Questions and Reflections for the Practice of International Planning and Development

Abstract

Increased opportunities for western planners to work internationally, especially in the former ‘Third World,’ also pose risks. Planners can reduce these risks through a commitment to deliberative practice. Specifically, this paper offers seven questions planners may use to aid reflection on their practice. These are: Are you participating in a worthwhile project? What might be the limitations of your expertise within the context? Have you recognized local expertise? Have you considered the historical context of the country you are working in? Have you understood important aspects of local culture, politics, economies and societal concerns? Have you considered the dynamics of current and historic power relations between individuals, organizations and countries? Are you coordinating your work with other partners? Addressing these questions can help to maximize high-quality work, minimize embarrassing errors and ensure that the integrity of the planning profession is maintained.

Introduction

This is a time when planners who have only been trained for and worked in western contexts, especially those from the United States and Canada, are increasingly presented with opportunities to work internationally, including in the countries of the former ‘Third World.’1 While these opportunities allow planners to share and exercise their expertise over a wider range of contexts, this is also a time to usefully step back and reflect about some of the aspects of these contexts that our professional training and practice may not have well prepared us for. We must also recognize that planners and their national associations vary in their amounts of international experience and expertise. Yet whenever a new individual or institution enters the arena of international development planning, the mistakes of the past are at risk of being repeated. Well-intentioned individuals and organizations can fall into the trap of pursuing a cause—a development project or a planning exercise—that fails or, worse, the initiative may reinforce historic patterns and power relations associated with colonialism, western values, or so-called technocratic superiority. Amongst those unacquainted with the humbling history of international development, there is often the underlying assumption that interventions can be made from an ahistorical and apolitical perspective—that historical, political, and even social contexts are secondary to the intentions and actions driving the interventions. Planners and planning organizations risk these same errors in judgment and practice when they do not engage in reflective processes. This paper presents some reflective questions that practitioners proposing to work in an international arena can consider to avoid some of the common pitfalls they are likely to encounter. This is especially directed towards planners who have limited training or experience in international, particularly formerly ‘Third World,’ settings. As planners and planning organizations in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Europe increasingly direct their energies to working in an international context, they would do well to be informed by such reflections.

Planning is broadly defined within this paper. It includes traditional land-use planning but also project planning and implementation associated with community-level and country-wide development projects. It involves thinking about the future and designing implementation strategies to achieve identified goals. It also assumes standards of professionalism and ethical responsibility.

International Contexts

In our increasingly globalized world, there are more and more opportunities for planning professionals to work across contexts, in different countries and cultures. Without certain levels of reflection, there may be a tendency to assume that this globalized world is to some extent homogeneous and therefore that technical expertise can seamlessly be applied anywhere. Similar assumptions have often been made about the transfer of institutional design and public policy (Alonge, 2004; Evans, 2004). This would imply that cultural differences are merely superficial but that, more importantly, current political, economic, and social realities are more the result of globalizing forces than of historical colonial legacies (whether as colonizing or colonized nations). It is, however, important to recognize that globalization is the product and extension of these colonial histories (Galeano, 1997; Meredith, 2006). Where colonialism set up relationships of inequality between peoples and nations, and created resource economies that channeled natural and human resources to benefit wealthier nations, globalization perpetuates and enhances these—albeit now in the name of modernization or development and to the benefit of not only countries, but more often multinational corporations.

Characteristic of both of these eras are the power differentials based on culture, race, education, and access to resources that inevitably disadvantage formerly colonized peoples and nations and give undue opportunity and privilege to those in wealthier nations. In the same vein, much international aid and assistance, seemingly provided for the benefit of those ‘disadvantaged’ or ‘less developed,’ has the unapologetic and overt aim of first and foremost benefiting those from the sending or donating country (known as ‘tied aid’2). Inequity and imbalance are therefore inherent in our global systems and, without intentional self-reflection, we run the risk of contributing to and maintaining these dynamics. Such risk can be reduced by explicitly considering the following seven questions as a starting point to professional engagement in cross-cultural contexts.

Question 1: Are You, As an Individual or As an Organization, Participating in a Worthwhile Project?

This question is both a natural starting point and ending point: if you are able to evaluate to ‘no’ immediately, you do not need to consider the other questions. Alternatively, if the situation seems promising or ambiguous, reflection on the subsequent questions is likely to give useful insights to guide your final decision here.

Well-documented accounts of poorly conceived and executed planning and development projects abound. Many of the large dam projects funded by the World Bank have been accused of this: although they produce large quantities of electricity for public consumption, they have also displaced large numbers of local people, destroying their environments and livelihoods (Rich, 2000). Then there are politically questionable interventions. These include projects—again funded by the World Bank—supporting Chinese development in Tibet (United Nations, 1959, 1961, 1965) and development programs that focus on technological ‘pushes’ that are likely to have numerous environmental and economic consequences that will effect the public, yet are introduced in a way that sidelines public scrutiny and debate (Pretty, 2001). It is possible to frame these projects in technical ways that emphasize development benefits. They are often large in scale and require legions of planning and technical experts to manage and implement them. These are intelligent, well-educated people, so we can wonder why and how they chose to get involved in such endeavors of questionable merit. Exploring all of the potential answers is beyond the scope of this paper, but we want to argue that professionals need to take personal ethical responsibility for their actions. May planners entering the messy field of international cooperation learn from the patchy history of development, a field that, according to some critics, needs to regain its moral compass (Hancock, 1989; Giri & van Ufford, 2003). And this is not to suggest that the only examples of development projects are negative. Uphoff et al. (1998), for example, have documented some that are memorable for what they have done well.

Here, from our own experience, are a couple of examples of people deciding that the project they were about to get involved with was unsuitable. One is a case, not of a planner, but of someone who was considering volunteering in Africa with a not-for-profit organization. Upon investigation, he found the premises of the organization to be rather shaky: it seemed to presume that all volunteers would have the necessary expertise, and, despite the numerous responsibilities they were expected to take on, its only requirement was that they refrain from taking alcohol and non-prescription drugs. He decided not to go. In another case, at the time in which funding for AIDS programs was becoming more plentiful, another colleague was faced with the dilemma of whether she could, in good faith, work in a project where restrictions were being placed on the project from outside (the funder) that compromised the ability of the project to deliver a culturally and socially relevant health intervention. By following the variations of the ‘ABC’ approach (A = abstain; B = be faithful; C = use a condom) with regards to the AIDS project, this person suspected that the actual needs of the target population would be sacrificed in order to fulfill the funder's requirements. It was not that the project was bad or ill conceived, but it did not match with her personal and professional ideological values. For another person, it might have been a good match; for her it was not, and she decided to pursue other opportunities.

Of course, the term ‘worthwhile’ is both normative and subjective—it is about value. We suggest there is a need to take a look beyond the immediate stated goals and internal logic of the proposed project, which will almost always be framed in an attractive way, and consider the larger context and interests involved. As planners, there are numerous conceptual tools we can use to guide us in this exercise: the SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) is an often used classic (Ronco & Cahill, 2005). Planners can ask themselves: ‘What will this intervention add? What are the risks? Who are the potential winners and losers? Who connected us to this project in the first place, and what are their interests? What track record do they have?’

Question 2: Is your Expertise Appropriate for the Role you are being Asked to Fill, and Within the Context in which it is to be Applied?

When applying for and receiving acceptance to work in an international project or assignment, most people are focused on the personal or professional opportunity this offers. They naturally assume they will be offered the position if they qualify. In some instances, however, for a variety of reasons, jobs are offered to people who are not qualified to do them. They may in fact be highly qualified in a certain area of expertise but be asked or assigned to work in an area outside their area of knowledge and skills—an area in which, in their own country, they would never assume to work.

This situation may happen because of inadequate hiring policies and procedures on the part of the organization. It may also happen because of a lack of human resources in the face of extreme need and thus the hope that any body is better than no body. More often, however, it reflects underlying historic (read colonial) patterns of privilege being given on the basis of race (i.e. being white or light skinned), education, and access to resources. Just as many outsiders assume these privileges with a certain unconsciousness or lack of awareness, many local people or organizations may offer these opportunities without attention to how they perpetuate past power relations. Thus, both employers and potential employees need to cultivate an increased awareness of these historic imbalances.

