Development finance as an emerging discipline: Perspectives from the South African context

ABSTRACT

It has never been assessed whether development finance is regarded as a distinct and autonomous professional or academic discipline. This qualitative study explored the current perspectives on development finance from within the South African development finance context. Key individual informants (n = 31) were purposively sampled and surveyed in order to capture their perceptions, and to maximise the variance in perspectives identified. The findings revealed pervasive disagreement regarding the defining characteristics of development finance, its pedagogy, and professionalisation. Furthermore, the majority of informants perceived a shortage of local experts and agreed that practitioners should possess qualifications in development finance explicitly. The majority of informants regarded development finance as a separate academic discipline; and agreed that universities should offer undergraduate development finance education. It is recommended that future research and pedagogy address obvious epistemological issues: what counts as development finance knowledge and who has authority to define and produce it?

KEYWORDS:

• Development finance
• professionalisation
• disciplinarisation
• disciplinarity

JEL Codes:

• A22
• N01
• Y80

1. Introduction

It is questionable whether ‘development finance’ is well understood by laymen, or even by many professionals of the financial and developmental sectors, as an emerging academic discipline or potential career-path. This misunderstanding is seemingly known to the development finance theorists and practitioners who recount boardroom and classroom conversations which have been interrupted by curious, sceptical, or patronising queries into the meaning of development finance and, by extension, its legitimacy as a separate and distinct area of knowledge and practice (Dobbin, 2017).

While the Africagrowth Institute (2012:4) and the Association of Development Finance Institutions in Asia and the Pacific (ADFIAP) (2012) propose that the subject or discipline of development finance is concerned with the provision of financial services for socio-economic development, Aston Shaw (2016), Development Finance Today (2016), and other expounding practitioners and proponents conceptualise development finance as essentially the provision of loans for the purchase of land and for funding construction costs i.e. for property development.

There is a sense of growing frustration amongst development finance stakeholders in regard to the exacting nature and phenomena of development finance. One question is whether the multitude of seemingly contradictory yet readily available definitions of development finance has made its theory and practice more robust or rather less convincing and recognisable as an academic discipline and profession in its own right. Furthermore, are the concepts ‘development(al) finance’, ‘financial (sector) development’, and ‘socially responsible investment’ regarded as being synonymous or simply overlapping? To the authors’ knowledge, there is a visible lack of literature regarding the perceived professional and academic disciplinarity of development finance.

The aim of this particular paper was then to explore, elaborate, and explain various perspectives on development finance as an emerging academic and professional discipline within the South African development finance context. This context refers to the stakeholders involved in the intricate relationship between the development and financial sectors, seen together as a vested interest which influences society and economics. Thus, in order to meet the aim of this research project, the perceptions of key individual informants from within the South African development finance context were to be collected and analysed.

The specific sub-objectives of the research were as follows:

1. to capture the widest array of conceptions and perceived characteristics of development finance;

2. to determine whether ‘development finance’ and ‘socially responsible investing’ were perceived as synonymous concepts;

3. to determine whether there was a perceived shortage of development finance experts in South Africa;

4. to determine what expertise were perceived as being the most important for development finance practitioners to possess;

5. to determine whether there was a perceived need for development finance practitioners in South Africa to obtain explicit qualifications and professional designations in development finance;

6. to determine whether the skills, knowledge, and conduct of development finance practitioners in South Africa were perceived as being formally governed through a professional code of conduct, a statutory body, or professional association; and

7. to determine whether there was a perceived need to offer undergraduate-level education in development finance in South Africa.

While this paper certainly raises other questions concerning the contemporary disciplinarity of development finance, it does not attempt to resolve them. The aims and outcomes of this particular study were important as prevalent misunderstanding and disagreement may have resulted in inadequate funding for crucial research and training and, subsequently, a lack of skilled practitioners. Further to this, the manner in which stakeholders regard development finance is important as their perceptions can distort or magnify the performance of any development finance initiatives (Dobbin, 2017).

It must be noted that it is beyond the scope of this paper to try to provide an irrefutable and final definition of development finance, as development finance is essentially and inherently a contested concept. This is largely because the meaning of ‘development’ within ‘development finance’ is inherently redefined by its respective users and proponents. As an essentially contested concept, development finance appears to be permanently and fundamentally subjectable to revision and re-interpretation (Garver, 1978:156–72; Dobbin, 2017). Notwithstanding, an attempt is made in the concluding remarks of this paper to arrive at a comprehensive working definition which incorporates the evidence presented.

