This Executive Summary of the 2005-6 study on policy-makers and the role of communication for development is a follow-up to a similar survey conducted in 1994 for The World Bank. Its purpose is to assess changes in the perception of policy- and decision-makers in multi- and bilateral aid agencies, governments, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). It also addresses whether there have been changes in human and material resources committed to this sector.



The term "Communication for Development," as used in this survey, means a "social process for sharing ideas, knowledge, and skills in the context of a development initiative. Its function is to facilitate participation and consensus-building for decisions and for implementing development actions that take into account the interests, needs, and capacities of all concerned. Communication media may or may not be used in achieving the process, whereas interpersonal and group communication always plays a fundamental role." Interviewees often use an additional term: “strategic communication thinking” meaning the analysis of a development situation in which there may be human obstacles, suggesting the need for a communication plan and activities aimed at smoothing out these problems through creating and facilitating a regular exchange of views. (This kind of communication is differentiated from "corporate communication," related to public information, public relations (PR), or external affairs.)

The survey interviewed 44 policy- and decision-makers in positions at a level allowing them access to understanding the breadth of development issues. It reveals a shift from the 1994 position that costs of communication technology showed insufficient proof of cost effectiveness. According to this study, the majority of respondents strongly agree that it is economically justifiable to include communication in development projects and programmes. In addition, the perception among the majority of respondents suggests that organisations are likely to sustain and/or expand the use of communication in their operations. The study states that, though few organisations indicated formal policy favouring stakeholder participation, it seems to be entrenched in the minds of those concerned with development that stakeholder participation in all phases of development projects is essential and can be facilitated by communication for development.

As in the 1994 survey, the current survey shows that funding is not a major obstacle. The discussion has shifted to how to allocate funds and ensure systematic integration of communication for development strategies in development programmes, taking into account the cultural, political, and social realities of their working context.

The survey supports a reshaping of language and terminology to clarify Communication for Development as distinct from communication in general and to locate more competent specialists in this field and to ensure interaction between communications and technical specialists on what is required and what is achievable through communications.



Respondents reported a need for more strategies on achieving "true" participation. They reported more use of media in the health sector with greater need for two-way communication media usage. Respondents were conversant not only with needs, but also with successes where Communication for Development had made key contributions. Nonetheless, it was unclear from this set of respondents whether resources had increased across the field.

In its conclusions, the survey results observe progress since the preceding study, in the consensus by its respondents that the use of communication in development is economically justified and in need of expansion based on the successful results respondents could enumerate.

The summary notes that participation through interpersonal/group communication is considered the most important and successful type of communication practice, particularly for fostering stakeholder participation. However, the lack of understanding of a further role and of the potential of Communication for Development shows a need for greater clarity of scope and methods and a more specified identity, especially as distinct from PR. Advocacy was recognised as essential. The survey recommends links to other fields of communication; increased practitioner competence in knowledge of political, cultural, technical, and operational field realities as well as a better understanding of subject matter, including interdisciplinary aspects; broad knowledge of differing interpretations of participation; location of the Communication for Development function in the technical departments (rather than PR and corporate communications units); and more specified and specialised training programmes including field work.



In short, "[s]ome practical ways to achieve this include improved knowledge and effective application of the following areas: