Regional Workshop on Comprehensive National Plan of Action on Disability - Towards the Mid-point Review of the Biwako Millennium Framework for Action towards an Inclusive, Barrier-free and Rights-based Society for Persons with Disabilities in Asia and the Pacific (BMF)
Bangkok, Thailand, 19-21 October 2005

GENERAL
ENGLISH ONLY
UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMISSION FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

Regional Workshop on Comprehensive National Plan of Action on Disability –
Towards the Mid-point Review of the Biwako Millennium Framework for Action
Towards an Inclusive, Barrier-free and Rights-based Society for Persons with
Disabilities in Asia and the Pacific (BMF)
19-21 October 2005
Bangkok

APPLICATION OF AGILE CONCEPTS IN NATIONAL ACTION PLANNING FOR DISABILITY INCLUSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND POVERTY REDUCTION*

WORKING DOCUMENT 1

APPLICATION OF AGILE CONCEPTS IN NATIONAL ACTION PLANNING FOR DISABILITY INCLUSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND POVERTY REDUCTION

I. INTRODUCTION

This paper considers the role of planning and evaluation in reinforcing the disability perspective in inclusive development and eradication of extreme poverty for all.

National planning is the first strategy identified in the Biwako Millennium Framework (BMF) to achieve its targets and commitments by 2012.

BMF recommends that Governments, in collaboration with organizations of persons with disabilities and other civil society organizations, develop and adopt by 2004, a five-year comprehensive national plan of action to implement BMF targets and strategies. The first review of progress in implementing BMF, conducted by the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific UN ESCAP) in 2004 found that 15 of the 23 responding Governments (65 per cent) either had prepared of were implementing a national action plan (eight Governments) or had an action plan under preparation (seven Governments).

Three other strategies are identified in BMF to implement its targets and achievements, which are (1) promotion of rights-based approaches, (2) improving data and statistics on disability; and (3) strengthened community approaches to disability action. BMF also presents options for cooperation at sub-regional, regional and interregional levels to promote and further achieve its targets and commitments.

However, BMF provides limited guidance on national action planning in pursuit of its targets and commitments other than it should be participatory and involve representatives of organizations of persons with disability and other civil society organizations as well as the private sector.

Some have suggested that “twin-track” approaches would best provide an enabling environment for persons with disabilities to achieve improved levels of living and well-being, full participation and greater equality. Twin-track approaches are characterized by action that responds to the needs, interests and rights of persons with disabilities in mainstream development and includes as well specific activities aimed at persons with disabilities, which could include support to organizations of persons with disabilities and initiatives that enhance their empowerment.[1]

The twin-track approach reflects a common issue in planning theory of the means and ends of comprehensive planning: rational choice and strategies to deal with the complexity and costs – which include data, personnel and finances – of designing and implementing comprehensive solutions. Because resources are limited, many studies suggest that in the real world there is limited planning and rational choice. Incremental rather than comprehensive approaches are the norm, since the costs of research generally outweigh the benefits.[2] Studies of administrative behavioural suggest that most decision-makers do not make simultaneous comparisons of options - a central tenant of comprehensive approaches - and often “muddle through” by means of successive, limited comparisons of options and select options that are viewed as better than the immediate, competing alternatives.[3]

A second characteristic of twin-track approaches is that they introduce the need for successive valuations of both disability-inclusive action in mainstream development and of disability-specific proposals that parallel the mainstream development agenda. Disability-specific proposals introduce the need for normative considerations in addition to substantive criteria for an assessment of competing proposals for public investment. This is not to criticize twin-track approaches but an observation on the politics of public investment decision-making.[4]

This paper is concerned with reinforcing the disability perspective in national action for inclusive development and poverty eradication for all. It will neither critique twin-track approaches nor propose alternatives to rational models of policy analysis and planning. The major concern is with the role of the “new economics of development” and the role of accessibility, accessible information goods and services[5] in particular, in reinforcing the disability perspective in mainstream development.

