Looks like previous post on the development ideas hype cycle stirred some interest. There are still the “so what” questions — how individual actors should respond to the hype cycle, what systemic actions the sector could take to moderate the volatility of it, etc. — but I’ll leave those for another post in the (hopefully not too distant) future.
Meanwhile, I’ve been catching up on my blog reader backlog and came across a great Duncan Green post that’s relevant to the question of how ideas change the sector. Wrapping up a series of observations on the future of aid, Green notes the increasing role of complexity thinking in aid. But he foresees a coming conflict:
He’s written on this theme elsewhere, as have others. I agree that the results-focus and complexity-awareness camps have a fundamental (though ultimately productive) tension. The results-focus gets more traction with funders, especially in those sectors with large budgets and a focus on scalability/replicability (health, education, WASH, and so on). That gives the results agenda a lot of coverage and inertia.
However, on those issues that are increasingly seen as fundamental to long-term sustainable development (institutions, governance, peacebuilding, etc.) the complexity thinkers control the high ground. That’s not nothing.
In terms of the hype cycle, the two outlooks’ reconciliation (which Green describes in the second half of the excerpt) will provide them both with the route to the Plateau of Productivity. In another framing, we can think of this as the emergence of a new paradigm.