The Development Studies Sector in the United Kingdom Challenges for the New Millennium

A Report Prepared for the Department for International Development

by Merilee S. Grindle and Mary E. Hilderbrand

Harvard Institute for International Development Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA September 1999

Table of Contents Advisory Committees Abbreviations and Acronyms List Preface

iii iv v

Executive Summary

vi

Introduction

1

Development Studies: Investment for the Future 1. Development, Imperfectly Understood 1.a. Investing in Knowledge Generation 1.b. Investing in Development Education 1.c. Investing in Discussions about Development

4 5 7 9

2. An Opportunity to Increase U.K. Contributions to Development 2.a. Strengths of U.K. Development Studies 2.b. Importance of the Development Studies Sector for the U.K. 2.c. Investing in the U.K. versus Investing in Developing Countries….

10 10 12 13

The Challenges of Sustainability and Quality 3. The Institutional Setting and Situation 3.a. The U.K. Context for Development Studies 3.b. Financing Development Studies 3.c. Challenges for Sector Institutions 3.d. Sector Structure 3.e. What Should Be Done? 3.e.1. Principles to guide funding 3.e.2. Funding options

15 16 17 19 24 25 26 29

4. Research in Development Studies 4.a. Research Output 4.b. Quality Issues 4.c. Multidisciplinarity 4.d. What Should Be Done?

32 32 34 35 36

5. Training for Development 5.a. Post-graduate Education 5.a.1. Regional origin of post-graduate students

38 38 39

i

5.a.2. Reproduction of the sector 5.a.3. Quality, relevance, and field Experience 5.a.4. Training at the master of arts/sciences level Non-degree Programs What Should Be done?

41 42 42 43 44

6. Outreach to Influence Development Thinking and Practice 6.a. Dissemination and Outreach 6.b. Impact and Influence 6.c. What Should Be done?

47 47 51 56

7. A Role for DFID 7.a. A Sector-DFID Partnership 7.b. What Should Be Done?

56 56 57

Appendices 1. 2. 3. 4.

61 64 68 69

5.b. 5.c.

Terms of Reference List of People Interviewed U.K. Development Studies Institutions Survey International Institutions Survey

ii

Advisory Committees International Advisory Committee Gerald Helleiner, University of Toronto Richard Jolly, United Nations Development Programme Thandika Mkandawire, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development Francisco Sagasti, AGENDA: Peru, FORO Nacional/Internacional Gita Sen, Indian Institute of Management

Development Studies Association Advisory Committee Keith Bezanson, Institute for Development Studies Sara Gibbs, International NGO Training and Research Centre John Harriss, Development Studies Institute, London School of Economics Colin Kirkpatrick, Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester Simon Maxwell, Overseas Development Institute Paul Mosley, Reading University Frances Stewart, Queen Elizabeth House, Oxford University

iii

Abbreviations and Acronyms CAS CDS CRDT CSAE DANIDA DESTIN DFID DPP DPPC DPU ESCOR ESRC HEFC IDDSPP IDPM IDS IIED INTRAC LSE NGO NRI ODI QEH RAE SDC SDS/ODG SIDA SOAS USAID UCL UNDP UNICEF

Centre of African Studies, University of Edinburgh Centre for Development Studies Centre for Rural Development and Training, University of Wolverhampton Centre for the Study of African Economies, Oxford University Danish International Development Agency Development Studies Institute, London School of Economics Department for International Development Development Policy and Practice, Open University Development and Project Planning Centre, University of Bradford Development Planning Unit, University College London Economic and Social Committee on Research Economic and Social Research Council Higher Education Funding Council International Development Department, School of Public Policy, University of Birmingham Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester Institute of Development Studies University of Sussex International Institute for Environment and Development International Non Governmental Organization Training and Research Centre London School of Economics Non Governmental Organization Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich Overseas Development Institute Queen Elizabeth House Research Assessment Exercise Swiss Development Corporation School of Development Studies/Overseas Development Group, University of East Anglia Swedish International Development Agency School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London United States Agency for International Development University College London United Nations Development Program United Nations Children's Fund

iv

Preface This report is a strategic assessment of the development studies sector in the United Kingdom. It was commissioned by the Department for International Development (DFID) in November 1998.

Many people have helped make this study possible. Charles Clift, Susanna Moorehead, and Peter Grant of DFID gave us the opportunity to conduct it, facilitated consultation with the development studies institutions and advisory committees, and helped us gain access to DFID staff and data. The members of the International Advisory Committee and the Development Studies Association Advisory Committee shared their insights and gave constructive comments at various points throughout the study. We could not have conducted the assessment without the cooperation of the leaders, professional staff, and administrators of development studies institutions, and they generously gave of their time, knowledge, and perspectives. We received comments and assistance from Harvard Institute for International Development colleagues, including Dwight Perkins, Pauline Peters, Martha Chen, Lisa Cooke, Richard Goldman, Richard Pagett, and John Thomas. Alexander Villanueva assisted with research, and Thomas Hargrove edited the report. Rebecca Tolk Clark, Sam Adofo, and Alfreda Stirton helped with administrative and logistical support. We want to thank all of them, along with all the others who completed surveys, generously allowed us to interview them, or provided other kinds of information or help. Any errors of fact or interpretation are ours alone.

v

Executive Summary

The Development Studies Sector in the United Kingdom: Challenges for the New Millennium

This report is a strategic assessment of the structure, conduct, and performance of the development studies sector in the United Kingdom. It considers challenges that the sector faces in the years ahead, in light of the need for development studies internationally; the role of U.K. development studies; and the strengths and weaknesses, and problems and opportunities, facing the sector. It makes recommendations for the sector’s future development and the government’s role in implementation of the recommendations. The assessment is primarily based on surveys of U.K. development studies institutions and interviews with leaders and staff of those institutions. Other sources include surveys of international development institutions in other countries, of Development Studies Association members, and of DFID advisers; interviews with funding agencies in the U.K.; a bibliometric analysis; and interviews with development studies practitioners in international agencies and foundations.

Development, Imperfectly Understood The world is changing rapidly, and globalization threatens the future with a growing gap between the prosperous and the vulnerable. We believe that development studies can play an important role in understanding and responding to how rapid change affects people, communities, organizations, governments, and international regimes, worldwide, in both the north and south. We believe that development studies can play an important role in advancing the broader impact of positive changes that globalization brings, and in ameliorating the consequences of negative changes. Making that support effective requires investments in knowledge generation and training, and in outreach to influence the discussion of development issues. Knowledge Generation. Knowledge generated in the past continues to be important in understanding the problems that face peoples and countries in the south, as well as in countries in transition. But simultaneously, many persistent problems of underdevelopment have become global issues, with causes and consequences beyond the specific context of developing countries. They have also become increasingly complex. Alleviation of these problems requires continued tracing of their roots and impact, and understanding of the ways global changes translate into potential benefits or burdens for individuals and collectivities. Development Education. As democratization and the move toward market economies spread, decisions on how to resolve problems of development will involve many more decision-makers than ever before. To make wise choices, these decisionmakers need access to information. We believe that knowledge generated about the

vi

global challenge of development must be more widely shared through education. The focus of such education should be those who will continue to generate knowledge, practitioners who will actively adopt and implement appropriate solutions to development problems, and the vast numbers of people who must adapt to living in a rapidly changing and increasingly complex world. Discussion of Development. Investing in discussions of development in today’s world has both demographic and technological dimensions. From a demographic perspective, the number of people who need to engage in such discussions has increased dramatically. Technologically, the advance of information technology is especially important in increasing the linkage of individuals and institutions in worldwide networks of those who share interest in, or the need to know about, innovations in particular fields, or who make decisions that affect the lives of many.

An Opportunity for U.K. Contributions in Development Strengths of the U.K Development Studies Sector. The need, worldwide, to understand and address increasingly complex and global development issues creates an opportunity for U.K. development studies. The U.K. sector is large and diverse. It has been successful in creating cross-disciplinary institutions, producing multidisciplinary research, and encouraging dialogue among scholars in distinct disciplines. The sector’s activities have created strong global networks of researchers, policy makers, policy advisors, activists, and trainers that offer a base for intellectual collaboration and for linking knowledge and practice. U.K. research is also widely recognized for its capacity to dissent from mainstream—largely U.S.—views, and thereby to set the critical agenda in development. Moreover, U.K. development studies stands out for its contributions to understanding the micro-foundations of development. The sector has long taken a leading role in insisting that social and human welfare, and the conditions in which poor people live, are central ways to measure the advance of development. The sector also has a strong infrastructure in its libraries and collections of documents and gray literature for knowledge building about development. We believe that these strengths position the U.K. particularly well to make important contributions to understanding and responding to development problems in a context of globalization. Returns to investment in the U.K.’s development studies sector can be particularly valuable. The Importance of the Development Studies Sector to DFID. The Department for International Development (DFID) relies on the development studies sector for expertise shared through advising, commissioned research, and consulting. Furthermore, DFID’s own work is enhanced by access to excellent research, well-trained people, and a supportive environment for development assistance that the sector helps create. DFID benefits from the sector’s contacts in developing countries and its intellectual leadership in international organizations. Without the development studies sector, DFID would be hindered in its capacity to develop policies and programs, recruit staff, and maintain global networks. Without

vii

the sector’s intellectual capital, DFID could not aspire to contribute significantly to the formulation of international responses to the challenges of poverty and the gap between prosperity and vulnerability.

The Challenge of Sustainability and Quality Despite its strengths, the U.K. will only be able to seize the opportunity in development studies if it can deal effectively with difficult issues of sustainability and quality assurance. Concerted efforts are needed to alter the environment for development studies in the U.K. and the conditions that affect the performance of its institutions and their intellectual output. The U.K. Context for Development Studies. The current context for development studies is difficult. On the positive side, there clearly is considerable international demand for the sector’s research, education, and outreach activities. There is also domestic demand, particularly from DFID, for its products. But other factors undercut the implications of this demand considerably. Many centers for development studies are in universities made less attractive places to work by government policies for higher education in the 1980s and 1990s. Resource scarcities have put pressure on personnel and programs, and have made the attraction of the best minds to research careers more difficult. Policy changes of the Higher Education Funding Councils (HEFCs) have altered the incentive structures in many centers. DFID policies on core funding and training grants have had major consequences for the financial basis of many institutions in the sector. These changes have hurt some institutions and created opportunities for others. But, generally, limited resources have meant that staff are increasingly pressured to generate more income and pushed toward short-term activities. The institutions’ response has shown real commitment to development. But we believe that the current context for development studies—with its pressures toward shortterm activities and finance—will take a toll in the quality and vitality of the centers’ research, training, and consulting. The Institutional Challenge. Although many development studies programs have grown during the 1990s, an increasing number of sector institutions have budget deficits. Some face critical financial situations. Institutional income increasingly comes from research grants and consulting, while training, especially non-degree training, has fallen as a proportion of income. Long-term resources that cover core activities are especially scarce. Development studies in the U.K. is conducted by diverse institutions that face distinct challenges in ensuring their own survival. These institutions vary greatly. Some are relatively comfortable in terms of priorities, staff careers, and capacity to set intellectual agendas. These include many of the more traditionally academic departments or centers, along with NGOs. Others are very vulnerable to short-term financial issues, with staff working under conditions of great uncertainty. The more vulnerable institutions include university centers that have traditionally done a great deal of consulting; university-based but self-financing institutions involved in training and development management; and “independent” development studies centers.

viii

We believe that the institutional challenge for U.K. centers for development studies is dual: to ensure sustainability, while maintaining and enhancing the quality of work. Principles to guide funding. We recommend a series of five principles to structure future sector funding.




The need for core activity support and long-term funding opportunities should be recognized as central to both quality and sustainability.

High-quality research, training, and advisory work cannot be sustained without resources for core activities. The quality of even short- and medium-term research and consulting rests on long-term investments in staff and infrastructure.




A principle of competition based on adequate resources and longer-term horizons should be adopted.

Competition for funding is the best way to ensure a market for excellence in development studies. But without sufficient funding, competition will not produce excellence.




Public sector funding for development studies should be increased; but, to avoid dependence, institutions should also diversify their sources of support.

Public sector investment is important because of externalities that characterize the sector and lead to under-funding in a market-based system. In addition, the government should invest in the sector because such investments help the government achieve its goals. At the same time, sector institutions should try harder to find other funding sources, as excessive dependence on DFID makes them hypersensitive to changes in DFID policies and less able to set their own intellectual agendas.




The sector and DFID should collaborate in developing new funding sources.

The sector needs assistance in diversifying its funding sources. DFID could help by pressing for changes in relevant laws and policies, as well as by working with the private sector and foundations to encourage new funding.




The sector and DFID should discuss and assess funding mechanisms that respond to the needs for sustainability and quality assurance.

Consultation is especially important because any changes in funding policies create winners and losers in the sector. A number of public funding options might be considered, among them grants for centers of excellence, resource center grants, matching grants, facilities and outreach grants, and a Development Studies Research Council. Sector institutions might consider options such as corporate partners and membership programs to bring in resources to help cover core activities.

ix

The Intellectual Challenge: Research, Training, and Outreach. Assurance of the quality of its work is an important part of the intellectual agenda before the development studies sector. Research. We believe that to remain internationally competitive, U.K. researchers must demonstrate disciplinary depth and methodological rigor. At the same time, the ability to take a comprehensive view of development lies behind much of the sector’s past intellectual triumph, and is the cornerstone of why international agencies and practitioners in other countries look to the U.K. for scholarship on development. Giving up this comparative advantage, we believe, would be a loss to scholarship in the U.K., and to capacity, worldwide, to understand the complex problems of development. To advance disciplinary rigor while maintaining multidisciplinarity, we recommend that:
institutions encourage collaborative initiatives that increase cross-disciplinary work and disciplinary expertise;
the sector work within the existing structure of the Research Assessment Exercise to strengthen recognition of development studies. Training. U.K. training programs in development have grown significantly in number of students and programs. The proportion of students that are funded, however, has decreased significantly, making attraction of the best students difficult for many centers. Lack of funding for Ph.D. students, particularly those from the U.K. and Africa, is worrisome. In addition, funding for field research appears extremely limited. The training focus for both degree and non-degree programs is becoming narrower, the number of students per program is often small, and annual fluctuations in enrollments can make it difficult to maintain continuity over time. Furthermore, the primary motive for establishing new programs is not always their intellectual merit. At the masters degree level, the short duration of many programs causes us to be concerned that students are getting too little depth in any subject to master concepts and core disciplinary methodologies.








To respond to these training issues, we recommend the following: formation of a committee to assess the intellectual merit, standards, and focus of degree programs; increased funding for scholarships and field research; the development and maintenance of data bases of graduates; assessment of the short-course market; and efforts to support education in “global citizenship” at pre-university and undergraduate levels.

Outreach. The intellectual agenda remains fairly sterile unless a concerted effort is made to ensure that the products of research in the U.K. are widely disseminated and reach a broad range of decision makers, in a timely manner and in a format that is useful to them. Development studies institutions appear to be doing quite well in this area. In addition to traditional dissemination in scholarly publications, institutions and researchers produce a wide range of products aimed at informing practitioners and educating the public about development. Many are involved in networks of scholars and practitioners

x

that share lessons, insights, and experience on particular topics. Nevertheless, in many cases there seemed to be a disjuncture between researchers’ awareness of ways to influence development policy and practice and their ability or opportunity to do so. Many researchers would welcome opportunities to be more involved first-hand in development management and policy making. We also found that many partnerships with institutions abroad were vibrant and useful means for U.K. centers to actively discuss global development issues. But in other cases, and despite many good intentions, the partnerships created are hollow shells, largely because financing is short-term and insufficient. The currently available funding does not seem sufficient to produce effective partnerships. Measuring actual impact or influence is difficult, but the surveys provided numerous examples that suggest considerable impact of sector research, training, and consulting work. Furthermore, we found a strong recognition within international organizations such as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the World Bank of the influence of intellectual approaches and development scholars from the U.K. This was especially marked regarding the U.K. contribution to the Human Development Report and the World Development Report, both important in setting international agendas and shaping international development approaches.







Our recommendations to enhance outreach and influence include: increased funding for conferences and workshops, especially those bringing together scholars and practitioners; more opportunities for researchers to participate in policy making or managerial roles; increased investment in information technology (IT) and exploration of creative ways to use IT to enhance global learning and discussion about development; and increased funding for partnerships, with a sufficient time-frame and terms to allow the relationships to grow from partners’ common interests, commitments, and needs.

A Role for DFID We believe that DFID can play a valuable part in strengthening the development studies sector. Clearly, one of the most important roles that DFID can play is to seek additional resources for the sector.








We also recommend that DFID: alter its funding and contractual mechanisms to consider the importance of core activities and longer-term time horizons; continue to support primarily applied activities, but not just those with a short-term perspective; continue to consult with the sector about research program themes and keep the definition of themes broad to encourage innovative research; maintain and expand funding opportunities in its responsive window; continue to work to minimize the transaction costs of tendering, consistent with fairness and quality considerations;

xi




provide initial funding for a professional support organization that would serve as a clearing house of information on funding, and other information important for the sector as a whole. Finally, we recommend that DFID:




assume a central role in building support for development studies in the U.K.

xii

The Development Studies Sector in the United Kingdom: Challenges for the New Millennium

Introduction We will continue to generate knowledge and understanding of how best to tackle the problems of development. To effect change, knowledge is essential, both for the UK itself and for our partners in development. At a time of great change in the globalizing world, knowledge and ideas are particularly important to secure progress. -White Paper on International Development, 19971 The development studies sector of the U.K. is positioned to enter the new millennium as a well-regarded provider of knowledge, training, and advice on complex issues of development. But with globalization, the world is changing at an unprecedented pace, redefining the challenges of development. Thus, the advent of the 21st century is an important time to consider the future role of the U.K.’s development studies sector. What is necessary to allow it to sustain and strengthen its capacity as:






a producer of relevant knowledge about development in an increasingly knowledge-driven world? an effective educator in building critically important capacity to understand, and act upon, complex issues of development? a wise adviser to policy makers and managers in government and civil society organizations in the U.K. and worldwide?

The U.K.’s development studies sector will be best able to offer high-quality knowledge, education, and advice if it is characterized by several conditions. First, the sector as a whole must have adequate funding, so its institutions can excel in their work and invest in the infrastructure to sustain it. Second, its institutions must have sufficient financial security to plan activities with long-term horizons, because excellence is built on prior intellectual investments. Third, it must be characterized by a diversity of institutions with distinct foci, expertise, and orientations, because development issues are complex and the users of knowledge, training, and advice have a wide range of needs. Finally, the sector must have the intellectual independence to investigate, discuss, and disseminate ideas--fundamental to development studies--and to question existing paradigms, policies, and orientations.

1

Eliminating World Poverty: A Challenge for the 21st Century, Department for International Development, November, 1997.

1

With these conditions, the development studies sector will be well-positioned to devote time and energy to a critical intellectual agenda for the future, an agenda defined by globalization--the dominant dynamic of change affecting people worldwide. Development studies has the responsibility to generate the knowledge, training, and advice that can help poor countries, poor regions, and poor people understand and benefit from globalization, and be protected from its negative consequences. This means commitment to the understanding of complex issues, and efforts to map patterns of change from the micro levels of livelihoods and communities to national policies and international markets and institutions, as affected by globalization. It means finding solutions to the problems that globalization pressures create for developing countries, and meeting the challenges they offer to all countries. The U.K. development studies sector has a comparative advantage in taking on these challenges. It has an established tradition of multidisciplinary work in the social sciences that is essential for understanding the complex issues of change. Moreover, the depth and diversity of U.K. institutions for studying and resolving development problems are unparalleled. The sector has some of the world’s most prominent scholars of development. Its infrastructure of library collections makes it a mecca for students and scholars worldwide. Substantively, the U.K.’s longterm investment in focused research and deep knowledge of particular countries and regions places it far ahead of other countries in its ability to explore the micro-foundations of development and the connections between what happens at that level and the macro level of global change. Furthermore, development practitioners from institutions worldwide seek professionals from the U.K. development studies sector because of its tradition of immersing scholarship in the practical problems of development. Nevertheless, the sector must address difficult constraints, and time is important. Many other institutions concerned with international development are now repositioning for the future. The U.K. must take steps now to ensure that it will keep its comparative advantage.