The remainder of this paper is arranged as follows: sub-section 1.1 briefly discusses the emerging disciplinarity of development finance, in addition to reviewing important literature regarding disciplinarisation and professionalisation. Section 2 outlines the methodological and analytical aspects of the research. This is followed by the presentation and discussion of the main findings in section 3, followed by concluding remarks and recommendations for future research in section 4.

1.1 The developing disciplinarity of development finance

While academic and professional disciplines are commonly identified with taught subjects, not every subject offered at university can be regarded as a discipline. Furthermore, the process of disciplinarisation in academia or practice is intended to be productive and without it one cannot distinguish knowledge from prejudice. Moreover, academic and professional discipline does not only imply a particular area of study or practice, but also a ‘system of rules’ for defining its subject matter, research methodology, and its pedagogy (Harriss, 2002:487–96). These systems are propagated through education, employment, and professional association and establish the environment for new knowledge accumulation and application.

Perhaps much of what is currently considered to be emergent trans-disciplinary¹ knowledge in development finance could be better labelled under an existing, widely-accepted academic discipline such as development economics or development studies. Certainly, prior to the emergence of any formally recognisable development finance discourse, the research problems within this field of study (as defined in the introduction) were already under investigation within these more-established disciplines acting independently or co-operatively. As Stember (1991:1–14) has argued, researchers and academics are predisposed to believing that their output is trans-disciplinary, while, in fact, it is more likely to be multi-disciplinary or merely cross-disciplinary.

Are the existing academic disciplines sufficient for creating new development finance knowledge and experts? Is development finance fundamentally cross-disciplinary then; explaining the theories and knowledge of one discipline, development, in terms of another, finance? This seems reductionist as contemporary and historical socio-economic development issues are complex and require co-operation between specialists with diverse and complementary academic and technical backgrounds (Sillitoe 2004:6–23; Chandrasekhar 2010:1–10; Farrell 2011:334–61).

This raises a further question: is it important and beneficial for development finance to be recognised and treated as a distinct academic and professional discipline? Moreover, though beyond this scope of this paper, what would this discipline’s distinguishing features be and how would these be decided?

How a subject’s emergent and contested disciplinarity is actually understood and perceived by its associated academics, practitioners, and other stakeholders is seldom a subject of analysis. There does not appear to be any existing empirical research into this problem area in development finance and the structure of this study relied on similar studies relating to comparable supra-disciplinary areas of studies such as development studies, women’s studies, and African studies (Bowles, 1983; Kuchinke, 2001:291–4).

2. Methodology

In terms of the empirical study, the primary unit of qualitative analysis was the knowledge, perceptions, and opinions of development finance possessed by individuals who work or have worked within the South African development finance context. Potentially, the total research population consisted of all individuals having work experience at the intersection of the South African developmental and financial sectors.

The research aim was not to make quantitative generalisations and predictions based on the sample. Rather, the aim was to qualitatively analyse the content, narrative and discourse from the responses in order to identify emerging themes, ideas and arguments. Purposive sampling was therefore used to select the most appropriate target sample of respondents. As such, the aim of the sampling procedure was not to assemble a random sample, but rather to select a sample that included the most important, influential, and divergent (dissimilar) informants. Consequently, probabilistic (random) sampling runs against the logic of this procedure, as it creates the risk of excluding key respondents from the sample purely by chance.

Furthermore, in terms of representing the underlying population, the non-probability sampling procedure required evaluation using a different set of criteria when compared to probabilistic sampling (Judd et al., 1991; Tansey, 2007). The bias and suitability of any sample is therefore a function of the specific research goals being pursued (Goertz & Mahoney, 2012). The selected sample for this research can therefore only be considered representative of the underlying population to the extent that it does not systematically exclude a subset of analytically significant informants. As Tansey (2007) notes, a core concern during research design is managing the trade-off that comes with using a specific methodological approach and aligning the sampling procedure with the research objectives.

