Academic – Practitioner Exchange: Development Administration 1007

Nick Manning World Bank

Derick Brinkerhoff ’s article resonates with

those of us in donor agencies struggling to

make progress in the uncertain territory of

assisting the state to perform better. Brinkerhoff im-

plicitly concludes, rather poignantly, that it is not at

all clear that the development community knows the

answer to the question of how we improve the state.

He is right.

Many of the current arrangements for international

aid were indeed created in the aftermath of World

War II. Th e Marshall Plan set in place an approach to

development and reconstruction through physical

investment that undoubtedly still resonates today.

Donor approaches — with their emphasis on a discrete

project cycle and technocratic expertise, and their

concern for ring-fencing to manage fi duciary risks —

are in many ways genetically unsuitable for institution

building. Donor infl uence is positive overall, probably,

but donor traction on weak central government insti-

tutions unable to provide security or basic public

services, or on local institutions undermined by

uncertain resources and weak political oversight,

can be tenuous.

Th ere has undoubtedly been renewed donor attention

to the role of institution building, refl ecting the

broader shift in the development community toward

viewing governance and institutions as central to

change in all developing societies. Th e mid-1990s

marked a period when it was unambiguously accepted

in the development community that institutions

matter. Recognition of the problem, however, has not

led to proven solutions. Institution building has had,

at best, a mixed record.

Some likely reasons for this mixed track record are

unlikely to change. Brinkerhoff refers to the question of

donor capacity, citing the

example of the hollowing out

of the U.S. Agency for Inter-

national Development, but

while this could at least in

principle be fi xed, the persis-

tent problem of confl icting

time scales is intrinsic to the

provision of development

assistance by democratic coun-

tries. Th e political need to

announce major initiatives, to

claim breakthroughs, within a timetable driven by the

domestic politics of the donor country, is at odds with

the long-term nature of strengthening state institutions.

Other aspects of donor approaches are changing.

Donors are having to become more humble. Th e self-

confi dence of the rising middle-income countries, the

robust revenues of the commodity-rich developing

countries, and the entry of a new range of donors

onto the scene that see development assistance more

straightforwardly as an aspect of their foreign policy,

are all limiting the ability of the traditional donors to

act imperiously, and all argue for dialogue rather than

prescription. Th is humility of approach creates par-

ticular challenges in implementing anticorruption

programs.

Donors are also attempting to improve their under-

standing of the nature of existing institutions. Some

previous donor state-building eff orts have tended to

assume some sort of institutional terra nullus. In prac-

tice, of course, even when there is near-total state

collapse or immense physical and human destruction,

countries are not institutional blank slates. Basic ad-

ministrative practices continue in the minds of cur-

rent or ex-civil servants, even where structures have

ceased to function and paper records have been lost,

and those practices represent the only foundations on

which new institutions can be built.

Understanding of the real political economy has also

become more of a priority. As Brinkerhoff notes,

“effi cient administrative structures and systems are

necessary but not suffi cient.” Th e underlying pre-

sumption in designing many projects has been a skill

or capacity defi cit on the part of the recipient country

or public sector. In fact, the issue is more likely that

the underlying political objectives of the key players

are simply diff erent — and maybe for good reasons.

While donors have been improving their institutional

and political analysis, much remains to be done in

terms of tracking progress.

Governance and public man-

agement remains bedeviled

with measurement problems

and determining whether

there has been progress or

slippage remains in the eye of

the beholder. Th is is of course

not just a donor/developing

country phenomenon. Th e

problem of weak data on

public sector management

arrangements is well recognized in the Organisation

for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Conceptual and practical problems mean that the

Nick Manning is manager of public

sector and governance, Latin America and

the Caribbean, for the World Bank.

E-mail: nmanning@worldbank.org

Th e political need to announce major initiatives, to claim

breakthroughs, within a timetable driven by the domestic politics of

the donor country, is at odds with the long-term nature of

strengthening state institutions.

1008 Public Administration Review • November | December 2008

process of collecting comparative data on public sector

reforms is a particularly frustrating process because

there are many concerns for which relevant data are

either nonexistent, of doubtful reliability, or of doubt-

ful comparability. Th ere are developments in this

fi eld — but there is, to say the least, an enormous

distance still to be covered.

All in all, donors are getting more serious about gover-

nance. We are doing more homework, and increasing

use is being made of political and institutional analy-

ses in donor programs. But this is comparatively new

territory, and there are few standards against which

such preparatory studies can be judged and they can

be of very variable quality. In addition, at a time of

strict staffi ng caps in donor agencies, there is some

risk of “dumbing down,” with more traditional core

skills concerning public fi nance and civil service man-

agement being lost in order to make space for political

economy competencies. Maybe in our governance

work, we will get better at assessing how we can ap-

proach the problem, just as we lose our capacity to

determine what it is that needs to be done.

Note Th e opinions expressed are those of the authors and

should not be attributed to their respective

organizations.

Join ASPA’sSocial Networking Groups Today!

A year ago, ASPA joined the social networking scene and created a Facebook Group and LinkedIn Group

for its members to network. Th e groups also serve as a communication tool for ASPA members to receive

the latest news occurring within the society. Membership in these groups is consistently growing, and those

who have not taken advantage of these free networking opportunities are missing out on the fun. Don’t

miss out on the great opportunities these groups have to off er. Join our social networking groups today!

If you are interested in joining our LinkedIn Group, please email Caneka McNeil at cmcneil@aspanet.org

with your name and the email address you wish to use on LinkedIn. If you are interested in joining

ASPA’s Facebook Group, go to www.facebook.com and click “Sign Up” to create a profi le.

For more information about ASPA’s social networking initiatives, contact Caneka McNeil at 202-585-4313

or cmcneil@aspanet.org