The report This report is a strategic assessment of the structure, conduct, and performance of the U.K. development studies sector, and suggests how to ensure that it develops and maintains the characteristics that will keep it relevant in a future dominated by rapid change. It addresses the challenges that the sector faces in the years ahead, particularly regarding: 1) the need for development studies internationally; 2) the U.K.’s role in providing research, training, and advice to support development studies; 3) the strengths and weaknesses, and problems and opportunities, that the sector faces; 4) recommendations for the sector’s future development; and 5) the government’s role in implementing the recommendations. The study is based on a variety of information sources. The major sources were a survey of 29 U.K. research and training institutions in development studies—we received 20 responses— and interviews with leaders and staff of 25 U.K development studies institutions. Other sources included: a survey of 45 international development institutions abroad (22 responses); a survey of about 460 U.K.-based members of the Development Studies Association (107 responses); an informal survey of DFID advisers (39 responses); interviews with funding agencies in the U.K. and overseas; a bibliometric analysis of 21 development studies journals; an influence assessment based on canvassing practitioners and publications of the United Nations Development Programme, the World Bank, and regional development banks; and meetings with the

2

Development Studies Association Advisory Panel, the International Advisory Panel, the Conference of Development Studies Centers, and the Economic and Social Committee on Research (the ESCOR Committee).

3

Development Studies: Investment for the Future 1.

Development, Imperfectly Understood One of the main constraints to effective development assistance is an imperfect understanding of social, economic, political, and physical environments. -White Paper on International Development, 1997

Is there an international need for development studies? We believe so. The world is changing rapidly and ideas matter in such a world. They matter as people, communities, organizations, and governments search for ways to understand processes of change, and for insights on how to adapt to them. Ideas matter as leaders and citizens seek ways to address the dislocations that increase tensions within and among countries. When great changes take place, ideas, and how they are adapted to problems of development, can make a difference in the choices made by local, national, and international decision makers in framing public issues and in responding to current problems. Ideas can change the course of history. The engine of rapid change in today’s world is globalization—the extensive and worldwide flow of goods, services, capital, and information. But globalization is a two-edged sword in terms of the changes it generates. On one hand, globalization contributes significantly to improved living standards of large numbers of the world’s people, in both the north and south. Some developing countries, for example, have dramatically increased their share of trade in goods and services. This creates jobs and improves livelihoods for many. Moreover, spurred by the rapid expansion of global markets, governments around the world are converging on similar policies for sounder economic management. Increased awareness of social conditions and the spread of innovative ideas are improving access to education, health, and information for many, and contribute to more economic, social, and political opportunities for women and minorities. Similarly, the spread of ideas and increased relevance of international and national civil societies help spur the adoption of democratic processes of decision making at national and local levels. Globalization has increased pressures everywhere to improve institutions of governance, to deal with corruption in public life, and to adopt more environmentally sound practices. Throughout the world, non-state actors, such as representatives of the private sector and international and domestic non-governmental organizations (NGOs), increasingly contribute to public policy agendas. But along with these very positive trends, globalization raises the specter of further marginalizing those who can’t gain access to, or benefit from, increased flows of goods, services, capital, and information. The world’s 1.3 billion people who live on less than one U.S. dollar a day are most likely to suffer ill consequences from globalization, for they are farthest from the jobs, opportunities, technology, and innovative ideas that it creates.

4

Current trends also mean rapid punishment for countries that ignore or avoid adapting economic policies and regulatory regimes to new international standards. Unfortunately, that often means significant distress for their citizens. Globalization brings greater financial vulnerability, because markets, worldwide, are increasingly interdependent and rapid financial flows can suddenly alter domestic economies. Governments are now less able to protect their citizens from such external financial threats. Globalization has increased the exploitation of poor workers and of children and women. It also increases threats of environmental damage, disease, cross-border conflict, migration, political instability, and crime. Globalization can foster more hostility between those who benefit from change and those who do not. Levels of internal strife are rising in many countries, often because heightened international migration has brought to light many ethnic, religious, and cultural differences among people. Ultimately, the peoples and countries that globalization is making more vulnerable can threaten the ability of those who have benefited to enjoy their prosperity. We believe that development studies can play an important role in understanding and responding to how rapid change affects the world’s people, communities, organizations, and governments. Development studies merits support for its potential role in advancing the broader impact of positive changes, and in ameliorating the consequences of negative changes. Making that support effective requires investments in knowledge generation, training, and discussion of development issues.

1.a.

Investing in Knowledge Generation Research is an important weapon in the fight against poverty. Without research, many development interventions would fail or be much less successful; and research has significant multiplier effects— solutions to the causes of poverty in one part of the developing world may well be replicable in another. -White Paper on International Development, 1997

Many of the problems of development—poverty, inequality, and weak institutions--are familiar and have always been at the core of why some countries prosper while others do not. Understanding these problems calls for a variety of skills that social scientists can focus on real world problems, and requires insights into complex local, national, regional, and international dynamics. Since the development studies field emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, understanding these issues has involved ongoing basic research as well as the application of knowledge to specific problems. Insights generated by this research, plus practical experience, have contributed considerably to what we know about developing countries. Past investments in research have also led to dramatic advances in developing countries in health, education, and life expectancy, and provide important inputs into national economic and social policy management.

5

Knowledge generated in the past continues to be important in understanding the problems facing peoples and countries of the south, as well in countries in transition. But simultaneously, many persistent problems of underdevelopment have become global issues, with causes and consequences beyond the specific context of developing countries. Alleviation of these problems requires continued tracing of their roots and impact, and understanding of the ways global changes translate into potential benefits or burdens for people, communities, organizations, and governments. For example, poverty and inequality increasingly reflect national and global economic dynamics, as more local people are involved in national and international market exchanges. Consequently, those who study local economies must increasingly understand their linkages with government policies and the dynamics of international trade. They must consider global financial movements and labor market trends, shifting technologies around the world, and the social and political linkages of local producers with those who live far beyond their boundaries. Similarly, the rapid expansion of civil society, the worldwide democratization process, and the extraordinary growth of NGOs have introduced significant new actors whose behavior is relevant to analyzing politics, public policy, and public management. The increasingly global nature of development problems was shown in the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98, when rapid capital flows across the world increased pressure on decision makers to understand immediate causes of crisis as well as their policy, management, and institutional roots. We cannot fully understand or respond to these global issues without renewed investment in knowledge generation, including both basic and applied research. The increasing complexity and interrelatedness of development issues requires scholars and practitioners not only to understand them in terms of global context, but to understand the broader issues that surround them. One good example is research and experience with complex humanitarian emergencies. Such situations are caused by interrelated problems such as war, the failure of a state, ethnic strife, famine, and economic collapse. Responding to and planning recovery from such emergencies require diverse knowledge, including public health, psychology, economics, infrastructure, management, conflict resolution, environmental science, and systems engineering. Similarly, we increasingly understand poverty and inequality as complex and multicausal issues. Students of development must draw on history, sociology, politics, economics, anthropology, religion, and geography, plus fields like public health and education, to disentangle webs of causality that create and sustain poverty, and to find ways to eliminate it. Furthermore, such interrelated issues emerge and require solutions faster with globalization, putting new pressures on those who seek to understand and respond to them. These changes mean that those engaged in development studies should devote more time and effort to the understanding of issues across national boundaries and social science disciplines. But generating knowledge is an uncertain process. Most research builds on prior knowledge and either expands what we know modestly, or reinforces what we think we know. Occasionally, of course, research produces important new insights and alters the way we understand real world phenomena, such as when Amartya Sen observed the issue of the missing

6

women.2 But typically, knowledge advances through a multitude of researchers working independently or semi-independently of one another. Increasingly, those who engage in these activities are able to meet and discuss findings and experiences in real or electronic space. Yet research is often conducted in disciplinary settings in which the customary language of discussion precludes cross-disciplinary discussions. Thus, knowledge can accumulate across time, but within disciplinary cells. The pull of disciplinarity, and the tendency for knowledge to be balkanized within disciplinary languages, appears to be increasing—even as researchers become more convinced of the multidisciplinary nature of development problems. Adding to the uncertainty and complexity, returns to investments in knowledge generation are difficult to trace. Specific recommendations on policies and programs, for example, generally pre-suppose in-depth understanding of the dynamics of economic, political, and social development. Therefore, recommendations must be built on long-term research focused on underlying dynamics, rather than the specific problem at hand. The day-to-day value of basic research may be obscure, although much applied problem solving would be impossible without the longer-term investment. Nevertheless, the fact that knowledge is advanced in disjointed and uncertain ways cannot obscure its future importance. There is no question that understanding and responding to the global face of development is critical in today’s world. The principal beneficiaries of change must be among those most concerned about building the intellectual capital to understand rapid change and its positive and negative consequences. Clearly, increased investment in knowledge generation about complex development issues is essential to the solution of difficult and threatening real world problems.

1.b.

Investing in Development Education Every child should be educated about development issues, so that they can understand the key global considerations which will shape their lives. And every adult should have the chance to influence the Government’s policies. -White Paper on International Development, 1997

Support for education is the necessary companion to investment in knowledge-building in confronting the global development challenge. Education, whether through degree programs, short courses, or in-house training, is key to expanding the reach of knowledge about 2

Sen used demographic data to show that that there were 100 million fewer women in the world (81 million of whom were “missing” in China and India) than there “should be,” biologically speaking. This observation helped focus attention on issues of gender inequality and the innovative use of statistical information to explore critical issues of human development. Other examples of insights that alter how issues are perceived are Sen’s observation that democracies do not suffer from famines, and works of Robert Chambers on seasonality, Frances Stewart on the social and gender impacts of structural adjustment, and Paul Collier on trade shocks.

7

development. It is essential to understanding the problems and, equally important, to developing and disseminating their solutions. Indeed, making choices about how to resolve problems of development today involves many more decision-makers than at any time in the past. That trend will continue into the future. New knowledge about the global development challenge, we believe, must be shared and discussed more widely through education. Its focus should be those who will continue to generate knowledge, practitioners who will actively adopt and implement solutions to development problems, and the vast numbers who must adapt to living in a rapidly changing and increasingly complex world. Educational institutions must be able to attract and focus the best minds on developmental issues. Rewarding careers must await those who pursue research. Regrettably, scholarships are limited, in much of the world, for those who want to study development problems. Even more telling, few can envision rewarding careers as development researchers. Thus, the quality of development students declines. So, too, does the quality of research. The lack of incentives for new researchers is indeed serious, considering the potential consequences for the already growing development gap. The training of practitioners is critical to the ability of societies to understand the changes that affect them, and to respond with appropriate innovations in institutions, policies, and programs. Rapid change requires that public officials, whether elected or appointed, be highly knowledgeable about particular issues, with the technical and analytic skills to interpret complex problems. They need to appreciate processes of policy design and adoption, and improved management systems. They need communication and negotiation skills. Those in the burgeoning organizations of domestic and international civil society need similar skills if they are to advocate policy change or respond to issues like environmental degradation, poverty, community empowerment, human rights, literacy, health, and humanitarian assistance. Similarly, private sector leaders and managers need improved capacities to compete in rapidly changing and technologically sophisticated markets. The need is clear to invest in preparing such people with the skills and insights to understand and act on the factors that bring both increased prosperity and increased vulnerability in their wake. The most important mission for education in development may be to equip citizens, globally, to live in a rapidly changing and increasingly multicultural world. One of the most pervasive indicators of globalization is the extent to which migration has affected the diversity of national populations. Increased tension and hostility among distinct nationality, religious, or ethnic groups are among the most troublesome trends spawned by population movement. Some countries have managed these tensions better than others, but extensive investment in education about development and the value of diversity is clearly central to both domestic and international peace and stability. The 1977 White Paper claim, cited above, can be generalized as an imperative for all countries. Public awareness about development issues not only underpins good foreign policy and development assistance, it is also important for the day-to-day lives of citizens who are affected by globalization consequences.

8

1.c.

Investing in Discussion about Development We need to know what will work and what will not work. We remain aware that we do not have all the answers. -White Paper on International Development, 1997

Generating knowledge and providing education must be accompanied by increased investment in opportunities to discuss the global challenge of development. Such discussions can improve individual and institutional decisions on how to confront the problems that rapid change brings. The task of investing in discussions of development today has both demographic and technological dimensions. Demographically, the number of people who should be engaged in such discussions has increased dramatically. Technologically, the means to engage in such discussions are expanding rapidly. As the 20th century closes, most of the world’s countries have become formal democracies characterized by increasingly active civil societies. Similarly, most countries have adopted market-oriented economic models to spur development, and have significantly decreased the extent to which the state guides resource allocation and decisions of economic agents. And globalization now affects virtually every country through rapid technological change, the reach of trade and financial flows, and the transnational effects of conflict, migration, environmental threats, disease, and information. Democracy, markets, and global change are similar in that each is characterized by a highly decentralized system for decision making. In democracies, citizens’ participation influences decision making about governmental policies and programs. The aggregation of their votes, opinions, and support is the ultimate arbiter of what government can accomplish. In market economies, individuals, households, and firms—rather than state officials or agencies—make the principal decisions about how resources are allocated. The aggregation of their decisions to save or spend, produce or not produce, or pay or evade taxes determines how much countries can grow and generate public resources. Similarly, a plethora of national governments, international agencies, transnational businesses, policy regimes, and advocacy groups share responsibility for making and carrying out decisions that affect global, national, and local communities. Their activities and decisions affect how economic, political, social, and environmental conditions are ameliorated or worsened. Knowledge will need to be disseminated and shared differently than in the past, because of the increased number and diversity of decision makers for public policy, economic welfare, and international conditions. Knowledge about public policy is a good example. In many countries, the policy-making tradition has been that a relatively few people in centralized governments, consulting with a few politically relevant interests, make decisions without widespread citizen participation--or even citizens’ knowledge about those decisions. But as democracy becomes more embedded in such countries, many more people are engaged in policy discussions, and more will press proposals for governmental change. Some of these actors will represent very local constituencies and some, formal economic interests. Others

9

will represent concerns such as those related to gender and quality of life, and still others, national and international interests. Each of these constituencies—and many others—will press for influence over policy decisions, and the generation and consumption of knowledge about particular issues. Similarly, markets and global trends are affected by the radical expansion of decision-makers and constituencies. Besides these trends, the advance of information technology has especially helped increase the linkage of individuals and institutions in worldwide networks of those who share interests, and need to know about innovations, in particular fields, or who must make decisions that affect many peoples’ lives. Indeed, knowledge networks are becoming the most important means for generating and disseminating ideas. The importance of knowledge networks will probably increase in the future as information technology advances, resulting in a “collapse of distance,” broader access to such technology, and increased experience in how to benefit from it. Given the explosion of such networks, organizations that produce and disseminate knowledge about development must consider how to use such relationships strategically to extend knowledge and inform practice. The establishment and sustenance of knowledge networks take time, effort, and the development of trust. That means investing in a variety of activities that introduce and maintain the vitality of information exchange. Advances in communication technology enable wider participation and the collapse of distance, so researchers must tap new sources of insight. Also, knowledge about policy issues and options must be made more widely available for informed discussion and decision making. Investing in broad-based development discussion can improve world living conditions and can convey increased influence over the quality and content of decisions about how to confront the challenges of globalization.

2.

An Opportunity to Increase U.K. Contributions to Development

Worldwide, there is a clear need to invest in the understanding of development issues, and in finding solutions to difficult problems caused by rapid change. The rationale for such investments is even clearer in the U.K. First, the U.K. development studies sector has strengths that give it a comparative advantage for contributing to the understanding of development problems. Second, a strong development studies sector enables the U.K. government, and especially DFID, to effectively support and play a major global role in development. Without the strong sector, the government and DFID could not make a major contribution to the solution of emerging problems. Third, without investment, including public investment, in its institutions and activities, the sector risks being weakened and less able to make critical advances in knowledge generation, education, and outreach in development.

2.a.

Strengths of U.K. Development Studies

The U.K. development studies sector is well placed to understand the problems and opportunities that rapid global change creates. As a sector, it is large, diverse, and important. No other country has a comparable development studies enterprise.3 Its professionals are committed 3

In the United States, for example, there is no “development studies“ sector that corresponds, in focus and objective, to that of the U.K.

10

to exploring long-existing problems as well as the new challenges of prosperity and vulnerability. The sector produces theoretical and applied social science research, and trains more than 1,000 post-graduate students yearly. Its research and training activities were traditionally focused on Asia and Africa, but are increasingly addressing development concerns in Latin America, Eastern and Central Europe, and states of the former Soviet Union. U.K. institutions and professionals are increasingly looking at development as a global issue. The sector has successfully established cross-disciplinary institutions, conducted multidisciplinary research, and encouraged dialogue among scholars of different disciplines.4 Indeed, the international reputation of U.K. development studies is founded on its success in multidisciplinary research, training, and consulting that taps a broad understanding of human progress and vulnerability.5 Because the problems of development, and of the dual dynamics of prosperity and vulnerability, are complex and multifaceted, the U.K. sector’s multidisciplinary capacity gives its scholars a critical edge in exploring such issues. A diverse set of institutions has nurtured multidisciplinarity in the U.K. Academic centers, independent research organizations, and NGOs contribute their accumulated knowledge about global change, and the winners and losers in the process. The work of many U.K. centers is specifically focused, bringing unique concerns to the tasks of research and training and enhancing opportunities for discussion. The sector’s activities have created strong global networks of researchers, policy makers, policy advisors, activists, and trainers that offer a base for collaboration and support of government policies. U.K. development studies also stands out for its contributions to understanding the microfoundations of development. The sector has long led in the insistence that social and human welfare, and the conditions in which poor people live, are central ways to measure the advance of development. Its work places the U.K. in a strong position internationally in livelihood strategies, gender, social policy, natural resources policy, institutional analysis, and sustainable development. The U.K. also has an international reputation for work on governance, industry analysis, and trade. U.K.-based NGOs are among the world’s most advanced in understanding and responding to humanitarian crises and the emergence of civil societies. Deep knowledge of the micro-foundations of development and underdevelopment place the U.K. in a strong position to understand how macro- and meso-level changes affect the poor. These strengths are recognized in international fora and agencies. International institutions look to U.K. scholars and institutions for guidance, particularly in the areas of poverty assessment, gender studies, sustainable development, participatory research techniques, and institutional analysis. Also valued is their deep practical experience and personal knowledge of

4

Throughout this report we use the term multidisciplinarity to refer to two types of cross-disciplinary work: 1) situations in which scholars with distinct disciplinary bases work together to explore complex issues; and 2) individuals who have expertise in more than one discipline, or training programs that emphasize learning the perspectives and tools of multiple disciplines.

5

In our interviews with officials in international agencies and foundations, this point was the most frequently mentioned as a value of U.K. work. Similarly, it was most often cited as a characteristic of U.K. development studies in our survey of non-U.K. development studies centers. Interestingly, it was.also the most frequently noted characteristic of the sector by those we interviewed, and by DSA members who returned their questionnaires..

