Women’s ways of knowing?

By Alfredo Ortiz Aragón

A Ortiz side room blogIn my last post I shared how an organizational leader, “Ana”, called out my co-researcher Juan Carlos and me for not following through on problematic machista (male chauvinistic) behaviors that she periodically brought up in the action research (AR) process I was leading. In that post I simply reflected on the enormous, often unspoken power that facilitators and researchers have to include or exclude. In this post I wish to share some interesting implications this has regarding how extended epistemologies (i.e. multiple ways of knowing) actually generate the diversity needed to shift patterns of communicative interaction (see this post for another example).

Hearing the voice of diverse perspectives

Whether or not the facilitators or other participants attracted around the machista theme, machismo is clearly a recurring problem theme in this organization’s programmatic work and in Peruvian society more generally (and everywhere else!).  In retrospect it is clear that the AR process Juan Carlos and I co-facilitated did not in fact address machismo as an organizational problematic theme.  In other words, our methodology did not help give voice to an important perspective.  The term “give voice” is not arbitrary.  In their study on women’s ways of knowing, Belenky et al (1986, 1997) identified different characteristics of ways of knowing that were common to the women in their study (common, but not exclusive to women[1]). An important early distinction they made was that “voice” was more than shorthand for women’s perspective.  Instead, “voice” was connected to women’s understanding of their own intellectual and ethical development: ‘[T]he development of a sense of voice, mind and self were intricately intertwined’ (ibid).  Many of the things the women in that study spoke about to describe their lives centered on voice and silence, for example: ‘ “speaking up”, “speaking out”, “being silenced”, “not being heard”, “really listening”, “really talking”, “words as weapons”, “feeling deaf and dumb”, “having no words”, … “listening to be heard”, and so on’ (ibid).  This raises the question of how well the methods Juan Carlos and I chose took into account female voices at all (i.e. even beyond Ana’s contention).  In other words, did the two males who were in charge of most methodological decisions (with enormous power to enable, constrain, include or exclude with our decisions) give any thought to women’s preferred learning styles, or did we assume that pedagogical techniques appropriate for men are appropriate for women (Belenky et al., 1986, 1997: 5)?

Creative and reflective methods are not enough

Although Juan Carlos and I never intentionally approached an exercise from an explicitly feminine perspective, it is possible that some of the “creative” and reflective techniques we did use may have been compatible with some women’s ways of knowing, just as it is possible that some methods did not speak to or give voice to some men, or other identity groups in the action research. José, for example, told us in in a workshop that he was feeling a “drawing overload” of sorts.  A debate in another workshop generated strong feelings of exclusion with some participants.  The problem is that we as designers and facilitators assumed that creative techniques generally respond to people’s needs and learning styles and help grapple with complexity.

I can now see that this is not necessarily the case.  We did not think enough about what sorts of methods might generate specific diversity that was important for understanding complex realities, and for giving voice to diverse participants.  Yet there is much to be learned about what different ways of knowing really means to different people with different views of reality.  Some common elements of women’s ways of knowing might be helpful for engaging in “fluid conversation”—a communicative state  akin to “edge of chaos” in which patterns of organizational interaction may be predisposed to shift into a new attractor (Stacey, 2007).  For example, an emphasis on connection over separation, understanding and acceptance over assessment, and collaboration over debate (Belenky et al., 1986, 1997: 229) are useful attributes to consider regardless of gender, but they didn’t naturally emerge from mine and Juan Carlos’ methodological selection!

Open questions for action researchers

How do action researchers (including capacity building facilitators) deal with new ideas and both see and hear perspectives that need voice—including deviant or eccentric behaviors, or unofficial ideologies, that may be helpful in undermining problematic power relations (Stacey, 2007: 446). How might action research not only utilize extended epistemologies, but actually introduce methods that speak from neglected perspectives (or ask those that bring the issue forward to do so)?  Whose experiences and complexity does a given action research method favor and whose does it exclude? With whose ways of knowing does it resonate?  To what extent does it help surface the diversity that is needed to challenge dominant patterns of relating; to what extent does it reinforce those patterns? These questions have both practical and ethical consequences, and require ongoing critical reflection.

 

Alfredo Ortiz Aragón is an IDS PhD graduate. His research investigated how can systemic methodology help strengthen organizational capacities for grappling with social change in complex environments. In other words, if social change is complex and contested, and not straightforward and controllable, what should be different about organizational capacity building?  How should capacity building be different in complex environments? 

 

References

BELENKY, M. F., CLINCHY, B. M., GOLDBERGER, N. R. & TARULE, J. M. 1986, 1997. Women’s Ways Of Knowing: The Development Of Self, Voice, And Mind New York, Basic Books.

