Life is Complex, and so is Development

Volker Greulich
jester61.blogspot.com
 Life is Complex, and so is Development

The Problem with Planning for Development

I feel sometimes strangled by a chain, the results-chain, that is. The results-chain is an instrument
which should guide you through the project cycle, planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating.
It means that you decide your objectives. Then you select your inputs so that you generate certain
outputs. These outputs again should generate certain outcomes, which all together contribute to an
impact. Let's say, you want to reduce poverty by increasing farmers production through irrigation. You
need money in order to purchase the know-how, the building materials, the technical equipment and
labor, which is your input. You will then use these inputs to have a well, dug a pump installed, and
irrigation ditches dug. After that you organize seminars to teach farmers about how to use the water
efficiently. And that will be your output. This output will lead to availability of water and the
knowledge to use it. Which then in turn will lead to higher farm yields (your outcome). And these
outcomes will contribute to an overall reduction of rural povery.
There is nothing wrong with this , unless you fall into the trap of forgetting that your plans, which will
have been put nicely into the format of a logical framework, are just a model. You should not mistake
them for reality. Too often, that at least is my impression, this kind of approach leads us to a quasi-
physical perception of social reality. Like in physics or chemistry we assume, that a certain process
under the right conditions, will lead more or less automatically to a certain result.
Sometimes it actually happens that way, but often enough it doesn't. The desired outcomes don't
materialize, the project fails, sometimetimes miserably. Those quasi-physicists in development will
then suspect, that you did not get your results chain right. Your plans could have been faulty, or maybe
your implementation was.
This could very well have been the case. Some people are sloppy, some are incompetent, some even are
both.
But I doubt, that this explanation always holds water. The logical framework approach allows you to
make assumptions about conditions, which need to be right, in order for the project to succeed, or to
name risks, which could derail the whole project. The point I want to make, that the most basic
assumption is hardly spelled out, let alone be addressed. And that is the assumption, that all the people
involved will do, what they are supposed to do, because all will behave rationally. And of course, they
will see the rationale of the project the same way, as you do. And the most fundamental risk is, that this
assumption proves faulty.
To put it differently, development is not a quasi-physical process, but a social process. And that is,
where the problem starts, because social reality, as I see it, has a number of characteristics, which make
it impossible to achieve desired outcomes with certainty.

Social Reality is complex

Imagine a game of chess. Chess of course is a complicated game, ordinary people like me will find it
difficult to plan for all eventualities more than two moves ahead. But even masters of the game cannot
plan too many moves ahead and evaluate all possibilities. To live your life in contrast, one should think,
is much easier, because everybody does it.
But then think again. Take a not to complicated project. You want to increase income of farmers in a
village with, say 150 to 200 households by helping them to irrigate their fields, That should be a
straightforward matter. You look for the most appropriate location, dig a well and distribute the water to
the fields.
But now, what is the most appropriate location? Who decides about the location? Who controls the
water flow? In chess you have a board with 64 fields (8x8), you have 32 pieces, 16 each on both side.
Each piece can only move according to the rules. You have two players in a straight forward zero-sum
game, if one wins, the other one looses. At least at the beginning of the game both parties have the
same strength. And both parties will always have the same access to information, knowing always,
what the constellation on the board is. There are no stakeholders. Onlookers are not allowed to interfere
with the game or move (or remove) pieces.
Now look at the project. One would assume, that there are two sides (donor and beneficiaries), who are
playing a positive-sum-game. If the donor wins (the project objectives are achieved), the beneficiaries
do also win (their income has increased).
But it will rarely be that easy. There will probably be a local intermediary, a local organization or a
local authority to implement the project. This local intermediary will have field staff, an office ( with a
manager in it), probably a governing body. Among the beneficiaries there might be members of
different strata of society, some having bigger fields, more assets, more influence, better political
connections the others. The beneficiaries might belong to different clans, maybe even to different
ethnic groups. And they do not live in a vacuum. There will be a local government with elected or
unelected officials, who might want to be part of the project or at least profit in any way.
There may be traders, who are interested in purchasing the additional output (and would welcome the
project). But on the other hand, there may be wealthy farmers, who already do irrigate their fields and
don't fancy the competition.
Or maybe there is somebody living in the neighboring village, who is related to a powerful politician
and would rather see the project shift to his or her own place.
Some people might enthusiastically cooperate, others less enthusiastically so, another group might
decide to sit on the fence, while there might be opposition, open rejection or secret sabotage. Some
people will do, what they are supposed to do, others may steal project money or materials. There might
be personal grievances between people involved.
And the donor is sitting thousands of kilometers away, probably not speaking the local language. He
will not know, who is related to whom. He will, if at all, only belatedly know, when money has been
stolen. He will rarely know, if, for example, the project manager is fooling around with other people's
wives, possibly alienating people in the community. But he will have to fill out his logframe, and write
reports, which in turn based on the reports, he gets. He probably visit the project site once a year, talk
to those few people, who speak English (or French, or Spanish) and he will be expected to bring the
project to a successful conclusion. Now tell me again, that chess is more complicated than managing a
project.
That does not only apply to projects, but to all form of social life. Even among a relatively limited
number of people, there are a multitude of possible interactions. And this interactions are not
straightforward. There are all possible degrees and forms of cooperation (or rejection), and ways of
influencing others to behave towards a third party in a certain manner.
And the relationship between an action by one person on the one hand and the impact this may have on
the community on the other is rarely linear. Often enough a relatively minor mistep or a wrong word at
the wrong time can seriously affect careers or marriages (or projects). Or then, a valuable employee
may put up with lousy working conditions for quite some time, but finally he may leave, to the surprise
of his employers.
I do not aspire to give a thorough analysis of the complexities social life. The point I want to make is,
that social reality s complex. And therefore the outcome of a certain action can never be predicted with
certainty. And that applies to development interventions, too.
Social Realty depends always on its Interpretation