The paper thus will draw upon conceptual and methodological work in the field of systems analysis and programming related to “agile approaches” to analysis and planning of complex information systems and software development. Agile approaches are characterized by a concern with promoting greater quality in computer systems and programming through better collaboration between analysts and programmer teams and organizational staff – governmental as well as private sector; analyzing complex tasks in term of manageable modules and relying on iterative development rather than top-down schemes.[6] Agile approaches represent a paradigm shift in the normally top-down and linear approaches to systems analysis and computer programming. Their concepts are considered to be especially relevant in efforts to reinforce the disability perspective in both national action planning and international development agenda: If development agenda do not promote accessibility and progressive removal of barriers, they cannot contribute to improved levels of living and well-being for all. Agile approaches are neutral with regard to normative orientation and are additive to actions aimed at reorienting planning for implementation of the development goals of the Millennium Declaration - poverty eradication in particular - and to reinforcing the disability perspective in these efforts.

The paper first considers the role of national planning in implementing the poverty eradication policy priority of the Millennium Declaration. It directs special attention to the discussion on formulating national strategy and plans in the report of the United Nations Millennium Project 2005, Investing in Development; A Practical Plan for Achieving the Millennium Development Goals.[7] The paper next considers strategic approaches to analysis, planning and evaluation from an “agile” point of view and concludes with a brief review and discussion of three key issue clusters for strategic planning and evaluation from the disability perspective.

II. NATIONAL ACTION TO ADDRESS POVERTY ERADICATION

Eradication of extreme poverty and hunger is the priority concern of the Millennium Declaration[8] and a central concern in the report of the UN Millennium Project, Investing in Development. The report of the Secretary-General to the High-level Plenary Meeting of the sixtieth session of the General Assembly, “In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all,”[9] discusses “a framework for action” to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. The report of the Secretary-General notes:

“…investment strategies to achieve the Millennium Development Goals will not work in practice unless supported by States with transparent, accountable systems of governance, grounded in the rule of law, encompassing civil and political as well as economic and social rights, and underpinned by accountable and efficient public administration;… dynamic, growth-oriented economic policies; … and [involvement of] civil society [as] an indispensable partner in delivering services to the poor at the scope required by the Millennium Development Goals… [and to] catalyze action within countries on pressing development concerns, mobilizing broad-based movements and creating grass-roots pressure to hold leaders accountable for their commitments.”[10]

While neither Investing in Development nor “In larger freedom” addresses the situation of persons with disabilities, their suggestions for a process of strategic analysis and planning and recommended investment priorities for eradication of poverty apply to everyone in all countries. Moreover, the 2005 World Summit outcome, adopted by General Assembly resolution 60/1 of 16 September 2005, urges Governments “to adopt, by 2006, and implement comprehensive national development strategies to achieve the internationally agreed development goals and objectives, including the Millennium Development Goals (para. 22 (a)).”

Investing in Development proposes that national strategy not focus on “accelerating progress toward the [Millennium Development] Goals” but present a “bold, needs-based, goal-oriented investment framework” to achieve the quantitative targets of the Millennium Development Goals to 2015. A four-step approach is outlined:

• First, each country should map the key dimensions and underlying determinants of extreme poverty – by region, locality, and gender - … with available data.
• Second, consistent with the poverty maps, each country should undertake a needs assessment to identify specific public investments… to achieve the [Millennium Development] Goals.
• Third, each country should convert the needs assessment into a 10-year framework for action, including public investment, public management, and financing.
• Fourth, each country should elaborate a 3-to-5-year MDG-based poverty reduction strategy within the context of the 10-year framework.[11]

Investing in Development adds that the process of developing an MDG-based poverty reduction strategy needs to be open and consultative, including all key stakeholders.[12]

Both Investing in Development and “In larger freedom” present seven priorities for national investment and public policy to achieve the development goals of the Millennium Declaration, poverty eradication in particular:

• Gender equality: overcoming pervasive gender bias;
• The environment: investing in better resource management;
• Rural development: increasing food output and incomes;
• Urban development: promoting jobs, upgrading slums and developing alternatives to new slum formation;
• Health systems: ensuring universal access to essential services;
• Education: ensuring universal primary, expanded secondary and higher education;
• Science, technology, and innovation: building national capacities.[13]

The four-stage approach represents practical guidance on preparing a national strategy and action plan for growth. It presents essential information for planning decisions that are the concern of Governments as well as enterprises:

1. Where are we now – with regard to extreme poverty?
2. Where do we wish to be – with regard to eradication of extreme poverty?
3. What specific steps are required to achieve these ends – suggested priorities?
4. Who will be responsible for each component of the plan - involvement of stakeholders?
5. When will each step be completed – with reference to MDG-related targets?
6. How much will each component cost to implement – in terms of a 3-to-5-year plan and annual budget?