STACEY, R. D. 2007. Strategic Management and Organizational Dynamics: The Challenge of Complexity, Harlow, Pearson Educational Limited.

 


[1] It is important to not generalize half the world’s population to specific “types” of ways of knowing.  All people have different levels of both masculine and feminine ways of knowing, although many of these are culturally rooted-out early in life.  I simply wish to point out that some ways of knowing are different between diverse participants, and gender—in all of its combinations—is a source of this diversity that is often neglected by capacity building  facilitators and action-researchers.

The power to exclude and include through action research

By Alfredo Ortiz AragónA Ortiz side room blog

In a previous blog post (see “Do participatory CB methods really engage people’s diversity?”) I reflected on how people’s participation is enabled and constrained, included and excluded by all intervention method, including capacity building methods. When these methods neglect to take into account the diverse ways people express themselves and learn, participation may become unduly constrained, depriving people of their legitimate voice and depriving groupings of people of the diversity that is needed to generate learning and change in complex environments. This post builds on that previous post, but speaks more directly to how all methodological decisions enable some participant ideas and constrain others, and thereby generate dynamics of inclusion and exclusion which affect learning and change.

I offer an example from an end of year workshop I co-facilitated with my co-action-researcher, Juan Carlos Giles, intended to clarify the focus for 2011 organizational activities of an activist organization we were working with in Peru. On day three of the workshop, Juan-Carlos and I introduced the issue of problematic power relationships that had been present when our action-research began 18 months earlier.  The reason for introducing this theme was because we knew it to still be problematic, yet participants had not yet chosen to address it in any meaningful way in the first two days.   After a rich session of analysis and reflection, the newly named organizational leader, “Ana”, openly reflected howoutside of consultative sessions with Juan-Carlos and me—most methodological decisions until this workshop had been left up to “the facilitators”. She added that this has implications for the types of issues which were addressed in the action research (AR) process. For example, although she frequently brought up her perceptions of problematic machista (male chauvinistic) behaviors in her organization, Juan-Carlos and I—either by design or omission—rarely followed through on those issues. She felt we were quick, however, to follow through on issues of problematic power relations related to organizational leaders.  Later in the reflection, other organizational participants agreed that they too had played too passive a role in shaping the action-research methodology.

Ana’s observation is consistent with critiques from feminist systems theory (FST) that women’s perceptions may be taken as either unimportant or parallel to those of men, and thereby go unaddressed (Stephens, 2012). Relative methodological autonomy in this process gave me and Juan-Carlos enormous power in dealing with themes of our choosing. Even though we consulted and co-designed the overall emerging process with this organization, methodologically, we were given huge license to read situations and propose methods as we saw fit. We were undoubtedly influenced by our worldviews and preferences. For example, while I personally do care about how machista culture constrains opportunities for women, I do not see it as my primary battle and I do not become passionate about it.  But without concepts of feminist pedagogy in our approaches we fail to really “see” issues with gender and patriarchy—forms of power that ‘build… a vivid, internalized construct about how we learn and how our learning contributes to social change’ (Pettit, 2012: 24).   Juan-Carlos and I later discussed this issue and fully accepted Ana’s reasoning that we had consciously or unconsciously neglected to follow through on those issues as she raised them.

We were not alone in this. When Ana would raise these issues, other organizational members did not enable this line of argument either.  Conversation did not ensue on this theme because that which participants did not feel to be a personal battle (or whatever their reasons for omission) did not resonate enough to shift patterns of communication.  In complexity terms, the diversity introduced by Ana could not overcome the lack of excitement on this issue by other participants—i.e. no attractor emerged.

Our (Juan Carlos and me) selection of methods was inevitably shaped by our understanding of emerging priorities.  But our methodological actions promoted and restricted participation, diverse meanings and fluid communication that may have been needed to shift patterns of interaction in this organization.  By being unreflective about our methodological power to include or exclude we may uphold and “make local” (i.e. reproduce) unjust societal power relations that deprive people of meaning, or even their very livelihoods.

So what is the facilitator’s role?  If machismo is a real problem, and I believe it is, then might the facilitators have a particular responsibility to pay closer attention and draw it out—“give it a full hearing” as it were?  In retrospect, I think the answer is yes.  But how likely are we, two males, to do so?  That is the focus of my next post.

[Note: participants have given permission to share their stories from the action research discussed above.  Participant names are fictitious but refer to actual participants].

