Coordinator
Joanna Watkins, Tufts University

Holding aid accountable by incorporating monitoring and evaluation into both donors and recipient performance is now squarely on the development agenda. This push has led to a fundamental shift in how aid is delivered to recipients and numerous approaches, methodologies and theories about how evaluation should be done have emerged. Today, all actors involved are grappling with what evaluation means for development, if and when it fails, and how to translate lessons learned into organizational change.

Therefore, the two main questions this panel will address are: How can differences between cultures, ethnicities, and geography enhance or challenge our learning from and about evaluation in complex situations? What implications will a push toward results have for the types of projects that receive funding and the actors who will implement them?

Coordinators
Andrew Block and Stephen Donelly, Harvard Kennedy School

For 60 years now wealthy states have been providing aid to countries with developing and transition economies. This has been done mainly through two mechanisms – either via their own bilateral aid organizations, such as USAID, the Millennium Challenge Corporation and DfID, or via the multilateral development organizations such as the World Bank and the IMF. However, there has been significant criticism of much of the aid to date. Poverty alleviation projects have often failed to show progress at national levels and large amounts of aid have been siphoned off by corrupt officials. Bill Easterly argues that too often debt relief not only does not help heavily indebted countries, but actually exacerbates their problems. Some in the development community have begun to switch the structure of aid funding away from poverty alleviation and towards the explicit promotion of economic development.

The amount of development money from wealthy nations which is moving around the world is large and can make a difference. Its impact can mean life or death, opportunity or destitution for its recipients. How this money is used is one of the most important questions facing donors and recipients today. This panel aims to explore the future of government development aid, who controls it, who gets it and what it's used for. Should the focus be moved away from poverty alleviation? Should block grants with few conditions replace project-specific funding? Should debt relief be granted only after restructuring has occurred? Should multi-year commitments replace year by year funding? Should governments act more unilaterally and withdraw their funding of the multilateral institutions?

Coordinator
Maki Park, Harvard Graduate School of Education

What we often refer to as "development" can at times harm the very communities that it is meant to benefit. Policymakers, donors, and project managers are often faced with moral questions in their work, and there is growing recognition of a need for ethical reflection in approaching development goals and strategies. Critics of conventional North-South aid structures argue that development imposed from outside is ineffective or detrimental, while others say aid constitutes an acceptance and continuation of underdevelopment. This panel seeks to discuss some of the following questions from the perspectives of both critics and proponents of conventional international aid: What should the role of foreign development agencies and workers be in the developing world? Who should be responsible for change in a society, and who should decide the ends and means through which this change will occur? Is it possible for aid agencies to be fully accountable to the communities that they serve?

Coordinator
Henry Mooney, Harvard Kennedy School

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank are arguably the world’s most important and powerful international financial institutions. They are charged with ensuring the smooth functioning of the international financial system and reducing poverty, while promoting international collaboration. In the more than six decades since their creation, these institutions have refocused their mandates several times to ensure that they remain relevant to the ever-changing global landscape. Over the past decade, a great deal of criticism has been leveled against the Bretton Woods institutions, particularly from the developing economies that depend most on their technical and financial support. Many critics suggest that the heavy financial and policy burdens associated with loan packages have had severe and often unwelcome consequences for the citizens and governments of countries that had little choice but to borrow in times of crisis or given a lack of access to other sources of capital. Others claim that in spite of their multilateral composition, developing countries have largely been left out of the decision-making process, despite being the IMF and World Bank’s major clients. In this context, the Boards of Governors of the Bretton Woods institutions are now discussing far ranging reforms aimed at addressing these perceived deficits, and ensuring that the IMF and World Bank are fit for another 60 years at the center of the international financial system.

Coordinator
Alison Lombardo, Harvard Kennedy School

In recent years, Chinese investment in Africa has dramatically increased, reaching unprecedented levels. The implications of this large foreign direct investment are still unknown: will Chinese investment spur growth in African economics and enhance development or undermine nascent industries and human rights? Capitalizing on this influx of capital as well as managing the political dimensions of this investment stand as central challenges for African governments and communities. This panel will evaluate possible implications of Chinese investment in Africa and explore how governments can use this capital to work most effectively towards development.