Development Philosophy Paper
My development philosophy is a worldview based on personal beliefs of how effective development happens in theory as well as in practice. Solutions to developmental issues are complex and have many potential avenues to reach the desired goal of the intervening actor, and this paper is a reflection of my understanding of the concepts of a sustainable development intervention. This requires an understanding of various principles, tools, and methodologies, histories and trends, macro and micro level understanding of how different actors contribute positively and negatively to developmental issues, the nuances of theory and practice, and proper facilitation of development interventions.
When addressing any developmental issue, the causes are often times multifaceted and interrelated. Actors must often decide whether they can and should address the root cause of the issue, which can often times be contained within the host country’s state or local government and address issues of unequal judicial offerings, attention, corruption, or a plethora of other reasons that can be seen as difficult or impossible to change. In order to determine the appropriate cause(s) to intervene in, a common principle which allows an actor to address a root cause without addressing every root cause is called the Pareto Principle. This principle posits that 20 percent of the root causes account for 80 percent of the overall problem. No intervention will ever be able to address every cause, whether it be due to time, finances, inaccessibility, or limited resources. This principles allow actors to wisely choose the most efficient cause to address.
Approaches/Framework:
When actors engage in a development initiative, their approach for how they value the skills and resources of a target community can play a large role in determining the success of their intervention. A Deficit Model of development and an Asset-Based Approach are two standout models for how actors can perceive a target community, and thus their intervention strategy. In a Deficit Model, which focuses only on the needs (whether that be normative, comparative, or felt) of any given community, an actor focuses on deprivation as the foremost issue. They largely view social poverty and economic poverty as the starting point for their initiative. However, an Asset-Based approach not only distinguishes what mix of these two kinds of poverty exist, but focus their attention on what assets the community has, and leveraging those resources as the primary focus of their initiative. The best development work is capitalizing on strengths of the target community in order to ameliorate the areas of deficiency.
The criteria that make low-income communities vulnerable and powerless largely consist of the material, mental, physical and social dimensions of deprivation, in combination with insecurity. However, the reasons for the lack of opportunities, increased insecurity, and flat or downward trend in wellbeing, differ by region. Despite this, development practitioners can use these areas of wellbeing to leverage the assets of the target beneficiary. A holistic appraisal of these dimensions of deprivation is well summarized by Deepa Narayan et al; “experiences of wellbeing and illbeing are multidimensional and interwoven, with the psychological dimension of paramount importance. The experiences are affected by combinations of five sets of conditions: material, physical, and social wellbeing, all three related to security, and concerning personal freedom of choice and action. Illness, especially catastrophic illness, stands out as a trigger for the downward slide into poverty” (Narayan et al, 13). By Empowering a community, development practitioners are providing their beneficiaries the ability to make decisions for themselves, while utilizing their own assets. The result is that they live with greater agency, for it is this ability to control aspects of their own lives which has the greatest long-term benefit.
Two additional areas that development practitioners must look to for long-term benefit of their beneficiary are equity and sustainability. Equity, the differentiated inputs which lead to a fair outcome, and sustainability, benefits created thru a development project having a life beyond the development project, are two considerations that actors must have at the forefront of their strategy. Furthermore, in terms of sustainability, actors should not try to sustain their project, they should try to sustain the outcome that the project engenders. It is these two components that critics can often look to order to see the worth of a development initiative.
Development actors should understand the culture of their target community, the past and present knowledge, history, politics, socio-economic status of various regions in the state, gender disparities, and take into consideration positive and negative externalities of their intervention. When their efforts are to create a Paradigms shift in order to foster change, they are changing the Behaviors, Attitudes, Mindsets, Relationships, and Methods of the host community. The main idea of these components of the target community is their interconnectivity; development is a complex web and changing any one portion of the web, changes another part of the web.
As practitioners move forward from their framework to beginning a project, they must keep in mind one of the most underutilized concepts in development; cheat, steal, and be lazy. This phrase means that no one intervention needs to be revolutionary. Rather, all effective development interventions look largely the same. As a CARE development manual iterates, a successful intervention means that “lessons learned from previous projects, failures, and successes are incorporated in new designs” (Caldwell, 16). After all, actors do not get points for being original; they get points for being effective.