Alfredo Ortiz Aragón is an IDS PhD graduate. His research investigated how can systemic methodology help strengthen organizational capacities for grappling with social change in complex environments. In other words, if social change is complex and contested, and not straightforward and controllable, what should be different about organizational capacity building?  How should capacity building be different in complex environments? 

 

References

PETTIT, J. 2012. Getting to Grips with Power: Action Learning for Social Change in the UK. IDS Bulletin, 43, 11-26.

STEPHENS, A. 2012. Feminist Systems Theory: Learning by Praxis. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 25, 1-14.

On Openness: What’s holding back efficient collaboration on complex issues in international development?

This post was previously published on the IDS Participation, power and social change blog on 23th January 2013. 

Hani MorsiHani Morsi photo mini

It is high time the development research community started learning from computer scientists, who have long realised that tackling complex problems is most optimally done by distributing effort and resources. In the computing world, the term ‘Cooperative Distributed Problem Solving‘ (CDPS) refers to a system whereby, a network of independent, often geographically distant, computing devices can work together to solve a given problem.

In my research, I look at how some of these new modes of technologically-catalysed collaboration influence relationships in spheres of political contention, specifically in environments experiencing tempestuoustransitions and high degrees of uncertainty. Networked communities and the exponentially evolving information and communication technologies are increasingly providing better means for:

  • collaborative knowledge production
  • distributed problem-solving
  • flattening hierarchies of leadership and decision making.

Disciplinary islands

Development academia is cognizant that adapting to an increasingly complex world requires tapping into new, or at least unconventional, approaches to participation. There is no shortage of studies on addressing complexity, participatory knowledge creation, and technologically-facilitated collaboration in contemporary development literature. There is also plenty of innovative thinking going on, but the problem is that this thinking often seems to be happening in disciplinary islands without much interconnectedness, which is something that I have alluded to in aprevious blog post. Yet I want to highlight that the greatest limitation to the formation of such networks of collaboration is not a dearth of willingness of those concerned, but restricted access to the necessary channels of knowledge.

picture of lonely island

photo credit: Sinead Friel, creative commons license

Research behind paywalls
As much as the notion of ‘openness’ pervades contemporary discourses in development, there is perverse, almost deliberate, disregard to the fact that much of the research on ‘open development’, open data, access to knowledge and other relevant themes is, paradoxically, behind paywalls. A researcher succinctly bemoaned this in this recent tweet. Indeed, there are increasing voices of discontent, but what is still missing is a more vocal critique of this glaring dissonance.

Amartya Sen observed that the main culprit of food shortages is not the lack of food, but the inequalities inherent in how food is distributed. The same observation rings true if we consider the problem with the economy of ideas in international development research. Innovative thinking and possibilities for collaborative research and knowledge production are not scarce, yet the disconnected knowledge silos in which bits and pieces of the puzzle are scattered, largely due to the outmoded academic publishing systems, are  holding back the realisation of a big part of this potential. That is, the aging and now irrelevant distribution channels of knowledge are the main problem. The elephant in the room of development research is the false openness which is only starting to be, somewhat timidly, acknowledged by a small but increasing number of academics.

So, the main constraint-to a truly inclusive global collaboration on the world’s most pressing issues-is access, not willingness. To further illustrate this, let’s extend the parallel between distributed computing and emerging paradigms of knowledge sharing and collaboration. For a ‘Cooperative Distributed Problem Solving’ system to work, the most fundamental requirement is openness. That is, inputs to the system must not be centrally stored or controlled. Applying this imperative to collaboration in development research, it quickly becomes obvious that the inputs (mostly western-produced research) are heavily centralised, mostly behind publishing paywalls. While there is a rapidly growing interest in open access publishing, the fact that restricted access to research is probably the largest bottleneck to a true co-production of knowledge still doesn’t seem to be adequately recognised.

Complicity in upholding the walled gardens of knowledge
I believe that we, as development researchers and academics, should actively advocate the open access movement and staunchly champion a more rapid shift in the aging paradigms of academic publishing. Otherwise, we concede an undeniable (if sometimes indirect) complicity in upholding these walled gardens of knowledge. We also risk letting ‘openness’ become yet another buzzword with a diluted, nebulous meaning. Choosing to publish your research in open access journals does not only facilitate the creation of new knowledge, but also has been shown to amplify research impact. The emerging technological facilitators of our hyper-connected world are rapidly relegating conventional modes of institutional knowledge production and brokering, which are not only restrictive but also resource-draining, to obsolescence. The desirable path forward is one where the notion of ‘openness’ oft advocated in contemporary development discourses is mirrored in the knowledge pathways through which such discourses flow.

