Photo: BrauerSelf-Reliance and Development Cooperation
The following article is an abbreviated version of a paper delivered at a German-Chinese seminar on "Strengthening Self-Reliance through International Cooperation" in Beijing in September, 1987. Dr. Manfred Kulessa is the Resident Representative of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in China and a former head of the German Volunteer Service (DED).
We are development workers. What we try to achieve is usually called development. I have long since come to distrust the use of that term. There is hardly any word in our language which is so prone to support misunderstandings and misconceptions. The word originates from Western natural sciences where it has been in the centre of controversy for about three centuries. When transplanting this term into historical and economic schools of thought, we have, perhaps unconsciously, entertained the concept that each social unit and each country will develop according to an inherent predestination, like a plant or any living organism would develop, if the right conditions are created. We know that such a concept has little validity. There is no such predetermined shape for the fate of nations, and much depends on options and choices, i.e. political decisions. And ,there is no such thing as a "take-off" stage from which everything is moving on automatically, following a pattern set elsewhere.
Therefore, we have to use the term development with some caution. On the other hand, it is so well established that we cannot just neglect it. But we have to be careful to explain what we mean. About twenty years ago, some of us were quite impressed by Sam Parmar's concept of a triangular development goal: economic growth and self-reliance and social justice. I still believe that this is a beautiful concept which describes well what we are working for. In the meantime, we also came to appreciate and to share other concrete global concerns, for instance those of population, ecology, and so on. And there are always the overall considerations of peace and disarmament. We therefore prefer definitions that find their orientation in the well-being of people. Of these, the term "quality of life" appears most acceptable as a short abbreviation. Thus, development can be defined as improving the quality of life of human beings everywhere.
Obviously, development is not only economic growth. Self-reliance is an important factor as well. Historically, the term self-reliance had a strong political connotation when it was invoked in the first years of the post-colonial experience of many developing countries. In the meantime, it has its meaning within the economic, scientific, and cultural context as well. It has become a key word in describing the aims pursued, individually and collectively, by most of the Third World countries.
Self-reliance is indeed a very important ingredient in China's development policies. If you ask one of our Chinese friends what self-reliance means, the likely answer will be: to rely first on own efforts. This remains in fact the very basis of the opening policy of our host country. Self-reliance also means that people can manage their own affairs. Thirdly, it means that everyone will enter into cooperation on the basis of own experiences, needs and aspirations.
As we know very well, co-operation is absolutely necessary. Self-reliance cannot mean isolation. Today, we know about the global inter-dependence, we share the common concerns of mankind, we know that we have to look at natural resources and human environment on a global scale, to see world politics from a global perspective, to strive for an improved quality of life for all members of the family of man, to work for a common future. There are many reasons why international co-operation must increase and improve, within and beyond the present structures of international organizations such as the United Nations. But it is also evident that such cooperation requires responsible and self-reliant partners on all sides.
Foreign aid and self-reliance
In fact, all international co-operation is meant to build self-reliance, and donors usually profess that their main aim is just that. But it is sometimes worrying to see how little foreign assistance can achieve in this respect. Often enough, one gets the impression that foreign co-operation is actually weaking the status of self-reliance in certain developing countries, and that it does not contribute to governments' and people's ability to stand on their own feet, but rather to reduce their determination to build their own future by themselves. We all know examples of this unhealthy tendency. We know elites who thrive on it. We hear also about complaints of pressure being exerted, both in negotations with international financial institutions and in the policy dialogue with donors. It is not easy to judge to what extent such complaints are justified. In any case, their existence may serve as a message of caution to the donors who want to support and strengthen self-reliance in the developing countries.
