IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/ctwqxx/v32y2011i2p199-216.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Transcending the Great Foreign Aid Debate: managerialism, radicalism and the search for aid effectiveness

Author

Listed:
  • Nilima Gulrajani

Abstract

The great aid debate pits those who are radically opposed to foreign aid against those who champion its managerial reform to achieve greater aid effectiveness. This article offers an analysis of the debate by introducing a heuristic distinction between aid ‘radicals’ and aid ‘reformers’. The radical position is notable as it uncharacteristically unites neoliberals and neo-Marxists against foreign aid, while reformers espouse the tenets of managerialism as an ideological and practical vehicle for aid's improvement. Radicals remain sceptical and suspicious of reformist managerial utopias, while aid reformers see little value in radical nihilism. The paper calls for an end to the great aid debate by moving to a discussion of foreign aid that intertwines both radical and reformist perspectives. The ‘radical reform’ of foreign aid is both desirable and achievable so long as aid is re-theorised as a contested, commonsensical, contingent and civically oriented endeavour.

Suggested Citation

  • Nilima Gulrajani, 2011. "Transcending the Great Foreign Aid Debate: managerialism, radicalism and the search for aid effectiveness," Third World Quarterly, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(2), pages 199-216.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:ctwqxx:v:32:y:2011:i:2:p:199-216
    DOI: 10.1080/01436597.2011.560465
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01436597.2011.560465
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01436597.2011.560465?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mohammad Muaz Jalil, 2023. "State versus Market Debate and Shaping of the Gender Empowerment Agenda," Review of Development and Change, , vol. 28(1), pages 45-66, June.
    2. Nilima Gulrajani, 2022. "Development narratives in a post-aid era: Reflections on implications for the global effectiveness agenda," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2022-149, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    3. Susan Engel, 2014. "The not-so-great aid debate," Third World Quarterly, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(8), pages 1374-1389, September.
    4. Jonas Gamso, 2024. "Food Aid Shocks and Food Insecurity: Does Democracy Matter?," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 36(5), pages 1253-1279, October.
    5. Godofredo Ramizo Jr, 2016. "From Schism to Synthesis: The Off-Centre Radical-Reformist Role of Development Management," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 34(6), pages 789-807, November.
    6. Lewis, David, 2018. "Peopling policy processes? Methodological populism in the Bangladesh health and education sectors," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 87245, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Watts, Natasha & Scales, Ivan R., 2020. "Social impact investing, agriculture, and the financialisation of development: Insights from sub-Saharan Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    8. Jennifer Greenburg, 2017. "Selling Stabilization: Anxious Practices of Militarized Development Contracting," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 48(6), pages 1262-1286, November.
    9. Mirjam Vossen & Baldwin Gorp, 2017. "The Battle of Ideas About Global Poverty in the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and Flanders," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 29(4), pages 707-724, August.
    10. Nilima Gulrajani, 2013. "The Challenge Fund Aid Modality: Assessing the Potential for Tackling Gender Challenges in Development," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2013-043, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    11. Lena Gutheil & Dirk‐Jan Koch, 2023. "Civil society organizations and managerialism: On the depoliticization of the adaptive management agenda," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 41(1), January.
    12. James Copestake & Richard Williams, 2014. "Political-Economy Analysis, Aid Effectiveness and the Art of Development Management," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 32(1), pages 133-153, January.
    13. Emmanuel Kumi & Tara Saharan, 2022. "Hybridisation of institutional logics and civil society organisations' advocacy in Kenya," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 42(4), pages 245-255, October.
    14. Duenas, Nelson & Mangen, Claudine, 2023. "Trust in international cooperation: Emotional and cognitive trust complement each other over time," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    15. Lena Gutheil, 2020. "Why adaptive management will not save us: Exploring management directives' interaction with practice," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 40(2), pages 129-140, May.
    16. Lewis, David, 2018. "Peopling policy processes? Methodological populism in the Bangladesh health and education sectors," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 16-27.
    17. Gulrajani, Nilima, 2013. "The Challenge Fund Aid Modality: Assessing the Potential for Tackling Gender Challenges in Development," WIDER Working Paper Series 043, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    18. Murat Arsel & Vijay Kumar Nagaraj, 2015. "Forum 2015," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 46(4), pages 585-617, July.
    19. Jo Hall, 2021. "Assessing the effectiveness of development co‐operation: Method matters," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 39(2), pages 266-282, March.
    20. Yanguas, Pablo, 2021. "What have we learned about learning? Unpacking the relationship between knowledge and organisational change in development agencies," IDOS Discussion Papers 9/2021, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:ctwqxx:v:32:y:2011:i:2:p:199-216. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/ctwq .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.