Towards better outcomes for children globally: alternative perspectives on international development
| Pages | 59-70 |
| Published date | 01 December 2007 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/17466660200700036 |
| Date | 01 December 2007 |
| Author | Emma Crewe |
| Subject Matter | Education,Health & social care,Sociology |
59
Journal of Children’s Services
Volume 2 Issue 4 December 2007
© Pavilion Journals (Brighton) Ltd
Abstract
Contrary to prevailing wisdom, international development does not either succeed or fail. It does both.
With reference to case study material gleaned from working with both grant-makers and international
civil society organisations, this article critiques both the assumptions and organisation of development.
Development initiatives create small islands of beneficial change for children but in general suffer from
donor-led managerial approaches, the dominance of upward accountability to Northern agencies, poor
relationships and the tendency to both generalise and simplify. Globally, governments and civil society
are failing to protect millions of vulnerable children and promote their participation in decision-making.
But better outcomes for children are possible. This article articulates the problems but also
demonstrates how: (1) partnerships could be reoriented so that power relations are continually
challenged; (2) planning mechanisms could be more focused and efficient; and (3) innovation, learning
and reflective action could be promoted so that practice is appropriate to the context and therefore
promotes better outcomes for children.
Key words
international development; partnership; planning; children; learning
1Director, ChildHope,
and Honorary
Research Fellow,
Department of
Anthropology,
University College
London, UK
Introduction
In the postcolonial era, international development1
has involved transfers of funds and expertise from
donor countries – Europe, the United States, Japan,
Australia – or the ‘North’ to the ‘South’ (that is, Africa,
Asia and the Pacific, the Americas [excluding Canada
and the United States], and the Caribbean). These
categories (or equivalents) and the effectiveness of
one-way flows between them, particularly of
expertise, have been challenged for some years
(Chambers, 1983; Crewe & Harrison, 1989; Escobar,
1995; Crewe & Fernando, 2006). There can be greater
difference within the North and South categories than
there is between them: the political economy or
mortality rates of, for example, India bear little
resemblance to those of Sierra Leone. However,
agencies within the development ‘industry’ still use
these homogenising categories to rationalise and
organise aid and they continue to have credence and
purchase in terms of international power.
As far as effectiveness is concerned, outsiders’
perceptions of the development industry have two
tendencies. Romantics assume it is heroic or that any
form of rescue must be better than none, while the
cynics dismiss the enterprise as inevitably corrupt,
unsustainable or inefficient (Crewe & Harrison, 1989:
1–6). For insiders, the public rhetoric of development
Towards better outcomes for
children globally: alternative
perspectives on international
development
Emma Crewe1
To continue reading
Request your trial