11

development contexts. U.K. scholars, because of their experience in exploring the complex lives of those who live in poverty, have significantly shaped international agenda-setting publications like the Human Development Report and the World Development Report. The sector has also produced generations of development experts who have studied the history and ideas of development more deeply than have scholars in most other countries. U.K. research is also widely recognized for its capacity to dissent from mainstream—largely U.S.— views, thus setting the critical agenda in development. The U.K. sector’s infrastructure for knowledge building about development also contributes significantly to understanding rapid change. Its libraries bring together extraordinary depth in historical material, current issue-oriented discussions and data, and a trove of “gray literature” that is probably unequalled anywhere. Although struggle with limited resources, the libraries are adapting these collections to the information age, making them increasingly available to scholars and practitioners worldwide. The sector is also already advanced in its participation in U.K., bilateral, and international networks that generate, share, and apply knowledge about development. Its links to the world’s scholarly community are extensive, as are its contacts with “change agents” at grassroots levels and with local government in developing countries. It has a long tradition of training public officials and civil society leaders from the U.K. and overseas for development work. As information technology advances, these local connections become even more valuable information channels. In recent years, the sector has developed ties to national and international agencies through research, training, and advocacy. It is actively involved, both formally and informally, with policy makers, implementers, and citizen activists worldwide, but particularly in Africa and Asia, where its post-colonial ties are strong. These strengths point to a comparative advantage for U.K. development studies in taking on pressing development problems and in the context of globalization. They also mean that investments in the sector will have high returns in important knowledge about development.

2.b.

Importance of the Development Studies Sector for the U.K.

The Department for International Development (DFID) relies on the development studies sector for critically important expertise on wide-ranging and substantive issues, including indepth country-level expertise about the settings where DFID specialists work. That expertise is made available through formal and informal advising, commissioned research, and short-term consulting. DFID also calls on the sector’s important links to individuals and groups that contribute to the economic, political, and social development of those countries. Sector expertise helps DFID increase the U.K.’s influence in international fora. DFID also benefits from the sector’s training. Many overseas students return to work in development in their countries, often in collaboration with DFID. Many U.K. citizens trained in development studies are now leaders in domestic and international NGOs that help DFID implement programs and policies. DFID uses the development studies sector for post-graduate training of its technical staff in specific areas of development. Moreover, sector activities help create a supporting environment for development assistance in the U.K.

12

DFID also benefits from cutting-edge research in development, and from the sector’s contacts and reputation. The Department’s own work is enhanced by access to excellent research, well-trained people, and a supportive environment for development assistance. The sector serves DFID well by providing intellectual leadership on global issues of development. Without the development studies sector, DFID would be hindered in its capacity to develop policies and programs, recruit staff, and maintain global networks. Furthermore, it is clear that, without the sector’s intellectual capital, DFID could not aspire—as it now does—to contribute significantly to the formulation of international responses to the challenges of poverty, or help meet the intellectual and practical challenges of rapid global change. Thus, we believe that DFID, by helping strengthen the development studies sector, strengthens its own work and reputation.

2.c.

Investing in the U.K. versus Investing in Developing Countries….

Development scholars and practitioners sometimes question whether DFID’s investments in research capacity should be made directly in institutions in developing countries rather than in U.K. centers. After all, DFID’s mission is to fight poverty and to improve the quality of life in developing countries; thus, some argue that all its efforts should go directly into developing countries. We do not believe that DFID can, in the near future, replace its sustained investment in development studies in the U.K. by investment in the South, for several reasons. First, years of economic crisis, austerity, and—often—political instability and repression have decimated the universities of many countries, especially in Africa. There are islands of research capacity…but they are few and far between. Building, or rebuilding, these institutions to the point where they can contribute substantially to research on development issues is not a shortterm issue of a few research grants; it is a long-term and very difficult task of rebuilding universities. Many years of large-scale investment and effort will be necessary to put these institutions in a position to sustainably carry out the necessary intellectual work. A few developing countries, such as India, have the research capacity to do the job, but in most countries research institutions do not have adequate support and incentive systems to carry out and sustain high-quality research, even in skilled researchers are in place. This is especially true in Africa. Much development research may eventually shift to developing countries, because of their comparative advantage in intimate knowledge of the local setting knowledge and, sometimes, lower cost. But, even so, it would not be wise for the U.K., or DFID, to abandon domestic research capacity on development problems. DFID will continue to need the intellectual infrastructure for independent analysis of development problems to support its programs, and to maintain the U.K. as a key player in shaping global development thinking. Strengthening research in developing countries is critical. DFID and other donors should seriously commit themselves to strengthening the capacity of universities and research institutions in developing countries for knowledge generation, education, and discussion.

13

But that need does not does not weaken the importance of investing in development studies in the U.K. Policies on investment in the U.K. and developing countries should be treated as separate issues. If solid support for institution building in developing country universities and other research institutes is in place, research funding for the U.K. sector can usefully complement it with mechanisms to support and encourage more joint research, training, and discussion.

14

The Challenges of Sustainability and Quality The U.K. development studies sector has a comparative advantage within the broad context of global need for advances in knowledge, education, and discussion of development. It is well-positioned to face the problems of prosperity and vulnerability that globalization brings, because of its legacy of multidisciplinary research, institutional depth and diversity, reputation, and international contacts. The U.K.’s future reputation should be based on the quality of its work and on maintaining a knowledge base that is relevant and on the cutting edge of scholarship and practice. It also depends on active international scholarly debate and practical discussions about what does and doesn’t work in advancing development. Nevertheless, U.K. development studies will not be able to capitalize on this comparative advantage unless it can resolve difficult issues of sustainability and quality assurance in the near future. Concerted efforts are needed to alter the environment for development studies in the U.K., the conditions that affect its institutions’ performance, and the sector’s intellectual vulnerabilities. The following survey of these factors indicates that difficult conditions and hard choices lie ahead for the U.K. development studies sector—and for those in government who benefit from its work.

3.

The Institutional Setting and Situation

The U.K. development studies sector is comprised of institutions and individuals that specialize in research, training, and advising. The sector is defined in terms of a set of institutions with a primary or substantial focus on development issues and developing countries. The focus may be interdisciplinary or disciplinary. The sector also includes scattered individuals and small pockets of researchers who conduct development research, but do not belong to development institutions. Development studies overlaps with other sectors, including several social science disciplines and area studies. The large and extraordinarily diverse sector includes development studies centers that are integral parts of economics or other university departments; centers that are primarily associations of faculty members from across a university who work on development-related topics; and autonomous institutions, some within universities and some not. The development studies sector includes institutions that emphasize degree programs; others that emphasize short-course professional training; research centers; think tanks; and NGOs that do research and training. Furthermore, the sector includes institutions with strengths in different types of analysis, including economics, social anthropology, politics, management, environment, and agriculture. We looked at about 30 institutions, including major centers and a range of types of institutions. To limit the scope of the study, we mainly studied programs with social and economic approaches, rather than natural science or engineering programs (although we included some institutions where programs overlapped, particularly in the environment and agricultural development). We did not look at area studies programs (with one exception); nor did we include consulting firms.6 6

We recognize that these boundaries are artificial. The one area studies institution we looked at, for example, demonstrated the depth of development focus that characterizes some such institutions. So the study is necessarily partial. Nevertheless, the institutions included gave us a reasonably wide perspective on the sector.

15

Institutions range considerably in size, as shown by basic indicators in Table 1. Several large institutions have traditionally been at the sector’s center, particularly in research and policy analysis. Those institutions also generally have the highest international profile. Several intermediate-sized institutions have traditionally focused on more practice-oriented training and consulting, although this category also includes some of the larger research and teaching centers within universities. The smallest institutions, in terms of income, are the university-based centers for development studies. But their real size is often understated. They are sometimes merely focal points for the larger university’s development work, much of which is conducted and supported beyond the center itself and therefore not included in center statistics.

3.a.

The U.K. Context for Development Studies

Currently, the environment within which development studies institutions operate is difficult in many ways. On the positive side, there is considerable demand for the sector’s research, education, and advising activities. Most important is U.K. domestic demand, particularly from the government. But global demand, mostly from European and international organizations, also supports sector activities. But other factors undercut the implications of demand for sector products considerably. Some of the centers that we surveyed are in universities, which were made less attractive places to work by government policies for higher education in the 1980s and 1990s. Tighter budgets and the movement toward cost accounting centers have forced leaders and administrators to become more concerned with generating income and more exacting in staff activities. Academic salaries declined considerably during the 1980s, and academic positions became less secure as universities made tenure optional and funding for positions became less certain. These trends have made the attraction of the best minds to research careers more difficult. The decision to link part of university funding from the Higher Education Funding Councils (HEFCs) to research quality—rather than simply to student numbers—has had mixed effects on development studies. The Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), conducted every 5 years, now serves as the basis for the allocation of about a third of HEFC funding. Thus, it has become a major preoccupation of universities. The RAE has created strong concern in universities about research quality as measured by publication in respected, peer-reviewed journals. This has meant incentives for university scholars in development studies to conduct more traditional academic or basic research. It has also increased pressure toward disciplinarity, creating an uneasy situation for centers that want to conduct research not clearly within the borders of a discipline. In addition, changes in DFID policies affected the development studies sector. Among the most controversial changes was a 1990 decision to eliminate core funding grants that had supported “centers of excellence” since the 1960s. The decision reflected concern to “level the playing field” to allow other independent, university-based, and NGO centers to compete for government research, training, and consultancy work. To its credit, DFID has implemented this policy with care, giving the affected centers time to adjust to the loss of funds. The new “level playing field” pleased centers that had not previously received core grants—but obviously, not those that lost funding. For the former, the change opened new research opportunities. For the latter, the core funding loss threatened the

16

ability to maintain highly regarded research and training staff and physical and research infrastructure, including extensive library collections. DFID also reduced training awards substantially, and incorporated training into its operational projects, rather than continuing its tradition of stand-alone training programs.7 This shift made the funding of training programs more difficult, and pushed centers to tailor training to meet narrowly defined project needs. Short-course training has become more competitive and specialized and organizations find it increasingly difficult to count on a "break even" number of students. That threatens not only the sustainability of short-term training programs, but also the incentives for faculty to invest time and energy in them. The overall consequence of these changes has been to transform the sector from one in which income from DFID was stable and relatively secure for a number of key institutions to one broadly exposed to the market, where most funding sources, including for research, are available only through competition. Not surprisingly, this has disrupted the financial base of many institutions considerably, particularly the institutions that had been the most dependent on DFID (or the Overseas Development Administration, the agency’s former name). Overall, our surveys and interviews of leaders and professional staff at the institutions portray a sector that is dynamic in many ways, but under considerable stress because of increasingly vulnerable financial situations. Although the effects are felt unevenly across the sector, institutions generally now operate under the strictures of increasingly limited resources. Centers for development studies have responded to these pressures with a variety of coping strategies. They have expanded some activities or moved into new ones, and begun searching for new funding sources, but few find it possible to attract significant core funds or funds for longerterm research and training. For most, limited resources have increasingly pressured staff to generate more income, pushing them into short-term activities to make ends meet. While the response reflects real commitment to development, we believe that it will take a toll in the quality and vitality of center research and training.

3.b.

Financing Development Studies

Financial status of sector institutions. The sector’s income has grown somewhat during the 1990s. Of 13 institutions for which information from 1993 to 1998 was available, the inflation-adjusted income of 9 grew while that of 4 fell. But the amount of growth may be overstated. Some of the sector’s income has been through large grants for research programs awarded to lead institutions. They count the grants as income, but then pay out much of the funds to collaborating institutions. Thus, what looks like income growth may not be so, in a meaningful way. Nevertheless, despite financial difficulties, these data plus a review of the increasing programs and staff numbers, suggest that the 1990s has been something of a growth period for many institutions, and the sector as a whole. The balance of income and expenditures may better indicate the institutions’ financial state. Those figures show that, while some institutions are doing relatively well, and a few even 7

Under ODA’s Technical Cooperation Training Programme, about 13,000 students from developing countries received scholarships annually in the late 1980s. By 1999 the number had fallen to 2500. (Correspondence with Kenneth King. See also Kenneth King with Ross Ashworth and Alison Girdwood, Higher Education Synthesis Study, Evaluation Report EV:602, DFID, January 1998.)This had considerable impact on institutions that emphasized training programs for developing country students.

17

thriving, a growing number are in a difficult financial position. We have 1993 and 1998 data on 13 institutions. In 1993, 10 institutions had a budget surplus, 2 had a deficit, and 1 broke even. In 1998, only six institutions had budget surpluses, six had budget deficits, and one broke even. Five of the budget-deficit institutions are large; their combined income is almost £17.9 million and their combined shortfall, about £870,000. Furthermore, our interviews indicate that reserves that several institutions built up in better years are quickly dwindling, and will be depleted if deficits continue for the next year or two. All of these trends suggest that, while institutions differ, much of the sector faces a difficult financial situation. For some institutions, the financial situation is critical. Financial base of the sector. Development studies institutions depend on several income sources and types of funding. The major income streams are from training, both degree programs and non-degree short courses; consulting and other contractual work; research grants; and grants for core activities. Table 2 shows how different institutions, depending on their work, rely on different combinations of these income streams. The balance and direction of these income streams have changed. The percentage of income, as well as the absolute sums, from short-course teaching has clearly declined for most institutions. The percentage of income from degree teaching also fell for several institutions, although it mostly rose or stayed level in absolute terms. In contrast, income from consulting and research grants rose almost uniformly, both as proportions of income and in pounds. Furthermore, by 1998, research grants were the main, or one of the two major, income sources for 9 of 13 institutions; in 1993, research grants had been among the top 2 income sources for only 6 of those institutions. DFID research funding. The change in DFID policies away from core funding and training programs, and toward providing research funding, is the main reason for the sector’s increasing reliance on research grants. DFID is still an important funder of the sector. In addition to being the main source for consulting or other contracts, it provides the most research funding for development studies (Table 3). It is followed, in order of support, by other bilateral agencies, international organizations, and foundations.8 In 1998, DFID accounted for more than 80% of research funding for 5 of 13 institutions and for 40 to 80% for 4 other institutions. There is a large spread in level of dependence, if one looks beyond just the funding of research activities, to the degree that institutions depend on research grants for their total income. DFID research grants, as a percentage of each institution's total income, range from 3% to more than 50%. DFID funding for several institutions clusters around 35% of total income.9 Of the £112 million DFID expenditure on R&D in 1997-98, £101 million went outside the government, including to the development studies sector. Not all of that is easily identified as 8

This is based on research funding reported by the development studies institutions. For some of the university centers, it is as high as 75%, but for some of them the research funding is nearly all that counts as income to the center, so it is misleading to combine them with the others.

9

18

research funding, but much is. DFID's various research programs total more than £57 million (Table 4). Much of that total goes to research in the natural sciences and engineering, but about £9.7 million goes to economic and social research. ESCOR is the largest DFID source, with a budget of almost £5 million; other recipients include programs in Social Development, Education, Environment, and Health and Population. With DFID’s current poverty focus, the role of social and economic research is increasing in other areas such as the renewable natural resources program, although the amounts spent on it are not separable. Other sources of funding for development studies. Other U.K. government sources for research funding include the Higher Education Funding Councils (HEFCs) and Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). Many institutions receive basic HEFC funding as university teaching units. Those, along with some others, also receive HEFC research funds on the basis of the RAE. The ESRC provides substantial grants for core costs to two institutions. It also provides some development studies research funding, despite its stated aim of only supporting work that benefits the U.K. directly. But ESRC grants are relatively low in most cases. Comments made through our survey and interviews indicate that researchers prize ESRC money for the academic recognition it conveys. But the ESRC research grants do not generally help solve the institutions’ financial problems, because they come as traditional, narrowly-defined research grants and cover only replacement—rather than full—salaries of senior researchers. As an alternative to DFID support, overall research funds from international institutions, bilateral grants, and foundations are not very substantial. Of the international organizations, the European Commission is the sector’s largest source of funds. Among the most important of the European bilaterals that provide research funding are the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA), the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA), the Swiss Development Cooperation (SDC), and the Dutch government. Several British and international foundations provide support, but most grants have been small. Most of the larger grants were from major U.S. foundations, including the Ford, Rockefeller, and MacArthur Foundations. The Aga Khan Foundation was also an important source. Equally significant, research grants from international institutions, bilaterals, and foundations went overwhelmingly to only a handful of institutions. Not surprisingly, those institutions tended to have the highest international profiles.

3.c.

Challenges for Development Studies Institutions

Development studies in the U.K. is composed of diverse institutions that face different challenges. Indeed, centers that we surveyed ranged from relatively comfortable in terms of priorities, staff careers, and capacity to set intellectual agendas, to gravely vulnerable to shortterm financing, with staff working in conditions of great uncertainty. Diverse institutions will need to develop individualized plans to assure sustainability and intellectual quality. Sector institutions can usefully be seen in terms of five groups of institutions that vary in terms of funding security, dependence on particular funding sources, pressure on staff to generate

19

income, and main strategic challenges for ensuring quality and sustainability. Of course, no two institutions are alike, and not all fit equally well into the categories. Furthermore, there is a range in degree of security and vulnerability within each category. Nevertheless, we believe that these groupings roughly portray the situations of sector institutions. Two groups of institutions are relatively secure, but three groups are considerably more vulnerable. Type 1 institutions are academic centers with a primary focus on teaching and research. Many of these development studies institutions have managed to maintain considerable distance from market imperatives, although they suffer from the widespread hard times in the university sector. Some of these academic centers were established within, or with strong links to, particular disciplinary departments. Good examples are at the Centre for Development Studies at the University of Bath and the Centre for Development Studies at the University of Glasgow. Other academic centers exist as separate departments of development studies such as those at the School of Oriental and African Studies, London, and Oxford's Queen Elizabeth House. Others bring together development-related teaching and research staff from across the university into a multidisciplinary faculty association. Examples are the Centre for Development Studies at the University of Leeds and the Development Studies Committee at the University of Cambridge. Also included are the ESRC-funded research institutes on globalization at the University of Warwick and on African economies at Oxford University. Salaries and other core costs in these centers are covered fully or partly by HEFC or other relatively long-term funding. These centers have been able to maintain considerable autonomy in identifying their central interests in basic and applied research. They have also been able to shield their faculty from short-term consulting and research demands (of course, some faculty members choose to engage in short-term activities). Thus, researchers at several institutions report being engaged in basic research and data collection. Those scholars value the ability to do "blue skies" research. Such scholars also report that their consultancies are generally undertaken on the basis of potential contribution to research and teaching priorities, as with consulting that primarily involves research or offers valuable field experience or policy engagement. While they find the transaction costs of competing for official funding difficult to manage, they are sufficiently secure to enter competition selectively.10 At the same time, teaching responsibilities require most of their time and constrain the amount of outside activity they can take on. These institutions require resources for investment in their research and training infrastructure, but they are generally able to plan for activities in the medium and longer term. Among Type 1 institutions, one sub-group is somewhat less secure than others. Centers that are not departmentally-based but that bring faculty together outside their departmental teaching and research base often hold a somewhat tenuous position within the university. Such multidisciplinary centers cut across established administrative and boundaries. Faculty may be 10

This perspective was well-stated in the survey from the Centre for Development Studies of the University of Bath: “Of course, elaborate tendering procedures take up time which could otherwise be spent on research. In such a situation we tender for grants only a) if we are genuinely interested in the research issues and b) if we really believe we have the time, capacity and energy for tendering.”

