Now, having the private sector as the ‘new’ ally in working on economic related issues is not necessar-ily shocking. Where it gets interesting is when we return to what seems to have led to the shift in focus towards private sector economic development and how this is linked to the Dutch development agenda. Here one notices a seemingly clear line in why the Dutch government is engaging in this ‘business’ of devel-opment. The line becomes more fuzzy when it comes to whose ‘business’ it really is, or who it is intended for.

Again words (and a combination thereof) play an important role in the choice of this new ally and in the space it is given in the development agenda. Choosing a certain language, a pri-vate sector language, can also play a defining role in who in the end profits

from this ‘new (economic) development agenda’. Let’s take a look at this.

The WRR report provides several inter-esting insights in this respect. A quick historical ‘journey’ through policies written by the Dutch government on aid, shows two main motives for aid. First there is aid for self-interest, defined loosely on three levels from a pure inward focus to a more outward focus: 1) as a way to leverage money and influence, 2) as a way to create stability across borders, and 3) as a way of safe-guarding global public goods. Secondly, there is aid for moral motives, defined loosely on three levels: 1) enabling individual possibilities, 2) ensuring the right to development, and 3) ensuring a better world (WRR, 2010: 36). Naturally, both have motives evolved over the years, but as seen through recent agenda shifts, these motives still play a defining role within changes in Dutch development policy. Also, the report notes what they believe is a commonly distinguishing definition of ‘develop-ment’, namely a conscious acceleration of modernization, where modernization

is defined as basically ‘the West’ from the 19th century onwards. (WRR, 2010: 61)

These motives and such a definition are quite a powerful message! A message that policy makers seem to have taken on board with open arms. In fact, the

opening statement of an official memo to Dutch parliament states ‘…in a fast changing world the Netherlands wants to be a leading country, also regard-ing development cooperation. Many national issues have become interna-tional issues. The Netherlands has a direct interest in achieving international stability and security, energy and secu-rity of resources, a good international legal framework and a level playing field with only the necessary regula-tions. Development cooperation is therefore an integral part of broader Foreign Policy.’ (translated from Knapen en Rosenthal, 2010). A follow-up letter to the Dutch parliament, goes a step further. The letter opens with the three most important Foreign Policy goals: improving the economic position of the Netherlands in the world, promoting stability and security, and promoting human rights and the rule of law (trans-lated from Knapen, 2011).

These words leave little room for inter-pretation - development cooperation is placed clearly in the light of self-interest. Both memos go on to state that a shift will take place from social to economic development; the focus will be on self-reliance; and aid is to shift towards investment and a strong expansion of opportunities for the private sector. Poverty reduction is to stay high on the agenda, but at the same time the idea is to invest in sustainable growth in order to help developing countries solve their own poverty problems.

By themselves these last statements are not something many development actors would be against. Economic development is a necessary component of employment and wealth creation. Working towards self-reliance and breaking with dependency is something good. ‘Sustainable growth’ and ‘solv-ing own problems’ is necessary and useful. Questions arise, however, when we start combining these statements with the ‘self-interest’ motive; when we place them against a backdrop of public debates showing Dutch public sup-port for aid is slowly fading or against a government that wants to show results, evidence and value for money. This is all in the midst of a financial crisis which still has Europe in its grip and is causing ODA budgets to dwindle. With that motive in mind, we might raise our eyebrows and frown a little. Are these

…inequality as

a threat to

well-being

and economic

growth…

6

words really declarations of good inten-tions? Does less pretention, more ambi-tion become a synonym for a model of economic development and develop-ment cooperation based predominantly on the private sector and profit? Are we simply making sure we mind our own business(es) in order not to lose our top position in this shifting global world?

This last statement may perhaps be a bit short-sighted or be better at home in a ‘conspiracy theory’ type discus-sion. Granted, it is also a government’s responsibility to think of its own citizens, but in the Dutch case the government’s ambition goes beyond merely thinking of their own businesses: there is also a focus on the broader private sector in developing countries. What does remain, however, is the wording leading up to the announcement to shift focus to economic development and the private sector. One is left with an uneasy feeling, as wording can be definitive in who will really profit from this shift.

As Amartya Sen said: ‘…to be generi-cally against markets would be as odd as being generically against conversa-tions between people’ (Sen, 1999: 6). ‘At their best, markets are mighty engines, generating wealth and transforming the lives and expectations of people throughout society. At their worst, they exclude poor people, exacerbate long-term inequality, and degrade the natural world on which we all depend.’ (Green, 2012: 87). So the idea is not to randomly criticize a shift in focus to markets and the private sector. Peter Knorringa pointed out in his inaugural speech in 2010 that the development sector should ‘…move beyond a priori assumptions about the moral superior-ity of one actor versus another. There is plenty of evidence of corrupt govern-ment officials, disempowering NGO workers and exploitative entrepreneurs. Yet good examples also exist of all three types of actors’ (Knorringa, 2010: 9). Therefore, knowing the power present in markets and the private sector asks for a clear definition and wording on how to promote an economic develop-ment agenda. Particularly when jug-gling various ideas such as a country’s own economic position, developing countries’ ability to deal with their own problems plus reduce poverty through private sector development and a mind-set of ‘modernization = development’.

Wealth creation and economic growth in and of themselves can promote further inequality and deepen poverty gaps. The World Economic Forum Global Risks Report 2013 even classifies wealth gaps or severe income disparity as one of the top two global risks. The good news is that traditional ‘trickle-down’ clubs are also starting to see inequality as a threat to well-being and economic growth (Quak, 2012). However, in light of policy statements mentioned above, the tendency may be to look for quick wins to show evidence of value for money. And this could mean an inclina-tion to focus on certain segments within the private sector economic develop-ment agenda.

These choices and tendencies could have significant effects on a number of development related issues, as pointed out by Duncan Green in Poverty to Power. Let’s take a look at a few arbi-trary issues that could be affected, de-pending on how the private sector and economic development are promoted and/or how the agenda is defined:

1. Reluctance in, for example, plac-ing value on the ‘care economy’ affects particularly women in terms of rights and responsibilities. The number of female-headed households is increasing, and their income is relatively low, which com-pounds the effects on their family’s well-being. Especially because in many cases women proportionally tend to spend more of their income on education and healthcare (Green, 2012: 89-90).

2. Defining the scope of the ‘private sector’ determines the reach of its effects. Many countries labelled as ‘developing’ have a large informal economy, which is precisely the group that suffers most from nega-tive effects of the inequality gap. Therefore if ‘aid’ goes to the formal private sector in both develop-ing countries as well as the Dutch private sector then the impact on those needing it most will be very marginal at most (especially due to an inclination to bypass the informal economy due to a regula-tory framework, or shareholders that want to see sizeable return-on-investments and quick wins) (Green, 2012: 125).

3. Choosing a certain segment within the private sector leads to more or less effect on the state of poverty. Investing in the technology sector or in technological enhancements within sectors can mean higher profits, and an overall positive mac-ro-economic image, but it does not create much needed jobs. Investing in labour-intensive segments such as agriculture can mean more jobs, but it also means lower profit mar-gins (Green, 2012: 156). And though slowly changing, most shareholders still prioritize the ‘word’ profit with a capital ‘P’.

