Choose a site:
| Advanced Search
|
Communication, Media, and Development Policy
Analysis, Ideas and Debates on Development Policy Issues from Communication and Media Perspectives
Save & Share This Page
Social Bookmarks
| Advanced Search
|
Save & Share This Page
Dr. Ostrom Not Collier.
These views are not complimentary in my opinion.
The manipulations or if you like the regulations to centralize has not did will not help the global fianancial environment.
If we take this to other key development issues, advocating for governments to take centrestage in championing development needs may be a strategy that may work out in some economies of the world, but would have drawn out struggle in Africa, and in Nigeria where I live in particular.
with governments in charge, we go back to whole issues of corruption....you can fill in the blanks!
In Nigeria, before the present civilian era, civil society groups accessed partnerships direct from international development organisations. But with the advent of the so called democracy, we have all sorts of bilaterl and multi-lateral 'supports' that end up being politicised, with government seeting up agencies that don't work, officials that are self-seeking, ann NO WORK GETS DONE. The Global Fund is one of such.
If we compared work being done by international development agencies working directly with civil society groups, and civil society groups working with government controlled bilateral or multilateral programmes, the evidence we need might emerge.
Civil society groups are not perfect, but they have had more work done in helping the real issues and the real people that need help. So, civil society still needs continous help to get better at helping. Government agencies most time see civil society as competition. and government is most times, far removed from the people.
Dr Ostroms, position, which tends to support encouraging local or homogenous groups to organise and help themselves, has a better potential in environments like Nigeria, the speed up development, than Paul Collier's.
What it takes to get a community to see they can do something to help thenselves, is far less than what it takes to keep the people hoping that that their 'elected' leaders are soon on the way with help that would never come.
www.myspace.com/richieadewusi
fundamentals of development
Great to be seeing again how fundamental premises of development may arrive at different approaches. In reality most development would say at least, that it was trying to support both/and in terms of stability and support for fairer trade access etc, AND the ability of groups such co-operatives, or community lobby groups to organise themselves better or at least not be hindered in the formation of their movements.
I'd like to hear more such 'case studies' (the one in california and the mention of nepal is interesting) - is anyone developing something of a global view of how these collectives are operating in different spheres? one interesting and definitely fundamental issue in the two approaches is indeed the interventionist aspect. how can those concerned that communities are able to meet there needs 'help' in this process as external 'providers' of expertise and experience?
what is the verdict on groups getting together to do just what is mentioned as part of the first approach - ie to demand fairer trade regulations in countries that need to develop exports/production
Collier and Ostrom
This analysis generates interest--it sounds good and straight forward, but would Collier and Ostrom agree to the comparison as described? As suggested at the end, it opens the search.