| |
Debate
“Against the Islamists, peace is impossible in Somalia”
Comments: Authoritarian and democratic instincts in Bangladesh
Comments: Closing the development gap
02/2007 |
|
Closing the knowledge gap
Most development money is spent without much research-based advice worthy of the term. In fact, most bilateral donors do not have research units that are up to the job; and the same is true of most UN bodies. Therefore, the World Bank is the quasi-monopolist in development research. However, as a recent evaluation has shown, some of this research has serious problems.
[ By Stephan Klasen ]
The evaluation was done by a team of development economists with high international reputation. They praise the Bank for some path-breaking research, for instance on poverty, inequality and the environment. Similarly, they applaud the Bank for having compiled innovative, policy-relevant data, in particular the Living Standards Measurement and Investment Climate Surveys.
However, some of the Bank’s research comes in for scathing criticism. Prominent findings on aid effectiveness and the impact of growth on poverty are said to be weak in terms of methodolgy and reliability. The evaluation team suggests the respective publications should be withdrawn or, at least, heavily qualified. In these cases, the noted economists accuse the Bank of having used research to promote pre-conceived policy ideas, rather than to disseminate new knowledge. The same is said for some of the Bank’s flagship reports. The evaluators also complain that the Bank is often weak in terms of generating and disseminating reliable and comparable development data, even though fulfilling these tasks is one of the institution’s core functions. Moreover, the evaluators bemoan that even the Bank only spends a tiny fraction of its administrative budget (2.5%) on research. That is deemed far too little for an institution in which research should guide policy advice and lending. After all, the record of aid and policy advice has been mixed at best in past decades. To improve matters, more rigorous research and policy evaluation are critical.
So how should development research be organised? Obviously, leaving it up to a quasi-monopolist does not necessarily lead to the best results. Therefore, bilateral donors should band together and get serious about development research, doing it in-house as well as buying it from outside. In this sense, the research consortia that Britain’s Department for International Development (DfID) is funding are most welcome. Unfortunately, however, DfID itself lacks the corresponding in-house capacity.
Second, much more must be done to generate, collate and disseminate reliable data. Yes, the World Bank needs a Central Statistical Office, as has been proposed before. It also needs more resources for these crucial activities. Moreover, moribund UN agencies charged with generating data need reinvigoration. Otherwise, their tasks should be shifted to new institutions, capable of doing the job. Similarly, more resources and funds are required to strengthen national statistics offices.
Third, in institutions involved in research as well as policy-making, better firewalls are necessary. One way of achieving that would be to beef-up research budgets and to increase the autonomy of researchers and research departments. That is what the evaluation team proposes. Another option would be to publish research results and policy statements separately. Rather than trying to micromanage the policy messages emanating from World Development Reports and other flagship reports it would be better to let the researchers publish their results first, and then let other departments use them as a base for their policy messages.
Lastly, research cooperation must be strengthened. When asking outsiders for input, the World Bank relies too heavily on what is currently on offer – and en vogue – in US academia. It only relies on a sprinkling of input from other advanced countries, and practically none from poor countries. Accordingly, the Bank’s perspective remains too narrow. Moreover, it is doing far too little to boost research capacities in developing countries. It would make sense to build research partnerships with institutes and individuals in the countries concerned. In the short run, doing so would serve the Bank’s legitimacy. In the long run, building research capacities in developing countries is the best way to ensure sustainable, accurate and relevant advice for developmental policy-making.
Prof. Stephan Klasen, Ph.D.,
holds the chair in development economics at Göttingen University.
sklasen@uni-goettingen.de
Reference:
Abhijit Banerjee et al: An evaluation of World Bank research, 1998–2005
|