The appropriateness for selection in the purposive sample relied upon the potential respondents’ respective expertise and experience with development finance; the respondents would reasonably be considered stakeholders and key informants of development finance in South Africa. The researchers used various qualitative evaluation criteria to identify potential respondents including the relevance of the institutions that the key informants had worked for and the particular roles they had played, their respective qualifications, occupations, designations, and areas of expertise.

As Judd et al. (1991) and Tansey (2007) observed, the basic assumption of purposive sampling is that with good judgement and an appropriate strategy, a researcher can select appropriate and representative informants to be included in the target sample. Classification of the various types of institutions represented by the actual respondents is presented in Table 1 in this section, while the highest academic qualifications attained by these respondents are presented in Table 2 and the participants’ expertise and current occupations are presented in Table 3.

Table 1. Work experience and activities of the respondents.

	Frequency
Public Sector DFI’s	14
Investment Banking and Asset Management	11
Commercial Banking (Retail, Business, Islamic, and Private Banking)	6
Bancassurance/Insurance	5
Professional Associations/Industry Lobbies/Representative Bodies	3
Auditing firms	2
Micro-lenders (‘mashonistas’)	1
Sector education and training authority’	1
Regulator	1
Provincial Government: Department of Economic Development	1

Source: Responses to question one of the questionnaire.

Table 2. Highest academic qualification of the participants.

	Frequency
Postgraduate Degree	20
Diploma/Degree	8
Matriculated	1
Other: ‘CA(SA)’	1
Other: ‘Postgraduate Diploma’	1

Source: Responses to question two of the questionnaire.

Table 3. Occupations, designations, and areas of expertise.

	Frequency
‘CEO’/‘Chief Executive Officer’/‘Managing Director’	4
‘Financial Manager’	2
‘Executive Manager’	2
‘Financial and Credit Risk Analyst, Analyst, Leveraged Finance’	1
‘Group Executive’	1
‘Senior Transaction & Strategy Specialist, International Infrastructure Finance’	1
‘Chief Operating Officer’	1
‘International Finance: Business Analyst’	1
‘IT Manager’	1
‘Executive Director with 30 years’ experience in financing and growing SMEs’	1
‘Private Banker’	1
‘Project Finance Manager title Director – and area of expertise is Power and Infrastructure Finance’	1
‘Provincial Manager’	1
‘Skills Development’	1
‘Securities trading, risk management, pension funds’	1
‘Capital markets’	1
‘Retired’	1
‘Infrastructure and Capital Projects leader’	1
‘Research Manager’	1
‘Enterprise Development manager’	1
‘Senior Investment Officer’	1
‘Researcher, Senior Researcher, regional development’	1
‘Regional Manager’ … ‘All insurance sectors i.e. short term, financial planning, E.B. and health care.’	1
‘Investment Policy Advisor’	1
‘Chief Economist’	1
‘Senior Executive’	1

Source: Responses to question three of the questionnaire.

Based on the intentionally large size of the target sample, a survey by means of a self-administered questionnaire was determined to be best-suited for this research. Alternatively, guided interviews with participants or group discussion with multiple participants could have been used to collect data, but were regarded as too costly and time-intensive for this particular project and large target sample.

As the questionnaire had not previously been used, pre-testing of the questionnaire was conducted by means of a pilot study. Using feedback from the five respondents to the pilot study, the design of the questionnaire was refined to reduce the risk of misunderstanding and bias, to ensure that the questionnaire was easily understood, and that the sequencing of questions was appropriate. The final questionnaire was designed to maximise the variance in the responses and was comprised of 30 multiple-choice, close-ended dichotomous (i.e. yes or no) and open-ended questions.

In total, 319 respondents across 58 development finance-related institutions were identified and then separately and personally invited by the researchers to complete the questionnaire. Participation in this study did not require institutional authority from respondents’ employers or affiliations as the questionnaires were completed in their personal capacities only.

Between August and September 2016, 31 respondents (working across 23 institutions) returned completed questionnaires, with an effective response rate of 9.7%. The relatively low response rate of the questionnaire was influenced by the distribution method (e-mail), as well as the lengthiness of the questionnaire. The response rate and the sample size was, however, considered appropriate for this research as the objective was to gain exploratory, qualitative insight into the respondents’ individual experiences (Baruch & Holtom, 2008:1139–60). While Cook et al. (2000:821–36) make the argument that the representativeness of a respondent sample is more important than the sample size in qualitative, non-statistical (non-random) research, the researchers consider the sample large enough to provide meaningful exploratory qualitative analysis.