Hani Morsi is a PhD candidate within the Participation, Power and Social Change research team at IDS. He can also be found on Twitter:@hanimorsi

“AIDS has a woman’s face”, or does it? Beyond the Gender and HIV Dyad

By Elizabeth Mllls

This post was previously published on the IDS Knowledge, Technology and Society blog on 29th November. 

As we approach World AIDS Day, and move into 16 days of activism against gender-based violence, I am prompted again, to reflect on some of the important links between gender-based violence and HIV, and also some of the problematic assumptions that perpetuate uncritical thinking on the gender-HIV dyad.

A Discomfort with Development Categories

Meet Zama, a 33-year old South African woman and an old friend of mine; she has been an AIDS activist and professional HIV treatment literacy practitioner in South Africa since the height of AIDS denial in the early 2000s.  Zama lives in Khayelitsha, which means ‘new home’ in isiXhosa. Its name is rather cynical, given that in this area homes are rarely ever permanently sunk into the earth. Space matters here when the only source of water is a leaky tap, whose muddy veins run down unlit side alleys where women risk rape when they leave their homes at night, or when all adults and children risk electrocution (from illegal wires that wind through the sand) when walking to the single toilet that also serves their 500 – 1000 closest neighbours. Khayelitsha is also the space where women have stood with men, in conjunction with the Treatment Action Campaign and Médecins Sans Frontières, to call on the state to provide essential AIDS medicines; it is the place where these medicines were first made available through the MSF trial in 2001.

Like almost 33% of Khayelitsha’s residents, Zama is also HIV-positive; and like almost two million South Africans, she is on ARVs. She explains,

“It’s like when the skies fight, when the clouds are angry and dark. They crash into each other and lightning flies across the sky. You never know where the lightning is going to hit. That’s what it’s like with HIV” (Zama, 2011).

In this conversation, Zama told me how she had initially found it difficult to negotiate safe sex, or sex at all, when she was a young woman. Zama had been wary of narrating this ‘illness history’ because it colluded with the ‘development category’ of the poor, black HIV-positive woman who was unable to actively navigate her own life. In fact, she eschewed labels like ‘HIV-positive woman’ and considered herself to have substantial personal power to negotiate her current sexual, socio-economic and political relationships.

Looking beyond Victimhood: Between Agency and Structure

While the presence of gender inequality, and its brutal manifestation as sexual violence in girls’ and women’s lives, is a strong feature of my work, I – like Zama – have been confronted by the explanatory limitations of epidemiological assertions that stipulated a correlation between gender inequality and higher rates of HIV infection among women compared to men. I do not dispute this correlation; my research has been informed by the multiple and intersecting inequalities that seemed to drive HIV, in epidemiological terms, into women’s lives and bodies. This was most striking when, in 2008, young women in South Africa were almost four times as likely to be HIV-positive compared to young men of the same age (20 – 24) (Johnson et al., 2013, Dorrington et al., 2006).  Overall prevalence in this age group has subsequently declined, but the characteristics of prevalence according to sex remained the same: young women are still more likely to be HIV-positive than men (UNAIDS, 2012).

Studies link these statistics to sexual violence. Articles with titles like “AIDS has a woman’s face” or “Troubling the angels” proliferated in research that explored this correlation.  Other research suggested that sexual violence and its relationship to HIV occurs against an inflected backdrop of pervasive and entangled inequalities in South Africa, where gender, sexuality, race and class powerfully intersect to reinforce poor Black women’s vulnerability (Dworkin et al., 2012, Jewkes and Morrell, 2012).

Although these studies give texture to the correlation between gender inequality and high rates of HIV incidence among women compared to men, they may also (unwittingly) support a paradigm that has fuelled development interventions to ‘empower’ women by foregrounding women’s relative lack of power compared to men. Ascribing HIV transmission, in epidemiological terms, to entrenched gender inequality does not, in itself, engage with the complex pathways that women navigate between desire and risk in their sexual relationships, and in extremely difficult socio-economic contexts.  In this respect, my research shows that women are subtly, and sometimes with great difficulty, negotiating their intimate relationships with men by forming separate households and by working and establishing their financial independence. This was not a straightforward matter of asserting agency or submitting to intersecting structures of inequality.