20

secure in their departmental positions, but these centers sometimes have a hard time gaining access to resources and are sometimes shifted from place to place within the university’s structure. This intra-university vulnerability hinders the centers in their work, and can only be addressed with the help and support of university leaders. Type 2 institutions, also relatively secure, are NGOs such as OXFAM, INTRAC, and Save the Children that conduct research and training. The U.K. has an international reputation for the number, diversity and quality of its NGOs. But with the exception of INTRAC, the NGOs that we studied were not primarily intended for research and training. Most do not have separate research units or explicitly research staff; they typically conduct research through their policy divisions. Thus, the relatively security of their research and training activities is partly because those tasks generally comprise only a small part of their overall budgets. Such institutions will remain viable, even if funding for research and training disappears. Most NGOs developed research and training programs for their own needs, and still tend to see research largely as contributing to internal programs rather than to a larger body of knowledge about development. Thus, much research is never disseminated beyond the organization. Not surprisingly, most NGO research is applied. Its purposes include strategic planning within the organization, informing policy and program leaders for decision-making, and advocacy. NGOs also conduct research to gain credibility—the added weight that research involvement gives NGO leaders when engaged in policy discussions with international agencies. DFID funding and encouragement have been important in increasing NGO research; institutions are under considerable pressure to conduct research and training in their areas of expertise. Such research contributes to a broader appreciation of the complex issues involved in the elimination of poverty, and how poor people assess their situations and strategize the use of their resources. Much NGO research is participatory, mainly as a means of building community ownership of the research and its findings, rather than because it strengthens the research itself.11 Research is not generally a highly valued activity within NGOs. Many staff seem uneasy about responding to pressures to conduct research with their limited resources and staff, while simultaneously achieving their primary, action-oriented goals. NGOs are impatient with tendering and reporting mechanisms for research and training contracts from external sources. Some NGO staff are concerned about the extent to which good research is sometimes presented as advocacy or even ideology, thus losing credibility. More broadly, the NGOs face a challenge of achieving and maintaining the quality of their research and training. They must be particularly mindful of the reputation of their work, ensuring that it meets standards of objectivity and analytic rigor. Type 3 centers are more vulnerable. This category is composed of a few centers that are, in some ways, traditional academic institutions that focus on educating students and conducting academic research, but that, from the outset, have had large consulting arms and have emphasized 11

Promoting participatory research activities is an important focus of INTRAC’s activities. Currently, Save the Children Fund is developing a research manual for practitioners, to help identify research issues, and procedures for contracting and conducting research. We consider these valuable contributions to the NGO sector that will encourage better policy and program development in the future, as well as strengthen the NGOs’ advocacy role in government policy discussions.

21

the importance of applied work. Examples are the School of Development Studies/Overseas Development Group at the University of East Anglia, the Agrarian Development Unit in the Department of Agricultural Economics at Wye College, and the Centre for Development Studies at the University of Wales in Swansea. Type 3 institutions are less secure than Type 1 because they receive limited HEFC funds and depend more on generating resources from DFID or other contracts. These institutions enjoy less choice in terms of research and training, and focus far more staff time on consulting. The tradition of consulting as a core activity means that many such centers have more faculty than their student numbers warrant, or than the universities can adequately support. Pressure to both conduct quality research and generate salary and overhead through teaching and consulting results in faculty burn-out, extensive criticism of the time devoted to income generation, and general dissatisfaction with official and unofficial grant processes. Type 3 researchers, far more than those in the first group, feel that their own research agendas compete with those of funders, and that they are not free to select their issues of study. Indeed, staff at such centers often feel insecure, undervalued, and threatened by the university’s increasing focus on disciplinarity. The contracts of many in such centers are short-term and/or contingent on project funding. Type 4 institutions consist of a number of autonomous development studies centers that also belong to universities, but are recognized more for their applied work and practical skills in administration and management than for research. Such centers include the Institute for Development Policy and Management at the University of Manchester, the Development and Project Planning Centre at the University of Bradford, and the Development Planning Unit at University College, London. The universities expect such centers to be self-financing—and they are. Funding is based on professional short-course training and consulting and, more recently, post-graduate degree programs and research. They have their own professional staff, and the institutions’ income must entirely cover salaries, facilities, and overhead costs. Most of these centers depended heavily for years on DFID funding of student scholarships for program support. As that funding became increasingly scarce, those institutions were pushed toward more consulting and applied research, and had to adjust their training programs. The current situation brings both opportunities and constraints for such centers. DFID's new “level playing field” approach allows them to compete for research funds not previously available. The establishment of the RAE as the basis for allocating part of the HEFC resources also opened access to some new research funding.12 But staff in these institutions also feel 12

The RAE appears a mixed blessing for many institutions. It makes access to HEFC funding available for many university-based centers, and has sometimes increased their research budgets. But it also increases pressure on staff to commit time to disciplinary research, and has heightened tensions about decisions to commit time to research or to activities such as consulting. For some institutions, the RAE provided access to resources not previously available. For example, the International Development Department, School of Public Policy at the University of Birmingham, noted that “The shift by HEFCE to RAE funding gave us access to research funding which we had not previously benefited from.” The Natural Resources Institute

22

overstretched. They must work even harder than before to recruit the same number of students for training programs; consult more; identify opportunities and tailor small short courses for individual projects rather than offer fewer standardized courses; develop competitive research proposals; and conduct and manage quality research. As these centers have moved closer to their universities, they have increasingly been striving to define themselves in terms of research. University pressures to conduct high-quality research also force them to devote more time to research. Type 5 institutions—the "independent" development studies research centers—are also quite vulnerable now. These are the sector’s largest, and include some of the world’s best-known, development studies institutions. Each institution generates a variety of research, mostly focused on understanding current problems and dynamics. But this research is built on investments in longer-term research that provides a basis for more prescriptive work. Some Type 5 research centers also feel that their continued survival is threatened by the context for development studies. Interestingly, this group includes both the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex, which has had to adapt to the loss of core funding, and the Overseas Development Institute, which has long depended heavily on contract research and advisory work but now faces increased competition for such contracts as the sector's funding changes. Concerns expressed in these institutions, in many ways, echo those of staff in the Type 4 centers, which also lack the security of HEFC or other core funding. Without such funding, they must generate income to pay for facilities, sometimes including extensive libraries, as well as staff support and salaries. Because they are committed to influencing public policy and development practice, they invest heavily in dissemination and policy discussion. But their research grants and contracts rarely cover those expenditures in full. Those centers that are located in London believe that being "where the action is" is critically important in terms of decision-making—but they must pay more for their central location. Like other institutions, they often speak of the transaction costs of tendering, and are particularly concerned about the pressure to be available for short-term research and consulting at the expense of basic research. They worry that these arrangements damage the quality of their work.13 Table 5 summarizes the situations and challenges of these five different types of institutions. Our assessment indicates that most centers for development studies, especially the more vulnerable Types 3, 4, and 5, are seeking to adapt to the new, more stringent environment they at the University of Greenwich reports gaining from HEFC funding once it was transformed from a government agency to a center of the University of Greenwich. It could then acquire funding for postgraduate students, research assistants, and post-doctoral fellows, and could invest more in basic research. 13

Nevertheless, the high international “recognition factor” makes these institutions among those who can best attract funding from nontraditional sources and donors, including foundations and corporations, outside the U.K.

23

now face. They are introducing incentives to encourage staff to raise funds, developing new short courses to generate income, and trying to attract overseas students. The institutions are trying to diversify their funding sources, and have successfully attracted grants and contracts from foundations, international financial institutions, United Nations agencies, the European Community, other NGOs, and other sources. They are streamlining their administrative structures and placing more professional staff on contingent contracts. They also seek new audiences for their research and advocacy activities. All of these measures have helped the institutions sustain themselves, but probably detract from their ability to produce consistently high-quality research, training, and advisory work. Staff in many centers are demoralized and frustrated by their inability to commit more time to research and investments in intellectual capital. Their leadership is deeply concerned about the financial pressures that push toward short-term consulting and research projects, staff on contingent contracts, and training programs undertaken as much for financial opportunity as intellectual reasons. They are concerned that the pressure to generate overhead means that they are “pricing themselves out of the market” for research and advisory contracts, a concern confirmed by several international agency officials that we interviewed.

3.d.

Sector Structure

As noted before, the development studies sector is large. Many institutions are under financial pressure and some are having a very difficult time bringing in sufficient income in the current funding context. Is the sector too large? Is there over-capacity? Would the sector perform better if it were structured differently? We do not have data to address such questions definitively. As we will discuss later in the report, there may be over-capacity in training in relation to current demand. But beyond that it is more difficult to judge. We rarely heard complaints about insufficient demand for consulting work. Rather, for most institutions that rely on consulting or other contracts, the main problem seems to be the cost of competition for income and the pressure on staff time. This does not suggest over-capacity, but a problem in the nature of funding. If nothing is done to change the context within which the sector operates, there will certainly be a sorting out of institutions that can survive and those that cannot. Some may fold, although organizational restructuring and renegotiation of relationships within the university or among institutions is a possibility for some.14 Most other centers will manage to struggle on, probably at the cost of an increasing toll on quality of output and ability to attract and retain excellent people. An institutional sorting-out is not necessarily bad for the sector, although painful for the institutions affected, as long as the remaining institutions are able to do excellent work. Institutions must prove their ability to produce work that responds to the needs and demands of

14

There have already been some such changes, with NRI joining the University of Greenwich and the merger of Wye College and Imperial College. Some of the autonomous institutions are working with their universities to forge new arrangements; in some cases these may lead to a redefinition of the mission of the development studies institution.

24

the market. In addition, they must be able to make the long-term investment in basic research, intellectual infrastructure, and human capital necessary for the sector’s long-term vitality. We believe, therefore, that questions related to capacity or number of institutions will be, and should be allowed to be, resolved primarily through the market, within the context of changes in the amount and nature of funding discussed below. The sector’s diversity has been, and is, one of the important strengths that will enable the U.K. sector to address complex problems of development. Diversity should be maintained, but institutions strengthened within it. There need to be centers that lead the way in cutting-edge research on highly relevant topics; centers that can develop forward-looking, innovative educational programs; and centers that forge ahead in creative use of IT for dissemination and discussion of knowledge or that reach out in other ways to development practitioners. Different institutions with strengths in particular areas of investigation and practice need to contribute their strengths to the overall advance of development understanding. A sector characterized by diversity, and with “centers of excellence” in different substantive areas and types of activity, will take advantage of its strengths and enable U.K. development studies to make a significant contribution to development understanding. When such strong centers emerge, they might even serve as poles for the sector in their area of work, providing a forum for discussion and joint work for development specialists through the sector. We do not believe that government should try to design the structure of the sector for the future. It should focus its efforts on developing ways to fund the sector that will stimulate and support high quality, innovative work and ensure diversity.

3.e.

What Should Be Done?

Development studies institutions vary greatly in structure, funding arrangements, traditions, and foci of expertise. Nevertheless, most face the interrelated challenges of sustainability and quality assurance. Even centers that HEFC funding has made relatively comfortable need resources to support on-going research, attract quality post-graduate students, maintain library and information technology infrastructure, and disseminate their work. The situation is critical for institutions with no or little assured funding.

3.e.1. Principles to guide funding We believe that responses to the sector vulnerabilities should be undertaken on the basis of a set of guiding principles. The purpose of the following principles is to ensure that development studies institutions have the capacity to become sustainable and are strongly motivated to achieve excellence in their work:




The need for core activity support and long-term funding opportunities should be recognized as central to both quality and sustainability.

High-quality research, training, and advisory work cannot be sustained without funding mechanisms that include resources for core activities and that recognize that the quality of shortand medium-term research and consulting rests on long-term investments in staff and

25

infrastructure. This should be a high priority for altering the conditions under which many institutions now function.




A principle of competition based on adequate resources and longer-term horizons should be adopted.

Mechanisms to support institutional sustainability, as well as particular research, training, and outreach programs, must be designed in a way to encourage quality output. We believe that competition for funding is the best way to ensure a market for excellence in development studies. But without sufficient funding, competition will not produce excellence. Funding must be available to provide incentives for institutions to commit to long-term research agendas, relatively stable staff contracts, and investments in research infrastructure. Moreover, we believe that competitive funding cannot assure quality unless it is available long enough for researchers and trainers to make long-term commitments, both to their institutions and the quality of their work.




Public sector funding for development studies should be increased, but to avoid dependence, institutions should also diversify their sources of support.

Government investment is important because of externalities in the sector that lead to a degree of market failure and, thus, need public sector involvement to correct. In addition, the government, and especially DFID, derive important benefits from the sector, and should invest in the sector because such investments help the government achieve its goals. External benefits—benefits enjoyed by people not connected with a particular project or activity—are substantial in development studies. Many beneficiaries are in developing countries. They may include government policy makers who learn about better policy options for environmentally sustainable growth through dissemination of best practices; local NGOs who find participatory rural appraisal methods useful; business leaders, who may find analysis of financial markets essential to better investment strategies; and the poor, who benefit from improved donor approaches and government policy to poverty alleviation. International organizations and international NGOs also benefit from improved methodologies. Domestic benefits include, among other things, a corps of trained professionals with cross-cultural skills and the ability to operate in a global environment. Benefits to these widespread groups make development studies valuable. Yet they pose a dilemma for institutions that do such work. Benefits cannot be fully realized by the institutions, nor by the organizations for which work was done. Nor can what institutions can charge for their marketable services or products fully recover the full cost of generating and disseminating knowledge. Thus, development studies institutions will tend to be chronically underfunded in a market system, and there will likely be short falls in investment for activities like networks, whose benefits accrue largely to those outside the institution or whose costs cannot be recovered. Public sector investment is needed to compensate for this shortfall. In addition, DFID benefits directly from many sector activities. It relies heavily on the sector for input into its policies and programs and for training its development specialists. DFID also values, and even demands, activities such as dissemination, informal advising, partnerships, and construction of networks that are not easily funded by the institutions. As a principal beneficiary of sector work, DFID needs to help finance the core intellectual infrastructure and

26

basic research that support the sector’s short-term products and services and that typically are not funded through market-driven activities. DFID has a stated goal of becoming a knowledge-based organization. It can only do this with the strong support of the development studies sector and with sustained investment in knowledge generation, education, and discussion. In 1997-98, DFID spent £112 million, or 5.4% of its external assistance programs, on Research and Development (R&D).15 This is significant; it is a higher level of investment in R&D than in major British corporations, whose R&D averaged only 2.5% of sales in 1997. But it lags far behind corporate R&D levels in several countries that view innovation as critical for the future: Denmark (16.3%), Canada (10.8%), Finland (10.4). Levels of investment of companies in the countries leading in corporate R&D increased 17-26% over the year before.16 DFID’s investment in R&D rose by 3% from 1997/98 to 1998/99.17 Clearly, forward-looking organizations see investment in knowledge generation, development and adoption of innovative solutions, and the development of human capital, as critical. Even though DFID is not a corporation, responding to the difficult challenges of development in a globalized world requires, and deserves, the same kind of commitment of energies and resources to advancing our understanding of development. The comparative figures suggest that DFID may be falling short of a level of R&D investment that will support its future role in a globalized world. At the same time, sector institutions should try harder to diversify their funding sources. We consider it important that development studies centers avoid increased dependence on government in finding solutions to sustainability concerns, because heavy dependence can be detrimental to their work. The histories of many, though not all, centers demonstrate hypersensitivity to government priorities in that changes in those priorities are reflected in institutional crises and instability. We found some evidence that research and training activities respond to funding availability rather than set the agenda for what needs to be understood and taught. Some institutions hesitate to undertake new areas of research or training because of a lack of official interest in them. We also found some institutions timid in exploring new funding avenues, and unable to cushion themselves against future funding declines.




The sector and DFID should collaborate in developing new funding sources.

At the most general level, DFID and the development studies sector should work together to increase overall funding for knowledge generation, education in development, and discussions about development. This will mean not only a concerted effort to influence the public budget, but 15

Based on internal DFID statistics and DFID, Statistics on International Development 1993/94-1997/98. As a percentage of total DFID expenditures, R&D is again 5.4%. 16

Figures from a U.K. Department of Trade and Industry survey of the top 300 international corporations, as reported in “A Survey of Innovation in Industry,” Economist, February 20, 1999, pp. 13-14 of special section. The average across all the companies was 4.6%. 17

Based on DFID estimates for the later year.

27

also efforts to increase corporate, European Commission (EC), foundation, and international agency funding. We believe that the sector needs assistance in diversifying its funding sources. Several important changes in government laws and policies are necessary, but can be achieved only if institutions work in cooperation with DFID. A legal change to allow institutions to develop endowments is a critically important change that would benefit the sector greatly. A change in the tax code to support philanthropy would also help attract domestic and international corporate sponsorship for research. But attracting corporate and foundation support requires considerable investments in time and energy to develop contacts and build relationships. DFID leadership can help the sector through public efforts to educate U.K. and multinational firms about the global nature of development issues and the problems that need resolution if current economic growth is to continue. DFID can also increase awareness among private sector and foundation leaders of the unique and valuable characteristics of development studies in the U.K.




The sector and DFID should discuss and assess funding mechanisms that respond to the needs for sustainability and quality assurance.

We have reviewed a number of funding mechanisms that respond to the twin issues of institutional sustainability and quality assurance. Some of the suggested mechanisms are new, and some are revisions of current mechanisms. Some would provide substantial funding, while others are designed to provide more modest amounts that could help smooth out income flows. Some mechanisms may be appropriate for a few institutions and others, for the sector as a whole. In all cases, how the suggested mechanisms would work and the kinds of funds they would make available should be developed more fully. They must pass tests of utility and feasibility. Consultation is particularly important because adopting any of the following ideas can create both winners and losers. Thus, we hope to suggest some ideas that could start the consultation process.

3.e.2. Funding options




We recommend that the development studies sector and DFID discuss the utility and feasibility of the following funding mechanisms with the intent of supporting those that can most effectively address sector problems. Centers of Excellence Grants. These publicly funded grants would be similar to those that the ESRC currently makes. But unlike ESRC grants, these would not specify the funding topics. Instead, institutions would propose research, training, or outreach programs on particular topics, and compete for a set number of grants made available each year. Available resources would limit the number of grants, but we would suggest up to five such grants over a 5-year period. Grant recipients would

28

receive funds for 5 years. Grants would be renewable for one period, based on demonstrated quality and timeliness of work completed. A panel of academics and users of research, training, and outreach would judge the proposals. Criteria should include demonstrated capacity of the institution to do highquality, innovative work; the quality of the proposal; and the potential of the institution to contribute to a better understanding of development problems in the context of globalization. Grants should be awarded in a way that maintains diversity in the sector. The grants would include funds for administration, information technology, and library support. They would respond to the need to fund core activities and simultaneously open opportunities for activities defined by institutions themselves rather than by funders. Centers of Excellence grants should promote both basic and applied research, and encourage investigation of new ideas and trends. Resource Center Grants. These grants would be publicly funded and similar to DFID’s resource center agreements that provide ongoing access to consultants from particular institutions. We believe these are, in general, relatively fair ways to gain access to valuable expertise and experience. But existing resource center agreements do not significantly recognize the long-term costs to an institution of making such expertise available. Thus, Resource Center Grants should be expansions of the existing agreements that include funds for institutional infrastructure such as library and IT investment and maintenance, scholarship funds, and funds for research writeup time for principal consultants. Matching Grants. Through these grants, government would pledge to match funds that centers raised from other sources, such as corporations or foundations. These grants would encourage greater entrepreneurship among various centers in seeking new sources of funds and committing the time and energy to develop new relationships with potential donors, and would be a mechanism for providing public funding without fostering governmental dependence. They could be designed to support the ongoing work of various centers. Alternatively, government might commit a certain amount and challenge foundations and corporations to match it. Government would take an active role in helping to stimulate new funding sources for the sector. Facilities and Outreach Grants. These publicly funded grants would support the maintenance and expansion of libraries, IT, and other infrastructure that is critical to the future of U.K. development studies. These grants would provide funds for maintaining and cataloguing collections and making them more widely available, for investing in IT networking, and for other information activities such as publications, scholarly conferences, and student and faculty travel to conferences. Grants would be for 5-year periods, renewable for one term.18 18

Title VI grants funded by the U.S. Department of Education might be a model for such a program. These 3-year grants are to establish or maintain national resource centers in area studies. They encourage universities to strengthen programs focused on particular regions of the world. The program funds a wide range of activities, but particularly encourages outreach, doctoral scholarships, and activities that would not

29

A Development Studies Research Council. This Council would replace the ESRC in the provision of funds for basic research in development, funding both disciplinary and interdisciplinary work and institutions. Like the ESRC, research funds would be made available for relatively long periods. It would have the same structure as the ESRC. This would provide a vehicle to focus on development-specific research and avoid the problems of relying on the ESRC, whose interests tend to be more on U.K.focused research.19 If a new research council were not feasible, an alternate strategy would be to work to change ESRC policies in order to put development studies on an equal footing with other research areas.