We provide two examples drawn from the authors' experiences. In the first example, in Uganda, a neonatal neurologist was brought in as an expert in a community-based, child health project. It was assumed that, as a highly skilled, hospital-based, North American expert, he could go to a developing country to fill in a position unrelated to his specialty. In another instance, a young woman was offered a two-year, paid, overseas position as an agricultural planner and advisor through a major Canadian agency. Whilst the position might have helped her own career, it was based again on the premise that she was an agricultural expert, despite the fact that she had absolutely no training or experience in agriculture in any part of the world, and had never been to the region where the job was held. She turned it down.

In the excitement of being hired or at the prospect of going overseas, you might pause to ask yourself some key questions to avoid this pitfall. Do I actually have the knowledge/expertise to do this job? Why is my particular knowledge/expertise considered expert knowledge? What are the limitations of my knowledge/expertise? Is my knowledge/expertise transferable from the context I learned it in to this context?

Question 3: Have You Recognized and Listened to Local Expertise?

It is possible to enter a situation with the best of intentions to assist and help local populations, thinking that you understand the situation only to later discover that you were operating with only a partial understanding. In other situations and by far a more common pitfall is when outside experts assume (often unwittingly) their knowledge, expertise and process to be superior. This has led to innumerable faux pas and directly imposed solutions, at the very least offending local populations but more often disempowering and creating conditions for dependency. Reflecting on how such situations could remain widespread in development for decades, Chambers (1994, p. 963) places the blame in the assumptions made by development professionals, noting that ‘treated as incapable, poor people behaved as incapable, reflecting the beliefs of the powerful and hiding their capabilities even from themselves.’

Examples from the water sector in Zambia, drawn from the first-hand experience of one of the authors, illustrate both of these scenarios. In the first, the issue is of listening to local expertise in order to avoid costly technical mistakes. In the second it is about the assumption of outside knowledge being superior to local beliefs and practices and how this can cost a project.

When the provision of water (e.g. drilling boreholes) was seen to be a purely technical problem relegated to engineers, local populations typically were not consulted on their own preferences regarding the location of the water point. The program planners, hydro-geologists and engineers believed that the highest priority was the provision of safe and reliable water. However, when perfectly functioning water points were abandoned and people continued to use their old (polluted, unreliable) water sources, the technocrats discovered to their surprise and dismay that mere provision of water was not enough. Upon asking people why they did not use the new water point, it was revealed that the engineers had located it in an unsuitable and unacceptable area—for example, near or in a graveyard. It was a costly mistake that could have been avoided if local populations had been included and consulted in the process.

Another example involves the relatively simple technical procedure of rehabilitating an existing well (cleaning, deepening). If consulted, there are communities who will refuse the procedure because they believe there is a spirit at the bottom of the well and they cannot risk offending the spirit by disturbing the well. While you as the outside expert are unlikely to share the same belief, to proceed with the rehabilitation without the agreement of the community is to court failure. In the face of indigenous spirituality, is your technical knowledge superior to that of the locals?

To avoid this pitfall it is necessary to listen and ask questions to elicit information. It is an ongoing process that is not unlike the peeling of an onion. The first answer that you are given may be valid, but subsequent answers may be equally valid and may uncover the heart of the matter over time. Listen to what local people have to say (Slim & Thompson, 1993).

Question 4: Have You Considered the Historical Context of the Country you are Working in, and its Implications for your Work?

Working in an international environment means being an outsider. That can be a strength, as you bring a new perspective to bear on old problems, which may lead to new insights. But it can also be a weakness. Naturally, you will not know the full history behind current events and dynamics. And without that knowledge, your capacity to make sense of those events and associated problems is limited.

There is an old saying that ‘When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.’ Likewise, if you have a particular expertise or a way of defining problems that has worked well in your past experience, you may choose to make a superficial assessment of the new situation with this in mind, and fit it to your old tools and ways of thinking. Time pressures, over-confidence, and having access to partial (and possibly filtered) information can all push this kind of semi-automatic response.