Gender gaps are another component which must be understood by every stakeholder in any well rounded development intervention. Greater gender equality can enhance productivity, improve development outcomes for the next generation, and make institutions more representative. The three key dimensions of gender equity, as “identified by men and women from Afghanistan to Poland to South Africa, as well as by researchers: the accumulation of endowments (education, health, and physical assets); the use of those endowments to take up economic opportunities and generate incomes; and the application of those endowments to take actions, or agency, affecting individual and household well-being” (World Bank, 4). In general, gender equity is best achieved by changing domestic policy actions, and in countries with particularly pressing gender needs, this reduces excess deaths of girls and women, shrinks the educational gap, earning gap, and diminishes the gender gap in households as well as society.
Methodology:
When any development practitioner begins addressing a development intervention, stakeholder engagement is the single more important and determining factor in the likely success of their project. Stakeholders must have critical input in the design process. Ownership and participation in development means an aptitude for stakeholders contributing to how an intervention is designed, from beginning to end. True ownership is contributions not only to design, but the delivery, management, and the entire steps in the process. Once this happens, the engaged stakeholders can move forward to the beginning stages of any development intervention plan.
Once a development intervention has begun, the intervening actor(s) may look to the aid of many tools that have proven to work and whose purpose is to aid the user as to whether they are using best development practice to accomplish their tasks (this can include any phase from designing projects, implementation, evaluating, etc.). Proper use of tools help us ask: Am I taking actions that are consistent with what I consider best practices? Some requirements of a good tool are that it must be clear what the tool is being used to solve; it must be easy to interpret; it must measure exactly what it says it will; it must show strong linkages between what you want to observe and the data you will use to get there. It is critical for the user to adapt the tool to how they best see it utilized in a given context. If anything, tools are extremely useful in creating productive dialogue between the stakeholders involved to brainstorm new ideas and to build consensus.
In order to explore the dimensions of the development issue that was identified, the tool I have found useful to in the beginning stages is a Problem Tree. Problem trees provide interlocking hypotheses of causal factors that govern the design of a development intervention. Another useful tool development practitioners can utilize is a Results Framework, which attempts to make projects cohere within the framework of the program they are operating in; this in turn is a strategy for achieving one specific objective. Within this framework, practitioners will be able to visually depict the interconnectedness of the strategic objective (the most ambitious result of measureable change an organization and its partners are willing to be held accountable for), Intermediate Results, and identifying critical assumptions at every stage, thereby conveying the cause and effect linkages. In short, “a person looking at a results framework should be able both to understand the premises underlying the strategy and to see within the framework those intermediate results critical to achieving the objective” (USAID, 1).
If a greater understanding of the target beneficiary is needed, a Journey Map could draw out valuable insights as to how an actor understands the issue at hand. Journey Mapping is often viewed as the most useful tool to see what each stakeholder will be doing within the time frame of the program. Finally, a Needs Assessment is not just a tool, rather it is the basis for understanding the complex situation that is the result of the various needs of the target community. It is the “presence of a comprehensive and detailed holistic appraisal of the existing situation” (Caldwell, 16). Additionally, a Needs Assessment draws out what is verbally expressed by the target community, called the Black Space, and what is unsaid, referred to as the White Space. Black Space often relates to deprivation, need, and stress. White Space is finding out the reasons and actors that contribute to the target community’s current situation. Additionally, this White Space is about understanding culture, tradition, the environment of scarcity, and making compromises based on limited resources.
Program and Projects:
At one point in the beginning of the design of an intervention, an actor must decide whether they are going to engage in a project or have a program-level intervention. As a rule of thumb, it is inefficient to work at the project level without having some larger structure of a program; it is wasteful, duplicative, and inefficient. The term “projectitus” is referred to as the disease of inflicting too many projects on unsuspecting people. The negative externalities could be dependency, non-overlapping goals, and a general stress on the host country’s capacity. Therefore, there is a movement to move away from projects and move toward the use of coherent programs, whether that comes via the resources of one actor, or several working together.
Partnering:
Through strategic alliances and partnerships, solutions to social problems are often better fostered from a collective mindset. The benefits of partnering are to “expand your capability, extend your reach, lower costs, provide more effective services or products, gain access to addition resources, and improve your credibility” (Bloom). The primary tools I find most effective includes a Network Analysis (visually showing key areas for improving relationships), Core Competency Mapping (determining the primary competencies an organization should utilize in their development efforts), and Strategy Mapping, which helps organizations see themselves in relation to other potential actors in an effort to partner more effectively.