However, the strategy, public policy and investment priorities identified in Investing in Development and “In larger freedom” are disability exclusive; they provide an insufficient framework to achieve sustainable and equitable development and eradication of poverty for all.

One change is required to make the proposed strategies and plans to implement the development goals of the Millennium Declaration disability inclusive: policy priorities and public investments must promote environmental accessibility with reasonable adaptation in the general systems of society, in the physical environment, and in the fields of information and communication technologies. Actions to eradicate extreme poverty must benefit all and contribute to progressive realization of a “civil minimum” of well-being in society as a whole.

Both Investing in Development and “In larger freedom” state that national strategy and planning processes should be participatory, democratic and accountable. From the disability perspective, it is essential that they these processes are accessible, inclusive and promote individual freedom and enterprise for all.

In short, the recommended change should not involve additional commitments of development resources and would contribute to better use of resources for effective and sustainable poverty eradication for all.

III. ELEMENTS OF STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE DEVELOPMENT

The premise of this paper is reinforcing the disability perspective in mainstream development requires both a clear policy commitment, which now is evident in the 2005 World Summit outcome, and improved approaches to the analysis, organization and use of development information.

Strategic planning frameworks have obtained considerable attention in response to a number of policy priorities identified by the international community, which include rural development and food security,[14] advancement of women,[15] and child protection[16] among other issues. United Nations in system-wide planning experience suggests strategic planning frameworks can effectively present an issue in a comprehensive rather than sector- or programme-specific context. However, system-wide planning has not yet considered the question of equalization of opportunities and empowerment of persons with disability.

Application of agile approaches in strategic planning to reinforce the disability perspective in actions to implement the development goals and objectives of the Millennium Declaration would represent a decisive first step in making Millennium Declaration process inclusive and accessible to all.

While the product of strategic planning is a framework to guide resource allocation and implementation management decisions, agile approaches are concerned with a process that aims at mitigating risk and promoting improved quality in end-products. From the disability perspective, agile approaches would aim to ensure that analyses are disability sensitive and solutions proposed provide accessibility and promote progressive removal of barriers in the general systems of society, in the physical environment and in the information and communication technologies fields.

Application of agile concepts and principles to strategic planning would include the following considerations:

• plan in appropriate detail – in depth for the short term, in broad strokes for the long term;
• negotiate with scope (and with all concerned stakeholders) – when faced with an imposed deadline;
• stakeholders indicate priorities – of what should be implemented when;
• plan follows reality – use detailed incremental plans;
• feedback is vital – plan to get feedback to mitigate risks;
• plan to re-factor, which is to say revise, reconfigure and redesign as appropriate – to minimize risk of an inappropriate design solution and implementation arrangement at an early date;
• review carefully trade-offs between costs and benefits of incremental development; and
• consider high impact design decisions during early phases. [17]

While there is observed variation in approaches to strategic planning among Governments, intergovernmental organizations as well as the private sector, it is possible to identify at least five basic elements of a strategic planning process:

1. Vision statement

Vision statements present the core values and guiding principles of an organization, its purpose, and particular goal - or goals – that it intends to further.

Some strategic planning efforts include mission statements, which are a subset of an organizational vision statement and describe the primary goal – or principal goals – that are the focus in activities to achieve an immediate objective. Mission statements provide a focus for organizational growth and institutional development.

(a) Considerations when drafting a vision statement

• What are the actual – not desired - core values and beliefs of the organization?
• What purpose does the organization serve; why does it exist; and what does it wish to become?
• What are the immediate barriers that the organization needs to overcome to realize its desired purpose?