As a basis for comparison, exploratory research conducted by Rabinowitz (2008:36) into the current state of project finance in South Africa, which employed the above-mentioned sampling techniques, suggests that a sample size of at least 16 expert respondents may be sufficient for the purposes of qualitative research. As a rule-of-thumb, a panel of 15–35 key informants is considered sufficient for qualitative research (Kumar, 1989) and a complimentary recommended practice is to keep surveying until the researchers start ‘hearing’ similar ideas, observations, and themes repeated. Consequently, there is an obligation for the selected sample to reflect the diversity of opinions and perceptions of development finance. Based on the extent of the varying responses seen in the analysis that follows, the researchers consider the selected sample diverse and representative, and fit for the research purpose.

It can be seen from Tables 1–3 that the respondents had diverse professional backgrounds across a wide range of institutions and activities directly or indirectly associated with the development finance context of the South African economy.

Multiple systems of analysis for language-based data were applied, namely content, discourse, narrative and grounded analysis. This approach was appropriate for this design, as the research aim was both descriptive and explanatory. The advantage of this approach was that the researchers could pre-conceive hypotheses, concepts, and themes that were likely (or expected) to emerge while allowing new themes emerging from the data.

Quantitative analysis of the data consisted only of limited and careful use of non-probabilistic descriptive statistics, specifically frequency distribution tables, where appropriate. It was not appropriate to use more advanced statistical and probabilistic tools of analyses as the sample of potential respondents drawn from the target population was not selected in a random manner.

3. Results and discussion

This section presents and discusses the main findings of the study and is divided into five sub-sections. The first sub-section focuses on the conceptualisation of development finance and is followed by sub-sections which concentrate on the professionalisation, pedagogy, importance and attraction (interest) of development finance respectively.

3.1 Conceptualising development finance

3.1.1 Defining characteristics of development finance

The participants were asked what they thought of when they heard the words ‘development finance’. Various characteristics identified from the responses were as follows:

1. Financing a wide range of developmental objectives: industrial development, social development, infrastructure development, SMME development, macro-economic development, local economic development, and sustainable development;

2. Financing with ‘softer terms’ loans or financing projects and businesses which would not obtain financing in profit-driven commercial markets;

3. That development finance is only performed by bona fide DFIs;

4. Financing that has a formalised and intended social impact agenda;

5. Financing high risk activities; and

6. The financing of B-BBEE.

Interestingly, beyond the granting of credit and equity investment, not one respondent specifically mentioned the provision of other financial services which could have a developmental aspect: insurance, transactional banking, asset management, and co-operative banking.

Furthermore, the respondents differentiated development finance from other types of finance according to the following characteristics:

1. large scale of projects and entities being financed;

2. large number of stakeholders involved;

3. presence of political interference, public sector stakeholding, or loan guarantees and security provided by government;

4. importance of social or environmental impact;

5. importance of social impact over profit motive and maximising shareholder value;

6. increased riskiness or perceived riskiness;

7. longer-term financing;

8. softer loan terms, including lower interest rates, longer repayment periods, and grace periods;

9. provision of additional non-financial support: mentoring, capacity building, technical assistance, monitoring; and

10. financial inclusion of disadvantaged individuals.

3.1.2 Development finance and socially responsible investment

While the majority of respondents did not consider ‘development finance’ and ‘socially responsible investing’ to be synonymous, over a third of respondents did. A common rationale identified in ‘synonymous’ responses was that development financing and DFIs are designed to be, or at least endeavour to be, socially responsible (Table 4).

Table 4. ‘Development finance’ and ‘socially responsible investing’ as synonymous.

	Frequency (n = 31)
Not synonymous	18
Synonymous	12
Unsure/Both	1

Source: Responses to question seven of the questionnaire.