Bad enough, that the outcome of social interactions depends on complex and unpredictable processes.
But even worse: Social Reality doesn't look the same to different people looking at it. Social Realty is
always interpreted with categories or concepts, which are shaped by culture, country, political
affiliation, gender, social status, wealth (or lack of it), upbringing, personal choices and other
influences, which again influence themselves mutually and give every person a very singular
viewpoint, from which to interpret life.
I used to live and work in Tanzania in a small village. Especially in the beginning I found it very
difficult to adapt to the ways, how society and relationships within society were organized. Many of the
things I observed appeared to me to be strange and funny, certainly not normal. One day my Tanzanian
girlfriend (now my wife) remarked to me rather casually, that Wazungu (white people) are generally
quite nice, but tend to have funny customs and habits. That remark drove home the point, that what is
normal depends on the viewpoint of the observer.
One other incident, which I remember still very vividly and is too good to be left out, also exemplifies
this issue. During my stay in Tanzania one day I bumped incidentally into a meeting of a Maasai civil
rights group. They were all wearing their very colorful traditional garb, which was normal for them to
do in their home areas, and I believe, still is. This made them such a popular (exotic) target for the
cameras of tourists. They were quite nice and we had a pleasant chat. When I wanted to leave, they
requested to take photos together with me (with their cameras)as souvenir. Standing there as the only
white, and the only one, who was wearing jeans and a t-shirt, I was the one, who was exotic.

The Interpretation of Social Realty is Shaped by Underlying Values and Moral Judgements