When partnering, it is important to have “clear lines of responsibility and understanding with other organizations in the project area, so it is easy to assess success or failures,“ or else even partnering itself can become cumbersome and slow the development process (Caldwell, 16). In addition, an outline of a few common reasons for failures within partnerships are “poor communication, lacked of shared benefits, slow results, lack of financial commitment, misunderstood operating principles, cultural mismatch, and lack of alliance experience,” to mention a few (Bloom). Holistically, the determinants of the ability for the likelihood of an organization to be able to carry out various projects in one place are other actors, their capacity, the amount of funding, the quality and competencies of their employees, and the organizations partners.
One of the most challenging components of partners working alongside one another is their commitment to how similarly they share visions for how the project cycle is going to work. This includes assessing the situation, analyzing, planning and design and redesigning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating. Typically, the reason for disputes between partners is because “alternative, more cost-effective approaches are considered during the design stage” (Caldwell, 16). It is also important to keep in mind that planning for an exit strategy must happen at the very beginning stages.
Every development effort will consist of indicators which will measure a factor that plays a role in the success of a strategic objective. Typically, organizations will need to “establish a baseline for measuring change in indicators of impact and effect, by conducting a study or survey prior to implementation of project activities” (CARE, 9). Once the project or program is under way, a successful intervention is one that has “indicators that can be measured in an objectively verifiable manner” (Caldwell, 16).
Facilitation:
The ability to not only possess a theoretical understanding of development, but a more nuanced understanding of how development actually happens on the ground in practice is critical. Therefore, the skill of a development practitioner expands beyond administrative levels of leadership and guidance, which is largely what this paper has covered thus far, to the facilitation of effective social change from direct interaction with target beneficiaries. This skill is particularly important to my development philosophy because participatory development at the individual and community level is an indication of an intervention that truly exemplifies a holistic participatory development intervention. Facilitating individual and community level inclusiveness is paramount to participatory development because, if an actor is adhering to an Asset-Based approach, it is often the case that the target community does not in fact need to be taught new skills, rather to be facilitated with the skills they already possess. In order to be able to effectively facilitate the skills which communities already possess, an understanding of social power, equity, inclusive learning, and potential barriers to facilitation are quintessential.
The idea of social power between people within their communities affects participation in development efforts, and being able to use facilitation tools and strategies to encourage more equitable and inclusive participation will make all the difference. After all, what good is a facilitator if they are hearing from a voice in the community that is an inequitable and unrepresentative voice? Various forms of power that facilitators should be cognizant of are Visible Power, when a command is explicitly stated, Hidden Power, when a person makes decisions on the behalf of others with or without their consent, and Invisible Power, when people do not even realize opportunities they have because they have been completely withheld from them. Additionally, a tip for how to facilitate when there are people in the room with unequal power is to break people up into smaller groups for activities and have them report back; this way each member has a better chance of being engaged and to have their voice heard.
A few characteristics of powerful, inclusive learning are when people are given responsibility, removed from normal context, are out of their comfort zone, receive lessons from someone who has lived the topic there are learning, learn from context, are immersed, are in a place conducive to reflection, have a safe learning zone where they can fail forward, realize the credibility of the instructor, and learn from peers who are in a similar circumstance. On the other hand, numerous components prohibit powerful learning. Lack of sleep, lack of clear directions, being around uninspired people, sticking to previously held assumptions, lack of respect from students for the individual teaching, teachers who have a lack of respect for students, inadequate time for lessons in class, lack of review at the end of a session, not leaving time for questions and clarifications, and when participants are not inclusive to their peers, are several examples of components prohibiting effective learning. If a facilitator is able to understand these components, they will better be prepared to facilitate a much more effective session.
Conclusion:
Each development practitioner has their own unique development philosophy, and rightly so; if each tool is to be molded to most effectively suit the user in their unique context, so should each development philosophy be unique. Therefore, since solutions to pressing developmental issues are wicked complex and multifaceted, each unique actor can potentially play a critical role. I enumerated the components of development interventions that many successful programs typically possess. If actors are able to combine their unique philosophy with the proven components of an effective intervention, they will be well-position to address the wicked issues that have a multitude of potential remedies that we see in our world.
Works Cited:
Bloom, Evan. DPMI Week 2: Partnering. California, Monterey. 15 Jan. 2013. Lecture.
Caldwell, Richard. Project Design Handbook. Rep. N.p.: CARE International, 2002. Print.
CARE International. Project Standards Measurement Instrument. Rep. N.p.: n.p., 2003. Print.
Narayan, Deepa Et Al. Global Synthesis: Consultations With The Poor. Tech. N.p.: World Bank, 1999. Print.