A number of respondents, who did not consider the two to be synonymous, had various rationales for this:

1. Development finance is proactively motivated to make profit for the DFIs, while socially responsible investment is seen as out of the ordinary, altruistic, passive behaviour from private sector institutions;

2. Development finance overlaps with socially responsible investment and corporate social investment but that development finance has a relatively longer term social impact; and

3. Socially responsible investing is perceived as less risky than development finance for the investor or creditor.

3.2 Professionalisation of development finance practice

3.2.1 Shortage of development finance experts

The first question in this section of the questionnaire was posed to the respondents to gauge the perceived extent to which the labour market has an under-supply of competent development finance practitioners. The majority of respondents perceived a shortage of experts (Table 5). Furthermore, the respondents proposed the following rationales for this perceived shortage:

1. that the persistent existence of under-development in South Africa implies an under-employment or under-capacity of development finance experts working in the country;

2. that development finance expertise are relatively scarce; and

3. that DFIs employ former commercial staff who then apply non-developmental principles in their DFI roles.

Table 5. Shortage of development finance experts.

	Frequency (n = 29)
Yes	20
No	5
Unsure	4

Source: Responses to question ten of the questionnaire.

3.2.2 Practitioners’ expertise

The respondents were then given a list of topics and were asked to identify which of these topics they considered development finance practitioners should have an expert understanding of. Respondents were also allowed the opportunity to include other areas of expertise not included on the list provided (Table 6).

Table 6. Expertise of development finance practitioners.

	Frequency (n = 31)
Development economics	23
Infrastructural finance	21
Project finance	21
Financial analysis	21
Local economic development (LED)	20
Financial management	19
SMME development	18
Financial modelling	18
Risk management	18
Governance and ethics	16
Monitoring & evaluation	15
Development theory	15
Business management	15
Public sector finance	14
Project management	14
Financial sector regulation	13
Business forecasting	12
Microfinance	11
International finance	11
Scenario planning	11
Econometrics/statistics	10
Financial sector development	10
Accounting	9
Research methodology	8
Taxation	8
Corporate finance	8
Investment promotion	8
Portfolio management	8
Environmental science	6
Financial derivatives	6
International trade	5
African studies	3
Human resources management	3
Auditing	3
Oriental studies	1
Financial inclusion	1
Women’s studies	0

Source: Responses to question 17 of the questionnaire.

The topics that were perceived to be the most important were mainly finance-based: infrastructural finance, project finance, financial analysis, financial management, financial modelling. The ‘softer’, more qualitative topics such as environmental science were perceived as less important to the practice of development finance.

Remarkably, women’s studies did not receive the approval of a single respondent, whilst financial inclusion and African studies scored very low. This in comparison with the very high scores for ‘SMME Development’ and ‘Infrastructural Finance’ indicates to some extent what the respondents perceived development finance to be: the development of enterprises and infrastructure.

3.2.3 Suggested qualifications

The participants were asked whether practitioners should possess a qualification in development finance in order to practice in South Africa (Table 7).

Table 7. Development finance qualifications.

	Frequency (n = 31)
Yes – should possess specific qualification	17
No	14

Source: Responses to question 13 of the questionnaire.

The majority of respondents thought that development finance practitioners should possess a qualification or professional designation in development finance specifically in order to practise in South Africa.

Two rationales are identified for this:

1. that an academic or professional qualification formalises the discipline and through the process improves the developmental (i.e. non-financial) expertise of practitioners with a conventional financial or commercial background. Similarly, a formalised discipline would assist in the creation of industry standards, as well as, improving the financial expertise of practitioners from a non-financial or social development background; and

2. that formalising the discipline either academically or professionally assists in improving the perception of development finance as a distinct, but relatable set of activities to other forms of public and private sector financial services provision.

A considerable number of respondents did not think that development finance practitioners should possess a qualification or professional designation in development finance in order to practise specifically in South Africa. The common rationales identified were as follows:

1. impracticality – that it is difficult to formalise the discipline as a broad range of skills and expertise are required in order to operate a DFI. Furthermore, that the mandates of the various DFIs are wide-ranging and that it is impractical to group all these practitioners within the same profession;

2. optionality – a formalised profession is perceived as an indulgence not required by most practitioners in order to perform successfully; and

3. that any academic foundation can support a career in development finance.

3.2.4 Professional governance

The participants were then asked whether the skills, knowledge, and ethical behaviour of development finance practitioners in South Africa are formally governed through a professional code of conduct, a statutory body, or professional association (Table 8).

Table 8. Professional governance.