These issues bring us back to the start of this article - are we fully aware of the potential and consequences of our statements? Are we minding our own business in the end or playing a role in facilitating others to mind their busi-ness? Is ‘ambition’ making us focus blindly on a new actor in develop-ment? Will we learn from the past on time, where first governments were the ‘darling’ and General Budget Support was the hype and when that proved less effective the NGO sector became the ‘silver bullet’? Perhaps it is time to do away with this narrow focus and be truly ambitious. Let’s learn together the ‘language’ of complex global sustain-able development which is spoken at the cross-road of Private Sector, State, NGO’s and that so often forgotten fourth actor… citizens themselves. Not just a select group of eloquent citizens but global citizens on both sides of the inequality gap.

While we debate that new language let’s remember Gandhi’s words: ‘Carefully watch your thoughts, for they become your words. Manage and watch your words, for they will become your ac-tions. Consider and judge your actions, for they have become your habits. Acknowledge and watch your habits, for they shall become your values. Understand and embrace your values, for they become your destiny.’

Sander Verduijn is regional coordinator Latin

America & Caribbean for the Dutch development

NGO Stichting Woord en Daad.

7

At the time of writing (April 2013) we are waiting for the policy document the new minister for International Trade and Development Cooperation is about to send to the Parliament. We still do not know what these proposals will be, but what we certainly do know, is that things will change. The new Dutch minister for Development Cooperation, Lilianne Ploumen, will have to make sharp choic-es. The new Dutch government, Rutte II, installed in November 2012 and having to cope with serious budget challenges due to the economic-financial crisis, is making a significant break with the ways of Dutch development cooperation. A break that shows clearly defined budg-etary aspects, followed by far less clearly defined ideological and political views. I would suggest that this should be the other way around: first find out what role you want to play and then define your budget.

The budget aspects are clear. Financially, the Dutch development budget will be decreased by at least one quarter: one billion euros out of the roughly four billion (0.7 per cent of GDP) that the Dutch government used to allocate to fighting poverty in the world will be cut. But that is not all: Rutte II will also finance the effects of climate change through its development budg-et and is also ready to finance ’develop-ment related’ military activities from the development budget. This means that the Netherlands may no longer stick to the criteria set by the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD.

So, when it comes to the ideological views of Rutte II on development we are completely in the dark. All we know is that this government makes a clear choice to combine trade with aid, thus stressing the economic aspects of aid. We therefore do not know what the new direction of Dutch development cooperation is going to be; what we do know is that things will change…and actually, things had to change! Things had to change because the answers that we, through development cooperation, are giving to the questions related to poverty reduction, human rights and dignity and to creating equal chances, no longer satisfy. There are at least two major reasons why our answers no longer satisfy.

First: the shift of power-relations. In our fast-changing world, power-relations are shifting rapidly. We see that to-day the former so-called developing countries are in many aspects more developed than many donor countries which look with envy at the economic growth figures of countries like Kenya and Colombia. It is not surprising that many people from the former European colonizing countries - Britain, France, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands for example - are migrating to former colonies in Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean. Opportunities for work and a better future lie there, not in Europe! And then of course there are the BRICS - Brazil, Russia, India, China and, recently, South Africa - these upcoming economies are obviously changing the power-relations in the world. This shift in power-relations pre-

sents the world population with quite a series of challenges. Because, with a shift in economic power, there is also a shift in power, particularly where social, cultural and perhaps even ethical issues are concerned. The growing influence of countries that socially and politically differ from those that used to rule this world will definitively have an impact and obliges us to redefine our (coopera-tion) relations.

Second: things had to change because our ways of communicating and build-ing relationships have changed in the 60 years since the onset of development cooperation. New generations relate to each other horizontally, not vertically, building relations and communities all over the world through social media. We have seen the impact of this way of communicating in the political changes in the Arab world. What happened there is a testimony to the impact of social media on people; making them realise that they do not stand alone when it comes to fighting for democratic and human rights. In the past, these senti-ments, ‘you do not stand alone’ were transmitted through missionary activi-ties. In Latin America, for instance, we saw how military dictators were sent away because the people dared to stand up, knowing that their fight for democracy was supported by people far away. This solidarity was transmit-ted often through all kinds of networks, through religious-, trade union- or non- governmental organizations. Today, these traditional networks have become less important, since communication, like solidarity, is transmitted worldwide

New Directions in Dutch Development Cooperation?Kathleen Ferrier

8

‘as we speak’ via social media. This gives a lot of strength, but it also has it limits and risks. We must be aware of both.

What these two changes make abso-lutely clear is that the major change in our world anno 2013 is interdepend-ency. We can no longer think in terms of relationships between donor countries and receiving countries since we all depend on each other. This is not only true amongst countries and nations, but also within many countries. Also at the national level we see the same kind of dependency relations. In many countries there are lines that divide the population for various reasons in very complicated and often socially unac-cepted ways.

Apart from whatever economic-financial reasons a country might have to change its development budget and policies, these two major changes, the shifting of power relations and the different ways people communicate, are strong reasons for redefining the directions of development cooperation. The time of ‘assistance’ and ‘help’ is over: we need to invest. Invest in people, invest in so-cieties, invest in relations. We all agree on that and in that sense Rutte II is very right in coming up with changes and new, modern policies.

The major problem is the one stated at the beginning of this article; the Dutch development cooperation budget will be cut without knowing what we want to achieve with our development or international cooperation. Rutte II falls short in its political vision on what the role of the Netherlands should be in this fast-changing world.

Europe is falling apart. Before 1989 Western Europe had to be united and the Netherlands played an important role in keeping the balance between the Western (democratic) word and the Eastern (communist) world. That division is gone now, and even for that reason only the Netherlands should rethink its place, both in Europe and in the world. The Netherlands is a small country that needs other countries. The Netherlands is known for trade, but also has a repu-tation when it comes to development policies. It is a country internationally known for its ability to break difficult ta-boos (abortion, HIV/AIDS, child marriag-es) and is seen as reliable: the Dutch do not break their promises. Now that the Dutch government is deciding unilater-ally to break promises, with its budget cuts without a vision, the Netherlands might lose this good reputation. And perhaps even worse: it may lose the goodwill of the international commu-nity and the former receiving countries. While countries like Germany are ex-

Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation Lilianne Ploumen speaking during a conference at ISS in March 2013 on the future of international coopera-

tion. Some rights reserved by ISS The Hague

panding their embassies and thus their influence in countries like Colombia, the Netherlands is leaving those countries. While it worked so hard in support of and with many people and democracy fighters in Latin America to help them reach the point where they now stand, the Dutch government is currently closing five embassies in the continent, right at the moment that the fruits from the trees that were planted are being harvested.

Cutting the budget before defining policies is the wrong way round. What is needed is thorough reflection through institutes such as ISS. Indeed, in this new era institutes like the ISS may become even more important as places where people can reflect and learn to reflect on different strategies and poli-cies.

Kathleen Ferrier, born in Paramaribo, Suriname, is

member of the Advisory Board of the ISS. She is

a member of the iERG, the independent Expert

Review Group on Information and Accountability

on Women’s and Children’s health of the UN.