USAID. Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Tips. Rep. no. 13. N.p., 2000. Web. <http://faculty.miis.edu/~levinger/2Results%20framework%20.pdf>.
World Bank. 2012 World Development Report on Gender Equality and Development. Rep. N.p., 2012. Web.
When addressing any developmental issue, the causes are often times multifaceted and interrelated. Actors must often decide whether they can and should address the root cause of the issue, which can often times be contained within the host country’s state or local government and address issues of unequal judicial offerings, attention, corruption, or a plethora of other reasons that can be seen as difficult or impossible to change. In order to determine the appropriate cause(s) to intervene in, a common principle which allows an actor to address a root cause without addressing every root cause is called the Pareto Principle. This principle posits that 20 percent of the root causes account for 80 percent of the overall problem. No intervention will ever be able to address every cause, whether it be due to time, finances, inaccessibility, or limited resources. This principles allow actors to wisely choose the most efficient cause to address.
Approaches/Framework:
When actors engage in a development initiative, their approach for how they value the skills and resources of a target community can play a large role in determining the success of their intervention. A Deficit Model of development and an Asset-Based Approach are two standout models for how actors can perceive a target community, and thus their intervention strategy. In a Deficit Model, which focuses only on the needs (whether that be normative, comparative, or felt) of any given community, an actor focuses on deprivation as the foremost issue. They largely view social poverty and economic poverty as the starting point for their initiative. However, an Asset-Based approach not only distinguishes what mix of these two kinds of poverty exist, but focus their attention on what assets the community has, and leveraging those resources as the primary focus of their initiative. The best development work is capitalizing on strengths of the target community in order to ameliorate the areas of deficiency.
The criteria that make low-income communities vulnerable and powerless largely consist of the material, mental, physical and social dimensions of deprivation, in combination with insecurity. However, the reasons for the lack of opportunities, increased insecurity, and flat or downward trend in wellbeing, differ by region. Despite this, development practitioners can use these areas of wellbeing to leverage the assets of the target beneficiary. A holistic appraisal of these dimensions of deprivation is well summarized by Deepa Narayan et al; “experiences of wellbeing and illbeing are multidimensional and interwoven, with the psychological dimension of paramount importance. The experiences are affected by combinations of five sets of conditions: material, physical, and social wellbeing, all three related to security, and concerning personal freedom of choice and action. Illness, especially catastrophic illness, stands out as a trigger for the downward slide into poverty” (Narayan et al, 13). By Empowering a community, development practitioners are providing their beneficiaries the ability to make decisions for themselves, while utilizing their own assets. The result is that they live with greater agency, for it is this ability to control aspects of their own lives which has the greatest long-term benefit.
Two additional areas that development practitioners must look to for long-term benefit of their beneficiary are equity and sustainability. Equity, the differentiated inputs which lead to a fair outcome, and sustainability, benefits created thru a development project having a life beyond the development project, are two considerations that actors must have at the forefront of their strategy. Furthermore, in terms of sustainability, actors should not try to sustain their project, they should try to sustain the outcome that the project engenders. It is these two components that critics can often look to order to see the worth of a development initiative.
Development actors should understand the culture of their target community, the past and present knowledge, history, politics, socio-economic status of various regions in the state, gender disparities, and take into consideration positive and negative externalities of their intervention. When their efforts are to create a Paradigms shift in order to foster change, they are changing the Behaviors, Attitudes, Mindsets, Relationships, and Methods of the host community. The main idea of these components of the target community is their interconnectivity; development is a complex web and changing any one portion of the web, changes another part of the web.
As practitioners move forward from their framework to beginning a project, they must keep in mind one of the most underutilized concepts in development; cheat, steal, and be lazy. This phrase means that no one intervention needs to be revolutionary. Rather, all effective development interventions look largely the same. As a CARE development manual iterates, a successful intervention means that “lessons learned from previous projects, failures, and successes are incorporated in new designs” (Caldwell, 16). After all, actors do not get points for being original; they get points for being effective.
Gender gaps are another component which must be understood by every stakeholder in any well rounded development intervention. Greater gender equality can enhance productivity, improve development outcomes for the next generation, and make institutions more representative. The three key dimensions of gender equity, as “identified by men and women from Afghanistan to Poland to South Africa, as well as by researchers: the accumulation of endowments (education, health, and physical assets); the use of those endowments to take up economic opportunities and generate incomes; and the application of those endowments to take actions, or agency, affecting individual and household well-being” (World Bank, 4). In general, gender equity is best achieved by changing domestic policy actions, and in countries with particularly pressing gender needs, this reduces excess deaths of girls and women, shrinks the educational gap, earning gap, and diminishes the gender gap in households as well as society.
