The following post was received as a comment from Martin Johnson. I have worked with Martin in various countries and always find his stories of working on long term reform in places like Albania, Uganda and Pakistan fascinating. He I also one of the founders of the PFM Board (with Mauro Napodano), a blog space where you can go for all things Public Financial Management (http://pfmboard.com/)
By Martin Johnson, Principal Consultant REPIM
Matthew Andrew’s 'The Limits to Public Financial Management Reform in Development' draws attention, among other things, to the widespread use of governance and related reforms that are ‘best-practice’ in design but are short-term and seem to ignore context and the myriad layers of minor and major context-specific issues that must be negotiated before technical solutions have even a chance of being adapted properly, never mind implemented at the front line by people that matter (however insignificant or distant those people may appear to project designers or project implementers).
He is not alone in being frustrated by observing the widespread use of this approach and it is no surprise that he presents so much evidence of success in terms of ‘signals’ and so (relatively) little impact from that apparent success.
The time is ripe for a weighty tilt against this paradigm. The evidence that Matt has assembled is certainly weighty. It is also persuasive and certainly has the potential to begin shifting the paradigm.
A fair amount of my own practical experience chimes with much of the analysis and evidence in Matt’s book. This includes coming into contact with projects that aim to support governance reforms but have unrealistic or inappropriate log-frame design, both in terms of nonsensical periods of time over which fully-formed reforms are expected to be designed and delivered and in terms of the contextual “constraints” that are simply overlooked or assumed away.
In one case I had an unusual opportunity to periodically review a major PFM reform over a ten year period. The anticipated achievements in its original design (covering a period of just 2.5 years – a period typical of many development partner-supported governance reforms) were unrealistic to the point of being wholly unachievable. The support would have resulted in abject failure and closure after (or even before) year 2.5 had it not been re-scoped shortly after it started – an interesting story in itself, but one for another time and another place. Even after re-scoping it remained over ambitious and was on the verge of closure on several occasions because of an apparent failure to deliver results (including when very good results were being delivered!).
The story of that reform is one where what was delivered after ten years was more or less what was possible within that period in the highly difficult change management environment of the country concerned (where what Matt refers to as ‘cultural cognitive influences’ are extremely strongly embedded). Interestingly enough, whilst a number of different development partner staff members came close to closing the project at various points in its lifetime because of ‘lack of results’, it managed to survive (sometimes narrowly) in part because it was subject to a regular and independent review process that explained to the development partner on most of these occasions that ‘context’ was being addressed and that progress was commensurate with context, even if it was not commensurate with the project’s over-ambitious design.
From my own experience, therefore, I have come to appreciate one of Matt’s conclusions with regard to ‘best practice’ and the short term nature of many governance reforms - the need for regular reviews to address context.
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.