Previously she served as an MP for the Christian

Democratic Party (2002-2012), as a coordinator of

SKIN, the association of migrant churches in the

Netherlands (1994-2002) and as a migrant and

social worker in Latin America, (Chile, 1984-1991,

and Brazil, 1991-1994).

9

The world is changing fast but develop-ment cooperation policies are chang-ing slowly. In the past, development cooperation was mainly focused on the public sector and on the poor in low income countries. Over the past two decades we have seen four important trends, which should affect develop-ment cooperation policies.

The first trend is the shift of economic activity and political power from the West to the East and the South. This is changing the pattern of capital flows, with more commercial capital flowing to emerging markets. For instance, Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) to Sub-Saharan Africa has grown five-fold in the past decade. At the same time, FDI is also flowing backwards: amazingly, Europe in crisis asked even China and Brazil for financial assistance. This is creating a multi-polar world which fos-ters equality and reciprocity instead of dominance in the West’s dealings with the East and South.

The second trend is the shift in the pat-tern of poverty. Twenty years ago more than 90 per cent of the poor lived in low income countries. Now, less than 30 per cent of the poor live there. This is not because the poor have moved but because their countries have become richer - two low income countries, Nigeria and Vietnam, are expected to be in the G20 by 2050. This is changing the core premise of the relationship be-tween the old rich world and developing countries. More and more developing countries have greater means to tackle poverty in their own countries without

grant money. As a result, the basis of development cooperation will be equal-ity and reciprocity instead of condition-ality, and the new focus will be on doing sound business together. It is clear that Official Development Aid has become less and less significant in the total flows to developing countries. Instead, we see growth in private sector investment and private international foundations as well as tied aid from former developing countries such as China, India and Brazil.

The third trend is the continuing mis-management of global public goods such as carbon emissions, water, and fisheries. This is fuelling climate change and posing the first genuine threat to humanity. At the forecast growth rates, and given the growing middle class in emerging markets, some estimates sug-gest we will need 2.4 planets in 2050 to sustain our lifestyles. Thus, we will have to change our ways of production and consumption in order to be able to live with scarcities of resources and avoid drastic climate change.

The fourth trend is the increasing scarcity of resources, which leads to price increases, and at the same time to a change in the policies of corpora-tions and countries, both of which want to increase their control of important value chains. This control is important for them in order to keep access to and improve productivity and sustainability deep in their supply chain.

What do these treNds meaN for iNterNatioNal cooperatioN?

First it suggests that the world is becoming multipolar, where equality and reciprocity are key in the relations between nations. The world in which the rich countries dictate which values are the norm and put conditions on trade and aid is over. Apart from countries in conflict and very poor countries, developing countries will not accept conditionality; more so because there are other important upcoming powers like China and Brazil that are investing in Africa, Asia and Latin America for their own interests. They are looking for scarce resources and new markets for their products. The deals they make are based on business negotiations and equality and not on predominant moral values. Developed countries are already changing their policies and putting more focus on the private sector and loans instead of grants. Also, because of the crisis, a growing number of coun-tries are focusing more on their own economic interests and are looking for more reciprocity.

Secondly, the majority of the poor live in middle income countries and it is expected that several low income countries will develop into the middle income category in the coming years. Most of these countries have economic growth rates of between five and eight per cent. The poor in these countries have many more opportunities then in the past as growth creates new jobs. But are these jobs paying enough wages? Are labour conditions good enough? Such questions are becoming increas-

The New Development Cooperation: The Importance of the Private Sector

Nanno Kleiterp

10

ingly central to the debates on develop-ment. We see economic growth with increasing inequality, but also with less poverty. And this creates its own prob-lems - increasing inequality can increase the danger of political instability, though a strong and a growing middle class can counterbalance this instability: the middle class wants better education, health services and better governance in return for the taxes they pay. The big challenge is thus to create economic growth in middle income countries with a relatively decreasing environmental footprint and a growth in the availability of good quality employment.

The private sector also plays a key role, as both wealth creation and pollution come from the private sector. The most important measure that has to be taken to deal with pollution is to create a car-bon market where the price of CO2 per ton is more than $ 50. This would really lead to a change in investment patterns. The countries that have used the space of carbon emissions since the industrial revolution should compensate the newly growing countries for the current high CO2 price. It might seem impossible at present to create such a market at a global level, but there are positive signs at the regional level in the US, Australia, China and Europe. Likewise, the new Climate Fund to transfer financial flows from developed to the emerging econo-mies could be helpful though it is crucial that we do not make the same mistakes that were made with aid programmes by focusing on public sector and grants only. At the same time we need to take urgent measures to protect nature and biodiversity, investing, for example, in forestry and biodiversity services. We already see that in several countries climate change is becoming a relevant part of the development cooperation budget. Governments have agreed to create a climate fund which, in most countries, will fall within the budget for development cooperation.

Lastly, the integration of sustainability and productivity is increasing in various value chains. The BRIC-countries are leading this trend in Africa although there are still a lot of developed coun-tries that have not incorporated this trend in their policies. In this regard, they could learn a lot from the Chinese approach to development cooperation in Africa. There is a trend in most coun-

tries to focus development cooperation on direct national interests. At the same time we see that resources are becom-ing scarce and consumers are demand-ing more sustainably produced goods: that is, goods produced without child labour, with decent working conditions and with less impact on nature and biodiversity. Companies are therefore forced to take responsibility for how the inputs they buy are produced. There is a need to go deeper back into the value chain in order to control the sustainability of the production process. Using development cooperation funds to improve sustainability and efficiency deep in the value chain combines the interests of the companies in developed and developing countries. So we will see that more funds from development cooperation will be used for value chain finance, in order to combine the pres-sure to use funds in the national interest as well as to create a positive impact in developing countries.

ecoNomic groWth aNd the private sector

Looking at the trends is it clear that international economic cooperation needs to promote green inclusive eco-nomic growth.

In order to reduce poverty in the world we need economic growth. Only through economic growth can sufficient jobs be created to provide decent living standards for the 600 million new planet inhabitants in this decade and the 200 million unemployed people worldwide. Fortunately, developing countries have been growing much faster than devel-oped nations since 1990 and as a result poverty has come down dramatically in last decennia. Income differences between countries have been reduced and this is a trend that will continue in the coming decade. The world has ex-perienced a fast and impressive shift in wealth. That is the good news. The bad news is that income distribution within countries is becoming more and more skewed: there are still 2 billion people living on less than $ 2 a day and with the growing middle classes it will be impos-sible to sustain the way we produce and consume today.

So the world faces the challenge of creating economic growth which makes

it possible to live within the limits of our planet and reduces poverty at the same time. We cannot prioritize between economic growth, poverty reduction or environmental sustainability: we need to work on all three at the same time.

Economic growth can be stimulated using several measures; the combina-tion will depend on country-specific circumstances. Macro-economic stability seems basic for long term economic growth and most developing countries have improved their macro–economic management and controlled their deficit on current account and government debt. Furthermore, countries need to stimulate expenses for research and development, and education in order to increase productivity and innovation. Investment in climate and the infra-structure (roads, schools, hospitals) and access to financial services are crucial for long term economic growth.