The Biopolitics of Violence: Bringing a Global Network of Actors into View

In my research on gender and HIV, and now as I convene the Sexuality, Poverty and Law Programme at the Institute of Development Studies, I suggest that we – researchers, policy makers, activists – need to be careful about situating vulnerability in individual bodies and relationships. I propose that we nuance our analyses to look at how people’s bodies and lives are located in a far more complex network of actors. I suggest, then, that the gender-HIV dyad is problematic not only because it positions women as passive victims of men who are, conversely, held to be active perpetrators (or even more unhelpfully, ‘vectors of transmission’). More fundamentally, it is problematic because these discourses direct our attention towards individuals or ‘cultures of inequality’ and away from the biopolitics of violence in which national, regional and global actors are implicated.

While we certainly need to address the manifestation of inequality in people’s lives, the bolts of lightening, we also need to explore the context – the skies that fight – in which women’s lives are located. This includes a recognition: of the subtle ways that women hold agency, albeit fraught and contested; that men are a part of the solution in working towards equality; and that national, regional and global actors need to be held to account for the ways they intimately affect our lives, from a distance, at the most molecular level.

Elizabeth Mills is a Research Fellow in the IDS Knowledge, Technology and Science research team. She works on health, citizenship and HIV/AIDS. 

References:
Dorrington, R., Johnson, L., Bradshaw, D. & Daniel, T. (2006) The demographic impact of HIV/AIDS in South Africa: National and provincial indicators for 2006. Cape Town.

Dworkin, S. L., Colvin, C., Hatcher, A. & Peacock, D. (2012) Men’s Perceptions of Women’s Rights and Changing Gender Relations in South Africa Lessons for Working With Men and Boys in HIV and Antiviolence Programs. Gender & Society, 26, 97-120.

Jewkes, R. & Morrell, R. (2012) Sexuality and the limits of agency among South African teenage women: Theorising femininities and their connections to HIV risk practises. Social Science & Medicine, 74, 1729-1737.

Johnson, L. F., Mossong, J., Dorrington, R. E., Schomaker, M., Hoffmann, C. J., Keiser, O., Fox, M. P., Wood, R., Prozesky, H. & Giddy, J. (2013) Life Expectancies of South African Adults Starting Antiretroviral Treatment: Collaborative Analysis of Cohort Studies. PLoS medicine, 10, e1001418.

UNAIDS (2012) World AIDS Day Report – Results 2012. UNAIDS.

Resilient autocrats, networked movements and the digital beachheads of enduring activism

Hani MorsiHani Morsi

In a previous blog post, I cautioned against the perils of rushing to conclusions about the implications of the political use of networks in recent global outbreaks of mass dissent, especially the Arab uprisings. Not only because we are just beginning to untangle the new complexities of political engagement in a hyperconnected world, but for a much more fundamental reason. Before thinking about the implications of the new technological tools, platforms and networks appropriated by individuals, social movements as well as governments for political ends, a key fact should be contemplated: There is nothing new about the ‘why’ of activism. That is, the historical universalism of the triggers of such movements warrants more attention to the technological catalysts, or the “how”, of an increasingly accelerating pace of global social and political change. To explain further, the reasons why people protest, organize and rally to challenge authoritarianism, oppression and injustice have undergone much less change – if at all – compared to the ways by which they go about staging such acts of rebellion. While this might seem like a rather elementary observation, I do believe it is central to understanding complex dynamics at the intersection of power, citizen participation and emerging communication technologies.  Considering how the technologies in question can be used for both well-intentioned and nefarious ends (by both individuals or governments) an important question to pose becomes: How effective is the use of networked technologies for challenging oppression in contexts where authoritarianism is deeply rooted and state violence is continuously deployed to silence dissent? Can technologically-savvy social movements play the ‘long game’ against deeply entrenched structures of control and hierarchies of power?

Revolution inspired street art in downtown Cairo. Picture taken by author in late 2012.

Revolution-inspired street art in downtown Cairo. Picture taken by the author in late 2012.

Looking at the Egyptian political arena can yield some insights, but it is too early to be certain of anything seeing how the scene in post-Mubarak Egypt has been one of chaotic and often violent contention since January 2011. The somberness of the national mood is matched by a strong sense of pessimism in predictions about the sociopolitical trajectories the country is taking, notwithstanding analytical errors about several facets of the current power struggle by many western observers (See Mariz Tardos’ blog post from July 2013 for more on this). All indicators seem to evince is that the popular drive for a genuine democratic transformation in Egypt has all but returned to square one: a reproduction of the authoritarian structures of the past several decades.

