Aid and development by design: local solutions to local problems

Abstract

This article makes a case for a reconceptualisation of aid and development programme design. Specifically, it questions the role of the international "development expert" in the design and implementation process. We argue that by employing "design thinking" as a guiding principle, the way in which aid programmes are envisaged and delivered can be radically overhauled, resulting in dramatically improved outcomes for the users of aid. We argue that practical improvements in delivery are achievable through locally rooted, "user-driven" development solutions that originate from the beneficiaries themselves. Design thinking as applied here goes significantly further than other programme design and implementation methodologies that champion locally owned, needs-driven assistance. Furthermore, we make a case for this approach addressing wider problems within the sector, namely the perception, in some quarters, that aid is intrinsically "neo-imperialist" in design and ideologically driven.

Mutual learning on the local level: The Swiss Red Cross and the Village Health Committees in the Kyrgyz Republic

“…The structural factors preventing organisations from learning include division of labour, reliance on ‘conventional wisdom’ (Edgren, 2000: 43–46) and routine, ‘budgetary pressure’ (Suzuki, 2000: 100), fragmentation and quality of information (Carlsson and Wohlgemuth, 2000: 9), and compliance with pre-defined agenda (a ‘blueprint approach’) (Berg, 2000: 35; Flint and Meyer zu Natrup, 2019: 214–215). Staff composition and turnover, incentives, organisational goals and leadership are also relevant (Berg, 2000: 34–35; Cheng, 2000: 140; Edgren, 2000: 48–50; Kontinen, 2018: 39–40; Salem et al, 2018: 603).…”

“…As ‘trainers’, but not ‘learners’, the staff of IOs sees no ‘need for learning’ or identifying ‘themselves as learners’ (Suzuki, 2000: 100). Yet, an ‘expert’ as a ‘saviour’ may have no contextual awareness (Flint and Meyer zu Natrup, 2019: 208–209) or knowledge about beneficiaries’ most pressing issues, or the most fitting solutions to them. The mutual learning for aid-provider demands ‘unlearning the expertise’, ‘truly’ listening (Eyben, 2006: 50) and ‘learning how to learn’ (Cheng, 2000: 132–133).…”

“…This article uses ‘design-thinking’ (Flint and Meyer zu Natrup, 2019) to analyse mutual learning in practice. Driven by process, rather than outcome, this approach ‘embraces uncertainty’ with aid-providers acknowledging incompleteness of their knowledge, as aid-beneficiaries are the ones who know their needs (Flint and Meyer zu Natrup, 2019: 212).…”

“…This article uses ‘design-thinking’ (Flint and Meyer zu Natrup, 2019) to analyse mutual learning in practice. Driven by process, rather than outcome, this approach ‘embraces uncertainty’ with aid-providers acknowledging incompleteness of their knowledge, as aid-beneficiaries are the ones who know their needs (Flint and Meyer zu Natrup, 2019: 212). The authors suggest that this approach recommended itself in information technology (IT) and engineering, but the ‘end-user’ of aid remains largely excluded from designing development programmes (Flint and Meyer zu Natrup, 2019: 212–213).…”

“…A recent study on ‘partnership’ between donor and non-governmental organisations in the Pacific highlights power imbalances between actors (Moloney, 2019: 9). Despite the emphasis on ‘ownership’, placing the beneficiary ‘in the driver’s seat’ (Ellerman et al, 2001: 175–176) and attempts over the last 20 years to make the assistance ‘more participatory’, aid-recipients have remained ‘program takers’ rather than ‘program makers’ (Flint and Meyer zu Natrup, 2019: 211). Putting the donors’ aspirations and rhetoric into practice, however, requires acknowledging the differences between the actors and changing their ‘power relationships’ (Kontinen, 2018: 28, 34–35).…”