James Ferguson (1994) gives a clearly presented example of this in a rural development project in Lesotho. Despite the fact that the majority of the male working population of Lesotho had, for many decades, been migrant workers in South Africa's mining sector, the development project was designed around the assumption that they were subsistence agriculturalists. Of course, this limited the project's capacity to meet its own stated objectives and improve intended beneficiaries' livelihoods in any substantial way. Why did otherwise competent professionals problematize the situation in those terms? Ferguson argues it was expedient, convenient and ‘standard operating procedure’ for them to do so.

Avoiding this pitfall can be straightforward enough, as long as we make it our professional business to do so. In the case of Lesotho that Ferguson described, a simple visit to the library, reading a few well-written history books, looking on the Internet, and spending a bit of time speaking to people with first-hand experience of the country would have all provided sufficient insights to demonstrate that the assumptions on which the project was founded were not true. This cannot equip you to understand all the cultural nuances of a new society, but it can provide you with some of the knowledge that a local citizen would take for granted. In your professional identity, you may not consider yourself as someone who needs to be overly concerned with politics—you may see yourself more as a technical expert. Certainly, you do not need to become a political or social expert, but you do need to gain a basic sociopolitical literacy with respect to the new situation where you will be working, so that you can take full ethical responsibility for the outcomes of your actions. As a citizen of your home country, you have that by default through your participation in daily life. As you go outside that realm, you need to make a special effort. That means you cannot take things just at face value. If you come into a project or program where everything has already been defined, go beyond those documents and come to your own conclusion about the validity of the rationale behind the project objectives.

Question 5: Have You Taken the Time to Understand Important Aspects of Local Culture, Politics, Economies and Societal Concerns?

This question seems obvious to those who choose to work in an international context. However, it has been surprising to us the number of people we have encountered who had never really taken the time to understand aspects of where they are living or working. Cross-cultural orientation programs and materials abound and should be seen as just the first step in gathering knowledge. Do not be fooled into thinking you know the answers. Why is it important to take the time? Or perhaps what happens if you do not take the time to understand? Simply put, your lack of understanding will inhibit your communications and interactions. It is the difference between superficiality and the ability to develop appropriate, relevant plans and programs. Taking the time to understand culture, politics, and societal concerns affects the depth of understanding and connectedness with where you are: the appropriate manner of dress (are men and women wearing shorts?), local food, the importance of a formal greeting, shaking hands, receiving and giving of business cards, not asking certain questions that seem innocuous to you but which are impolite or rude in the host country. For example, in Botswana to ask a person how many cattle they own is the equivalent to asking what is their bank balance—it is not acceptable. Yet in Cambodia it is not uncommon for a foreigner to be asked what is his/her income level—a question offensive to most westerners. Fuglesang (1982) provides further explanations of some of the issues faced in cross-cultural communications and the different ways of thinking and perceiving that underlie these, especially within rural African contexts.

During Kamuzu Banda's rule in Malawi, it was inadvisable to openly discuss politics lest another person overhear your opinions and report them to the authorities. At a time when Malawians would ‘disappear’ unexplainably and their bodies were found in another place, it was best to take cues from local people and keep your political opinions to yourself. In many countries it is not uncommon for women to kneel when greeting or serving men or visitors. For many Europeans and North Americans who have been gender sensitized, the sight of a woman kneeling makes us feel uncomfortable as it is seen as a sign of subservience and dominance by another. Yet in certain contexts it is a sign of respect.

At the level of planning and project implementation, a lack of awareness of cultural norms also carries a cost. In an agricultural example, an outside expert, in designing a large agricultural survey, assumed incorrectly that levels of production of food crops were indicative of food preferences for the local population. While people grew large quantities of sweet potatoes and consumed them, their actual food preference was millet, which was also grown but in lesser quantities. When this was revealed, the interpretation of the results was called into question—which could have skewed any related programming.