Methodology:
When any development practitioner begins addressing a development intervention, stakeholder engagement is the single more important and determining factor in the likely success of their project. Stakeholders must have critical input in the design process. Ownership and participation in development means an aptitude for stakeholders contributing to how an intervention is designed, from beginning to end. True ownership is contributions not only to design, but the delivery, management, and the entire steps in the process. Once this happens, the engaged stakeholders can move forward to the beginning stages of any development intervention plan.
Once a development intervention has begun, the intervening actor(s) may look to the aid of many tools that have proven to work and whose purpose is to aid the user as to whether they are using best development practice to accomplish their tasks (this can include any phase from designing projects, implementation, evaluating, etc.). Proper use of tools help us ask: Am I taking actions that are consistent with what I consider best practices? Some requirements of a good tool are that it must be clear what the tool is being used to solve; it must be easy to interpret; it must measure exactly what it says it will; it must show strong linkages between what you want to observe and the data you will use to get there. It is critical for the user to adapt the tool to how they best see it utilized in a given context. If anything, tools are extremely useful in creating productive dialogue between the stakeholders involved to brainstorm new ideas and to build consensus.
In order to explore the dimensions of the development issue that was identified, the tool I have found useful to in the beginning stages is a Problem Tree. Problem trees provide interlocking hypotheses of causal factors that govern the design of a development intervention. Another useful tool development practitioners can utilize is a Results Framework, which attempts to make projects cohere within the framework of the program they are operating in; this in turn is a strategy for achieving one specific objective. Within this framework, practitioners will be able to visually depict the interconnectedness of the strategic objective (the most ambitious result of measureable change an organization and its partners are willing to be held accountable for), Intermediate Results, and identifying critical assumptions at every stage, thereby conveying the cause and effect linkages. In short, “a person looking at a results framework should be able both to understand the premises underlying the strategy and to see within the framework those intermediate results critical to achieving the objective” (USAID, 1).
If a greater understanding of the target beneficiary is needed, a Journey Map could draw out valuable insights as to how an actor understands the issue at hand. Journey Mapping is often viewed as the most useful tool to see what each stakeholder will be doing within the time frame of the program. Finally, a Needs Assessment is not just a tool, rather it is the basis for understanding the complex situation that is the result of the various needs of the target community. It is the “presence of a comprehensive and detailed holistic appraisal of the existing situation” (Caldwell, 16). Additionally, a Needs Assessment draws out what is verbally expressed by the target community, called the Black Space, and what is unsaid, referred to as the White Space. Black Space often relates to deprivation, need, and stress. White Space is finding out the reasons and actors that contribute to the target community’s current situation. Additionally, this White Space is about understanding culture, tradition, the environment of scarcity, and making compromises based on limited resources.
Program and Projects:
At one point in the beginning of the design of an intervention, an actor must decide whether they are going to engage in a project or have a program-level intervention. As a rule of thumb, it is inefficient to work at the project level without having some larger structure of a program; it is wasteful, duplicative, and inefficient. The term “projectitus” is referred to as the disease of inflicting too many projects on unsuspecting people. The negative externalities could be dependency, non-overlapping goals, and a general stress on the host country’s capacity. Therefore, there is a movement to move away from projects and move toward the use of coherent programs, whether that comes via the resources of one actor, or several working together.
Partnering:
Through strategic alliances and partnerships, solutions to social problems are often better fostered from a collective mindset. The benefits of partnering are to “expand your capability, extend your reach, lower costs, provide more effective services or products, gain access to addition resources, and improve your credibility” (Bloom). The primary tools I find most effective includes a Network Analysis (visually showing key areas for improving relationships), Core Competency Mapping (determining the primary competencies an organization should utilize in their development efforts), and Strategy Mapping, which helps organizations see themselves in relation to other potential actors in an effort to partner more effectively.
When partnering, it is important to have “clear lines of responsibility and understanding with other organizations in the project area, so it is easy to assess success or failures,“ or else even partnering itself can become cumbersome and slow the development process (Caldwell, 16). In addition, an outline of a few common reasons for failures within partnerships are “poor communication, lacked of shared benefits, slow results, lack of financial commitment, misunderstood operating principles, cultural mismatch, and lack of alliance experience,” to mention a few (Bloom). Holistically, the determinants of the ability for the likelihood of an organization to be able to carry out various projects in one place are other actors, their capacity, the amount of funding, the quality and competencies of their employees, and the organizations partners.
