Debating what? 

If I correctly interpret the signals from the field, then we are spending a lot of time on internal process and inter-agency debate, and less time on advising Government. So what exactly are we debating among ourselves?

Is poverty a manifestation or a cause of misery? Do we analyse partnerships before or after we define strategic results? Is the outcome more important than the process? Do we need rules or can we apply common sense? What is common sense? Does your limited experience weigh more than my limited experience? Does your model disagree with my theory? Is the one profound truth contradicted by another equally profound truth? 

It is good that some part of the debate is being led emotionally insisting on hopefully human rights-inspired values. This is a good and necessary part of our work.

But we should stay above the waterline of scientific thought. If we would have more documented evidence, better hard-nosed-research, programme models that withstood rigorous evaluation, time-tested conceptual frameworks that have proven to enrich national knowledge and achieve national consensus on the causes of vulnerability, marginalization and exclusion, we would have less unwanted internal and inter-agency debate. 

And we could then add value to the national development debate.

(7 November 2003)

previous         next