Yet most of the dismal analyses on Egypt is based on ‘classical’ understandings of power and politics, and as such often seem to miss several subtleties that reveal how resistance to cyclical authoritarianism still thrives in the country, even in the wake of a rapid succession of disappointments. Revolutionary resistance in Egypt is far from dormant. With unrelenting commitment to dispelling the notion of false options Egyptians have been presented with for many decades, networked movements continue to find innovative ways to negotiate and contest power in battlegrounds of political, gender and social rights. Campaigns and groups like Mosireen, HarassMap and Masmou3, among others, mesh online tools with offline organizing to create new breeds of enduring activism, pump new life into the collective desire for change, and create digital ‘beachheads’ of sure-footed resistance against injustice.

Beyond Egypt, many (if not most) of the episodes of large-scale collective action around the world in the past three years have demonstrated that it is not beyond reason to say that these ripples of technologically-accelerated change will not only affect how citizens everywhere go about claiming their rights and engaging their governments, but – from a long-term perspective and by consequence – they will also shift how structures of governance and authority are constructed. The period of metamorphosis that comes between challenging political orthodoxy and the creation of new modalities of participation comes with its own risks, as evident in chaotic transformation processes witnessed beyond the Arab citizen uprisings, largely due to vacuums in the political arenas appropriated by new hegemonic projects. Yet such messy transitions do not come as a surprise, being the direct result of long-standing political exclusion and stifled freedoms. What will be indeed surprising, to end with a bold prediction, is how quickly established political systems will lose their self-evidence and fail to maintain a non-contested legitimacy, faced with a persevering and technologically-empowered popular drives for change that creatively remain one step ahead of renewed authoritarian aspirations.

Hani Morsi is a PhD candidate within the Participation, Power and Social Change research team at IDS.

Who is coming to the party? Looking into the international coalitions around fragility and the Timorese fragility assessment.

By Ricardo SantosRGS_photo

In my first blog post in this topic I quoted the G7+ group of countries’ main goal: “to stop conflict, build nations and eradicate poverty through innovative development strategies, harmonized to the country context, aligned to the national agenda and led by the State and its People.” In its presentation document, they also state that the group “was formed to work in concert with international actors, the private sector, civil society, the media and the people across countries, borders and regions to reform and reinvent a new paradigm for international engagement.

Such an inclusive agenda suggests an openness to engage in constructive forums, both internally and internationally. In a future blog post I will look into the processes of internal dialogue. This one will focus, however, in the international coalitions that are taking shape around “fragility” and how the G7+ fits into these. It will then look into the several fragility assessments and look into the international partners being called to participate. As in the other blogs, a focus in Timor-Leste will allow us to had an extra layer of analysis, looking at what international development partners were called to be part of the fragility assessment exercise and those that do not appear in the roster.

An incursion such as this has to start with the question?: “What is a fragile country?” and “Which are the fragile countries?”. I looked into the lists of the two main development aid donors, if we are to consider the amounts of aid committed: the OECD-DAC countries and the biggest multilateral donor, the World Bank. However, before that, one can look into the definitions of fragility. In its latest report on Fragile States, the OECD-DAC state that what defines a fragile state or province is that it lacks “the ability to develop mutually constructive relations with society and often have a weak capacity to carry out basic governance functions.” (OECD-DAC 2013:11). In the World Bank websites we may not find a definite definition of a Fragile State but in a publication on fragile and conflict affected situations we find that “[v]iolence and conflict are driven by a range of political, economic and security related factors. The vulnerability of countries to violence and conflict (…) is often associated with the absence of capable and legitimate institutions that can address and manage those stresses, whether they are internal or external in nature.” The undertone is in the weakness of governing institutions, or states, to either meet their “basic governance functions” or “manage” political, economic or security related stresses. By looking into the Timorese Fragility Assessment I described in a previous blog post some economic and social preconditions of a “exit from fragility” path may be missing from these definitions. The OECD-DAC definition seems to open some space for the role of the state in enabling these preconditions to be considered. Nevertheless, there’s not much difference between the definitions and also not much from the lists.

The OECD-DAC lists the following countries as fragile: Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Rep., Chad, Comoros, Rep. Congo, Dem. Rep. Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Kenya, Kiribati, Dem. Rep. Korea, Kosovo, Kyrgyz Republic, Liberia, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Fed. States of Micronesia, Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Timor-Leste, Togo, Uganda, West Bank and Gaza, Yemen and Zimbabwe. The World Bank is slightly smaller, with 37 countries, discards Cambodia, Georgia, the Dem. Rep Korea, the Kyrgyz Republic, Rwanda and Sri Lanka and adds Libya, Madagascar and Mali to the group. We can find all the 18 G7+ countries in either lists, safe from Papua New Guinea, a country of much concern to the Australian Aid (and International Relations) effort. However, considering that the G7+ group is seeking also to change aid practices towards countries classified as “fragile”, it is important to notice that half of these are still not part of the peer learning exercise they are sponsoring.