We stress that DFID and sector institutions need to assess the preceding funding options carefully before adoption. Mechanisms should be considered in terms of utility and feasibility; details would have to be worked out through in-depth discussions. We think it particularly important that these recommendations serve as a basis for a process of discussion, consultation, and debate about the sector’s future, and DFID’s role in it. The cost of different options depends on many factors, including how many grants are provided, the size of each grant, and what combination of options is selected. We can give some very rough, first-cut estimates of what we think appropriate levels of funding might be, but actual amounts would have to be calculated in detail.

be undertaken without such support. We recommend a similar kind of grant mechanism for programs focused on development. Among other activities, it would support valuable research infrastructure that could be considered a national resource. 19

We are grateful to Paul Streeten for this suggestion.

30

Funding mechanism

Number of awards per year*

Amount per award

Annual total (maximum)

Center of excellence grants

Up to 5

£500,000-800,000

£2.5-4 million

Resource center grants

Up to 5

£150,000-250,000

£750,0001.25 million

Matching grants

Up to 8

£50,000-200,000

£400,0001.6million

Facilities and outreach Up to 5 grants

£75,000-125,000

£375,000625,000

Development Studies Research Council

Funds to support £3-5 million scholarships and basic research *Number of awards does not refer to new awards each year but to the number for the government would commit annually.

Please note that we are not suggesting that all of these options be funded at the level indicated. Some combination out the first 4 options that totaled £5 million would be equal to the amount that ESCOR provides for social and economic research, but the new funding would be available to support core activities. Support for basic research and scholarships needed by the sector, and possibly provided through a new Development Studies Research Council, would be additional. Such an amount would make a significant difference for the sector’s financial stability and intellectual capital. Development studies institutions need to be aggressive in hunting for new funding sources. Here we suggest two ideas that some U.S. institutions have used successfully to support ongoing costs and that seem appropriate to some U.K. institutions. Corporate Partners Programs. Institutions that are particularly oriented to outreach and dissemination activities should explore opportunities for “Corporate Partners Programs.” Such programs provide modest funding that can be particularly useful in maintaining income streams, as well as bridging funds for overhead shortfalls. Corporate partners pay an annual fee, say £7,000 to £10,000, and receive in return relevant publications, invitations to policy-relevant meetings, and invitations to two or three special briefings with important policy makers yearly.20 20

At Harvard University, for example, several international centers have such programs. They are attractive because they generate funds and do not require large expenditures. In some cases, such funds are used to support research grant programs for faculty and students. Even relatively small centers generate US $50,000 to $100,000 annually from such programs. We see no reason not to use funds generated this way to support core activities. They do, of course, entail up-front development costs. But once underway, they easily cover their ongoing expenses.

31

Such programs should not be considered consulting contracts with corporate funders that entail research, or a large outlay of funds. They provide access to information and people that are already available through the institutions. Corporate partners programs require resources to develop, but once established, their operation should consume only a small portion of the funds generated. Membership programs. Some organizations, particularly those with high profiles and extensive dissemination programs, should consider development of memberships of individuals and organizations with particular interest in international development. For an annual fee, members receive invitations to a limited number of events, notice when new publications are released, and mailings of news briefings. As with corporate partners programs, memberships can provide modest but relatively assured funding sources that can help underwrite core activities. Membership programs also can provide access to individuals and institutions that can become active in public debates about development-related issues, such as budgets for foreign assistance.21

4.

Research in Development Studies

Advancing the frontiers of knowledge about development by conducting research and publishing results is central to the sector’s mission. Although a comprehensive review of development studies research was beyond the limits of this study, we looked at several samplings of the sector’s research output through publications, citations, and publication subject area. Our data are partial and address the issues in various ways; they only roughly indicate the weight and contribution of U.K. development studies.

4.a.

Research Output

U.K.-based research is strongly represented in the development studies literature. Its share of publications indicates that U.K. influence in the field is increasing. We analyzed publication rates in 21 journals, and found that U.K.-based authors wrote about 25% of the articles (Table 6). In comparison, 36% had authors in the United States; 15%, other OECD countries; 14%, developing countries; and 8%, international organizations.22 The data in Table 7 21

The Overseas Development Council in Washington, D.C., has such a membership program.

22

These figures are based on an analysis of the tables of contents of 21 journals, listed in Table 6, from 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 1996, 1997,and 1998. Included were major development journals, along with a selection of others that publish substantially on development. We tried to ensure a wide distribution in terms of region and discipline. Noting that not all the articles or authors were necessarily in development studies; we analyzed the journals as a whole. We do not suggest that all, or even most, of development studies research is published in these journals. It includes, for instance, few core disciplinary journals, some of which certainly publish substantial amounts on development. In addition, we analyzed only Englishlanguage journals, and did not include journals published in developing countries. Therefore, the relative contributions of others, particularly European and developing country researchers, are only partially reflected. But this sample includes the core, and part of the broader, literature in development studies and gives a general notion of relative publication rates. The publication rate of U.K. /authors varies significantly from journal to journal, reflecting mainly where the journals are published (U.K. journals tend to publish more works of U.K. authors, for example, and U.S. journals publish more U.S. authors).

32

show that U.K. influence has increased over time; U.K. authors accounted for 17% of publications in 1980, but more than 30% in 1998. Citations analysis suggests that active researchers in development studies recognize and use U.K. publications equally with work from other countries. Regarding articles in the same 21 journals, we found that there were generally no notable differences in citations of articles by U.K.-based authors and citations of all articles (Table 8).23 The figure for all articles was 2.92 citations per article, and 2.97 for the UK-authored articles. In terms of topic, the U.K. citations impact appears higher than that for all authors in economic policy, livelihoods and poverty, and industry and industrialization. The U.K. impact is less in others, though, including social policy and trade and finance.24 Treat these numbers with caution; this type of analysis involves many methodological difficulties.25 Through institutional surveys, we also compiled information on what works various centers consider their most significant. That gave us a list of 132 works, including books and articles. We grouped those works in broadly defined topics in: policy reform, its impact, and conditionality (16 works); sustainable development and environment/natural resource management (15 works); international trade and finance and globalization (12); aid (11); and conflict and humanitarian emergencies (10). Other significant areas were rural livelihoods and development; NGOs; and public administration, capacity building, and local government. U.K. development studies researchers publish in a wide variety of journals. A review of all publications of surveyed institutions over the past 5 years showed that articles appeared in more than 250 different journals. Many were single publications, but a few journals represented much more frequent publication by sector researchers. The journals in which sector researchers most frequently published were Journal of International Development, World Development, Journal of Development Studies, Public Administration and Development, Oxford Development Studies, Development in Practice, Journal of African Economies, Review of African Political Economy, IDS Bulletin, Food Policy, and Development and Change. A number of journals are published by development studies institutions. Sector researchers edit several others (Table 9). In addition, many centers publish working paper series or occasional papers, often connected to ongoing working groups or research projects. These papers are increasingly available over the Internet, making them more easily accessible than before to researchers outside the institutions that produce them.

23

Because SSCI was organized differently before and after 1988, gathering comparable data was difficult. Therefore, we did not include the years before 1990, which were included in the earlier analysis of journal publications. Furthermore, because of the 2-year time lag for citations (often longer), we also eliminated the later years. Thus, do not infer anything about a change in citations between the 2 years, as there were fewer years for citing 1995 than for citing 1990 articles. 1988 and 1990 simply represent two sample years. 24

For others, either the differences were too small to be meaningful or observations were too few.

25

For instance, in certain areas, the frequency of citation was not high enough to calculate meaningful averages. Even in cases where there were more observations, citation numbers were often abnormally distributed. Average citation impact was calculated regardless of the spread of citation numbers; thus, our advice to treat the averages with caution.

33

The surveys also showed that development studies institutions produce a wide range of research outputs in addition to the traditional journal articles, conference papers, and proceedings volumes. Most important are reports, as much sector research is applied and conducted as commissioned research or consulting. Other information vehicles include videos, briefing papers, adapted field technologies, radio and television programs, and course materials.

4.b.

Quality Issues

Assurance of the quality of its work is an important part of the sector’s intellectual agenda. Two prior reports focused on the quality of U.K. development studies research. In 1991, Michael Roemer and Merilee Grindle reviewed ESCOR-funded research and concluded that the work “quite consistently met acceptable standards of social science research.”26 Furthermore, they found that the research had contributed positively to knowledge of economic and social development, and found some outstanding ESCOR-funded work. In 1994, Gerald Meier reviewed a far broader range of research outputs of the Development Studies Association. His report focused more on economics than on other disciplines, but he found that “U.K. research activity has several commendable general characteristics”—including a consistent focus on development, concern with the practical implications of research results, interest in human development as a broad indicator of development, deep country-specific expertise, and diversity in perspectives.27 Meier was also impressed by the number of development journals published in the U.K., and the opportunities for collaborative research with overseas institutions. Although the sector is doing well overall, we found some persistent criticisms of the quality of its work. Meier, for example, criticized U.K. development studies, particularly development economics, for failing to be consistently rigorous and technically developed. He argued that “the softer approach in U.K. research could be criticized for being less concerned with high theory, relatively weak in quantitative and econometric techniques of analysis and at times ideological.”28 We heard similar criticisms in interviews with researchers in the U.K. and with international agencies and foundations. Many were concerned that those working in development studies sometimes did not use the technical tools to undertake “modern economic analysis.”29 Others felt that some within the sector had generally succumbed to an ideological focus that precluded consistently objective analysis. Still others were concerned that by trying to know something about many aspects of development, both researchers and students were deficient in 26

Merilee Grindle and Michael Roemer, Evaluation of Social Science Research Funded by the Economic and Social Committee for Overseas Research (ESCOR) Programme, 1984/85-1989/90, Harvard Institute for International Development, Cambridge, MA, USA, March 1991 27

Gerald Meier, “Review of Development Research in the UK: Report to the Development Studies Association,” Journal of International Development, Vol. 6, no. 5, 1994. 28

Meier, op. cit., p. 467.

29

Many see this as a virtue, in light of criticism of the increasingly narrow and methodological focus of mainstream economics.

34

rigor and inclined to “mushy thinking.” Similar concerns were echoed in the DSA membership questionnaire responses, including statements that the sector was out-of-date and irrelevant. Clearly, these statements over-generalize and are unfair to the range and quality of sector work. We often found examples of U.K. researchers performing at their disciplines’ cutting edge of substance and methodology, and reaching across disciplines to extend knowledge and insights. Moreover, our assessment does not allow us to address the accuracy of such criticisms. Nevertheless, such criticisms seem persistent and fairly widespread, so the sector should take them seriously—whether true or not. Such criticisms affect both the sector’s reputation and professional attitudes about whether it can take on the new intellectual challenges of development in a global context.

4.c.

Multidisciplinarity

When addressing these problems, those working in development studies must consider how to respond to concerns about disciplinary rigor without, simultaneously, sacrificing a multidisciplinary focus. The sector has long prided itself on the ability to consider developmental problems across a range of social science disciplines. In fact, some centers that we visited have become noted for going beyond multidisciplinarity in the social sciences, and have developed a reputation for combining natural and social sciences. This trait contributes to the strength and uniqueness of U.K. development studies, and helps the sector understand the increasingly complex problems that face decision-makers around the world. Nevertheless, U.K. development scholars do not agree about how to understand “multidisciplinarity.” Many that we interviewed, or who responded to the DSA survey, indicated that to do good work in development one first should be a “good economist,” a “good political scientist,” a “good anthropologist,” etc. Thus, they argue, necessary skills are generic to a discipline, but focused on the specific conditions of development and carried out in collaboration with scholars in other disciplines. But other development specialists, while emphasizing the importance of grounding in a discipline, stress the special nature of development that requires additional skills or insights that cannot be captured simply by being a “good economist” or a “good political scientist.” More broadly, the tradition of multidisciplinarity puts the development studies sector in an uneasy position in relation to current practices that were introduced to upgrade the quality of U.K. universities. In particular, the RAE is pushing researchers and trainers toward disciplinary specialization.30 Incentives for scholars to identify with narrow core standards of particular disciplines are further strengthened because some disciplines, especially economics, are 30

One center summed up the problem created by the RAE for many development studies centers. “The Research Assessment Exercise in the U.K. is a major issue. In a University which is profoundly focused on research ratings and publications, the lack of a clear process for credibly evaluating development research in the RAE severely affects the way in which the University views development studies staff. Underlying this is a sense that development studies staff are unable to clearly chart out their own career paths within this University structure, since they are periodically required to present themselves for judgement on a strictly disciplinary basis, even though inter-disciplinarity and applicability (sometimes not highly valued or understood by disciplinary panels) are often core values for them.”

35

becoming increasingly technical and specialized, and less inclined to recognize the value of crossdisciplinary research and analysis. Journals in some fields, notably economics but also political science and sociology, increasingly review articles submitted for publication with a keenly technical and methodological eye. While many criticize such trends for their tendency to ignore substance and relevance, they nevertheless have a significant impact on research and training in the social sciences. In the face of such pressures, U.K. researchers find it difficult to maintain commitment to multidisciplinarity, however defined. Even though many point out that multidisciplinary work is best produced by collaborating scholars with strong disciplinary grounding, the time and effort required make working across disciplinary boundaries difficult. This issue is pervasive in the development sector. Thus, despite a renewed consensus that multidisciplinary work is critically important to the future of development, disciplinary trends work against the concept in practice.

4.d.

What Should Be Done?

We have no easy solutions to the problem of how the U.K. can adapt to this dilemma. In some ways, the tension within the sector over disciplinarity issues should be viewed as creative; it can contribute to discussions about approach, craft, and methodology. We also believe that to remain internationally competitive, U.K. researchers must demonstrate disciplinary depth and methodological rigor. Thus, an important issue is how U.K. researchers will be able to maintain the important multidisciplinary character associated with U.K. work. After all, the ability to take a comprehensive view of development lies behind much of the sector’s past intellectual triumph. It is central to drawing students to the U.K. for work in development, and is the cornerstone of why international agencies and practitioners in other countries look to the U.K. for scholarship on development. To give up this comparative advantage, we believe, would be a loss to U.K. scholarship as well as to capacity, worldwide, to understand complex problems of development.




Institutions should encourage collaborative initiatives that increase cross-disciplinary work and disciplinary expertise. This can be done through team approaches to research and by defining research questions in ways that draw on the expertise of several disciplines.31

How can researchers, and research institutions, maintain multidisciplinary perspectives and analyses, even while engaging more in developing disciplinary standards of rigor? Perhaps we can take a cue from the independent development studies centers, which seem to be among the most successful in maintaining multidisciplinarity. As examples, we draw on IDS, ODI, and the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). Their style and structure of work emphasize group or team initiatives and collaboration across disciplines. Most work is focused on particular problems, and is done in a context of incentives to collaborate. Scholars in such institutions tend to report considerable satisfaction with an intellectual environment that supports continuous learning and the insights derived from working on multidisciplinary teams. 31

While we believe that institutions should encourage more collaboration of this nature, we do not advise that all research be carried out in this fashion. Disciplinary research is essential, and institutions and individuals must continue to have the option to conduct disciplinary research.

36

Exchange of ideas and group exercises in generating and disseminating knowledge are valued highly. Because of these factors, scholars spend time planning long-term research agendas and discussing what each discipline can bring to understanding particular problems or issues. Working in teams does not always fit academic environments or incentive systems, but we recommend that centers consider establishing collaborative research initiatives within institutions, and that funders encourage such activities through grant terms. This approach can be encouraged not only by the structure of research activities, but also by how research questions are posed and issues explored. And to the extent that the meaning of multidisciplinarity is an issue of contention within the sector, we suggest viewing it as a topic for discussion and debate, to promote new and creative approaches to research.




The sector should work within the existing structure of the Research Assessment Exercise to strengthen recognition of development studies.

Many have suggested that establishing a Unit of Assessment on development studies in the RAE exercise would be a valuable means to ensure survival of the unique characteristics of U.K. development studies, particularly its multidisciplinary tradition. We discussed this issue with many of those we interviewed, and found good arguments on both sides of the issue. We recommend working within the existing structure for three reasons. First, we are not convinced that a new Unit of Assessment would solve the sector’s problem of maintaining its integrity and reputation. In the course of many discussions about the RAE, we were impressed by the ingenuity of different universities and centers in developing strategies to maximize benefits of the RAE process for the universities and, sometimes, the centers. Many of the strategies involved trading faculty and choosing the most advantageous Units of Assessment. We noted that the strategies adopted had as much potential to harm, as to benefit, the centers’ status. The RAE exercise has widespread and unintended consequences. It appears that universities could use a new Unit of Assessment in ways that had negative, as well as positive, effects for development studies. Second, the creation of a new Unit of Assessment for development studies might increase the negative view that the sector does not make use of rigorous methodologies and analytic tools. Such a Unit could easily be interpreted as evidence that the sector lacks the disciplinary expertise to compete effectively in already existing Units of Assessment. Third, we believe that pressures toward disciplinarity will increase in the future. A new unit might protect the sector from such pressures--in effect, freezing it in time. We think this would hurt the sector. Thus, we consider it preferable to work with current Units of Assessment to assure that they consider the value of development work. We understand that this is the current approach in the Unit of Assessment for economics.

37

5.

Training for Development

Training is also part of the intellectual agenda in development studies. By training future researchers, the sector continuously rebuilds its capacity to sustain itself and future work. Training is a principal means to advance the influence of development studies in the U.K. and abroad. Indeed, in the institutional survey responses, IDS gave examples of nine high South African government officials who had been IDS graduate students. A partial audit of DFID, UNDP, and the World Bank gave evidence of an extensive IDS-trained network. This experience is typical of most development studies centers. Finally, decades of students graduating from such programs have undoubtedly generated a relatively large and informed public and an important constituency for development assistance in their countries. DFID should value this important sector contribution. Indeed, given the U.K.’s increasing cultural diversity, the study of development will, we hope, contribute to a more enlightened and culturally aware population. Our assessment focused primarily on masters and Ph.D. training, as well as short courses that many U.K. institutions have given. (We emphasize, however, that some institutions offer undergraduate programs in development studies.32)

5.a.

Post-graduate Education

Most of the sector's post-graduate educational programs have developed over the past 15 years. Growth in degree programs and overall enrollment have marked this era. Table 10 shows the size, breadth, and expansion of 60 separate masters degree programs in 18 institutions. A few masters programs were initiated in the 1970s, but most began in the mid-1980s or later. At least 13 of the programs began in the 1990s, some as recently as 1999. The expansion has involved schools that did not previously offer masters programs, and others that already had at least one program. Whereas institutions, until recently, typically offered a single masters program, many now have multiple programs. The largest programs, in terms of enrollment, are relatively new, including the development studies masters at SOAS and the London School of Economics (LSE), both of which started around 1990; the Open University Program, which graduates its first class in 1999; and IDPM at the University of Manchester, which started its masters degree programs in 1985. Most masters programs can be finished in 1 year, although a few research-oriented programs are 2 years in length. More than 1,000 students are currently enrolled in these masters programs, not including the 400 registered in the Open University. We estimate that about 900 U.K. masters degrees were awarded in 1998.33

32

Schools with undergraduate programs include East Anglia, Leeds, SOAS, and the Open University.

33

This includes estimates for LSE, SOAS, and University of Wales at Swansea, which were not included in the figure of 586 reported in Table 1.