What makes this different interpretations so relevant and difficult to handle is the fact, that they are not
neutral. Our view of social reality is to a large degree shaped by values and judgments. When I came to
Tanzania I had decided that I was not going to accept preferential treatment just because being white. I
wanted to treat all persons as equals. One day I had to walk to a neighboring village and a young guy
was accompanying as my guide to make sure, that I wouldn't get lost. I had a bag with me, with a water
bottle and my notepad. That young man offered to carry it, which I refused. On our way we met a
number of people, who were speaking to him in Kipare, the local language, which I didn't understand.
He repeatedly requested me, to let him carry my bag, which I repeatedly refused. Finally he had enough
and became livid, virually ordering me to give him this bloody bag, because every person we had met,
had scolded him, for being impolite by letting the visitor carrying his own bad. I was, he told me
bluntly, ruining his reputation. That is, when I became quite embarrassed and let him carry that bag.
This may sound like an amusing anecdote, but otherwise rather irrelevant to the serious business of
planning and running projects.
If you think so, then think about the issue of nepotism and favoritism. We are certainly all against it,
even your local project partners will condemn it. But then should try to find out, what it means in
practice. One thing, my wife has never quite forgiven me, is what she sees as my abject failure to use
my position as head of the African desk of a German NGO (which is running projects in Tanzana) and
the resources I control, to support her family.
I have explained repeatedly, why that is not possible and that such a behavior would seriously
compromise my professional integrity. It didn't really cut ice with her for the very simple reason, that in
her value system, the (very concrete) obligations towards the extended family top the (rather abstract)
commitment to professional ethics. So the next time you discover, that your local partner has recruited
a disproportionate number of his staff from his ethnic group (with a few of his relatives among them),
it is important to understand, that this does not necessarily indicate, that he is dishonest. It may mean,
that he felt he had to comply with the demands and expectations of his group, on whose solidarity he
has to rely, too. This may not mean, that you have to accept this, but it will influence your strategy, how
to handle it (and possibly prevent it in the first place).
Values may also influence, the criteria, we use to decide, what is worthy to be achieved. And thus they
will shape, the objectives, we choose (and the indicators for those objectives). One of my project
partners is doing a very good job in fighting poverty. But they also have the unfortunate tendency to get
involved in setting up and maintaining relatively big (and expensive, but not necessarily profitable)
infrastructure. They also have many employees, who have nothing to do with what I see as their core
business of fighting poverty. In this case I am fairly sure, that all these investments and activities have
nothing to do with self-enrichment, but rather with some kind of self-aggrandizement, which actually is
socially accepted and even expected in that environment. The underlying motive is to impress and to
gain influence. This influence is enhanced by being a big employer. And therefore, what counts is not
the profitability of the staff, but the service rendered to the community by taking care of their people.
This influence has actually contributed to giving our partner access to local government officials. And
this has made life (and work) easier for our partner.
While I understand this reasoning, I still find the opportunity costs of those investments difficult to
accept. Therefore my strategy not to interfere, with projects of this kind, when they are funded by other
partners. But I try to weed them out of the budgets presented to us. Most of the time it works,
sometimes it leads to frictions.
This also points to another complicating aspect of cooperation: When values are involved, which are
important to both partners it becomes very difficult to find a common denominator. A clearcut solution
in most of the cases isn't possible. The best, which normally can be achieved, is an uneasy compromise,
which leaves both sides discontented.
Of course, often the local applicant knows, that, what he 9or she) really aspires to, doesn't stand a
chance with the donor. What will probably happen is, that all the right things get written into the
application. But on the ground what the applicants had wanted all the time is what will be
implemented. Especially if the donor agency is connected to certain institutions (state, churches), which
are somehow bound to work with a certain set of partners in the recipient countries (local authorities,
local churches), the beneficiaries might actually often get away with this kind of behavior. And that is
because the donor, for different reasons cannot afford to cut of cooperation with the local partner. So
the donor might clench his fist, grind his teeth. And then the game continues.
The easiest way to avoid conflict, is granting all applications, even if they run counter to the donor
organization's values. But this of course isn't really an option. And therefore this is another problem, for
which there is no easy solution. And it certainly is another reason, why projects may not proceed as
planned.

And don't Forget the Dimension of Power

When planning projects, it seems, that it is widely assumed, that everybody is on the same side. But
most of the time, the beneficiaries aren't really a uniform group. They may not just have interests,
which differ from those of the donors. But there may also be differences among themselves. And the
beneficiaries may differ among each other quite significantly in terms of income, assets and influence.
In the eighties a book written by Brigitte Erler, 'Toedliche Hilfe' (Deadly Aid) made quite a splash here
in Germany. Mrs. Erler was a desk officer in the Ministry of Economc Cooperation, which is
responsible for development assistance. In that capacity she had to visit projects in Bangladesh. This
visit left such a devastating impression with her, that she left that job and wrote the aforementioned
book. The problem was not, that the projects had failed in a technical sense, but that they had not
achieved the desired social change (poverty reduction).
She visited one village, where a well had been sunk, in order to make water available for watering the
fields of poor farmers and thus helping them to increase their production. The well was sunk alright and
water was available. But one of the wealthy farmers had used his influence to make sure, that this well
would be on his land.
The effect was, that he could control the access to water. He charged a fee from the poor farmers and
had the capability to control the amount of water available to the other farmers for irrigating their
fields.
Unless all members in a community are poor, the reduction of poverty is likely to change the
distribution of power in that community. This is very obvious, when the reduction of poverty is to be
achieved by reducing the wealth of others: by ending exploitative practices or redistributing assets (e,g.
land reform). But even if the assets or economic activities of the wealthier members are not directly
affected, poverty reduction can still affect their interests negatively. The newly economically
empowered poor may become competitors in the economic sphere.
But poverty is not just an economic phenomenon, it is multidimensional and in most cases the poor also
lack political influence and social standing. Becoming economically empowered may also mean
gaining in social standing and influence, thus challenging the influence and the position of those, who
have dominated the community so far.
On the other hand, who are the ones, who do speak languages, the donors understand? Who do have
influence with local government authorities? Who will sit on boards of local organisations? Probably
not the poorest members of a community. So the view of reality, which will be communicated to the
donors,is likely will be theirs.
This will not only influence the project implementation, it can also influences the selection of projects.
Imagine a situation, where in a remote village there are a few relatively wealthy farmers, who also
grow cash crops and who have access to water for irrigation. Imagine, that there is a also a greater
number of poor farmers, who mostly rely on food crops, do not have access to water for irrigation and
who have to augment their meager income by working on the fields of their more fortunate fellow
villagers.
Now, imagine, that there is money for a project to increase incomes. There is the choice: One option is
to pave the existing dirt road, which would reduce the costs of transporting the crops to town. The other
option is to dig additional wells, in order to bring water also to the fields of the poorer farmers. which
project is more likely to reduce poverty? And which project is more likely to be presented to the
donors. Of course all the relevant mumbo-jumbo will be there: poverty-reduction, empowerment,
gender, MDGs. But in the end, the elites will have made sure, that there interests are served.
And by the way it will also make a huge difference, how you define the indicators. It makes a
difference, for example, whether you look primarily on the overall output or profit, or whether you try
to identify indicators, which capture the wellbeing of individual households.