	Frequency (n = 28)
Not governed	22
Governed	4
Uncertain	4

Source: Responses to question 12.1 of the questionnaire.

An overwhelming majority of respondents did not believe that the skills, knowledge, and ethical behaviour of development finance practitioners in South Africa are formally governed through a professional code of conduct, a statutory body, or professional association.

A shared observation or perception identified by the responses was that the conduct of South African development finance practitioners is supervised by the regulatory bodies monitoring the organisations in which these practitioners are employed. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the majority of respondents believe that it is beneficial for the conduct of development finance practitioners in South Africa to be governed.

Another repeated perception identified was that the presence of a professional body would be beneficial to the performance of the industry by improving the standards and best practices of practitioners, especially since development finance is perceived as high risk financial activity. A substantial number of respondents did not think further regulation was needed for these individuals, as this would lead to over-regulation of the development finance industry.

3.3 Pedagogy

The research also intended to determine the respondents’ knowledge, or lack of knowledge, surrounding the available means of obtaining a formal academic qualification in development finance in South Africa.

3.3.1 South African universities offering development finance qualifications

Bearing in mind that there are 26 public universities active in South Africa (Mahomedy, 2016:2), only a small minority were aware of the three universities offering postgraduate qualifications specifically in development finance at that time, namely Nelson Mandela University, the University of Cape Town and Stellenbosch University. A smaller minority were not aware of any universities teaching development finance (Table 9).

Table 9. South African universities offering development finance qualifications.

	Frequency (n = 25)
Unsure	10
Three	6
Four	4
None	3
Two	2

Source: Responses to question 19 of the questionnaire.

3.3.2 Undergraduate education in development finance

Participants were asked whether South African universities should be offering students undergraduate degrees, such as a BCom, majoring in development finance (Table 10).

Table 10. Undergraduate degrees in development finance.

	Frequency (n = 31)
Yes	24
No	6
Undecided	1

Source: Responses to question 20 of the questionnaire.

A large majority of respondents believed that South African universities should be offering undergraduate degree programme specifically in development finance. This is noteworthy as there are presently no universities offering this type of qualification to undergraduates. Furthermore, some postgraduate qualifications in the field, specifically proposed for students who do not possess a bachelor’s degree, require the recognition of prior learning. This needs to be demonstrated by having ‘at least ten years working experience after obtaining a school leaving certificate, of which at least five years should have been in a management or related professional position’ (University of Stellenbosch, 2016).

The rationale for undergraduate education in development finance was explicitly identified by one of the respondents: ‘The country needs young energetic people with academic skills so that they can become competent without having to spend 15 years learning via experience.’

3.4 The importance and value of development finance

Participants were asked whether the current domestic financial system develops South African society and if South African society is more developed today than it was a decade ago (because of the financial system that exists in the country) (Table 11).

Table 11. Developmental potential of the domestic financial system.

	Frequency (n = 30)
Yes (i.e. it is developmental)	20
No	10

Source: Responses to question 21 of the questionnaire.

A clear majority of the respondents considered that the current domestic financial system has contributed to the development of South African society, particularly over the last decade. The respondents made mention of the positive influence of financial inclusion and successful mainstream banking on society’s development.

Political interference in DFIs, mismanagement of DFIs, lack of private and public savings, society’s values, and extensive basic education bottlenecks were mentioned as possible reasons for restricting the developmental impact of the local financial sector.

The participants were asked whether the financial system could be used to develop South African society as a whole in future. An overwhelming majority of respondents (28 of 31) had confidence in the financial system as a means to develop the South African society. The rationales given for this confidence included acceptance of mobile banking technology, microfinance and SMME financing. Some respondents were less confident stating that development finance forms part of a holistic solution and that finance cannot fix moral decay for example.

3.5 Interest in development finance

Respondents were asked to select all the options from the provided list which motivated their interest in development finance. The respondents were also given the opportunity to input other options i.e. that something else is interesting about development finance (Tables 12 and 13).

Table 12. Particular interest in development finance.

	Frequency (n = 31)
Understanding how societies might look in future	19
Learning more about the financial system	12
Relevant to your career progression	7
Other	7
Learning more about South African society	4

Source: Responses to question 27 of the questionnaire.

Table 13. Extracts of the respondents’ ‘other’ interests in development finance.