In order to be able to live within the means of our planet we need to:

• halve the carbon emissions worldwide by 2050 (based on 2005 levels);

• double agricultural output without increase of water usage;

• halt deforestation and increase yields from planted forests;

• deliver a four to tenfold improve-ment in the efficient use of resourc-es and materials.

To achieve these goals, countries need to invest in a circular economy, renew-able energy, energy efficient buildings, reforestation, protection of forest and new production processes with less and re-use of resources and materials.

To reduce poverty further we need to create 800 million jobs in the coming decade. Developing countries need to increase productivity and therefore product and process innovations are necessary. 90 per cent of all jobs are cre-ated in the private sector and these jobs are created in large, medium, small and micro-enterprises. Studies show that most of the decent jobs, with a reason-able salary and labour conditions are created in the formal sector.

11

In an IFC-study on jobs, four findings stand out with regards to impediments to growth:

1. informality is a major hindrance for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in middle income countries;

2. a reliable power supply is most important for companies in lower income countries and infrastruc-ture in general (roads, ports) for all countries;

3. access to finance is particularly es-sential for SMEs;

4. a shortage of skilled workers con-stitutes a key challenge for larger businesses.

Thus, for inclusive growth it is crucial to stimulate the growth of added value of SMEs.

This is crucial to create development impact through the private sector and reduce poverty.

coNclusioNs

It is clear that we need to globally re-view existing development and inter-national cooperation policies in order to focus them more on the most urgent issues in the coming years: climate change, nature and biodiversity, poverty and a fair income distribution. The millennium goals have to be replaced by a new set of indicators. Global

Sustainability goals could be a starting point. A key success factor is that the private sector takes on a crucial role in the solution of the above-mentioned problems and that the public sector focusses on its role as a catalyser and enabler for the private sector. Finally, equality and reciprocity should be the leading principle for nations when deal-ing with each other.

Nanno Kleiterp is CEO of FMO and Chairman of

the Management Board. FMO is one of the largest

bilateral development banks and member of the

Association of European Development Finance

Institutions (EDFI). He has been chairman of the

European Development Finance Institutions since

2010.

• Presentations by the five MA Majors giving details for their courses and specializations.

• Information from alumni on ‘life after ISS’ and on the ISS Alumni Fund

• A chance to meet current MA students, including representatives

of the student association (SCHOLAS), who will answer

your questions about life and studying at ISS.

• A taste of the world with snacks from all continents

Join the international world of ISS!

On 16 November 2013 ISS will be holding its second Open Day for Dutch and foreign students wishing

to find out more about our Masters programme. The day will be full of activities including:

Keep an eye on the ISS website for more details of the day’s events, the programme and a registration form www.iss.nl/openday2013

12

The history of ISS and the history of de-velopment cooperation run, to a large extent, parallel: ISS has always been closely connected to the development agenda: both in the Netherlands and abroad.

Development studies as well as de-velopment cooperation originate from the years immediately after the Second World War when, following the independence of former colonies, industrialized countries transformed their dominant role on the international scene from colonizers into developers. That was the historical context in which ISS was founded and that shaped the ISS mission at that time: to assist devel-oping countries to develop by concep-tualizing the development process and by training their executives. That was also the historical context of develop-ment cooperation: to assist the former colonies to develop.

Today, in the year that ISS celebrates its 60th anniversary, the picture has be-come much more complex and both the scene of development studies and of development cooperation has changed dramatically. Newly industrializing coun-tries in what used to be called the Third World are becoming important drivers of world economic growth.

In a time when multiple modernities and different capitalisms are acknowledged, the ‘one-size fits all’ model of develop-ment belongs to the past. We have also become more aware that the success-ful economic growth of the emerging economies did not emerge from free market forces and liberalization but through state-led, strictly regulated modernization.

Moreover, an actor-oriented perspec-tive has come to the fore: development at the level of ‘people’. Also in this perspective, the previous Eurocentric view is left behind and multicultural,

value-sensitive, non-universal meanings of development have become widely acknowledged. This is important to mention and to repeat, because it is all too often overshadowed by political trends everywhere in Europe towards introspection.

So, the world order is changing rap-idly. The financial crisis and the rise of emerging economies have resulted in a completely different geo-political landscape compared with 10 years ago. Countries that were until recently recipi-ents of Dutch aid are now part of the G 20 - the new global platform for negoti-ations on international financial and economic relations.

International cooperation has become much more complex than the rather convenient organization of Official Development Assistance – ODA. The views of 34 ‘rich’ OECD countries versus some 100 developing countries has become superseded since the rise of the Asian Tigers, the transition and emerging economies, the BRICS, the Next Eleven, and so on. In addition, governments and states are not the only relevant actors anymore. Non-governmental developmental organiza-tions have already become usual sus-pects. And now the business sector has also been invited to the table, as have consumer organizations, private charity foundations, philanthropic organizations etc. This is not to say that these financial flows are complementary or that one could replace the other. But it would be interesting to explore how they can be made more complementary.

Moreover, in a globalizing world inter-national challenges are increasingly intertwined. Economic development, fi-nancial stability, poverty reduction, food security, sustainability, trade, migration, justice, security and climate change are all interrelated and thus require a com-prehensive vision and approach. ODA

cannot be the only instrument to ad-dress these global challenges. Foreign direct investments to developing coun-tries now outweigh ODA monies and so do remittances. Moreover, we should not forget international philanthropy, which is now investing much more significant funds into areas traditionally targeted by ODA.

So, the new agenda for international cooperation needs to address increas-ingly intertwined challenges, while the number and diversity of actors neces-sary to address those challenges has expanded too. Not an easy task to accomplish. In my view, two interre-lated domains should take centre stage of the new agenda for international cooperation - ‘inclusive and sustainable economic development’ and ‘governing and financing the global public goods’.

Let’s start with ‘inclusive and sustainable economic development’. On the face of it this is not an issue anyone would oppose. But by identifying the underly-ing dilemmas, it becomes clearer what it actually means and what it aims at. The underlying dilemma of ‘inclusive economic development’ is the dilemma between economic growth and the trickle-down effect; the long-awaited but often failed trickle-down effect. In today’s rapidly growing middle-income countries this means attention to re-distributive systems and social protec-tion. Private and public investments for economic growth need to be balanced by social policies, labour standards, minimum wages, gender rules, health requirements etc. Small and medium enterprises are crucial when it comes to inclusive growth. Moreover, also in product and processes innovation, there is a world to win. Bottom-of-the-pyramid led productive growth – sometimes built on frugal innovations (a theme ISS-researchers are working on at the moment) - is a novel approach which will contribute to economic inclusiveness.

The Future of International CooperationLeo de Haan

13

Development Bank Director Donald Kaberuka; UNRISD director Sarah Cook; and the Dutch Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, Lilianne Ploumen. Proud that ISS has regained its public profile as an impor-tant platform of academic debate on international cooperation, I deemed it important at the same time to reiterate ISS’ preoccupation with issues of equity in development. Therefore, I focused in my welcome, the debate and in my wrap-up for the Dutch Minister at the end of the conference, on social issues

The same goes for ‘sustainable eco-nomic development’. The underlying dilemma should not be misinterpreted. Sustainable economic development is not about ‘economic growth restricted by the planet’, nor about ‘business as usual, but with less footprint’. It is about the organization of a circular business economy and about private and public investments in those technologies which make that possible. Leapfrogging to sustainability requires setting aside con-ventional development thinking.

