Blog

The history of international development policy and development aid is a complicated one, a mixture of hopeful altruism and difficult reality. Poverty and inequality appear as resilient as ever, and human development – understood as development that prioritizes human well-being and aims at enlarging opportunities, freedoms and choices – continues to proceed slowly in large parts of the world. Still, efforts by a wide range of actors to promote development and reduce poverty have, in recent times, yielded numerous positive results. The world has witnessed remarkable improvements in agricultural production, life expectancy and literacy— together with a reduction in child mortality and the incidence of infectious disease. However, it is not always clear what various stakeholders understand by the term “success”.

The idea of “sustainable development” has witnessed a resurrection in the past couple of years following the adoption of the 2030 Agenda and its accompanying 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 193 heads of state in 2015. Since its inception in the international development discourse in the late 1980s, sustainable development has acquired new layers of meaning and been celebrated for its rhetorical appeal to political correctness. But is it a useful tool for global development?

Should governments channel more foreign aid through civil society organizations? If so, who should be the main recipients? Organisations based in donor countries? International civil society organisations? And how about directly supporting local organisations in aid-recipient countries? These were some of the questions I raised during a recent event organised by the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad) to launch their draft principles for support to civil society.

Kaja Elise Gresko, Research Coordinator at the Centre for Development and the Environment, University of Oslo

While forces of anti-globalization continue to rise in the West, China has demonstrated growing aspirations to assume global leadership in recent decades. Speaking at the 19^th Communist Party Congress held recently in Beijing, President Xi Jinping reaffirmed China’s global commitments, and proclaimed a new era for Chinese power, which will transform itself into a “mighty force” that can lead the world on political, economic, military and environmental issues.

Sirianne Dahlum and Carl Henrik Knutsen

This is an edited and expanded version of a post that appeared on Washington Post’s The Monkey Cage Blog

Democracies outperform autocracies on education. At least that is what many political scientists believe: Since voters care about the future of their children, democratic politicians should have strong incentives to build schools, reduce fees, enroll children, and so on. Autocrats who are not responsible to voters should lack such incentives. At best, autocrats may offer university education that benefits the children of elites supporting them. Indeed, there is evidence that more kids go to school in democratic countries.

Jason Miklian, post-doctoral fellow at the Centre for Development and the Environment, University of Oslo

The idea of businesses using their formidable power to be good social stewards in fragile parts of the world is proliferating exponentially, driven by shareholders, corporate leaders and the international community. The lynchpin for engagement lies in United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) #16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions, which encourages deeper involvement by businesses in conflict-affected fragile communities to help deliver a peace dividend.

‘What works in international development?’ is the kind of trick question you might get asked in a job interview! ‘Why is Africa poor?’. ‘How do you explain inequality?’. What works in international development?’.

Simon Maxwell writes that the question is a trick because it begs a host of others. What is ‘development’? For whom? Where? When? And what does ‘works’ mean? Over what time period? And at what cost?

Nikolai Hegertun argues that in order to learn about what works we need to be able to do just that: learn. But institutions don’t learn like people – especially when those institutions were not designed to learn in the first place. This is a fundamental problem for donors and aid-institutions.

Growing nationalism and protectionist policies pose imminent threats to globalization. Addressing the challenges of climate disruption, international migration, pandemics and violent conflicts require collaboration across national borders. Recent world events, however, have forced many to rethink well-established understandings of globalisation and its potential benefits. Some have also begun to question whether the traditionally powerful actors of the Global North will be able to reassert their dominance in this new and fast-changing global landscape.

A few years ago, a group of undergraduate students attending my development studies course at the University of Oslo asked whether I could offer a more positive take on global development and poverty reduction. Having heard me speak about the many challenges that continue to plague the lives of over a billion people around the world classified to be living in poverty, they wondered whether I was able and willing to develop a course that also highlighted what has worked in development.

Dan Banik writes that even among the most ardent supporters of foreign aid, there is a recurring desire to ensure that disbursed funds are used efficiently and effectively to meet project and program goals.

The world today is very different from what it looked like only a few weeks ago. Indeed, the results of the US Presidential elections on 10 November has been a major blow to the advocates of globalization, many of whom have also been champions of increased foreign aid to, and trade with, developing countries with the aim of reducing poverty and promoting economic growth and development.

Boniface Dulani and Dan Banik have begun to explore the link between democracy and development in one of the world's poorest countries.

Happy Kayuni argues that the current Malawi sector reform initiative in Malawi has proved to be the most innovative and ambitious programme that the country has ever undertaken since the advent of democracy in 1994.

Human resources are an indispensable for an organization because they harness other resources such as finance, equipment, raw materials to collectively contribute to the realisation of organisational visions and missions. However, human resources are sensitive, have values, beliefs, rights, expectations, and emotions.