A Quick Rant on the Development Consultancy Debacle…

A recent experience I had at a conference in South Africa effectively underscores the problem with the development ‘consultancy engine’ today. About a month ago, I delivered a pretty passionate talk about how the Kimberley people, by spreading word that Ghana was a potential repository for ‘conflict diamonds’ from neighbouring Cote D’Ivoire, were responsible for the downfall of Akwatia. I explained that their claims were unfounded, and whilst they would later admit the same, the reputation of the town had already been shattered: diminished confidence in Ghanaian product had a ‘ripple’ effect, resulting depressed payments for diamonds throughout the supply chain and, by extension, causing significant hardship. Some two years later, the town is still recovering.

But then I was asked the all-important question: what would I have done differently – that is, how would I have gone about investigating claims that Ghana may be trafficking conflict diamonds? This, admittedly, is something that I had never thought about; and, is the type of question which academics, by nature, cannot answer very well because they have not been trained to do so. Needless to say, I struggled.

Academics excel in carrying out research – to diagnose what problems are, why they occur, where they occur, and why they have happened in the first place. They are also good at filling information gaps: inter alia improving knowledge of the dynamics of a community; through field-testing, providing insight on which technologies can work, and which ones will not; and identifying vulnerable peoples in need of support. This, however, raises yet another an important question: why, then, are so many academics, whose strengths are diagnosing problems, being hired and asked to identify solutions to development-related problems? The result, in most cases, is a recommendation to hold another workshop or seminar to help ‘refocus’.

This underscores the true state of the development consultancy engine today: commissioning the wrong people to do jobs. There are people – external consultants who are more disconnected from theories and books – whose job is to identify solutions. They are asked to draw upon an information base compiled by the academics and other researchers. Now here is the problem with these people: rarely do they use the information provided to them to develop meaningful solutions. Rather, and is evidenced in the mining industry time and time again, the consultants are formulating solutions based upon their own assumptions and educated guesses. This, more often than not, leads to the implementation of ungrounded policy solutions: the implementation of an appropriate piece of equipment and the passing of ineffective laws.

So, to sum up, we have consultants in development who are not taking into consideration research findings whatsoever, yet are forging ahead, prescribing solutions. Moreover, many of these consultants are academics, who though good at generating an information base about pressing problems at hand, are not really good at formulating solutions to these problems.

And we wonder why aid rarely translates into anything meaningful on the ground…