One of the most challenging components of partners working alongside one another is their commitment to how similarly they share visions for how the project cycle is going to work. This includes assessing the situation, analyzing, planning and design and redesigning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating. Typically, the reason for disputes between partners is because “alternative, more cost-effective approaches are considered during the design stage” (Caldwell, 16). It is also important to keep in mind that planning for an exit strategy must happen at the very beginning stages.
Every development effort will consist of indicators which will measure a factor that plays a role in the success of a strategic objective. Typically, organizations will need to “establish a baseline for measuring change in indicators of impact and effect, by conducting a study or survey prior to implementation of project activities” (CARE, 9). Once the project or program is under way, a successful intervention is one that has “indicators that can be measured in an objectively verifiable manner” (Caldwell, 16).
Facilitation:
The ability to not only possess a theoretical understanding of development, but a more nuanced understanding of how development actually happens on the ground in practice is critical. Therefore, the skill of a development practitioner expands beyond administrative levels of leadership and guidance, which is largely what this paper has covered thus far, to the facilitation of effective social change from direct interaction with target beneficiaries. This skill is particularly important to my development philosophy because participatory development at the individual and community level is an indication of an intervention that truly exemplifies a holistic participatory development intervention. Facilitating individual and community level inclusiveness is paramount to participatory development because, if an actor is adhering to an Asset-Based approach, it is often the case that the target community does not in fact need to be taught new skills, rather to be facilitated with the skills they already possess. In order to be able to effectively facilitate the skills which communities already possess, an understanding of social power, equity, inclusive learning, and potential barriers to facilitation are quintessential.
The idea of social power between people within their communities affects participation in development efforts, and being able to use facilitation tools and strategies to encourage more equitable and inclusive participation will make all the difference. After all, what good is a facilitator if they are hearing from a voice in the community that is an inequitable and unrepresentative voice? Various forms of power that facilitators should be cognizant of are Visible Power, when a command is explicitly stated, Hidden Power, when a person makes decisions on the behalf of others with or without their consent, and Invisible Power, when people do not even realize opportunities they have because they have been completely withheld from them. Additionally, a tip for how to facilitate when there are people in the room with unequal power is to break people up into smaller groups for activities and have them report back; this way each member has a better chance of being engaged and to have their voice heard.
A few characteristics of powerful, inclusive learning are when people are given responsibility, removed from normal context, are out of their comfort zone, receive lessons from someone who has lived the topic there are learning, learn from context, are immersed, are in a place conducive to reflection, have a safe learning zone where they can fail forward, realize the credibility of the instructor, and learn from peers who are in a similar circumstance. On the other hand, numerous components prohibit powerful learning. Lack of sleep, lack of clear directions, being around uninspired people, sticking to previously held assumptions, lack of respect from students for the individual teaching, teachers who have a lack of respect for students, inadequate time for lessons in class, lack of review at the end of a session, not leaving time for questions and clarifications, and when participants are not inclusive to their peers, are several examples of components prohibiting effective learning. If a facilitator is able to understand these components, they will better be prepared to facilitate a much more effective session.
Conclusion:
Each development practitioner has their own unique development philosophy, and rightly so; if each tool is to be molded to most effectively suit the user in their unique context, so should each development philosophy be unique. Therefore, since solutions to pressing developmental issues are wicked complex and multifaceted, each unique actor can potentially play a critical role. I enumerated the components of development interventions that many successful programs typically possess. If actors are able to combine their unique philosophy with the proven components of an effective intervention, they will be well-position to address the wicked issues that have a multitude of potential remedies that we see in our world.
Works Cited:
Bloom, Evan. DPMI Week 2: Partnering. California, Monterey. 15 Jan. 2013. Lecture.
Caldwell, Richard. Project Design Handbook. Rep. N.p.: CARE International, 2002. Print.
CARE International. Project Standards Measurement Instrument. Rep. N.p.: n.p., 2003. Print.
Narayan, Deepa Et Al. Global Synthesis: Consultations With The Poor. Tech. N.p.: World Bank, 1999. Print.
USAID. Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Tips. Rep. no. 13. N.p., 2000. Web. <http://faculty.miis.edu/~levinger/2Results%20framework%20.pdf>.
World Bank. 2012 World Development Report on Gender Equality and Development. Rep. N.p., 2012. Web.