To be able to eventually answer ‘yes’ to this fifth reflective question, you must first acknowledge that your learning will be an ongoing process. What you can learn in 2 weeks is vastly less than what you would learn in 6 weeks, 1 year or 3 years. Be willing to come in with eyes to see things that are different from what you know and ask the question ‘why?’ Pause to reflect on the difference rather than react out of your own personal and cultural background with particular beliefs and ideologies. Withhold judgment until you further understand the ‘why?’ Do your own informal research with local partners. Do not expect to ‘come in with all the answers,’ but rather to learn and share. When Europeans and North Americans visit Africa they are invariably surprised on two counts. They expect to see widespread poverty but they are always surprised to discover that people are cash-poor and life-rich. Second, owing to media coverage about the prevalence of AIDS in Africa, they are surprised to learn that malaria and diarrhea kill more people than AIDS. They expect AIDS to be the central concern of everyone. These are just some examples of how perceptions can change depending on where you are situated.

Question 6: Have You Considered the Dynamics of Current and Historic Power Relations between Individuals, Organizations and Countries, and the Implications of These for your Work?

As an outsider it is quite difficult to assess power relations without gaining an understanding of the history. Parachuted in as an expert, it is easy to assume a level playing field—yet reflecting on your own familiar context will enable you to see the complexity of power relations. Differences in power relations in individuals based on gender, race and education abound through the world. Organizations have more or less decision-making power based on access to resources and patronage of powerful individuals. Developed countries are believed to have more power while the under-developed have less power. Neocolonialism and globalization reinforce these unequal and historic power relations.

An extreme but not uncommon example of power relations between organizations is illustrated in the following: a United Nations organization was developing a funding proposal and needed a local non-governmental organization or community-based organization (CBO) to demonstrate partnership at the local level. They made an agreement with a reputable CBO and used their local contacts, reputation and success in previous project activities, as well as their significant rapport with the local community, to support the funding proposal. After the United Nations organization received their funding, they went ahead with implementation without involving the local CBO. This deprived the CBO access to valuable financial resources and opportunity for capacity-building, and put at risk the CBO's future activities because their reputation was at stake with the local people.

More frequently than is acknowledged are the examples where power relations are unintentionally upset by our plans and interventions. An effective and successful agricultural program in Africa fell prey to unintentional spin-offs. The program introduced beans as a cash crop. Since cash crops are generally the domain of men, this resulted in the men having access to more cash—which enabled them to buy more alcohol, which in turn led to an increase in wife beating.

It is wise to be conscious of the sources of your own power and the implications for those with less power—be it individuals, organizations or nations. This question is not about right or wrong, but rather about ethics and professionalism. It is about being conscious and attentive. It is about honest personal and program evaluation for future learning. It is often not possible to know beforehand, to anticipate or predict consequences. It is, however, about taking responsibility. Failures or mistakes are more informative than success if there is analysis based on honest reflection.

Question 7: Are You Coordinating your Work with other Partners, including Non-governmental Organizations, Governments, Universities, and CBOs Indigenous to the Country?

In our experience, individuals and organizations may forego opportunities to work with others in the same field because they fear that their own particular organization, project or initiative may lose prestige or resources. This is not unique to the international context, as it often characterizes situations where organizations are competing for resources, beneficiaries, and even media attention. All too often this leads to the carving out of ‘territories’ (of practice, implementation, or influence). You may find there is a reticence to share data, information, experience, lessons learned or best practices. However, this results in a certain isolationism and a loss of potential synergy in creating the most impact on the ground.

Projects may be implemented without a view toward their overall impact and long-term sustainability in relation to the activities of others working in the same field. Opportunities are then lost for coordinating activities or interventions to have the greatest overall impact or for increasing effectiveness through the sharing of knowledge and experiences. More is to be lost than gained in maintaining a value for competition over collaboration.