Because of the multitude of inter-twined issues involved and of actors concerned, the governance of global public goods could well be considered a nightmare. Moreover, the governance of global public goods by state actors and multilateral organizations has not been very effective in the past, because of the lack of willingness to coordinate. And the increased importance of the private sector seems to complicate things further, especially because of its marginal involvement in global public goods management. Nevertheless, it also seems to open new opportunities for coordination. The private sector is in-creasingly held accountable by another new actor, i.e. consumer organizations. Corporate social responsibility and the perspective of global value chains have become new and important vehicles for governing global public goods. Some global firms are even demanding globally sanctioned level playing fields against free-rider firms.

In the past few months, ISS has been actively trying to influence the discus-sion on the new agenda for international cooperation by organizing a number of breakfast meetings with representatives of organizations from all the corners of Dutch society mentioned above. These breakfast meetings culminated in a high-level conference at ISS in early March with, among others, WTO Secretary-General Pascal Lamy; African

ISS Rector Leo de Haan gave the opening speech at an international conference at ISS on the future of

international cooperation.

Some rights reserved by ISS The Hague

such as working conditions and employ-ment protection regulations, gender rights, income distribution policies, social security, health care and educa-tion provisioning, social protection etc. Because we should not forget that despite the increasing diversification of national and international actors and the numerous intertwined challenges to address, development in the final instance is about people and their inclu-sion in the development process.

Leo de Haan is Rector of ISS.

The Future of International CooperationLeo de Haan

14

Programme leader: Professor Peter van Bergeijk

The major research concerns of this programme are the social, political and economic conditions required to make the transi-tion to a higher level of economic and human development and, in turn, the effect of this transition on the global poor. This theme is studied by integrating insights from microeconomic and macroeconomic research from a variety of theoretical perspectives.

Economics of Development and Emerging Markets

Research Programmes

ISS reorganized its research activities in 2012. Research is now organized within three research programmes

and one research initiative led by professors and involving both faculty and PhD researchers.

The choice of these programmes was based on quality considerations. These included the products and

services envisaged, as determined by the thematic foci of the programme research lines, the critical mass

of the organization and the composition of the respective programmes, the quality of the leadership and

the membership of the programmes, the envisaged research productivity, external validation with regard to

the programme policy and stakeholders, and the vitality and long-term feasibility of the research groups in

terms of their opportunities to attract research funding.

15

Programme leader: Professor Max Spoor

This research programme investigates the ways in which re-source scarcities are created and contested, particularly in con-texts of unequal access, poverty and social exclusion. Within the framework of climate change and environmental, food and energy crises, the emergence of new hubs of global capital, and demographic transitions, the programme pays particular attention to how agrarian, food and environmental policies shape the political economy of rural areas and their social poli-cies, population and gender dynamics.

Political Economy of Resources, Environment and Population

Programme leader: Professor Wil Hout

This programme aims to produce internationally leading, so-cially committed and societally relevant research outcomes on issues of governance, explicitly from the perspective of social justice. More specifically, members of the research programme study how and to what extent particular governance arrange-ments help or hinder the achievement of social justice goals.

Governance, Globalization and Social Justice

Programme leader: Professor Peter Knorringa

The Civic Innovation Research Initiative is a new programme exploring how organizations and individuals mobilize to change their societies. It focuses on how they co-shape political, economic and cultural trends in pursuing the common inter-est whilst respecting differences. The initiative looks beyond development theories and policy frameworks which tend to emphasize structure, or actors themselves that overly stress the key role of charismatic change agents.

Civic Innovation Research Initiative

16

On an ordinary evening in Kolkata, in 2002, Jos Mooij and myself – then unfamiliar to each other – met for the first time in the hope of writing a joint proposal on the promises and perils of primary education in India. An introduc-tion by our mutual friend, Supriya Roy Choudhury, resulted in this maiden meeting which in due course grew into a continuing academic collaboration and an enduring exchange of ideas and arguments about how to enhance, albeit modestly, our understanding of the inse-curity in people’s lives and of its amends through reasonable action.

This central impulse, I believe, moti-vated Jos’ social science research and shaped her politics, neither of which was by any means rhetorical or opin-ionated. Indeed she often alerted me to the danger of thinking and writing in a rhetorical style. I revere her as an ‘activist professional’ who analyzed the politics of policy-making in a cerebral and objective manner and at once held on to the possibility that rigorous analy-sis might lead to improved political and public action and thereby might bend the arc of policy towards greater social justice. This element of activism, this

thrust towards ‘research for action’, is unmistakable in her work, I believe.

Our joint research on education has been an experience of equal collabora-tion, cemented and complemented by our mutual strengths and weaknesses. The portrait of her academic persona that I sketch here is, of course, partial, truncated by the limits of my own under-standing. Yet the glimpses of her prob-ing mind and pen that I have harvested through my inadequate lens have made deep impressions on my own academic pursuits. I have been particularly struck by her ‘persuadable temper’, to borrow the pithy phrase from Jane Austen, which helped her avoid a fairly common intellectual propensity for cocksure-ness. To have an opinion (along with supportive arguments) and yet keep an open mind was her approach to research. Indeed, the freedom to doubt was a critical resource for her research. That is why she could pick up, through her extensive field research, small but important details that have often posed a challenge to received wisdom and grand theories.

Her notion of legal pluralism that she developed with care and sophistication through her research on food policy in India is one such example of her atten-tiveness to the contingent and complex nature of social issues that she set out to study in the continent-like country of India. Her alertness to contextual specificities and culturally relativistic practices, however, did not come in the way of her respect for shared values of

humanity. As she once told me, during her research on education in a town in the Indian State of Andhra Pradesh, the plight of a mother whom she saw begging for her child on the streets for the entire day in the oppressive heat of 45 degrees Celsius deeply disturbed her about abject human conditions, notwith-standing the yawning cultural gaps that existed between her and that woman. I suppose since Jos was an avid reader of Indian literature written in English this gave her a sense of Indian culture and history and also a special handle on how to relate to other people’s predicament, not just intellectually but also in a spirit of empathy.

As far as her research is concerned, Jos was a ‘methodological opportunist’, to borrow a term from Adam Przeworski. She was ready to draw on different methods of enquiry – from ethnogra-phy to interviews to content analysis of documents to quantitative surveys – provided these worked and shed light on her theoretical queries. She was the one who insisted that we make use of the mode of ‘classroom observation’ in our education research in order to take a peek into what happens inside the ‘black box’ called the classroom: what teaching-learning practices are actually followed inside this chamber of learning, and what kinds of relationships – hier-archical and intimidating or democratic and collaborative - between the teacher and the taught and among students are cultivated in this quintessentially social site. This ‘classroom view’, we hoped,

Jos Mooij: An Academic TravellerManabi Majumdar

Jos Mooij en Manabi Majumdar in India during

their reseach

17

would enliven our analysis of mere facts and figures.