In Europe, and especially in my own country, a serious debate has been going on for years whether or not development cooperation may also serve the economic interest of the donor country. Most of the time, this was accepted as being the case, and often enough it was even a major part of the donor motivation. We started out linking development co-operation with our national interest. More recently we have developed tied-aid policies, mixed credits and all kinds of combinations which link our economic interest with the aid programmes of governments. Some of our politicians would even like to see a direct link between our domestic labour markets and foreign assistance programmes. All this makes it rather difficult to clearly differentiate between economic interest and official development assistance (ODA). Personally, I would prefer a policy of development co-operation which is totally and only oriented to the needs of the people in the developing countries.
' According to my experience, this issue does not seem to cause much of a problem to our Chinese friends. Perhaps they are much more pragmatic in their approach to international cooperation which they see basically founded on the principle of mutual benefit. When receiving assistance, it seems no difficulty for China to recognize and to accept linkage between development assistance and economic interest of any donor.
When it comes to the issue of self-reliance, however, China will certainly present a strong case for a new type of development co-operation. Through historic events and experiences gained, often painful enough, in the ups and downs of international relations, China has learned first of
all to rely on its own efforts and has in fact developed its impressive achievements mainly through self-help. No one from outside can tell China what her priorities and plans should be. In addition, there exists a strong institutional and administrative infrastructure that is capable - in spite of certain bureaucratic and structural shortcomings which reforms are meant to address - to manage the affairs of the huge country and its one billion inhabitants. China needs international co-operation for its modernization drive, the country needs technology and management techniques, but can request and receive such innovations in a self-reliant manner, based on its own plans and priorities.
China — a special partner
That is why UNDP thought from the beginning that China would be a very special partner in development co-operation. A major donor turning recipient, a country which, though rather poor, has solved the basic needs issue of the largest population on earth, a socialist country with centralized planning and an agenda of bold economic reforms, all this looked like a real challenge for a new departure in development co-operation when finally in 1978, China opened to international co-operation and declared itself as a developing country, ready to accept international assistance. At that time, the United Nations system was the first to respond Obviously, we are meant to be universal, and China is an important member of the United Nations. So, UNDID agreed on its first projects in 1978, and opened its first office in Beijing in 1979.
A few years before, we had just gone through a rather intensive discussion on the so-called new dimensions of technical c :D-operation which were meant to go beyond the established patterns of the post-colonial era. What we wanted to achieve was exactly a major shift toward self-reliance and output-orientation in our programmes and projects. If our ideas were correct, their practical validity would come to light in China. That is why we carefully negotiated not only projects, but also the modalities of their implementation.
Photo: Brauer
China needs technical knowhow from outside, but self-reliance is the priority goal. In some technical fields, modernization is advancing at an impressive rate. Young technician in a bail bearing testing institute in Hangzhou.
I believe that the choice of tools is an essential element of our performance. In order to explain why, let me give you a practical example. Just before the start of our new China cooperation, about ten years ago, when working in Nepal, I went to take a look at a very promising project which was funded by UNDP and executed by the World Bank, consisting mainly of a subcontract implemented by a German consultant firm. The task was to conduct a technical and economic feasibility study on 54 potential sites for suspension bridges. In Nepal, where most of inland transport is still done by porters, these bridges can play a very important role as part of the country's infrastructure. Recognizing this fact, the World Bank was willing to finance the construction of a number of bridges. Hence the study.
It appeared that the German consultants had done a good job, studying the local traffic, the transport needs and flow of goods in different seasons, and working on an up-todate design for the bridges. They submitted their report in time. It was found satisfactory, and Government, World Bank and UNDP came to the conclusion that $ 600,000 were well spent. Consequently, we were actively looking for the necessary investment loan to build those bridges which were identified as most useful.
