"Bigger the better" or should it be "Value for money"

I have been having a conversation with Jamie Enoch, Research and Policy Analyst at the UKCDS, on a study that the UKCDS did for DFID on Mapping Infrastructure Research for Development.  You can read the exchange of words  on the Linked In AFCAP (African Community Access Programme) group if you are a registered member of Linked In, and are inclined to join the group. . 

Much of it is show casing the work of the International Forum for Rural Transport and Development (IFRTD), which, though supported by DFID for several years, received no mention in the report’s chapter on transport.   Despite this omission, it is good to know that another analyst, e.g. Steven Jones, an Associate Professor at the University of Alabama, working with AFCAP on identifying " rural transport issues in Sub-Saharn Africa (SSA) to be targeted for future research... aimed at developing a more comprehensive understanding of the overall health impacts (crashes, polllution. healthcare access etc) associated with rural transport provision" has found IFRTD' work to be "very helpful. In fact, I included material from several papers/reports listed there into my AFCAP final report".  [Here he is talking about IFRTD’s work on mobility and health]. 

Jamie tried to justify UKCDS omission on the grounds that though the work was very relevant "it might be slightly out of place in this mapping exercise, given its primary focus on ongoing rather than historic programmes".  The financial support to IFRTD was however reflected in the graphs in the UKDS report, and the SEACAP programme was mentioned, though it was significantly more historic than IFRTD in the DFID funding time line! The justification for the inclusion of SEACAP was the it was a £8 million programme!

This is the point of this blog.  Yes, IFRTD was definitely a smaller investment of the British Tax Payers' money than SEACAP, but what if the impact of the pounds was greater?  Should that not be be the criterion by which development assistance is evaluated? Surely, the British Tax Payer is interested in value for money?  And what if, just what if, smaller programmes like IFRTD that had potential to build capacity and make lasting changes in the minds of professionals and the public in more than 27 countries in the global south, gave higher returns for the bucks spent? Is this not something we would want to know?

I was reminded of the 1990s campaigns against the big dams (which incidentally are coming back - the dams that is, not sure about the campaigns!) One such that halted the construction of the Arun-3 dam in Nepal was vindicated by the fact that the projects that replaced the controversial big dam "provide a third more electricity at almost half the time it would have taken Arun-3 to come on line, and at half the cost".  What does it take to learn that bigger/larger/more is not always better?


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Some thoughts on the White Saviour Complex of development consultancies

Disturbing vignettes (a series) - Sept 26: the brutalising effect of war

Year 2014: Buddhist era 2557-2558