(b) Visioning exercises

• Provide opportunities for participation by all stakeholders in deliberations on policy options, directions and priorities.
• Promote an integrated approach to identification of appropriate goals, objectives and priorities.
• Aim to obtain new and non-traditional knowledge and experience in discussions on new or existing strategies, policies and plans.
• In addition to the financial costs, time and related resources to organize, conduct and analyze outcomes, and formulate a shared vision – an essential precondition for mutually reinforcing and complementary action within and among all stakeholders – visioning requires considerable patience as well.

(c) Selected vision statements

Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF)

By 2020 Timor-Leste will have sustainable, competitive and prosperous agricultural, fisheries and forestries industries that support improved living standards for the nation’s people.[18]

Equal Opportunities Commission, Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China

Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) will create, with the support of the community, an environment where there is no barrier to equal opportunities and no discrimination.[19]

2. Situation analysis

The primary purpose of the situation analysis phase of strategic planning is to describe and analyze the context of the planning exercise – community, region, nation, as well as public sector organizations and private enterprises.

A major problem in conducting situation analyses from the disability perspective is the availability of current and reliable data on the nature and extent of disability in the population. Thus, a major consideration is neither to over-analyze limited data nor to under-analyze available data with reference to observations on non-disabled persons and persons with disabilities.

A common-sense approach to organizing and presenting situational analysis findings is recommended, since the costs of a comprehensive study may far outweigh the benefits its findings would provide inclusive planning. A situation analysis should provide a basis for decisions on key issues – or problems to be addressed - concerning stakeholders and locations, priorities for investigation and operational criteria for assessment and evaluation.

Outputs of a situation analysis include:

• Current conditions in terms of selected social, demographic, economic and environmental variables, and analysis of trends with reference to persons with disabilities and non-disabled persons (women and men).
• Issues, problems and barriers to participation in terms of root causes and magnitude or severity.
• Community or area potential, capacities and factor endowments for inclusive and sustainable development in terms of unique strengths and opportunities.
• Identification of priorities among issues, problems and opportunities for development.
• Analysis of resources for development, in terms of accessibility to the general systems of society, physical resources, public as well as private infrastructure, personnel skills and institutional capacities, and technical and financial resources;
• Assessment of additional resource needs to address problems identified.

3. Goals and objectives

The normative content of the strategic plan describes the relationship of the plan to national policy priorities and relevant international and regional norms and standards, such as the Biwako Millennium Framework, the Millennium Declaration and the 2005 World Summit outcome.

An observed problem in the normative section of many plans is to present goals as time-bound objectives or not to present an objective in a quantifiable and verifiable manner.

A “goal” is a formal statement of purpose on what planned action is to achieve for the public good in the long term. For instance, the Millennium Declaration contains eight development goals, with eradication of extreme poverty and hunger as first priority.[20]

An “objective” is a concrete and verifiable statement of intent that focuses on the desired end-state of planned action within a specified timeframe and beneficiary population. For instance, the World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons has three objectives related to its full participation, and equality goals: (1) action on preventable causes of disability, (2) effective rehabilitation and (3) equalization of opportunities.

The normative orientation of strategic planning from the disability perspective should provide appropriate guidance on the critical role of accessibility and the imperative for actions to contribute to progressive removal of barriers to full participation and equality for all. Sources to assistance in drafting normative content that is disability sensitive include: the Biwako Millennium Framework,[21] the World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons,[22] the United Nations Standard Rules on Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities,[23] and the 2005 World Summit outcome.[24]

For strategic planning, the challenge when drafting goals and objectives is to present the disability perspective as a mainstream development issue and not the subject of special measures; considerations include:

• What are the implications of long-term goals for improved levels of living and well-being for all – as this pertains to persons with disability and non-disabled persons, women and men equally?
• What are the desired results of planned actions and their implications for national development?
• What particular changes in current conditions are envisaged, in terms of actions to address specific issues, problems or opportunities for sustained, equitable and participatory development; when and where is this to occur; who will be involved and affected by planned changes; how will planned actions address barriers to participation in the general systems of society; how will costs be apportioned?

For instance, the draft national policy on persons with disabilities and development of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste contains a single goal:

To promote recognition, progressive realization and effective protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste for citizens with disability and further thereby their full and effective participation, on the basis of equality between women and men, in building a prosperous and just nation and a society for all.