Other – ‘I (and I know many other South Africans in finance) have a genuine interest in adding value to society and improving the economic and living conditions in South Africa – it would interest me to understand the tools available through development finance to achieve this.’

Other – ‘The opportunity to use financial skills to make a real difference in people’s lives’

Other – ‘Learning more about what makes the traditionally unbanked successful as entrepreneurs’

Other – ‘Financial models to grant access to microbusinesses in an ethical and sustainable way’

Other – ‘Understanding how current systems are failing to benefit all’

Other – ‘To see how the developing of better processes and operators improve development finance’

Other – ‘What can development finance’s contribution be for the development of the South African economy in a manner that overcomes slow growth, poverty, inequality and unemployment?’

Source: Responses to question 27 of the questionnaire.

Unexpectedly, the most frequently mentioned reason for the respondents’ interest in development finance was ‘understanding how societies might look in future’. This indicates that there may be an under-emphasised relationship between development finance and future studies in terms of overlapping areas of study and research methodology, as well as in professional practice.

A common reason identified by thematic analysis of the ‘other’ answers is that, to some extent, financial professionals are motivated by a desire or opportunity to use their specific skills, social networks, institutions and finances towards a socio-developmental agenda.² In this context, various forms of capital and wealth, including human, social, institutional, and financial, could be separately or collectively transformed and employed for the purposes of socio-economic development.

4. Conclusion

The overall aim of this paper was to explore, elaborate, and explain various perspectives on development finance as an emerging academic and professional discipline in the South African context. Based on the research findings of this study, it can reasonably be argued that the South African context has fairly broad conceptions of what constitutes development finance.

Based on the evidence provided in section 3.1, this paper sought to arrive at and advance a comprehensive definition of development finance. Expressly, that development finance be defined as the field of study or branch of knowledge concerned with the manner in which finance influences the processes and objectives of development. This conceptualisation, therefore, includes and integrates the contesting and seemingly contradictory definitions presented in the introduction of the paper as well as the various perspectives present in the empirical findings. Still, this working definition is only intended to encourage and inform further debate, rather than attempting closure regarding the conceptualisation and disciplinarity of development finance. Whether development finance ought to be a be recognised as a separate discipline and what its distinguishing features would be are noted as worthwhile topics for future research.

Furthermore, the research showed that the majority of respondents:

1. did not consider ‘development finance’ and ‘socially responsible investment’ to be synonymous;

2. perceived a shortage of development finance experts in South Africa;

3. suggested that possessing expertise in development economics, followed by infrastructural finance, project finance, and financial analysis (three-way tie) were most important to practitioners;

4. agreed that practitioners should possess a qualification and/or professional designation in development finance in order to practise in South Africa;

5. did not think that the skills, knowledge, and conduct of development finance practitioners in South Africa are formally governed and monitored through a professional code of conduct, a statutory body, or professional association;

6. approved of offering undergraduate students in South Africa specific education in development finance;

7. perceived that the current domestic financial system is developing South African society and thought that the financial system could be used to develop South African society in future; and

8. were interested in development finance with a view to understand specifically how societies might look in future.

Regarding the limitations of the study, the findings are applicable to South Africa and cannot be generalised or extrapolated to a wider or different population. Future research could employ comparative analysis by compiling data from different geographies or samples (such as laymen), or by collecting data from a single sample at different points in time.

It is recommended that academic and industrial stakeholders assess and evaluate the net benefit of introducing undergraduate development finance curricula in South African tertiary institutions. It is also recommended that future research in the field of development finance place greater emphasis on delimitation of the area of study; what the study of development finance entails and what it does not. This has real importance as the prevalence of misunderstanding and misconception is not only an obstacle to the would-be development finance discipline, but also an obstacle to the development of society in and of itself.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID

Jeremy Dobbin http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0549-3097

Additional information

Funding

The authors did not receive funding for this research which was undertaken in partial fulfilment of the M.Phil Development Finance programme at Nelson Mandela University by the corresponding author under the supervision of the co-author.

Notes

1 Referring in this context to the establishment of a new academic discipline rather than the destruction of existing notions of disciplinarity (Stember, 1991:1–14; Balsiger, 2004:407–21).

2 This notion is associated with the popular platitude ‘financing for development’.