Question: What are your thoughts on the role of UNDP in middle income countries? If each country is unique, wouldn’t you then have to determine UNDP’s role on a case by case basis, and what about the countries themselves? What are they saying?
Answer: Today, two out of three countries where UNDP works are classified as “middle income countries.” And while income growth is very positive, it doesn’t tell us everything – many of these countries are still facing poverty, internal social disparities, increasing unemployment and social vulnerabilities – even more so with the current economic crisis. It doesn’t further human development to think only in terms of income.
Also, the countries that fall into this category are as diverse as they can get. For example, if you examine the levels of capacity in these countries, you see a tremendous divergence between those that have very strong capacity for policy making and implementing a policy in some areas. In other countries, they may also fall into the category of “middle income,” but they don’t have the same depth of capacities within their state institutions, with national leadership or with how they use their knowledge. For UNDP, it makes more sense to look at how we can partner with an individual country, in a way that supports the development of specific capacity needs.
Many middle income countries are also strong partners in development cooperation, globally – not only with neighbours, and not limited to their own regions. So it’s important to support countries so that they can effectively contribute to development cooperation, bilateral and multilateral partnerships – through a mixture of trade, aid, and direct investment – this is a big role for UNDP.
A: Yes and no. At the heart of it, ODA remains a critical instrument for development assistance. It is not dead. But, definitely, we must know how to use it better, and to understand how to leverage it so it has more of an impact. The paper makes a strong case that good national public policy and the ability to leverage global public goods, is a much larger, stronger domain of influence and makes bigger impact on development in countries that want to be (and are) global players, than ODA per se.
For the United Nations, and UNDP, we must use ODA in more effective ways – to strengthen national capacities for better public policy making that will allow countries to manage global public goods and to become much more engaged in the global arena.
Q: How will the shift from technical cooperation to capacity development impact development work?
A: There are two or three fundamental changes in the approach. To me, the technical assistance approach is part of capacity development, so I wouldn’t put it aside and say [technical assistance] is bad, or [technical assistance] is dead. To me, technical assistance was driven on the fact that somehow the advice and the expertise was outside, and had to be brought in. In some areas, that’s still true. It doesn’t matter if it’s a [least developed country] or a middle income [country], or which region you’re part of. Not all countries have everything they need inside of their countries, so accepting that there’s expertise outside, and knowledge outside, is part of that globalization and open mindedness on the fact that you could always learn from the others’ experience. But the difference with the capacity development approach is that it starts by saying – “you have the capacity, endogenously.” It’s home grown, it’s there. Now, where do you want to see it move?
So, the starting point is different. The days of an expert coming in and telling a country what to do are over. We have a responsibility to make sure that we invest in national capacities – the kind that grows and stays, whether UNDP is there or not. And it applies to every area of development, whether you’re a climate change expert, or an access to justice or a human rights expert.
Because it is so open, it leaves room for real ingenuity, and the results of this approach are always interesting. It’s fascinating to see what countries have done over time – and the triggers they use to effect lasting change.
But at the end of the day, I think the one thing that matters most is leadership – leadership that gives you the space to take risks, to innovate, and try new things. To me, leadership is the primary trigger to make sure capacity development is strong and alive and well. There’s a lot that you can do to work in that period where you transition to what we would say is strong, good leadership. So, it’s not about sitting back and doing nothing. Reformists all over the world have never waited. So there are things you can do.
You work on the other triggers: Knowledge, increased access to knowledge and knowledge sharing across countries, across regions. Looking at how you open up institutions to be more horizontal rather than hierarchical structures. Looking at how non-state, or citizens, interact and force their state institutions to be more responsive.
The changes and those who are willing to work and manage these changes and take those risks and leap forward, you see over time that these are the countries that are making significant moves to better human development.
.GIF "What's this? Automatically download our video and audiopodcasts as they are posted online"){kind=small}