She also convinced me that organizing daylong meetings with small groups of schoolteachers, aiming at a serious dialogue with them as equals and not as unthinking ‘cogs in the education wheel’, could serve as an effective entry point for us to distil their own views of their work and worth. In India school-teachers, especially those working at the primary level, are often either severely criticized for their ‘lacklustre’ performance or totally neglected as an intellectual workforce. Between these two polar positions, the intermediate and complex range of reality pertaining to teachers’ ambitions, ambivalences and their autonomy or lack thereof was what we were after; to that end, Jos’ methodological insight proved to be very relevant and appropriate.

Above all, she mastered the art of interviewing people – people of all social ranks in the graded society of India. Since, at a very basic level, hers was a politics of engagement, Jos would never stop speaking to others. Her adaptability and flexibility endowed her to converse easily and respectfully with, say, an ‘ordinary’ schoolteacher of a ‘run-of-the-mill’ municipal school, sitting at the corner of a narrow lane off College Street in Kolkata. With equal flair and communicative skills she used to engage in conversation with the authority figures and senior government officials, trotting along the various alleys and corridors of power. Jos had remark-able energy and genuine interest in listening carefully to what other people have to say, with quiet yet dogged per-severance she used to try to get to the bottom of the story to the extent pos-sible on the basis of which she would build her framework of analysis.

She was aware of the special attention that she sometimes used to receive from officials because of her ‘first world’ back-ground. As she once wittily reminisced about her meeting with an education official in Andhra Pradesh; ‘During the time of this one-to-one meeting, an-swering one phone call this state official said, “a Dutch team is visiting me”.’ Such a projection of self-importance and authority was not unfamiliar to her, nor were some of the legacies of colo-nialism that still persist in India. But she

herself would tirelessly challenge any practice of hierarchy or inequality and would try to relate to people as equals. With her research assistants she would unfailingly adopt a democratic attitude. On one evening several of them were dining with Jos and her collaborator in a high-end restaurant in Hyderabad. In response to a suggestion that they each pay their individual share, Jos wittily remarked: ‘But that will be too Dutch’. Behind her wit radiated her moral sen-sibility.

One of the major theoretical challenges that Jos and I had to address in our re-search on education was how to balance the account of reproduction of inequali-ties in the school system in India with a counter narrative of equity-enhancing educational efforts and initiatives evident in different parts of the same national universe. In short, our task was to theorize how the politics of egalitar-ian school reforms can be rendered possible amidst a background of social and power inequalities within which the school system is embedded in India. It was Jos who took the lead in juxtapos-ing established ideas on various par-ticipatory spaces (for example ‘invited’ and ‘invented’ spaces) with scholarly analyses of the myriad forms of power, from visible to invisible, in order to ex-plain under what propitious institutional conditions public participation and dis-cussion, that are often either a pretence for consultation or occasions of violent coercion, may indeed result in public (and not just government) action aimed at expanding educational opportunities. With her creative theoretical inputs we felt secure in presenting a defensible argument in favour of social justice ac-tivism in education even amidst power inequalities – an argument that is posi-tive, but neither romantic nor cynical.

This was the time when Jos was under-going strenuous and tiring treatment of her disease. At her home, we had been struggling for several days to develop our thoughts on the idea of ‘contesting educational inequalities’. She was busy giving the final shape and conceptual polish to our analysis, and finally one afternoon with a radiant face she said quietly; ‘I am so happy this chapter is done’. What she meant was much more than the contentment of simply finishing a chapter under very uncertain health conditions; it was a sense of excitement

and fullness of heart that one experienc-es by being able to shed even a tiny bit of light on our intellectual understand-ing of social science problems as well as on the direction in which the politics of change might progress; the delight that one experiences when one gets ‘a taste of understanding’ of immensely complex social science issues, and because of the connections that one is able to make, however incremental and modest, between the many-layered web of thoughts and practices that define an intellectual enterprise. Gone were any traces of the disease-induced fatigue from her face; that was a special moment. The book finally saw the light of the day; whether we have added any value to the existing debate and research on education only future will tell. But that the pursuit, the process, and the practice of the art and craft of academics are themselves fascinating and animating is what I have learnt from Jos and what I wish to keep emulating. Jos remained, and will live on, as a foot-loose and curious academic traveller, and not a potentate – to use the distinc-tion that Edward Said has made – eager and ready to learn from the field and to revise her arguments in the light of new evidence.

Manabi Majumdar is Professor in Political Science at

the Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta

and Director, Pratichi Institute, Kolkata. Her research

interests include issues of basic education, local

democracy, political economy of development, and

human development.

Drawing of Jos Mooij by her son

Joris Mollinga

18

This article captures a group of MA stu-dents’ ideas on putting academic theory into practice. During a focus group dis-cussion on 7 May 2013 at ISS, seven MA students from three different continents shared their ideas on bridging academia and practice.

voiciNg the positive implicatioNs academics bear oN developmeNt practice

The discussion opened by looking at the positive elements academia holds for practice, and discussants reflected critically on one another’s perceptions of this.

One participant offered that academia acts as a unique ’convener’ for building relationships and fostering ideas. She presented her positive view on the aca-demic environment as an opportunity for career development and intellectual enrichment. Similarly, another partici-pant’s opinion was that academic institu-tions provide a rare place where ideas

can be voiced, discussed, and heard without any concern or constraints from political or social pressure. Freedom of education, of thought, of speech in the academic setting creates a space for truly innovative and imaginative minds. Such reflections seem an appropriate opener for this focus group, as it itself was a unique opportunity for idea-sharing amongst individuals with very different backgrounds and future goals in the area of development.

Another participant considered that a significant focus of academic learn-ing is on researching the ’why?’ of the world. Exploration of ’why?’, without any constraint, is a privilege for those in academia: it is left to the practitioners to bring this exploration to the field.

The discussion moved on to argue that academics can undoubtedly affect development practice; educational institutions can play a considerable role in different forms of development. More

importantly than simply accepting that education is pivotal to a community’s human development, we should con-sider what kind of education we need to build. One participant stressed that the lack of a substantive educational system in developing countries is one of the most urgent and serious concerns. Barriers such as institutional corruption and government involvement further im-pose certain restrictions and coercions on academic freedom. Several discus-sants here critically argued that exces-sive intervention in education limits its potential.

One participant reflected specifically on the strengths of her academic experi-ence at the ISS as related to her own background. Although her initial motiva-tion to study at ISS was to acquire and develop new knowledge and skills of evidence-based policy making, half way through her MA programme she has now come to realize how narrow that scope was. Academia provides a much

Bridging Academia and Practice: Students’ Voices on Possibilities and Challenges

Bolutife Adefehinti, Janneka

Beeksma, Natsuko Kobiyama

An on-going discussion amongst MA students relates to the connection between academia and practice in the field of

development. As we begin undertaking our major research in completion of our MA, we move into a critical time of personal

reflection on what has been learned, how it is and can be applied to research, and even how it will be carried beyond research, into

the different exciting plans and hopes we hold for the future.