It is also important to understand with which other countries is the G7+ partnering and establishing a dialogue. Critically, other than 15 out of the 18 G7+ countries and multilateral agencies and institutions such as the African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, European Union, OECD, United Nations Development Group (UNDG), World Bank, the only countries endorsing the New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States are members of the OECD-DAC. This is a telling fact. If the G7+, seeking to represent the “Fragile Countries” are trying to change an “Aid culture” and the practices of donors, it is interesting to notice that none of the BRICS bought in into their manifesto and roadmap. One might presume that this self-exclusion comes from their strategic stance of not joining with the said “traditional donors”. However, both Russia and China adhered to the Paris Declaration and Accra Agenda for Action[1], and Brazil’s adherence is to be confirmed. In that sense, if there’s still no clear move towards having the BRICS joining the OECD-DAC, there seems to be a common adherence in principles.

That doesn’t mean that BRICS countries are not actively involved in the changes needed in the structures and processes of aid, or, better yet, of cooperation towards development. This more active role is being the object of research of the Rising Power in Development Programme at IDS. They are also active in the debates towards an International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding, also being followed by IDS in its Development Frontiers in an Insecure World research project. Notably this seems to be a space conquered by the G7+ group. Among the 18 “fragile countries” participating in this dialogue, only Ethiopia and Nepal are not members of the group. Notably, however, none of these countries have a seat in the UN Peacebuilding Commission. Noticeably, also, among the remaining participants in the international dialogue, only Brazil, China and Chile are not OECD-DAC members. Even if this, notably OECD hosted initiative, is a slightly more open space and the presence of Brazil and China is strongly welcomed, one cannot stop wishing that more voices are brought to the dialogue.

A look into the Fragility Assessment exercises is also informative. As the G7+ introduction publication denotes, the G7+ group is piloting assessments in 6 countries: Afghanistan with the partnership of Denmark, Netherlands and United Kingdom, Central African Republic with the partnership of the European Union, Liberia with the partnership of Sweden and United States, South Sudan with the partnership of Denmark, Netherlands and United Kingdom and Timor-Leste with Australia as partner. Again, the partnership of the G7+ with OECD-DAC is clear. There is, however, a significant scope for inclusion in the dialogue.

An analysis of the international stakeholders in the Timorese Fragility Assessment suggests further space for improvements. The exercise involved the bilateral agencies of Germany (one participant), New Zealand (2), Australia (6 participants, from AusAid, Australian Federal Police and Australian Military) and Japan (2). It also involved several multilateral donors (FAO, World Bank, ADB, UNICEF, UNMIT and UNDP). Notably, a few relevant international development partners were not involved in the exercise: among the OECD-DAC, the United States (2nd major donor, according to OECD-DAC statistics, after Australia), Portugal (3rd), the European Union (5th), Korea, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, Spain, Canada and Finland. Among other international partners, China and Brazil have been strong allies of Timor-Leste since its independence, with increasing ties. If the G7+ seeks a process of dialogue between all actors engaged in the development of each member country, the process must be as inclusive as possible. In a next blog post on this theme, I will discuss another reason why I would advocate a full involvement of all donors: the TRUST guidelines of donor engagement are, following the New Deal, key factors of success in the exit path out of fragility. That can only be possible with the involvement of all donors.

In a brief summary, it is clear that the creation of theG7+ group and their New Deal bring new voices into the aid effectiveness dialogue. As an instrument to gear into the debate the experience of “fragile countries”, especially given its proclaimed ethos, there are already signs of a relative success. However, there are also clear signs of improvement opportunities. The G7+ can, and maybe should, seek to involve the other half of countries under the “aid geared to fragile states” model of the World Bank and OECD-DAC. The International Dialogue also opens the opportunity of bringing into reflection the new aid narratives proposed by the BRICS countries, particularly those of China and Brazil. Looking at Timor and, considering that all other fragility assessments have been supported by a group of countries, why not bring Brazil, for instance, as a partner in the Timorese exercise? Finally, as part of the peer learning process, now that some of the pilots are producing first results, why not have another G7+ country as a partner, much in the spirit of the OECD-DAC peer review exercises? The scope of opportunities to improve is still quite open.


[1] Full list here.

Making states care for rights – my dream for a world post-2015

By Maria Cascant SempereMaria Cascant Sempere

Last May, the UN High Level Panel published its Post-2015 report (pdf). Annexe 1 (p.30-31) presents the 12 goals and 54 indicators that may potentially become the new development agenda. Annexe 1 is also what the Nigerian chapter of the UN Millennium Campaign recently shared with national organisations as part of its consultation initiative.