38

At least 17 of the development studies institutions also award Ph.D.s (Table 11). More than 250 doctoral students are currently enrolled; probably considerably more, given gaps in the data. At least 235 U.K. Ph.D.s were granted over the past 5 years. Furthermore, the number of U.K. graduates has grown dramatically. Table 12 shows growth in the number of graduates of the 15 programs for which we have time series data. The number of masters degrees increased from 41 in 1978 to 385 in 1998.34 These figures, combined with estimates for LSE and SOAS, suggest that the number of people receiving masters degrees doubled every 5 years from 1978 though 1993, with a 60% increase in the past 5 years. The number of Ph.D.s awarded also increased substantially, from 33 in the 5 years from 1974 to 1978 to 146 in 1994 to 1998. The impressive expansion of degree programs and enrollments suggests that the development studies education is thriving. Some institutions, experiencing a buoyant demand for development studies programs, perceive the field as a growth industry. While they do not expect the trend to continue permanently, they are at least optimistic about the near future. Others feel that their programs have almost reached the limit of possible expansion. Certainly, as more institutions enter this arena, competition for students becomes keener. Several institutions reported having to put much more time and effort into student recruitment—just to attract the same number of students as before. That takes away from time for other activities such as teaching and research. The programs where growth has been strongest are those with the highest international profile, such as SOAS and LSE. That differentiation will likely continue, except for programs that have identified successful niches. Discussions with more than 60 students during our visits to 25 institutions gave some indication of the attractiveness of U.K. post-graduate programs. Almost all of the students said that they chose to study development in the U.K. because they wanted and appreciated a “holistic” and multidisciplinary approach. Furthermore, they were attracted by the U.K.’s 1-year duration for the masters degree and 3 years for the Ph.D., compared with 2-year masters degrees and very long commitment to the Ph.D. often required in the United States. Some students came to the U.K. to study with individuals whose work they admired. In several cases, the students met U.K. researchers who were working overseas, and who encouraged them to apply to their home institutions. Importantly, students mentioned the lower cost of acquiring a degree in the U.K. than elsewhere, particularly than in the United States. After arrival, students often felt part of a community and enjoyed the conscious efforts to bring them together to learn from one another. But in some cases, students felt abandoned when they arrived on campus, and were disappointed at not being able to see their professors often. This was a more frequent complaint in universities where faculty members were under heavy pressure to generate salary and overheads from consulting and short-term research, in addition to teaching.

34

Neither LSE nor SOAS is included in these data. Even conservative estimates for those institutions would raise the 1993 and 1998 figures substantially

39

5.a.1. Regional origin of post-graduate students A notable characteristic of U.K. development studies training is that it has never focused predominantly on British students. Many of the institutions were founded, and others reoriented in the wake of colonialism, to train public officials, academics, and others from developing countries. Thus, from the beginning a large proportion of the U.K. student body has been from developing countries. We collected data on the regional origin of students who received masters and doctoral degrees from the development studies institutions every fifth year from 1978 to 1998 (Table 13). Of students in masters programs, 28% were from Africa and 30% from Asia, vs. 18% from the U.K. The next highest percentages were from western Europe and Latin America (8% each). After 1978, when limited data showed 25% U.K. participation, the percentage of U.K. students has fluctuated from 14% to 20%, with no clear trend. The proportion of masters degrees going to African students was highest in the 10 years from 1983 to 1992, and has decreased since then. The highest rate was 40% in 1988, but had dropped to 22% by 1998. Offsetting the decrease in African students has been a rise in the proportion of Asian students to 33%. For both Africa and Asia, absolute numbers have risen consistently, even when percentages fell. The increase of African masters students from 1993 to 1998 was much smaller than earlier increases. We have data on 459 doctoral students who studied in the U.K. between 1974 and 1998. Of the total, 26% were from the U.K., 21% from Africa, and 22%, Asia. The highest proportion from the U.K—48%—was in 1974-78. This number should be treated with caution, however, because the total was small and data, fragmentary. Since then, the U.K. proportion has fluctuated. The actual number of U.K. doctoral students fell after 1978, stayed flat through 1988, then tripled in the 1989-93 period, and has increased somewhat since then. In the latest period, 46 (26%) of doctorates were awarded to British students. The numbers of doctoral students from Africa and Asia have increased over time, although not exactly in parallel. African numbers jumped in the 1989-93 period, then leveled off, then fell during the 1994-98 period. Asian students increased in the mid-1980s, then stayed constant until the mid-1990s when they more than doubled. In the last 5 years, 32 new Ph.D.s were African (18% of the total) and 50 were Asian (28%). The relative decline in African students is a direct result of the reduction in training grants during the 1990s. Asian students are in a better position to find their own financing than African students. Many in the sector are concerned about the lack of scholarships for African students, and we share that concern. Most students we interviewed, including Ph.D. students, planned to work in development in their own countries. Many, especially among students from Africa, will return to university careers in their countries. Their U.K. education is preparing them for those careers. The unavailability of support for African students is a loss for those students who do not have the possibility of pursuing their studies. It is also a potentially serious missed opportunity for DFID

40

to continue to educate the best talent for leadership in African development and to contribute to building desperately needed faculty for African universities.

5.a.2. Reproduction of the sector We also found a broadly shared concern in the surveyed institutions about whether the U.K. development studies sector is regenerating its own British human resources sufficiently to ensure its strength in the future. The survey response from East Anglia, for example, expressed it clearly: We are particularly concerned about the maintenance of Development Studies research and training capabilities in the U.K. There are relatively few PhD graduates in Development Studies and there is very limited funding available and candidates have to compete for what there is, for example from ESRC, with others who are in the main stream of their disciplines be they Geography or Economics. There is a real danger that as an earlier generation of Development Studies researchers and teachers who entered the field in the 1960s reach retirement age, there will not be a new generation to replace them. The data do not clearly answer the question of whether adequate numbers of U.K. students are being trained, but they suggest that this is not a major problem. They show that— while U.K. students are neither the majority nor as large a percentage of overall doctoral enrollment as 20 years ago—a substantial and increasing number have continued to be trained, both at the masters and doctoral levels, in development studies institutions. British students are also working on development in related fields, such as economics, anthropology, sociology, politics, education, and health, that are important sources of human resources for development studies. We saw no substantial evidence of an unmet demand in the job market for development studies graduates, although our evidence is fragmentary. The main employers are DFID, NGOs, and development studies institutions. Our surveys showed increases in the number of research positions available within the development sector, especially at junior levels and for short-term appointments. Difficulty in filling faculty or research positions was not generally raised as a problem, although one institution reported difficulty in finding British candidates of the quality it wanted. DFID has opened more than 60 new development adviser positions in social development alone in the past few years. One DFID respondent indicated that there was no shortage of applications or of good candidates for the positions. Of course, government salaries currently tend to be more attractive than university salaries. Some of the doctoral students from the U.K itself mentioned consulting in their career plans, but few were interested in, or expected, careers in university research and teaching. This concerns us as we consider the future of development studies, as it suggests that the academic careers necessary to ensure the sector’s future do not appear attractive or feasible to young scholars—or that those involved in sector training are failing to motivate young people to enter academic work.

41

Concern about the inadequate number of scholarships for post-graduate study was raised repeatedly in our surveys and interviews. Many institutions reported having many prospective students who want to enter development studies, but who lack funding so are discouraged from even applying. Furthermore, other institutions reported large gaps between the number of students accepted and those who actually enroll, largely because funds were lacking. While the number of students has grown, the proportion with scholarship funding has decreased. This suggests that development studies may not be able to attract the best students, particularly those who cannot afford to pay their own fees. There is a particular need for doctoral scholarships for British students, to ensure careers in the sector for the best U.K. students.

5.a.3. Quality, relevance and field experience We polled development advisers in DFID on their views on training in the development studies sector, and what type of training is needed to prepare people to work for DFID. Some were trained in the sector, and most interact with it in various ways. Assessments of the quality and relevance of the training varied. DFID respondents were relatively evenly divided between those who rated development studies training in the U.K. as “first rate” and those who thought is was only “average.” Most characterized it as “reasonably practical” and “quite applied.” About the same number thought that it was generally “relevant” as “sometimes relevant.” A few respondents indicated, however, that they thought training was too academic. Many noted considerable, even “huge,” variation among programs, both in overall quality and the extent to which training was relevant and applied. Regarding the type of training needed, most-often mentioned was a combination of postgraduate training and field experience, either through work or research. Respondents who teach in development studies institutions, who shared this view, also mentioned the difficulty of providing student opportunities for research and practical experience in developing countries. They reported the need for student internships; some also noted the need for more interaction with development practitioners throughout their training.

5.a.4. Training at the master of arts/sciences level Masters programs in development studies have often been important. Offering a masters degree was an initial reason for forming some development studies centers. For them, and others, the masters program has often represented, and provided, an intellectual focus for the institution. It has formed the multidisciplinary center around which people from different disciplines could come together to develop and offer a joint program. For some institutions that had been more oriented toward short-course training, consultancy, and practice, offering masters programs represented a shift toward stronger identification as academic institutions. But many masters programs have extremely small enrollments—suggesting that their continued proliferation may be becoming a problem. To some extent, pressures for new masters programs were because income gaps were created by the declining demand for other services. The new masters programs were an attempt to fill that gap with new income-generating activities. Masters programs made sense in a growing market. But although new programs sometimes reflect a match between an institution’s actual intellectual priorities and the demand

42

for training, they often seem an attempt to capture additional students—which increasingly turn out to be only a handful, or fewer. When asked about the expansion of degree programs and increasing specificity of focus, respondents often said that these were responses to market pressures and efforts to attract students with specific interests. Projectization of DFID activities appears to be part of this market dynamic as project managers try to match training budgets to specific skills needed for particular projects. New degree programs also sometimes appear to be introduced so faculty can teach in particular areas. Whatever the causes, the number of students per program is small, and annual enrollment fluctuations can make the maintenance of continuity difficult. We are concerned that increasing competition has led to a proliferation of programs not warranted by the nature of careers in the sector. We are also concerned that new programs are not always established for their intellectual merit. Many programs last 9 to 11 months. Some involve opportunities to conduct field research overseas for the thesis. Often they are designed to provide students with a holistic understanding of the particular topics of the degree, and most students interviewed said they chose to study in the U.K. because its institutions offered a holistic and multidisciplinary approach. But given the programs’ short duration, there is reason for concern that students are not getting enough depth in any subject, particularly economics, to master concepts and core disciplinary methodologies, or to equip them to adequately deal with the complex development problems they will face as practitioners.

5.b.

Non-degree Programs

Short courses are a valuable way to improve the practice of development. Professional training has historically been a major sector activity, and part of the mandate of several institutions, including Bradford and Birmingham. Short courses continue to be a core activity for many institutions, especially those with a strong professional, practice-oriented focus such as planning and management. For others, short courses complement research. Among the explicit purposes of INTRAC, a non-governmental organization itself, is to provide short-term training to strengthen other NGOs. For all such institutions, short courses are a valuable link to policy and management communities in developing countries, as well as a major way in which they make an impact. As noted earlier, non-degree courses have been key providers of revenue for some centers’ ongoing activities. The institutions that returned our survey train about 1,000 people per year in non-degree courses on development-related issues. During the past 3 years, an average of 88 such courses were held yearly (Table 14).35 Training covers a wide range of topics, from project planning, management skills, and organizational development to social development policy, forestry policy, and participatory methods. Most courses are offered in the U.K., but some are conducted

35

These figures do not include IIED, which trains a substantial number of people, mainly in the field, through collaborative projects.

43

overseas. Almost all participants are from developing countries, but a few training courses are designed for staff of development agencies. Internationally, competition to attract participants to such training programs is growing. In the U.K., our data suggest increasing instability in terms of attracting enough students to make them sustainable. A sharp fall in enrollment in recent years has led to greater emphasis on tailormade programs for particular organizations or on particular topics. The increasing vulnerability of these programs results partly from the projectization of DFID training funds, and partly from increased competition. Whatever the reason, many centers now have less ability to generate funds through short courses. Also, the possibility of offering broad and basic training in development practice—for example, courses in public management—has decreased. Most courses now emphasize narrower, skill-oriented training that may have a more immediate purpose, but less impact over the long run.

5.c.

What Should Be Done?

We think it important that those pursuing degrees in development studies receive training that prepares them well for the complex and multifaceted problems they will face in their future professional lives. They need rigorous training in disciplines central to development, as well as in how different disciplines contribute to understanding development problems. This is particularly true for Ph.D. students. If they are to compete in tomorrow’s market for research jobs, they will need both rigorous disciplinary training and a broad appreciation of development. As indicated, we are somewhat concerned about the depth and rigor of development study degree programs, and are not convinced that either the job market or intellectual merit justifies their proliferation. These issues require study and discussion, so we recommend that:




An inter-institutional committee should be convened to study the need for, intellectual merit, standards, and focus of degree programs in development studies.

The committee should consider the degree to which programs are becoming balkanized, the market for such programs, and the standards they should meet in terms of disciplinary depth and response to student needs. The committee should also consider the market for research degrees in development studies in the U.K. and abroad, and assess whether enough scholars and practitioners are being trained to meet future demands.




The development studies sector should substantially increase funding for scholarships. Some scholarships should be funded externally; universities themselves should fund others.

We see a need to increase support for scholarships in development studies. If the sector is to attract the ablest, best-prepared, and most committed students, funding must be available to enable them to enter and complete their studies. As suggested earlier, to increase institutional sustainability, scholarships should be included as part of grants to institutions. There is a need to work to increase the number of ESRC grants for development students. In addition institutions need to find new mechanisms to support students. We suggest that centers vigorously explore opportunities for corporate support of training programs. The University of

44

Leeds, for example, has a scholarship program in cooperation with Guinness that recruits students from a focused set of countries, particularly in Africa and Asia.




Funding for degree programs should include funding for field work and student internships.

Within the broad context of funding for students, we think it particularly appropriate to fund activities that maintain the sector’s reputation for producing professionals who are knowledgeable about the contexts in which development takes place, and the real-world challenges facing decision makers, managers, and citizens. Funding for scholarships should include opportunities for field research or internships. Internships are a relatively cost-effective way to encourage young people to enter development careers, and to provide “real world” experience that enhances classroom learning.36 Internships can be designed to fit students’ needs; they can be integrated into coursework or can be offered for post-degree periods of 3 months to a year. There is a need for creative thinking about post-graduate programs in development. The shortage of opportunities for meaningful experience in developing countries limits the value of training programs for Northern students, while some people also question whether programs in the U.K. or other developed countries truly serve the needs of developing country students. In looking toward stronger and more innovative programs for the future, those who design training programs might consider ways to teach part of the courses in developing countries, perhaps in collaboration with partner institutions.




Development studies institutions should develop and systematically use data bases of their graduates.

Development studies institutions need better systems for keeping track of graduates. Indeed, few of the centers we visited have any systematic way to monitor what happens to their graduates. This could be valuable information for networking, for setting up internships, for gauging the impact of training, and for fund-raising initiatives. Centers for development studies can use new information technology to maintain systematic data bases of their graduates, and use the information to enhance center activities. This information can enable institutions to provide their current students more opportunities to experience the real world of development.




Development studies institutions that offer short courses should seriously analyze their need, and consider alternatives for income generation.

Clearly, the market for development short courses has altered significantly and has become less stable. While short course training can improve the practice of development and expand U.K. influence overseas, we doubt that many institutions can continue to rely on such activity for their sustainability. Elite institutions will, undoubtedly, continue to draw participants to their programs. Furthermore, there are probably growth areas for short courses. Possible examples include NGO 36

In the United States, internships are widely available and often introduce students to future employers.

45

training and preparing local government officials to take on new tasks in the wake of decentralization initiatives. Training for officials and NGO leaders in transitional countries may also grow; so may training in methodologies to assess poverty. Short courses through distance learning will undoubtedly grow, with advances in information technology and its availability. But growth areas invite increased entry into the market, and it is not certain that all U.K. institutions will attract enough participants to ensure their programs’ viability. While we do not wish to discourage entrepreneurship in developing and marketing short courses, we think such activities should respond to serious market analysis and realistic assessments about funding opportunities.37




The development studies sector and DFID should become more outspoken about the need for education in “global citizenship” at pre-university and undergraduate levels.

Development education should be included in all U.K. elementary, secondary, and undergraduate programs. And the global nature of development means that education should be geared toward forming future citizens of the world. We believe that the British development studies sector and DFID should add their voices to those who press for “global citizenship” emphases in the general pre-university curricula.

37

Indeed, the Harvard Business School and the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard recently decided to cut back or stabilize the size of their degree programs—while aggressively expanding their executive programs. They did so, however, after careful studies of the market, and acknowledging the risks of the strategy.

46

6.

Outreach to Influence Development Thinking and Practice

The U.K. intellectual agenda will remain fairly sterile unless there is a concerted effort to ensure that its research products reach a broad range of decision makers in a timely way and in a format that they can easily use. As indicated, discussions about development involve large and growing numbers of people at local, national, and international levels, and increasingly take place through networks facilitated by the rapid pace of information technology. How good is the sector’s performance in influencing broader thinking about development and decisions made by policy makers, managers, politicians, and citizens?

6.a.

Dissemination and Outreach

Development studies institutions seem to be doing quite well in the dissemination of research and analysis. As noted earlier, the centers we surveyed report a wide range of dissemination initiatives. All institutions report efforts to publish work in peer-reviewed journals. Their staff publish books, journals, monographs, and edited volumes. The centers publish working or occasional paper series. They organize and participate in conferences and prepare consulting reports. Some write newsletters and publish findings and perspectives in newspapers. Indeed, the range of scholarly activities that contribute to the intellectual agenda in development is impressive. Our impression is that the sector emphasizes publishing and communicating the results of scholarly work adequately. Dissemination of research results to practitioners has been central to the mission of some research centers from the beginning. In addition, some institutions have sought to contribute to development education in the U.K. Considerable effort goes into such communication activities. Across the sector, the relatively new emphasis by ESCOR and DFID on dissemination strategies and impact has clearly increased this type of effort. Some recent initiatives are described in boxes that accompany this text. 38

38

Partial texts courtesy of IDPM, IDS, and the Centre of African Studies at the University of Edinburgh.

47

Developing New Tools for Research The Institute for Development Policy and Management at the University of Manchester, in conjunction with the university’s Environmental Impact Assessment Center, has developed an impact assessment methodology for use in developing country contexts. The research has sought to integrate environmental, economic, and social assessment at both the methodological and decision making stages. The key lessons of the research are that:
Improved knowledge of the relevant subsystems (environmental, social and economic) and of the linkages (causal and procedural) between them is needed for the effective use of more integrated appraisal and decision making practices;
Integrated assessment procedures need to be applied at the strategic level of policies, programs, and plans;
A participatory approach needs to be integrated into each stage of the decision making process. The work has generated two international conferences, three books, two special issues of journals, journal articles, a large training program, and an international network of practitioners.

Networking for Participation IDS has been involved in developing participatory practices in development and in building a broad network of researchers and practitioners who have been using such practices. This network has expanded to include government agencies in the south. In Tanzania, at a recent meeting of principal secretaries in Arusha, a decision was made to adopt participatory practices at all levels of work. In addition, IDS has led workshops on participation in several regions of Tanzania, donor training at Sussex attended by key participants from UNDP, FINNIDA, and Irish Aid, training and support in the Shinyanga Human Development Report Project; network support for PARENT, and south-south exchanges, which allowed government and community leaders to share with colleagues in India.

Expanding Development Education The Centre of African Studies of the University of Edinburgh organized Scotland Africa ’97, a yearlong international event to emphasize the important cultural, historical, linguistic, and community dimensions of African studies. The event included visits by African political and cultural leaders and a special Africa Bus, which visited classrooms throughout Scotland with exhibits, live performances, lectures, and classroom activities. The event involved multiple constituencies, including African residents in Scotland, politicians and local authorities, development educators, teachers and students, NGOs, and cultural institutions. It sought to demonstrate the extent to which development studies and development education are linked.

48

The independent research centers—IDS, ODI, and IIED—are particularly active in disseminating results to practitioners. ODI is a good example. It publishes an impressive array of briefs, articles, books, videos, and CD-ROMs. These materials are relevant to policy makers, NGO leaders, politicians, and managers concerned with development in the U.K. and abroad, and in international agencies.

