Theory in Practice

I read recently that we see diminishing creativity in society because we are too busy. We never take time to let our minds empty to allow those ‘ah ha!’ moments in. This is probably true. But I had a ‘seriously, it took me that long to realize that?’ moment this morning. Like, full on, I’d-like-to-go-back-and-rewrite-an-entire-evaluation kind of moment. And it all hinged on the confluence of events. The first took place over my morning coffee, reading a recent Guardian Development Pros article ‘ Development is Not a Science and Cannot be Measured .’ Indeed, it is not (as I’ve argued here before). Despite all the tools and academic and policy maker claims to the contrary, there are too many variables in development for any of us to explicitly state ‘A therefore B’. And we know this (those of us who do the work day in and day out and try to meld development policy with practicality and bare bones reality). The second took place at the gym a short while later as I was reading ‘Aid on the

Can donors promote reform while not undermining ownership? Is conditionality, or the requirement that aid recipients undertake certain actions in return for the provision of that aid, inherently inconsistent with an ownership agenda? So asks Matt Dornan in an interesting blog post discussing ownership and aid effectiveness. His post may focus on conditionality and ownership, but it links to another issue: that of how aid is delivered to countries, and how delivery mechanisms impact ownership. It all circles back to aid effectiveness and one big question: is the onus for aid effectiveness on the donor or the recipient? I would be willing to go all in and say the onus is on the donor. Why? Because the delivery mechanism, the conditions and the type of aid (see our post from last week ) are the prerogative of the donor.