While doing my PhD fieldwork in Nigeria, I was lucky to be part of the Post-2015 discussions at the NGO hosting me. These included a check on rights and accountability agents suh as states and corporations. In this blog I want to share the idea during those discussions that the new agenda needs to be bolder in holding states and other power holders to account on rights.

Rights and States
States have three rights functions. They must be the main providers of rights (i.e. paying for police, judges, teachers, nurses), refrain from violating rights themselves and prevent rights’ violations from third parties.

In the new Agenda, 2 out of 12 goals monitor governance at state and international levels (goals 10 and 12). This is positive as compared to the current Millenium Developmen Goals (MDGs) which only have a global governance goal (MDG 8). Yet Goal 10 still speaks of states’ obligations timidly. Its indicators ranging from legal identity to freedom of speech[i] cover political and civil rights but leave out social, economic, cultural and environmental ones.

No reference to states is made either in other goals like education, health, food and water. None of the 12 goals covers issues of public investment and budget commitments as agreed by states themselves in UN Conferences. As a result, one is left with the doubt of who the main provider of rights is.

Monitoring budgets is vital to make rights real and to avoid having a second unachieved MDG story. This is key not only to country patterns like Nigeria where public investment is scant despite GDP growth but to countries like mine, Spain, where public spending is being drastically cut under the present crisis[ii].

Rights and the Private Sector
The Agenda mentions the private sector’s role in creating growth and investment, but not in respecting rights. Experience shows that growth does not necessarily bring rights. In fact, growth often happens as a result of rights violations. Multinational corporations in particular have forged themselves a reputation on labour, collective and environmental abuses.

The private sector can and should respect rights while contributing to growth and equality, but state and international regulation and monitoring are needed. This also includes some international agencies.

The Need to Monitor Power-Holders to Make Rights Real
Monitoring both rights and obligations is indispensable because one side cannot work without the other if we are to make rights real. For instance:

  • No quality primary education (indicator 3b) and disease reduction (4e) will take place if we do not monitor states following the UNESCO-Fast Track Initiative benchmark (6%-20% of GDP to education) or the Abuja Declaration target (15% of GDP to health) amongst others applicable to each country.
  • No sustainable agriculture and fishing will take place (5d) if we do not monitor those most unsustainable, such as the extractive industries.

We need more indicators overtly monitoring obligations by states and corporations. Those on corruption (Goal 10) and tax evasion (Goal 12) can be read as going in this direction. But we need more, since governance is as much about illegal issues (i.e. corruption) as it is about legal but unethical practices (i.e. unfair budget allocations):

  • Goal 10 should be explicit on monitoring public investment to fulfil rights. This should include political and civil rights as well as social, economic, cultural and environmental rights.
  • Goal 10 should be open on monitoring state rights violations not only of political and civil rights but also of social, economic, cultural and environmental ones.
  • Goal 12 should be clear on the role of corporations (and international agencies) in respecting rights, by monitoring the increase of national and internationalregulatory efforts on them.

Dreaming 2015?
The Post-2015 Agenda invites us to dream, and so we dream. A dream already present in many Civil Society and UN initiatives such as the Participate and Beyond 2015consultations with those suffering rights violations, the UN Millennium Campaign state-targeted mobilisations and public financing and corporate accountability projects that identify, name and shame rights violators. A stronger accent on rights and accountability in the new framework can only reinforce more work of this kind on the ground.

In my dream Post-2015, I see a UN that puts in its MDG shop window what it already does in many of its programmes, reports and conferences; a UN that is bold and dreams of a bold world in which people will enjoy rights because those responsible to provide for them will be watched, crystal clear, on the top UN Agenda.


[i] 1) free and universal legal identity such as birth registrations; 2) public’s right to information; 3) freedom of speech, association, peaceful protest and independent media; 4) public participation in political processes; and 5) reduction of bribery and corruption.

[ii] The Abuja and Maputo Declarations ask for the 15% and 10% of GDP for health and agriculture while the 2013 Nigerian budget allocates 5.7% and 1.7% respectively. The Spanish government reduced the education and health budgets in 14.4% and 22,6%respectively for 2013 as compared to 2012.

Maria-Josep Cascant Sempere is a PhD candidate within the IDS Participation, Power and Social Change research team. She is interested in development activism with a focus on the links between popular education and economic (tax) justice campaigning in Nigeria and the UK. This blogpost is a crosspost from the Participation Power and Social Change blog.

Read other blogs by Maria Cascant