The Way Forward - Is There One?

What I wanted to show, that social reality is complex. The result of processes cannot be predicted with
certainty and social reality is subject to interpretations and judgments. And this makes the planning of
projects difficult (how can you plan the unpredictable?) and problematic (who is allowed to decide,
what the objective should be and how success will be measured?). I do not claim to have analyzed all
these issues in detail, but I hope, that I have succeeded in showing, that social reality is more complex
and more ambiguous, than we normally allow for, when embarking on the adventure to change it
through our projects and interventions.
Now, what does it mean? Shall we do away with planning and accountability? Certainly not. When you
start a game of chess, you will not be able to foresee every move up to the end. But analyzing the game
and planning your strategy will certainly improve your chances of winning. A thorough planning
process will likewise improve the chances of your project being successful, provided you don't mistake
your models for reality and provided you keep the complexity of the situation in mind, which you want
to change.
There are two things, which can help you with doing this. One is to attempt to understand, why the
partners act as they do and how their motives influence their actions. It will help, if the donor
organization and its personnel have a solid knowledge of the cultural, the political and the socio-
economic situation n the country and region. And they should analyze the social constellations and
relationships in and around the project area. They should inquire about possible conflicts and fault-lines
in the project environment. They will never be able to get and process all relevant information,
especially given the time constraints the staff of donor agencies usually has to battle with. But taking
into account the aspects of social relationships (affiliations, conflicts, interests, power, values, traditions
etc.) will at least reduce the likelihood of disaster.
The other thing, which can help, is participation. One of the tragedies of the present tendency to
'scientif'y the project cycle is the retreat from the principle, that the 'targets' of the intervention, should
also have a decisive say. If you believe in the perceived capabilities of scientific methods to explain and
predict social reality, then you need to go to the experts and not to the locals. Because it means means,
that this task should be left to scientists, who can apply these methods. There is little room left for the
target groups, except to provide the data.
But if you believe, that social reality can be interpreted differently and that this interpretation of social
reality is subject to values and judgments. then the locals become the experts, because they know best,
what is important for them and what counts for them. And their views are not just the raw material for a
refined analysis. It is a standpoint, which is at least as legitimate as the standpoint of the donor agency
or outside consultants. The project, its objectives and its mode of operations needs to be negotiated
between the different sides.
Out of this two other conclusions follow. One is, that you have to distinguish not just between the
locals and the outsiders, but, as shown above when discussing the dimension of power, between very
different groups within the local society. And the standpoint of the poor is not less legitimate or true
than the standpoint of the local elites.
The second conclusion therefore is, that if you want to intervene in another society to change social
reality, you have to take decisions and you have to take sides.
1. You have to decide, whose interpretation of social reality and whose visions of social change you
want to follow.
2. You have to decide, to which degree you want to accept the interpretation of your partners of their
problems and the appropriate solutions and to what you will want to modify that with your own
interpretation of the problems and your values.
These questions deserve a thorough analysis, which would extend beyond the scope of this text,
though. But one needs to be aware of them.

The point is, in pain language. Social reality is messy and confusing. So why should your projects be
different. There will of course be projects, where most of us will agree, that they are better than others.
But I doubt, that you will get there, simply by following the scientists.