Influencing U.K. and International Agency Policy ODI has invested considerable staff time in work on conditionality, debt relief, and aid. A recent book, Aid and the Political Economy of Policy Change by Tony Killick, summarizes much of the research. Prior to its publication, however, research staff addressed conferences celebrating the 50th anniversaries of the IMF and World Bank, urging limitations on conditionality. Staff seminars at the World Bank and the Fund, as well as presentations to a large number of other international agencies, resulted in action by some of them, notably the World Bank and bilateral donors, to reduce their reliance on conditionality. Similarly, ODI consulted with UNCTAD, the Swiss and Swedish governments, the Commonwealth Secretariat, and the World Bank on the problems of debt in poor countries. The consultations included discussion of the excessive transactions costs of past creditor approaches to debt negotiations and of the need to pursue debt-relief arrangements. These consultations assisted in the creation of the Heavily Indebted Poor Country initiative. In a third initiative, ODI consultation with DANIDA about donor relations with Tanzania improved these relationships.

ODI also organizes special briefings and other meetings for concerned policy makers and publics in the U.K. ODI and the other independent research centers give considerable thought to how to present research products in formats that are appropriate to a diverse audience of practitioners and academics. The range and quality of their outreach programs is impressive. Our own surveys also indicated that many centers are giving considerable thought about how to reach applied professionals. In the institutional survey, we turned from a question about what dissemination methods various institutions used, to what methods they considered most effective in influencing development practice at the policy and program levels. Frequent responses included direct/personal contacts with aid practitioners and policy makers; networks with other researchers, government, and NGOs; participation in public debates, seminars, and committees; consulting with government and NGOs; links to ministry of foreign affairs and national aid agencies; and training of those who go on to hold important positions. Also mentioned were the preparation of policy papers and memoranda, scholarly publications, newspaper articles and editorials, and publications for popular journals. Some respondents also mentioned the importance of work with political parties and others interested in development, direct participation in policy making, and the participation of decision makers in setting research agendas. Interestingly, there is little overlap between the dissemination methods that institutions commonly use and those they say are influential in development practice. Clearly, academic

49

institutions and academics may not be well-qualified, or may not desire, to engage in many of the activities that they believe will influence the real world of development practice. Furthermore, incentive structures within academic institutions reward scholarly publications and conferences, but not other types of dissemination. Also, some forms of dissemination considered most influential are not easily available to researchers. In particular, researchers seldom have opportunities to engage in real decision making contexts about development policy—although many of the researchers we interviewed would welcome more direct involvement in policy making and management. Indeed, the ODI Fellows Scheme, widely recognized for providing high-quality experience, was often mentioned as an excellent example of a valuable program. Not only did many of those we interviewed support the expansion of opportunities to work overseas, they also expressed interest in secondment as high-level advisers within government. Long-term commitments of centers and researchers to particular countries and topics also enhance influence in the real world. As the School of Development Studies at the University of East Anglia indicated in the survey, “It is essential to have a prolonged track record working in a certain research area or a particular country, which establishes a reputation in the field. Contact with policy makers is crucial and training overseas officials provides an important means of influencing approaches at lower levels within overseas governments.” IDS suggested a way to further expand influence. “We are finding that one of the most effective ways to increase impact, apart from targeted dissemination…is to involve decision makers and policy makers upstream in the conception and planning of research. This increases their commitment, improves the chances of the research addressing their concerns, and predisposes them to be receptive to the end results.” Similarly, INTRAC suggests finding ways to make publications “more accessible to southern organizations.” Such opportunities should be encouraged. Information technology is transforming the world. Individuals and organizations that wish to be relevant to that world have no option but to invest in and use IT. All institutions that we visited had invested in IT, and most staff appeared relatively satisfied with progress in its use. We were particularly impressed by the initiatives of many development studies libraries to link their collections and make them more broadly available on-line. ID21 and ELDIS are two important initiatives. Queen Elizabeth House is using a Mellon grant to digitize a large and unique collection of gray literature on refugees. Elsewhere, considerable thought and investment are going into distance learning for degree and non-degree studies. Two good examples are the Open University and the Agrarian Development Unit of Wye College. A number of institutions have initiated and maintain networks with colleagues and practitioners internationally. But generally, we feel that, while most institutions appear to be keeping up with IT, few are putting serious thought into its full potential. That is, we found few examples of creative new uses for information technology. Fully exploiting its evolving potential, of course, requires large outlays of money—the resource in shortest supply in most of the institutions. Nevertheless, creative thinking and investments in IT are essential if the U.K. is to take a leading role in international discussions about development as a global issue.

50

All development studies institutions that we looked at have partnerships with institutions abroad. Some partnerships are informal, formed among faculty and students who share mutual interest in a particular country or policy issue. Other, more formal partnerships have grown from long-term collaborative research and training, and involve years of exchanges of faculty, students, and ideas. British Council funds have been used to establish some partnerships of researchers who wish to work together for the mutual benefit of both of their institutions. Increasingly, partnerships result from research contracts that require a partner in the south. We found that many of these partnerships are vibrant, useful means for U.K. centers to actively engage in the global discussion of development issues. IIED argued persuasively about the value of broad-based research partnerships: “During research with partners, mechanisms are developed for engaging principal stakeholders in research and dissemination. In many cases, the research process brings together local organizations, NGOs, and government agencies as collaborators in research and action, and thus enhance the policy impact of the work.” But in other cases, despite many good intentions, the partnerships are hollow shells, largely because financing schemes are insufficient and short-term. We consider partnerships a good idea that should receive more support. At the same time, U.K. institutions and funders should be realistic about the requirements for authentic partnerships. Establishing good collaboration may easily take at least 5 years and require visits as well as student and faculty exchanges and IT links. The British Council provides too little funding, for too short a duration, to foster personal and professional relationships that are mutually influential and beneficial. Moreover, in some countries, particularly in Africa, little can be achieved unless major, long-term initiatives are undertaken to rebuild universities. Partnerships established with such institutions should be based on long-term institution building.

6.b.

Impact and Influence

Tracing the impact of the sector’s activities is difficult. Research generally contributes cumulatively to a body of knowledge. That often makes it impossible to trace the impact of recommendations, ideas, or perspectives back to particular individuals or institutions. Similarly, measuring the impact of training on practice is difficult. By definition, practice-oriented training is undertaken to improve how development gets done. Nevertheless, the link between learning and action is not always clear (even though training institutions delight in claiming credit for their graduates’ achievements, while avoiding blame for their failures). Likewise, consulting or advocacy recommendations are generally only one part of a series of pressures that culminates in changes in policy or practice. In addition, development problems are usually complex. The behavior and perspectives of multiple actors must be altered if such problems are to be addressed. Affecting practice generally requires a series of interrelated initiatives with actors at different levels. A good example of the complex strategies needed to affect the resolution of complex issues is that of the Joint Evaluation of Emergency Assistance to Rwanda (see box—text courtesy of ODI).

51

The Joint Evaluation of Emergency Assistance to Rwanda ODI’s Humanitarian Policy Group (HPG) has long viewed evaluation as a key point of entry for lesson learning and performance improvement within the humanitarian system, and since the early 1990s, it has adopted a conscious strategy of integrating evaluation within its research, dissemination, and policy advisory activities. At the end of 1994, HPG was awarded a contract to lead and manage a study of the Joint Evaluation and Emergency Assistance to Rwanda (JEEAR)—an unprecedented international collaboration by 37 organizations led by DANIDA. With a multidisciplinary team of 20 individuals, the study represented the largest evaluation of humanitarian aid ever undertaken. The approach adopted combined consultancy and research techniques. Following the launch of JEEAR, HPG played a key role in the formation and management of an evaluation follow-up monitoring network. This was an innovative effort to ensure that the JEEAR was presented directly to policy makers and to monitor progress in implementing the 64 recommendations made by the overall study and report back to the 37 organizations comprising the Steering Committee. HPG was also very active in efforts to disseminate the lessons from the JEEAR to field personnel and to a more academic audience. HPG also followed-through on key recommendations in the JEEAR relating to methods of evaluating humanitarian assistance programs and on accountability and performance within the international humanitarian systems. This was achieved principally by developing and undertaking a study for the DAC to establish good practice in the evaluation of humanitarian assistance programs, developing a network to improve accountability and performance, and participating in projects to develop standards and an ombudsman function.

We can provide only examples and opinions about the impact and influence of the development studies sector. This is partly because of the ambiguity and complexity of tracing cause-and-effect relationships in research, training, and consulting. Also, this study’s terms of reference do not allow a full-scale impact assessment. We draw on information from four sources to report on the sector’s influence. First is self-reported information from questionnaires sent to development studies centers. The extent to which respondents answered impact questions varied considerably, so not all of our information is comprehensive. Second, we have information from a questionnaire sent to DSA members. Third, we have surveys of development studies institutions outside the U.K. Finally, we interviewed about 20 officials in international institutions and foundations. These data provide partial—and positive—insight into the sector’s influence. In the questionnaire, we asked for examples of U.K. activities that have had an impact on policies and programs. A few responses follow.




From IDS, Sussex University: A pilot scheme in rural Vietnam that provides “assistant doctors” to supervise both curative and preventive health measures; action research in Cyprus, the Dominican Republic, Kazakhstan, and South Africa in developing industrial

52

policy for government; training for participatory practices in public sector organizations in Tanzania and India.
















From the School of Development Studies/Overseas Development Group, University of East Anglia: Adoption by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of a decentralized program for agricultural officers and staff in Central Africa; incorporation of rural livelihoods research in DFID and World Bank assistance strategies for Nepal. From ODI: A sustainable rural livelihoods framework to help DFID implement the 1997 White Paper; advice to parliamentary committees on trade agreements; influencing U.K. development assistance policy for watershed management and programs in northern Ghana, northeastern Zimbabwe, and semi-arid regions of India. From the Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester: Seminars for World Bank, JICA, DFID, USAID, and NGOs on microfinance models, including their costs and benefits; work on the effectiveness of internal NGO practices to ensure strategic focus, performance monitoring, and accountability; a manual on privatization for policy makers and practitioners; a poverty audit of DFID’s assistance program in Kenya. From Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford: Contributions to the Human Development Report (UNDP), Trade and Development (UNCTAD), World Development Report (World Bank), The State of the World’s Refugees: A Humanitarian Agenda (UNHCR); input into the U.K. government position on foreign investment in poor countries; assisting Zambia prepare to host meetings of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research and the Paris Club; impact on the choice of technology for rice processing in Bangladesh. From the Center for the Study of African Economies, University of Oxford: Changes in the structure of IMF-ESAF lending programs to poor countries; refocusing of development assistance to countries that demonstrate the capacity to reform policy; increased support for the social sectors in Ethiopian budgets.

Those examples range from very specific and focused interventions to broad initiatives to alter policies of international agencies such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Much of the work focuses specifically on particular institutions and practices, but considerable effort is also made to influence the “climate of opinion” about key issues. Both types of initiatives are important. Focused interventions have an immediate impact on programs or populations, and also provide useful case studies for others who confront similar issues. One consequence of improved IT and discussion of policy and program reform is that policy makers and other practitioners worldwide increasingly study the experiences of other countries when they confront particular issues; they mine case studies and guides to “best practice” when seeking solutions to particular problems. Affecting the climate of expert opinion can also have major consequences, and will probably become even more influential in the future as more people engage in policy discussion at local, national, and international levels.

53

The DSA membership survey also generated examples of policy and program impact, including references to research and consulting that altered:


















DFID’s approach to conservation and development policy in the Amazon, Natural resource management in the Sahel, Democratization work by SIDA in Bolivia, NGO accountability practices, NGO empowerment practices in India and Jordan, Development strategy of UNIDO and UNDP, Micro-finance program activities, DFID’s social policy activities, Balkan refugee policy and UNHCR policy in the CIS, Research think-tank activities in Uganda, Indian post-harvest technology, Water resources practices in Ghana, Ghanaian civil service reform, Human rights and democratization programs in Mozambique, and Urban health programs in Egypt, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nicaragua.

We cannot vouch for the accuracy of these examples, but at a minimum they suggest a wide range of efforts to influence policy and practice. Indeed, when DSA members were asked about the particular characteristics of U.K. development studies, they fairly consistently reported, as strengths, its practical and applied orientation, and its empiricism. While some criticized the sector for not being sufficiently relevant to the real world, the overall response was one of confidence in its utility to respond to development problems. As one respondent indicated, “…relevance has been an important claim of British development studies. This is because problems are unruly.” In the realm of ideas, our limited information suggests that the U .K. development studies sector is fairly consistently associated with particular ideas, emphases, paradigms, orientations, and types of studies. Responses to the non-U.K. institutional survey, for example, reported associating the U.K. with: 1) an alternative to the neo-classical approach to development led by the United States; 2) development economics of broad perspective; 3) studies of political and cultural institutions; 4) international political economy; 5) broad multidisciplinary orientation; 6) pioneering research in applied fields such as participatory methodologies, natural resource management, and aid programs; 7) tropical public health; 8) capacity to influence development policy agenda; 9) peasant studies, social dimensions of structural adjustment, rapid rural appraisal, and poverty; and 10) rural economy, combining microanalysis with macroanalysis. DSA members noted that development studies contributes strongly to ideas about participatory approaches to development, concepts related to civil society, country and issuespecific research, poverty alleviation, capacity building, gender, and impact assessment. The DSA members noted that the sector is able to contribute to ideas about development because it emphasizes multidisciplinarity and is independent from “mainstream thinking” about development—a perspective they associate with the World Bank and many U.S. academic institutions.

54

It is also reasonable to consider that the large number of seminars and conferences held at U.K. development studies centers helps influence the perspectives of participating academics, students, and practitioners. They in turn influence public opinion and put new ideas into effect. Questionnaires from U.K. institutions list more than 195 conferences and workshops held in the country from 1995 through 1998.39 So much activity must influence ideas and opinions about development. Officials of international agencies and foundations credited the sector with significant influence over ideas that shape broader discussion of global development. British researchers were particularly credited with helping shape the UNDP Human Development Report (HDR), which since 1990 has set the international agenda in defining development in terms of human capabilities. Much of the poverty-oriented work conducted in the U.K., as well as important critiques of the extensive stabilization and structural adjustment programs of the 1980s, contributed to the genesis of the HDR. Currently, much of the staff of the HDR and many of those who contribute background papers work, or were trained in, the U.K.40 More broadly, poverty, gender, livelihoods, and sustainable development—all topics of international concern—have important roots in U.K. research. At the World Bank, the U.K. sector (in some cases along with researchers from Nordic countries) is credited with generating the ideas bout participatory research on poverty and significant contributions to bank policy on poverty, gender, and vulnerability. Surveys from non-U.K. development centers indicate considerable U.K. impact in training of their professional staff. Almost all institutions report at least one staff member trained in the U.K. and several have two or more. The Institute for Development Studies in The Hague, one of the largest and best-known of such institutions, currently lists 13 faculty members who hold U.K. doctoral degrees, including 3 from East Anglia and 3 from Cambridge. In Denmark, 3 of 12 professionals at the Center for Development Research were U.K.-trained. Many faculty at Roskilde in Denmark have received supplementary training at IDS. In developing countries, the numbers are also impressive. In Tanzania, both the Economic and Social Research Foundation and the Economic Research bureau list three U.K.trained professionals. Four faculty members of the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies in Egypt have U.K. training. The Madras Institute of Development Studies and Makerere Institute of Social Research in Uganda have three each. In Indonesia, the Center for Strategic and International Studies has six U.K.-trained professionals. These data are only illustrative, but suggest the extent to which the U.K. sector influences large numbers through educating faculty and researchers internationally.

39

ODI reports organizing 57 such events; IDS, 27; and Queen Elizabeth House, 20. Many other institutions report having organized from 5 to 15 such events during this period. 40

This may represent brain drain, however, because salaries for research positions in the U.K. are considerably lower than in international agencies.

55

6.c.

What Should Be Done?

A variety of actions could strengthen the U.K.’s capacity as a leading and influential voice in domestic and international discussions about development. Options to consider include:




The development studies sector should find ways to increase funding for scholars, including those in the U.K., to attend conferences, and for U.K. institutions to organize conferences.

We consider attendance particularly important when such meetings bring together international participants, including both researchers and practitioners, and are held overseas. Small grants for organizing conferences are more easily available than grants for extended research activities. Centers might use the joint development of innovative conferences and workshops as one way to build relationships with foundations and international agencies.




The sector should provide increased opportunities for U.K. researchers to serve in policy making, managerial, or advisory roles, domestically and overseas.

A program similar to the ODI Fellowship Scheme, but revised as a 1- or 2-year program for mid-career researchers and trainers, might be an example.




Development studies institutions should increase their investment in IT.

A committee might explore ways in which IT can enhance global learning and discussion about development.




The sector should have increased funding for partnerships, and should alter the terms so that the relationships grow from the partners’ common interests, commitments, and needs.

Support should be sufficient to ensure that professionals can spend time at partner institutions, and for student exchanges. Support should be for periods of at least 5 years to be sustainable.

7.

A Role for DFID

7.a.

A Sector-DFID Partnership

The Department for International Development and the U.K. development studies sector have common interests. Not only does DFID benefit from the work of the sector, it is also a valuable partner to the sector. It has long been a principal supporter of sector research and training, and commissions a large amount of research and consulting. DFID staff are often drawn from the development studies sector. Consultation and interchange between researchers and DFID staff are frequent. When DFID introduces new policies, it appears to us that there is considerable effort to consult with various institutions about implications of putting them into effect or revising them if they cause undue hardship. For example, consider the case with tendering procedures for thematic

56

research grants. When development studies institutions found the procedures too time-consuming and expensive, DFID changed to a two-phase process that reduced the costs of competing for grants substantially and also provided a preparation grant for short-listed proposals. Similarly, in establishing the themes for research programs, DFID often consults with the sector to identify broad themes that are of interest to both researchers and practitioners, and that are relevant to a future-oriented agenda. Indeed, the relationship of DFID and the U.K. research and training community seems to be closer and more supportive than that of the relationship of the U.S. Agency for International Development and U.S. academia. DFID took a fair share of criticism, of course, in interviews with a wide variety of development studies centers (see box below). The sector’s considerable interest in DFID activities was not surprising, considering its dependence on DFID policies. Many chafe at tendering requirements. Others are concerned that announcements of research and consulting opportunities are not widely publicized, and do not provide adequate time for response. ESCOR is generally considered to do a good job of advertising its research grants, but many think that DFID’s various departments have different, and sometimes haphazard, ways of publicizing research and consulting opportunities. Some believe that the department continues to show a preference for institutions, such as IDS and ODI, with whom it has had special relationships in the past.41 But overall, there seems to be considerable understanding of DFID and the constraints within which it works.

7.b.

What Should Be Done?

We believe that DFID has a valuable role to play in strengthening the development studies sector. Of course, the department has limited resources and is not currently in a position to underwrite many of the initiatives that we have recommended. Clearly, one of the most valuable things that DFID can do is seek additional resources for the development studies sector so that it can, in turn, strengthen its own activities. Following are recommendations for how DFID can help the sector in other ways:




DFID should alter the structure of its funding mechanisms to better understand the constraints that development studies centers face, and to recognize the importance of core activities and long- term time horizons in research, training, and consulting contracts.

When DFID moved from funding core activities to funding research and consulting, it provided opportunities for many more centers to benefit from grants—but it also encouraged financial vulnerability for the institutions. Its decision to move from broad support of training activities to project-managed training had a similar impact. As indicated, we do not recommend that the department return to the earlier practice of core funding for a few institutions. We think that a “level playing field” approach is an appropriate way to encourage quality assurance and efficient resource use.

41

In the survey, for example, one institution observed that “the impression is that informal networks have persisted in spite of attempts to regulate the process.”