This territorialism often appears most strikingly in the most extreme situations. In disasters such as the Rwandan genocide or the Tsunami, aid agencies, whose aim it is to provide emergency supplies and relief, are known to rush in to be the first on the ground, to be seen to have the most impact, and to compete for media coverage and photograph opportunities (as this impacts their funding through public donations). Out of Sri Lanka, post-Tsunami, there have been numerous complaints of emergency service duplication. So many non-governmental organizations were providing housing, each with their own particular design and construction materials, and some were completely inappropriate and irrelevant to the environment and lifestyle needs of the people (UN-HABITAT, 2006; Tsunami Evaluation Coalition, 2007). These stories were confirmed in our discussions with staff of UN-HABITAT (personal communication, Nairobi, Kenya, November 2006), who described their experience with organizations involved in disaster relief frequently competing with each other, failing to recognize the contribution that they each respectively make and failing to recognize the advantages of co-ordinated actions.

Planning as a profession purports to take a broad view and to work to incorporate many diverse perspectives in creating plans that are in the public interest. So it is fair to assume that, as planners, our professional tendency would be to make linkages and build in opportunities for collaboration. Do not forget this when working internationally, for this may be a significant contribution for you to make. A challenge may come, however, when you are working in or with organizations that do not share this value or ethic. It is important not to assume you have the same perspective as those you are working with. Questions you might ask to guide yourself in this area are:

	Who is working here, doing similar work?
	How do our purposes mesh?
	How do we coordinate our efforts for synergy?
	How do we not compete (for resources, public relations, beneficiaries)?
	How do I/we stay focused on our objectives instead of getting pulled or tied into a competition for funds and recognition?
	When I/we go away, what are we leaving? Are we leaving increased capacity or are we perpetuating dependency?

Conclusion

Throughout this paper we have provided various examples of lack of reflectivity in international communications. In a variety of forms, this non-reflectivity has been a pervasive characteristic in international interventions, especially those characterized by historical power differentials between helpful foreign development ‘experts’ and those on the receiving end. We are making an argument that the common problems resulting from this are not inevitable. Rather, they can and should be avoided.

International development has been subject to harsh criticisms for its often narrow instrumentality that appears to be blind to larger political and social realities. These criticisms have led to collective reflection within the field and to some hard-won lessons. It has also led to calls for strengthened professionalism (Cooke, 2004). Planning would do well to watch and learn, so it can avoid repeating history. But there are also some positive lessons: development has come up with its own good ideas about how to avoid some pitfalls. One interesting example is the use of ‘village immersions’ so that professionals designing and implementing policy have a better idea of the daily realities of those whom their policies will impact (Irvine et al., 2004).

Planning has long concerned itself with ethics as an integral dimension to the messy work of balancing varied public concerns and interests (Forester, 1989). As forays into international work become more common, planning needs to extend its professional ethical identity to account for the new pitfalls that planners in the international context are likely to encounter. International planners have a special ethical responsibility to revisit the old notion of the ‘reflective practitioner’ (Schön, 1983).

At the individual level, planners can and should ask themselves hard questions about their potential involvement, and be willing to walk away when the answers suggest they should. At the organizational level, policies and procedures should recognize the special nature of international work. This indicates screening people to ensure that those with the right mix of skills, including communication and other ‘soft skills’, are selected for such work, and providing adequate support and training to those going overseas for the first time.

Finally, national planning associations, especially those whose members are increasingly engaging in international work, also have a crucial role to play in fostering a culture that encourages such reflection and encourages a high level of professional responsibility. Dedicating time and space to the issue in conferences and journals, reviewing and if necessary revising existing codes of ethics, and providing further guidelines can aid the development of a strong professional ethic. As planners increasingly make forays into the international arena, these steps can help to maximize high-quality work, minimize embarrassing errors and ensure that the integrity of the planning profession is maintained.

Notes

1. For example, at the World Planners Congress held in British Colombia, Canada, in 2006, representatives of major national planning institutions agreed that they should become more involved in international development planning.

2. ‘“Tied aid” is overseas aid that can only be spent on goods and services bought from the donor country. While this benefits private companies in the donor country, it distorts the value and reduces the effectiveness of the aid to the recipient country. Tied aid is a form of national export subsidy in which a donor country's private companies—and not the recipient country's poor—are the biggest winners' (Aid Watch, 2002).