The national policy has five objectives to achieve its full participation and equality goal:

1. Achieve accessibility with reasonable adaptation in the general systems of society;
2. Achieve universal access to accessible social services and social safety nets;
3. Promote equalization of opportunities for individual enterprise, on the basis of equality between women and men, to create income and wealth in open markets;
4. Promote equalization of opportunities to participate in and contribute to civil and political life; and
5. Promote information and communications in modes and formats accessible for all.[25]

4. Strategies and implementation plan

A strategic plan provides guidance on means to achieve desired goals and objectives. The strategy presents the set of policies that address macro-economic, social and environmental variables over the long-term, and the implementation plan presents specific policy guidance – tactics – on action to achieve plan objectives with reference to resource requirements, schedule of activities, institutional framework and coordination arrangements, stakeholder involvement, and apportionment of benefits and costs among intended beneficiaries.

The plan as an instrument aims to provide information to support decisions on public investments to achieve goals and objectives of national development. In this sense the plan contributes to improved decision-making by reducing the risk of uncertainty about future outcomes among alternative courses of action.

Plans also provide an important normative function in terms of presenting options to achieve societal goals and to address new and emerging issues, for instance implications of gender on eradication of poverty and development.

However, a “good” plan is not simply a compilation of information related to development goals and objectives. It must be the product of consultations with all concerned stakeholders; it should present a coordinated set of policies to address specific objectives; it should provide a timeframe for implementation and describe institutional arrangements and responsibilities for planned action – both public and private.

The draft national policy on persons with disabilities and development of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste contains a three-point strategic framework for policy implementation:

1. Action to improve planning and resource allocations from the disability perspective, since procedures are not currently in place to guide decisions related to annual programming and medium-term planning with reference to participation of persons with disabilities and progressive removal of barriers to enable full and effective participation of all citizens in inclusive development and poverty eradication.
2. Action to build national capacities and institutions for development and implementation of a legal and regulatory framework related to advancement of persons with disabilities, since strengthened capacities and institutions are essential to ensure effective and consistent implementation of the non-discrimination provisions of the National Constitution.
3. Action to support participatory approaches to monitoring and evaluation.[26]

The strategic plan should provide guidance on both the why, and the who, what, when, where of implementing stated goals and objectives;

• How can each goal best be achieved?
• Who is to be involved and with what responsibilities to achieve the goals and objectives?
• When is planned action to occur, where and at what cost?

5. Monitoring and evaluation

The next issue that the strategic planning must address is procedures for periodic measures of plan implementation, performance and results achieved: monitoring and evaluation in other words.

Monitoring and evaluation is a common subject of academic study and in reviews of the United Nations system for development cooperation,[27] but, in essence, the term refers to two complementary information flows:

• Monitoring information focuses on ways in which plan inputs are converted into outputs.
• Evaluation information focuses on results – the outputs produced – by plan inputs from all sources.[28]

Participatory monitoring and evaluation is a priority strategy of the Biwako Millennium Framework;[29] and systematic dialogue and feedback is central in agile approaches to systems planning and programming to mitigate risks and ensure quality.

Participatory monitoring and evaluation is no less rigorous in terms of concepts, methods and procedures than external evaluations by development “experts”. Studies indicate that participatory monitoring and evaluation is often the most effective approach to assess plan performance and results since it provides opportunities for participation by all stakeholders in the design of the monitoring and evaluation system, determination of data needs and means by which these are to be collected, open consultations on monitoring and evaluation findings, which also can provide opportunities for stakeholders to contribute detailed knowledge and experience, and consultation on decisions resulting from monitoring and evaluation guidelines, which together contribute to solidarity and consensus decisions.[30]

Monitoring and evaluation can make important contributions to mitigate against three types of policy implementation failures: (1) plans and programmes cannot be implemented as envisaged due to substantive design errors, (2) plans and programmes do not produce expected results due to theoretical errors, or (3) plans and programmes cannot be fully implemented due to due resources, administrative and management errors.

Since plans rarely are implemented as envisaged, it is not uncommon for the plan to lose the support of elected leaders. Monitoring and evaluation thus can play an important role in a process of social learning on plan implementation performance, implementation progress, achievements as well as obstacles encountered.