Traditional knowledge and appropriate solutions
At that stage, I was told that the people of the remote district of Baglung had built an equal number of bridges in self help community actions during the period of our study. Together with some Swiss engineers and other specialists, we went to visit that district and though we could not see all the bridges in that mountainous area, we received the obvious impression that those we saw were solid constructions, based on age-old traditions which are actually quite common in different parts of the Himalayan range and beyond. The Swiss engineers later returned to do a detailed study of the bridge design and of some suggested improvements by using r modern techniques. I learned a lot from this excursion to Baglung. Using volunteer labour in traditional community action and mostly local materials, the people of Baglung had found the appropriate solution for their problem in a self-help approach. In fact, they had spent little public funds, only about ten per cent of the amount we had paid for our study. The German experts and even the Nepali Government engineers in their Kathmandu offices, trained in good schools in India and the West, had no idea about the capacity and traditions of their own people in the remote hill regions. Neither had the international organizations. When I reported my experience to the World Bank and to "German Consult", the colleagues at the Bank were at least embarrassed.-The consultant firm, however, replied coolly that it was not in their terms of reference to study local technical traditions. They would have done so if we had asked for it.
Subsequently, the Planning Commission of Nepal encouraged me to give a public address, and following a manner of speaking which used to be popular in China, I passed on my new message under the heading "Learn from Baglung!" What I had learned myself can be summarized as 'follows: Firstly, we have to link up with existing traditional technologies. Secondly, it is important to build development projects on self-help activity. Thirdly, the beneficiaries, the end-users of a development effort should be involved as main actors and decision makers. Fourthly, a project has to show a result that can be sustained, and hopefully be copied, without further foreign intervention. And finally, when looking at the success of a project, it is not sufficient to prove that it has fulfilled its' plans and shown its targeted outputs.
The last point is rather relevant in most of our evaluation exercises. As long as these are truly motivated by a genuine concern about self-reliant development and cost-efficient performance, they should attach sufficient importance to issues concerning tools, methods and new dimensions of implementing projects of international co-operation. My second and most recent slogan has therefore been the call to "check the tools", and not only the fulfilment of our plans.
The tail that wags the dog
This may turn out to be a delicate task at times, since such an approach may touch the vested interests of the donor institutions. Personally, I have become rather sensitive to this issue. I would like to submit that while a link between economic interests and aid programmes may be acceptable (although I still find it regrettable), it should not be easily accepted when the interests and needs of the donor bureaucracy determine the character of development cooperation. We must not allow the tail to wag the dog. However, as practitioners of did we know that it sometimes does, in the bilateral co-operation as well as in the work of the international organizations.
Let me just mention one critical phenomenon: the resident expert from abroad. I have just read an article of Professor Kwesi K. Prah of Ghana, teaching at the University of Lesotho, who writes: "Development assistance, as it is presently understood and implemented, cannot achieve progress, as its practice and consequences only help to conserve perceptions and contrasts of the colonial times between indigenous populations and westerners. More vigil ance, more efforts are needed...". For many years, we have heard about the "expert fatigue" in developing countries We also know that, even with the best of intention, the foreign expert is not a likely tool to promote self-reliance. Moreover, his style of life and work is usually of a character that the host country cannot afford to offer to his national counterparts. It is also true that the most qualified experts in the industrial countries are hardly available for a prolonged stay abroad in a developing country. All these reasons should let us think twice before we design projects that mainly consist of such expert services. However, that is exactly what continues to happen. One of the reasons could be that the expert is certainly useful for the donor organization. He will surely write nice reports, he will spend money regularly and tend to justify the project (including the extension of his post); like all of us, he will try to make himself useful and indispensable. Many job descriptions prescribe that the expert should work himself out of the job. If it really happens, it appears to be the exception rather than the rule.
Or take the volunteer. He or she may be less demanding and usually easier to integrate. However, who says they are needed exactly for the period of service for which they are available? It is the sending organization (DED and UNV alike) that determine the length of their assignment, usually two to three years. The demand side remains a secondary consideration. What if the real need is for five years or for three months? Regrettably, our institutions cannot show that kind of flexibility. You ask for a volunteer to come for three years or not at all. If, however, you are looking for a senior service expert volunteer, you may get him or her only for a few months. Thus, the institutional tools of our co-operation — and not firstly and only the actual need — tend to determine the modalities of project implementation.