19

richer opportunity: this MA programme has informed her of how best she can perceive and understand what is going on in the world – where everything is politically or ideologically motivated - and hence how to make informed decisions. Critically understanding this is particularly essential in the field of social science and providing students with well-informed decision-making abilities is one of the strengths of the ISS MA programme. Furthermore, the ISS serves to equip its students with the skills and ability to think critically and problema-tize what otherwise could be taken for granted. This is an attribute that streams into any and all areas of development practice that students embark on.

voiciNg discoNteNt With the applicability of academia to practice

One participant pointed out that academic knowledge is not necessar-ily appreciated (beyond academia) if it does not have any practical application. Because academics are not constrained by pragmatism as practitioners are, there is inevitably distance between the two sectors in both understanding and acting. Likewise, academia can lack a sense of the realities faced in the field; practicalities that practitioners routinely face and often struggle with. And it is because of this that practitioners may

not be readily receptive to ideas pro-posed by academics.

Our discussion moved on to raise concerns about the contents of higher education teaching. Institutions do not teach how to ‘do’ as well as they teach how to ‘think’ - while they teach what is happening, they often do not teach what could or should happen in a sense of finding ‘solutions’ to the problems that they explain. This major gap in teaching is possibly at the root of the aforementioned gap between academ-ics and practitioners.

Another concern relates to job pros-pects for qualified academics: the bitter reality for many graduates nowadays is that, despite their achievement at university, they have to start ‘at the bottom’ of their career ladder because the job market realities are such that work experience is more valued than the academic knowledge and intellectual potentials that they actually possess. This gap between expectation and reality imposes certain frustrations and anxieties on aspiring graduates that their newly-gained knowledge may not be meaningfully utilized once outside the academic world.

One of the participants described this frustration and anxiety based on his

own experience. He resigned from his government job because he had felt the disconnect between theory and practice, and the gap between develop-ers and consumers of knowledge. He moved from practice to theory by taking a job in a university; to be responsible for knowledge development and in-novation.

ethical implicatioNs & challeNges

In order to successfully bridge the gap between academia and practice, it is inevitable that some fundamental challenges have to be surmounted. In our focus group, ethics arose as a major challenge and the issue of corruption was introduced several times. For each individual academic or practitioner it should be understood that corruption needs to be expunged; its tentacles have deeply pervaded both formal and informal societal structures.

It was suggested that academia has an important role in curbing corruption at its root. One discussant suggested that ethical standards founded on altruism and unconditional support need to be developed or revived in exchanges within and between both academics and practitioners. This discussant offered that such a discussion would demand processes and decisions to become

MA focus group discussion

20

transparent, highly professional, non-politically motivated, unbiased and non-suppressive.

We also highlighted the belief that academia bears a unique opportunity to address corruption: academic teach-ing plays a role in educating future practitioners who, in their future work, may well brush shoulders with corrupt practices and ideas.

Several discussants drew on their experience in their home countries to suggest that academic resources should not be used as weapons of coercion or control as this has significantly negative

effects on the aims of development. The discussants noted that government and its development-focused institutions should moderate their veto power in determining the course which develop-ment takes; for instance, by not always steering funding in the direction of their political interests at the expense of other vital research. Operational inde-pendence and potential breakthroughs should also not be stifled by excessive control. However, the importance of guidance, checks and balances, should not be undermined.

In the same vein, other discussants noted that research should not always follow funders’ interests, trending top-

ics, ideological biases and expected results as there are other equally impor-tant matters of concern. Simply follow-ing trends, it was stated, undermines the freedom and creative potential academics have.

Likewise, supporting institutions that encourage a mutual appreciation of respective stances and approaches should be established. Here, thorough and reciprocal discourse and feedback can be cultivated to allow for a synthesis of key alternative perspectives.

Overall, the interests of both sides should be managed to avoid compro-mising their unhindered cooperation, quality of outcomes and the resultant impact of development. This process should be rooted in ethics (in order to curb corruption) and could be achieved by developing core guiding principles.

‘the bridge’

In order to understand what the distinc-tion or connection between academia and practice is, and how and why this can (or cannot) be bridged, one discus-sant quite poignantly distinguished his perception of the different purposes the two spheres have: the two have sepa-rate but unique identities – a ’functional division’ is how he described it - and this is where their respective strengths lie.

For this particular discussant, frustra-tions with the applicability of academic research to practice held little merit, for these frustrations projected purposes onto academia that extend beyond its actual scope. For him, the role of aca-demics is to think critically and imagine creatively. It is by holding on to this identity and not being marred by the pragmatism of practice that academia is able to contribute to practice. This distinction created understanding, in the entire focus group, that each per-son holds a different viewpoint of the purposes of academia and practice. It is from this viewpoint that each individual sees their perceptions of the shortcom-ings or contributions academia can have for practice. This posed a great con-cluding challenge for all participants: to reassess the deep-rooted critiques and accolades attributed to academia’s (potential) role in affecting practice.

By recognizing that academia and practice are distinct but connected, the

possibilities of bridging the two become clear, as do the promises they both offer by remaining apart. So creating a bridge may not always be the goal; some of the unique and important attributes of academia exist by virtue of its distinct separation from development practice.

Discussants also considered the influ-ence of each individual’s implicit as-sumptions on the relevance knowledge has for the practical outplay of develop-ment. Individual assumptions underpin the perception of ‘blame’ or ‘respect’ for the level of ‘separateness’ between academics and practice. The onus is then on both academia and practice to contribute to each other, rather than perceiving the responsibility to lie solely with academia to achieve a perceived level of ‘relevance’ to the field. The very fact that academia is separate from practice provides it with opportunities to study issues without being ‘limited’ by practicalities.

coNclusioN

Our discussion closed with the insight that academics and practitioners must have the courage and passion to work together. Both have so much to offer one another, and the students who will go on to form a new wave of practition-ers are full of innovative energy and reflection. Driven by this courage and passion, hope will spur academics and practitioners on as each faces chal-lenges in the field. It is our hope that the ideas generously put forward by the dis-cussants in this focus group spur others on to hold similar discussions elsewhere, cultivating similar hope, courage, and passion.

All of the information in this article is directly derived from the ideas shared by the discussants in this session. The authors would therefore like to thank (in no particular order) John Leonard Ochom, Hone Mandefro Balaye, Athi Majija, Daniel Tessema, Madhumitha Hebbar, Lindsey Spector, Karen Auble for their willing and enthusiastic partici-pation. We enjoyed a rich and fruitful discussion together, and hope that this article encourages further discussions of a similar nature.

Janneka Beeksma, Bolutife Adefehinti, Natsuko

Kobiyama are MA students in the 2013-2013 batch.

… some of

the unique …

attributes of

academia exist

by virtue of its

distinct separation

from development

practice.

21

Greening the ISSISS is going green! As the ISS is committed to a more socially and environmentally just world, it is only right that we also critically scrutinize ourselves and take appropriate action to reduce our environmental footprint.

To achieve this, we have set up a working group on ‘greening the ISS’. The aim of this group is to collect and coordinate efforts to make the ISS a more sustainable place by (significantly) reducing our environmental, carbon and energy footprints. It will do this by:

❧ Developing a vision on the reason for greening the ISS within a broader organizational vision for a more sustainable and just world. This vision is meant to inspire ISS staff, students and outside organizations to carry out a similar exercise and look critically at their own environmental footprint.

❧ Investigating what other organizations do to reduce their environmental footprint.