57

Views on Tendering The following responses to questions about contract tendering were submitted on the surveys received from development studies centers in the U.K.
The time spent preparing tender documents is a drain on academic and administrative time. The competitive nature of the process leads to secrecy and a withholding of information from other academic organizations for fear they may be competitors, the exact opposite of the principal intention of research dissemination.
Tendering and competition has absorbed a lot of time, often not very creative time, in which second guessing what is needed, trying to make good alliances for political reasons, and slick presentation tend to take up much of the time, not fundamental thinking.
Contract tendering and competition inevitably involve time and resources in preparing proposals. There is no doubt that there are heavy demands on the academic staff involved, and that they are inevitably at the expense of other activities. We believe, however, that the benefits of a competitive bidding process are significant in terms of setting a “level playing field” for research applicants and in ensuring the quality of proposals. We welcome DFID’s policy of acknowledging the opportunity costs of preparing large-scale bids by giving a preparation grant to shortlisted applicants.
Tendering procedures lock up considerably more…time now that diversification of income streams is a strategic research policy.
This intensification of competition has put us under considerable pressure and made it more difficult for us to sustain a large corpus of genuine research, as distinct from consultancy type commissions.
We only tender for contracts complementary to our long-term interests in order to supplement and not distract from priority areas of concern. However, the short time frames for tendering can cause time pressures on senior staff as the timing and deadlines for submissions of bids is not predictable.
Clearly there is a cost associated with contract tendering and competition, which has in some respects inhibited such activities. But at the same time this has also encouraged us to be more selective in bids for funding, concentrating such bids on areas of our particular expertise.
We are used to tendering and competition and think that this is the correct and open way for research funding to be allocated.
Experience shows that competitive tendering involves substantial technical and managerial effort, which diverts resources from research and other activities. The formation of consortia as part of the bidding process makes it difficult for those excluded from such alliances to access funding. Bureaucratic rigidities, especially in timing and deadlines, affect the quality of proposals and are disruptive of other academic programs.
It is the length of time over which research funds are committed, rather than the tendering and competition, which is, in our view, the key to enabling successful research to be undertaken. The issue of the length of commitment impacts on three dimensions, all of which are essential for good research. The first is the need to retain key researchers. The second is the need to enable aspects of research which are long term…The third is what might be termed an institutional memory….the need for individuals within a centre to provide continuity.

58

We do recommend, however, that DFID structure research, training, and consulting contracts in ways that recognize the importance of core activities, including reasonable overhead rates, funds for library and IT facilities, and funds for write-up time on large consultancies. We also recommend that grants be funded for longer time periods, to encourage basic research and continuous attention to particular issues.




DFID should be primarily supportive of the sector’s more applied activities.

Currently, HEFC, ESRC, and many foundations focus on more traditional academic work. Funding for more applied work through DFID, the EC, and international agencies helps balance the emphasis of other funders. This does not mean, however, that funding should be entirely problem-focused; it certainly should not be based on a short-term horizon. Part of the ultimate purpose of work that DFID supports, however, should be concern with real-world problems, and how to address them.





DFID should continue to consult with the scholarly community about important unresolved issues in development and keep the definition of themes broad, to encourage innovative research; and DFID should maintain and expand funding opportunities in its responsive window.

Past research funding benefited from DFID’s willingness to consult broadly within the development studies community. We encourage such consultation in the selection of research program themes. In our interviews at various centers, scholars sometimes singled out thematic research as focusing on “last year’s issues,” or “the train leaving the station,” rather than exploring new issues and ideas.42 This is certainly a danger in selecting research themes. But our solution would not be to do away with the themes; they provide valuable contributions to DFID work. The responsive window enables researchers to pursue investigation of questions not necessarily on today’s policy agenda. Given the uncertain nature of knowledge generation, maintaining openness for new ideas and lines of investigation is critical.




DFID should continue to work to minimize the transaction costs of tendering proposals, consistent with fairness and quality considerations.

The logframe approach was a particular source of irritation. Part of the criticism, we think, is a reaction of scholars and academic institutions to results-oriented management. But research activities often don’t fit easily into a logframe. Research is, by definition, a creative activity. Close measurement and monitoring can stifle new insights, new ways of thinking, and intellectual risk-taking. Furthermore, the impact of particular research can not always be envisioned, particularly considering that much research is cumulative. 42

This view, more broadly addressed to funding councils, was expressed by Queen Elizabeth House in the survey of institutions. “We find that too much research funding has been directed by Funding Councils— which is odd in an era where decentralisation and free choice is generally praised and government competence to ‘pick winners’ is derided. Finance is then directed to what are the conventional priorities of the time, leaving little room for innovatory thinking. This is even more so in some of the tendering processes when specific questions, not just broad areas, have sometimes been laid down.”

59

But we recognize that as a public agency, DFID is responsible for carrying out wider public sector policies and procedures. We are also aware of the importance of accountability to the department. To deal with this issue, we suggest that DFID, in consultation with development studies centers, look for ways to revise the logframe approach that recognize the particular characteristics of research.




DFID should consider providing initial funding for an organization that will provide a range of professional support services to the development studies sector.

Although we have argued against a return to a policy of noncompetitive core funding, DFID could make wise use of a core grant in one area: professional support services. A need exists for some organization to help the development studies sector by providing professional support, and by helping DFID interact with it. The organization could, for example: be a clearing house for information on foundations and their funding opportunities; disseminate information about research and training opportunities, conferences, exchange programs, internships, and scholarships; and establish an information bank on sector job opportunities. Data could be maintained on the state of the profession, and on those entering it through Ph.D. training. A professional support service could disseminate information about DFID activities and funding opportunities. Both institutions and individuals would pay membership fees. After an initial start-up period, DFID could scale back support to a modest amount annually. We do not know if this would be an appropriate role for DSA, but the opportunity exists for some organization—perhaps a new professional association—to provide the sector a valuable communication service, while adding to its own influence and prestige.




DFID’s leadership should assume a central role in building support for development studies and U.K. contributions to this important field.

Finally, we believe that DFID’s leadership is particularly important in encouraging changes such as those we suggest in this report. The department’s leadership should be at the center of building support within government and informing public opinion about the development gap and other important development problems the world faces. DFID must be involved in efforts to increase budgets for development issues, encourage universities to acknowledge the important contributions of development sector centers to education and research, and urge the private sector to support development studies. DFID can also continue to make use of the sector’s insights, innovations, and accomplishments as it speaks to audiences abroad and in international agencies about the global challenges of development. The potential outcome will be well worth the effort.

60

Appendix 1 Development Related Studies in the UK: A Strategic Assessment Terms of Reference Introduction 1.

These terms of reference describe a study on the structure, conduct and performance of the development studies sector in the UK.

2.

The development studies sector in the UK is defined as comprising those involved in research, teaching and consultancy, principally social scientists (from economists to social anthropologists to political scientists to geographers), whose principal interests relate to the promotion of development in poorer countries. Development studies research is theoretical or applied research, carried out mainly by social scientists, which has to do with the current development challenges faced by or in developing and transitional countries. Research is distinguished from consultancy by (a) the questions asked, (b) the methods employed, and /or (c) the outputs produced. In the UK, such research is carried out by academic institutions, policy research institutes, think tanks, NGOs, and to a limited extent, consultancy companies. The sector also has a heavy involvement in teaching, principally at the postgraduate level, and in training of development practitioners, either in country or through short courses in the UK.

3.

The institutions involved in the sector include:

Institutes not attached directly to the universities (e.g. IDS, ODI, IIED) Centers attached to universities (e.g. Oxford, Reading, UEA, Manchester, Birmingham, Bath, Glasgow, LSE and several others) Other individuals and centers of varying sizes where significant research relevant to development is going on (several universities, NGOs) These institutions are funded in varying proportions from Higher Education Funding Councils, research grants (from ESCOR, ESRC and foundations), income from training courses and from consultancy (for DFID and many other development agencies). 4.

The development studies research sector in the UK has been one of the largest and most varied in the world. Its outputs can be traced in books, academic journal articles, research reports, briefing papers, electronic media, and a wide variety of non traditional media, including video. The sector has made major contributions to development thinking internationally, and has had a large policy impact. The impact of UK development research was reviewed for the Development Studies Association by Gerald Meier in 1993. In 1990 Merilee Grindle and Michael Roemer of HIID evaluated the research funded by ESCOR from 1985-90 and made a number of specific recommendations on ESCOR procedures and policies.

5.

In recent years a number of factors have led to concerns about the future of the sector. The key factors include: (a) general restrictions on the availability of funds in the UK

61

higher education sector (b) an increased level of competition as the number of centers has risen in the UK, but also in Europe (c) the development of indigenous research capacity in developing countries, in itself much to be welcomed, but posing new challenges for the UK sector; (d) the need to develop new capacity on emerging problems, for example globalization, trade and financial liberalization, social exclusion etc; (e) an international decline in development funding through official channels; and (f) the relative neglect of development studies research in aid funding (and in developing country government funding) worldwide. 6.

Financial problems principally revolve around changes in the volume, patterns and procedures of funding from government, other funding bodies, and various users including the UN and bilateral aid donors. Related to the funding issue, are questions as to the appropriateness of the size and structure of the sector, and its ability to meet changing needs.

7.

Key issues facing the sector include the following: Changes in the funding regime in the higher education sector (importance of RAEs). Phasing out of core funding by DFID. Replacement by tendering exercises or project application applications involving high transaction costs. Greater emphasis on capacity building in developing countries. Unwillingness of some funders to meet full overhead costs. Reduction in effective demand for UK-based short course training. Asian crisis has affected demand for graduate and postgraduate training. Consultancy market remains buoyant but potential conflicts with research/teaching commitments/agendas. Failure of UK resource to reproduce itself (few British post docs etc.)

8.

At a time of rapid change in the world, and also of greater uncertainties about future development trends, it is felt opportune to appraise the role of the development studies sector and the contribution it can make through research, teaching and consultancy to development goals. There may be a need for a new strategic framework to guide participants in the sector, and there may be actions government could take to facilitate the contribution of the sector.

9.

Looking forward, there are positive aspects. While donor-funding overall is unlikely to rise, there is a much greater emphasis in the donor community generally on the importance of knowledge and ideas as factor in development. The Secretary of State for International Development believes that good analysis and ideas are particularly important at this time of change. Thus a greater flow of donor funding to the sector is a possibility if a good case is made. There are also many opportunities for collaboration across national boundaries, especially within Europe.

Objectives 10.

The study will focus on development studies research and the related teaching, training, consultancy and information management. The specific objectives of the studies are:

62

i.

To assess the need for development studies research internationally, in the context of emerging development needs;

ii.

Taking account of the international context, to examine the UK’s future role as a provider of development studies research;

iii.

Again taking account of the international context, to carry out a strategic assessment of the UK development studies research sector;

iv.

To synthesize the strengths and weaknesses, problems and opportunities facing the sector (including intellectual, financial, structural and institutional);

v.

To make recommendations on a framework for the future development of the sector; and

vi.

To assess Government’s role in the implementation of the recommendations.

Implementation 11.

The study will be carried out over a six-month period, beginning in January 1999.

12.

The study will be conducted by a team from the Harvard Institute for International Development (HIID) under the direction of Professor Merilee Grindle. The team will be advised by an International Advisory Panel of distinguished development professionals and will also interact with an Advisory Group formed by the Development Studies Association.

13.

Although the study is funded by DFID, responsibility for the analysis and conclusions of the study rests solely with HIID.

63

Appendix 2 List of People Interviewed Francis Teal 3 postgraduate students

Institutions in the United Kingdom Agrarian Development Unit, Wye College Jane Bryson Andrew Ross Dorward Jonathan Kydd Richard Pearce Laurence Smith 3 postgraduate students Others

Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation, University of Warwick Shaun Breslin Richard Higgott Christopher Hughes Marcus Miller Shirin Rai Alan Roe Diane Stone

Centre of African Studies, University of Edinburgh Kenneth King Pravina King Others

Departments of Development Studies and Economics, and Centre for Development Policy and Research, School of Oriental and African Studies Ann Booth Lisa Croll Degol Hailu John Weeks

Centre for Development Studies, University of Bath Pip Bevan James Copestake Peter Davis Ian Gough Christopher Heady Susan Johnson Mahbubul Karim Allister McGregor Esse Nilsson Scott Thomas Adrian Winnett 15 postgraduate students

Department of Law and Public Administration, Glasgow Caledonian University* Jacqueline Charlton Development and Project Planning Centre (DPPC), University of Bradford John Cusworth Carolyne Dennis Mark Hiley Nancy Matthews Behrooz Morvaridi David Potts Michael Tribe John Weiss Postgraduate students

Centre for Development Studies, University of Wales at Swansea Augustine Ankomah Chris Barrow Mary-Ann Brocklesby John Campbell Ele Fisher Jeremy Holland Alan Rew Suranjit Saha Dharmendra Verma Others 6 postgraduate students

Development Planning Unit (DPU), University College London Julio Davila Michael Mattingly Babar Mumtaz Michael Safier Nadia Taher Patrick Wakely

Centre for the Study of African Economies, Oxford University Jan Willem Gunning

64

Development Policy and Practice (DPP) Open University Hazel Johnson

Institute of Development Studies (IDS) Keith Bezanson Geoff Barnard Mike Cockerell Sarah Cook John Gaventa Susan Joekes James Keeley Zoe Mars Neill McCulloch Garett Pratt John Sanders Patta Schott-Villiers Chris Stevens Ian Scoones Gil Tipping Adrian Wood 8 postgraduate students

Development Studies Centre, University of Leeds Zulfuk Aydin Carolyn Baylies Abigail Bristow Ray Bush Lionel Cliffe Gordon Crawford Delia Davin Andrew Green Serap Kayatekin Mahmood Messkoub John Sousan Philip White Development Studies Institute (also Department of Social Policy and Administration; and Sticerd), London School of Economics E. A. Brett Robin Burgess John Harriss James Putzel Jo Beall Timothy Besley Tim Dyson Anthony Hall David Lewis 6 postgraduate students

International Development Centre, University of Reading Susana Franco Yelena Kalyushnova Matthew McQueen Steven Morse Paul Mosley Uma Rambapatta Stephen Wiggins International Development Department, School of Public Policy, University of Birmingham Philip Amis Richard Batley Kate Bird Ian Blough Nick Devas Mark Duffield Mike Hubbard George Larbi Andrew Nixon Richard Slater

Institute for Development Policy and Management (IDPM), University of Manchester Paul Cammack Bill Cooke Phil Gummett Richard Heeks Jayne Hindle David Hulme Paul Francis Colin Kirkpatrick Willy McCourt Colin Murray Philip Woodhouse Postgraduate students

International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) Paola Barbarino Stephen Bass Joshua Bishop Richard Sandbrook David Satterthwaite John Thompson

65

Natural Resources Institute (NRI), University of Greenwich Jonathan Coulter Ann Gordon Robin Grimble Martin Hebblethwaite John Morton Others

Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in the United Kingdom

Christian Aid Matthew Lockwood

International Non Governmental Organization Training and Research Centre (INTRAC) Sara Gibbs Andrew Clayton Brian Pratt

Overseas Development Institute (ODI) Allen Brown David Brown John Borton John Farrington Adrian Hewitt Henri Bernard Solignac Lecomte Anand Madhvani Simon Maxwell Sheila Page Michael Richards

Oxfam* Ines Smyth

Save the Children Fund Caroline Harper Queen Elizabeth House (QEH), Oxford University Sheila Allcock Dawn Chatty Marilyn Deegan E.V.K. FitzGerald Julia Knight Cathie Lloyd Raufu Mustapha George Peters Sarah Rhodes Frances Stewart 10 postgraduate students

Governmental Organizations in the United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID) Lucy Ambridge Andrew Bennett Charles Clift Arjan deHaan Peter Grant Mary Keefe Maria Kelly Susan Milner Susanna Moorehead Louise Shaxson John Tarbit Richard Thomas Roger Wilson

School of Development Studies/Overseas Development Group, University of East Anglia Stephen Biggs Jude Howe Cecile Jackson Rhys Jenkins Richard Palmer Jones Ruth Pearson Kunal Sen Sarah White 3 postgraduate students

Higher Education Funding Council John Rodgers

University of Glasgow* Farhad Noorbakhsh

66

Organizations and Individuals Outside the UK

United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) Jan Vandemoortele

Rockefeller Foundation Lincoln Chen Gordon Conway Joyce Moock

World Bank Paul Collier Michael Lipton Lyn Squire Joseph Stiglitz

United Nations Development Program (UNDP) Sakiko Fukuda Parr Inge Kaul

Others Consulted Pranab Bardhan Desmond McNeill Sir Hans Singer Paul Streeten

* Indicates that we did not visit the institutions indicated but met with the individuals elsewhere.

Note: Not all meetings were individual interviews. In many cases meetings with professional staff were group discussions. This list is relatively complete, but in some cases we did not have the names of all participants. We apologize for any omissions.

67

Appendix 3 U.K. Development Studies Institutions Surveyed Institutions Surveyed

Response

Agrarian Development Unit, Department of Agricultural Economics, Wye College Centre of African Studies, University of Edinburgh Centre for Development Policy & Research (CDPR) School of Oriental and African Studies Centre for the Study of African Economics, Oxford University Centre for Development Studies University of Leeds Centre for Development Studies, University of Bath Centre for Development Studies, University of Glasgow Centre for Development Studies, University of Wales at Swansea Centre for Rural Development and Training (CRDT), University of Wolverhampton Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation (CSGR), University of Warwick Christian Aid Department of Law and Public Administration, Glasgow Caledonian University Development and Project Planning Centre, University of Bradford Development Planning Unit University College London Development Policy and Practice (DPP) Open University Development Studies Committee, Univ of Cambridge Development Studies Institute, London School of Economics Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester Institute of Development Studies International Development Centre University of Reading International Development Department, School of Public Policy University of Birmingham International Institute for Environment and Development International Non Governmental Organization Training, Research, and Consulting (INTRAC) Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich Overseas Development Institute Queen Elizabeth House, Oxford University Save the Children Fund School of Development Studies / Overseas Development Group, University of East Anglia University of Lancaster

68

yes

yes yes yes yes

yes

yes yes yes yes yes yes

yes yes yes yes yes yes

yes yes

Appendix 4 International Institutions Surveyed Institution

Country

Developing Country Institutes African Economic Research Consortium Centre for Policy Analysis Centre for Strategic and International Studies Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad (CEDES) Centro de Estudios del Desarrollo, Universidad Central de Venezuela Centro de Estudios Internacionales, El Colegio de Mexico Centro de Estudios sobre Desarrollo de Economia, Univ. de los Andes Delhi School of Economics and Centre for Development Economics, Delhi University Economic and Social Research Foundation Economic Research Bureau, University of Dar-es-Salaam Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales Fundacao Getulio Vargas Ibn Khaldoun Centre for Development Studies Indira Ghandi Institute of Development Research Institute for Development Studies, University of Malaysia Institute of Advanced Studies, University of Malaysia Institute of Statistical, Social and Economic Research, Univ. of Ghana Madras Institute for Development Studies Makere Institute for Social Research National Council for Applied Economic Research Research and Information Systems for Non-Aligned and Other Developing Countries India Habitat Centre Thailand Development Research Institute Developed Country Institutes Centre for Development and the Environment, University of Oslo Centre for Development Economics, Williams College Centre for Development Research Centre for Development Studies Centre for Economic Development, University of Southern California CERDI, Universite de Paris I Christian Michelsen Institute European Centre for Development Policy Management Finnish Society for Development Studies, University of Helsinki GEMDEV, Universite de Paris I German Foundation for International Development Gradaute Institute of Development Studies, University of Geneva IDRC IEDES, Universite de Paris I Institute of Development Research and Development Policy, Ruhr University of Bochum Institute of Development Studies, University of Helsinki Institute on Developing Economies Instituto de Estudios sobre el Desarrollo y la Economia Internacional

69

Response

Kenya Ghana Indonesia Argentina Venezuela Mexico Colombia India Tanzania Tanzania Chile Brazil Egypt India Malaysia Malaysia Ghana India Uganda India

yes yes yes

yes yes yes yes yes

yes yes

India Thailand

Norway USA Denmark Norway USA France Norway Netherlands Finland France Germany Switzerland Canada France Germany Finland Japan Spain

yes yes yes yes

yes

yes yes yes yes yes

International Development Studies, Roskilde University ISSAS, Institute of Social Studies National Centre for Development Studies, Australian National Univ. Research Program in Development Studies, Princeton University

70

Denmark Netherlands Australia USA

yes yes