Motivation vs. causation

[Beelzebubalicious]

It's an interesting term, especially since they are using it in the 19th century sense. Technically, using "covenant" as a "coming together" it is correct, although you're right that it now carries religious connotations. How do you see it as being useful for development work?

Well, USAID is using it in terms of "accountability covenants" between civil society and government, the key definition being binding relationships where each side holds the other accountable. This starts with both sides understanding each others role and responsibility in a democratic society, something which takes years to develop. In many countries I've worked in, there's a huge level of distrust on both sides, a sense of entitlement on the citizen side (high expectations and frustration) and on the government side, the perspective that citizens don't know best, should not be involved and that government should make decisions themselves.

I think USAID wants to take the whole idea of social contract a step further and to make it almost a sacred trust, a stronger bond. Unfortunately, citizens holding government accountable often means taking the "watch dog" role and it is inherently antagonistic, which further deteriorates the relationship and bond. On the other side, civil society working closely with government can also mean co-option and lack of objectivity.

This kind of approach often fails to take account of or approach the issues of power and political economy. So, coming around to answer your question, I'm not sure it has much validity, or at least I think I need a lot more convincing. The World Bank has claimed success in using this kind of a method in Indonesia on the Community-Driven Development (CDD) approach at the village level and CDD has been adopted by USAID and now the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in other places. The WB has done a lot of impact evaluation and they have some compelling arguments that it works.

[marct]

Hi Beelzebubalicious,

Well, USAID is using it in terms of "accountability covenants" between civil society and government, the key definition being binding relationships where each side holds the other accountable. This starts with both sides understanding each others role and responsibility in a democratic society, something which takes years to develop. In many countries I've worked in, there's a huge level of distrust on both sides, a sense of entitlement on the citizen side (high expectations and frustration) and on the government side, the perspective that citizens don't know best, should not be involved and that government should make decisions themselves.

I suspect that a largish part of the problem lies in the concept of "democratic society" . It was certainly part of the mythography of the 20th and early 21st centuries, but has been too much of a failure in too many parts of the world to be appealing. Federal Republican versions of it usually flop when the people running it realize how much they can skim, while parliamentary types flop without a long held crown as a counterpoise. I suspect many of the countries in, say, Africa, would do better with a canton-esque confederate system a la 18th cenrtury Switzerland.

I think USAID wants to take the whole idea of social contract a step further and to make it almost a sacred trust, a stronger bond. Unfortunately, citizens holding government accountable often means taking the "watch dog" role and it is inherently antagonistic, which further deteriorates the relationship and bond. On the other side, civil society working closely with government can also mean co-option and lack of objectivity.

Typical, unfortunately. At a cultural level, it would be analogous to the Commonwealth stepping into US politics and saying "Nice try, guys, but we've decided you need some stability, so we are re-establishing the monarchy". There are other alternatives to that watchdog, antagonistic role - you might want to glance at the preface to the 2nd edition of Durkheim's The Division of Labor in Society where he talks about "intermediate systems" in a large society. People are, as a general rule, more likely to trust people they actually know.

This kind of approach often fails to take account of or approach the issues of power and political economy. So, coming around to answer your question, I'm not sure it has much validity, or at least I think I need a lot more convincing. The World Bank has claimed success in using this kind of a method in Indonesia on the Community-Driven Development (CDD) approach at the village level and CDD has been adopted by USAID and now the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in other places. The WB has done a lot of impact evaluation and they have some compelling arguments that it works.

Hmmmm, yeah, I can see that. Covenants that aren't enforceable in this world or the next tends to be not worth the paper they are written on .

Cheers,

Marc