❧ Making an overview of ISS’s waste production and energy consumption (including figures, in terms of KiloWatts, kilos and/or euros) that shows the main sources of ISS’ environmental footprint.

❧ Developing concrete proposals with targets to make ISS a more environmentally sustainable institute.

Do you have any ideas that can help us? Send us an email at green@iss.nl

Together we can turn the ISS green!

22

First Didi Nirmala Deshpande South Asian Peace and Justice Award

ISS guest research fellow, Sunila Abeysekera, recently received the first Didi Nirmala Deshpande South Asian Peace and Justice Award.

The Jury, appointed by Pakistan Institute of Labour Education and Research (PILER) to decide the nominations for this award, announced their decision on May 24,

2013. Sunila Abeysekera is a leading women’s human rights defender in Sri Lanka and South Asia, and a major player in the global women’s movement.

Didi Nirmala Deshpande was a crusader for peace and friendship between Pakistan and India.

ISS co-organizes international conference on ‘Food Sovereignty: a Critical Dialogue’

The ISS has collaborated with the Yale Agrarian Studies Program and the Journal of Peasant Studies in organizing an international conference: ‘Food Sovereignty: a Critical Dialogue’ on

14-15 September 2013 at Yale University, USA. The conference will bring together leading scholars and political activists who are advocates of and sympathetic to the idea of food sovereignty, as well as those who are sceptical to the concept of food sovereignty to foster a critical and productive dialogue on the issue.

More information on the conference is available at http://www.yale.edu/agrarianstudies/foodsovereignty/index.html

Alumni meetings

Throughout the year, ISS holds alumni meetings in countries all over the world. Hosted by an ISS staff member, these meetings give our alumni the opportunity to meet up with other ex-ISS students living and working in their region, to catch up with news about the ISS all under the enjoyment of a lunch or dinner. Over the past year the meetings have also attracted prospective students, giving them the opportunity to talk to alumni and staff and get a more personal view of what

it’s like to study at ISS. This year we have already had meetings in Karela (India), Warwick (UK), Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) and Bogota (Colombia) and another one is planned for Managua (Nicaragua) in July.

If you would like to find out more about alumni meetings or even help organise one in your area, visit the alumni pages on the ISS website (www.iss.nl/alumni) or get in touch with the alumni office at alumni@iss.nl.

ISS to lead new research centre on ‘Innovation and Technology Networks with Africa’

ISS is taking a leading role in a new research centre on ‘Frugal Innovation and Technology Networks with Africa’. The main question for this new research centre is about the conditions under which frugal innovations are more likely to offer development opportunities for producers and consumers in Africa. The research centre will be coordinated by ISS Professor Peter Knorringa who will work with Dr. Andre Leliveld of the Africa Study Centre in Leiden, and Professor Cees van Beers from the Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management in Delft.

The centre will invest in nine initiatives that aim to spearhead more intensive cooperation between the three universities. This new research centre is one of these initiatives.

Contact Peter Knorringa for more information at knorringa@iss.nl

ISS News

Recent alumni meeting in Bogota hosted by Dr. Georgina Gomez

Low-cost solar lighting (Philips) that can be used in places with no

electricity.

23

Working PapersThe ISS Working Paper series provides a forum for work in progress which seeks to elicit comments and generate discussion. The series includes academic research by staff, PhD participants and visiting fellows, and award-winning research papers by graduate students. ISS Working Papers can be found on the ISS website at www.iss.nl/Library/Publications/Working-Papers. Contact lamboo@iss.nl

Corradi, A.A. critical learning episodes in the evolution of brazilian business General Series 559, p1-27 (2013) start-ups: a theoretical and analytical tool

Triviño Salazar, J.C. the promise of transformation through participation: an analysis General Series 558, p1-26 (2013) of communal councils in caracas, venezuela

Robbins, M.J. locating food sovereignty: geographical and sectoral distance in General Series 557, p1-50 (2013) the global food system

Brouwers, R. revisiting gender mainstreaming in international development.General Series 556, p1-36 (2013) goodbye to an illusionary strategy

Panda, P. , Chakraborty, A. , enrollment in community based health insurance schemes in rural Dror, D.M. , Bedi, A.S. bihar and uttar pradesh, india General Series 555, p1-36 (2013)

Lazzaroni, S. , Bergeijk, P.A.G. van Natural disasters impact, factors of resilience and development: General Series 554, p1-38 (2013) a meta-analysis of the macroeconomic literature

Bedoya Arias, M.E. one hundred years of solitude, accumulation and violence: a General Series 553, p1-59 (2013) comparative historical analysis of the sierra Nevada of santa marta valley

Chakraborty, M. male, migrant, muslim : identities and entitlements of afghans General Series 552, p1-54 (2013) and bengalis in a south delhi neighbourhood

Mebratie, A.D. , Van de Poel, E. , self-reported health care seeking behavior in rural ethiopia: Debebe, Z.Y. , Abebaw, D. , evidence from clinical vignettes Alemu, G. , Bedi, A.S. General Series 551, p1-30 (2013)

24

The Master of Arts in Development Studies offers

solid and balanced academic and professionally

relevant training in theory and methods for

development studies. It is designed for those

wishing to start or continue their professional

careers in the area of development or to pursue

their studies at PhD level.

In the MA programme you learn about the most

recent theories and debates in your area of

specialization. You will also learn to apply this

knowledge to practical issues of development and

social change.

MA students are encouraged to develop a critical

understanding of major debates, theories and

strategic interventions and of the skills to analyze the

issues, and to design and assess interventions aimed

at tackling these issues. An essential part of this

process is to develop skills in research methodology,

which will be applied in a research paper prepared as

a requirement for the Masters degree. The 15.5 month

MA programme consists of coursework (40 weeks of

fulltime study, 60 ECTS credits) and the research

paper (25 weeks of fulltime study, 28 ECTS credits).

Applicants for the MA Programme in Development

Studies are required to select one of the following

Majors at enrolment (see descriptions in the following

sections):

• Agrarian and Environmental Studies (AES)

• Economics of Development (ECD)

• Governance, Policy and Political Economy (GPPE)

• Human Rights, Gender and Conflict Studies:

Social Justice Perspectives (SJP)

• Social Policy for Development (SPD)

Master of Arts in Development Studies

ISS offers the possibility to do the one-year coursework at ISS and to work on the Research Paper at home with supervision being available through the electronic learning environment.

More information: http://www.iss.nl/education/ma_programme/

DevISSues is published twice a year by the Institute of Social Studies, PO Box 29776, 2502 LT The Hague, the Netherlands, tel: +31 (0)70 4260 443 or 4260 419, fax: + 31 (0)70 4260 799, www.iss.nl, DevISSues@iss.nl Editor: Jane Pocock. Editorial Board: Lee Pegler, Susan Newman, Sunil Tankha, Natsuko Kobiyama. Editorial Assistant: Marie-Louise Gambon. Design and Production: Karen Shaw. Circulation: 6,500. The text material from DevISSues may be reproduced or adapted without permission, provided it is not distributed for profit and is attributed to the original author or authors, DevISSues and the Institute of Social Studies. ISSN: 1566-4821. DevISSues is printed on FSC certified paper.