It is possible to identify three sets of plan implementation reports for purposes monitoring and evaluation:

1. Policy maintenance reports focus on planned activities and aim to ensure that the plan is implemented as designed with the move of implementation responsibilities from planning and management to operational personnel.
2. Implementation monitoring reports focus on the conversion of plan inputs into outputs and examine changes in key plan variables and their contribution to the achievement of goals and objectives.
3. Evaluation of outputs and ex-post evaluation of results deal with two sets of plan or programme implementation information: (a) outputs are the direct result of planned actions and output evaluation focuses on efficiency, effectiveness and stakeholder involvement in the use of plan inputs; (b) ex-post evaluation focuses on changes among plan beneficiaries and ways in which outputs contribute to individual and family well-being and levels of living.

Ex-post evaluations can be based on a number of designs, which include: (1) before and after plan intervention comparisons, (2) with and without plan intervention, (3) actual versus planned performance, which is based on targets identified for plan objectives, or (4) experimental (based on the pre-test, post-test and control group model) or quasi-experimental designs (when evaluation resources – time, personnel and finances – are limited).

Whether rigorous experimental designs are used or more pragmatic and quick approaches to monitoring and evaluation are chosen, there are a number of basic decisions for plan and programme management:

1. Determine the scope and focus of evaluation in close consultation with all stakeholders: is the evaluation to contribute to plan implementation performance or is it to assess effectiveness and efficacy among policy options.
2. Institute monitoring and evaluation at the outset of the analysis and planning process and not as an additional administrative reporting function.
3. Identify in consultation with stakeholders the data to be collected to measure and assess implementation performance and results.
4. Identify quantifiable and valid measures of changes expected as a result of planned actions.
5. Identify options for action in response to monitoring and evaluation findings and parties responsible to carry out these tasks.
6. Conduct monitoring and evaluation information on a systematic basis in consultation with all stakeholders to ensure valid, current and reliable measures of performance, achievements and obstacles encountered.
7. Provide regular policy-oriented and public information briefings on monitoring and evaluation findings, actions initiated to address obstacles encountered, role of stakeholders and changes among both intended and unintended beneficiaries.
8. Address the political rationality of plan and programme monitoring and evaluation: focus on positive findings but do not neglect to inform of potential and unexpected difficulties encountered that may require policy-level guidance and intervention

Monitoring and evaluation of development from the disability perspective must also provide information on ways in which stakeholders – persons with disabilities and non-disabled persons alike – have been involved in plan and programme decisions, have contributed to implementation efforts and have shared in benefits as well as in the apportionment of costs associated with implementation.

A closely related consideration is determination of whether there have been differential outcomes related to participation of persons with disabilities in mainstream development or whether additional measures are required to achieve equalization of opportunities to contribute to the production of planned outputs and equitable sharing of benefits associated with these efforts.

IV. KEY ISSUES CLUSTERS IN STRATEGIC PLANNING: REINFORCING THE DISABILITY PERSPECTIVE IN DEVELOPMENT

The premise of the paper is national action planning – the first strategy for implementing the Biwako Millennium Framework - is best accomplished through use of a strategic planning framework and application of agile concepts and principles to planning and programming. With a focus on the development mainstream, strategic approaches can most effectively identify and assess ways in which to reinforce the disability perspective at the analysis and planning phase, the budgeting and implementation phase, and throughout monitoring and evaluation. With their focus on dialogue and frequent feedback to mitigate risk in the design and specification of a complex system, and on identification of logical modules for programming of activities to implement the plan, and concern with quality, agile concepts and principles can make important contributions to the process of national action planning for inclusive development and poverty eradication for all.

The paper is also of the view that disability-inclusive development does not involve increased resource commitments. Incorporating the disability perspective in mainstream development will in fact result in more efficient, just and sustainable development, since no group is to be excluded from consultations on the goals and objectives of national development or opportunities for growth, change and improved levels of living. Achieving disability-inclusive development does require a commitment to accessibility with reasonable adaptation in the general systems of society and progressive removal of barriers to participation in all aspects of development. Promotion of equalization of opportunities for universal access to social services and social safety nets in the mainstream, and to opportunities for decent employment and sustainable livelihoods in open markets are essential preconditions for improved levels of living and well-being for all.

Using the agile concept of logical modules for functional analysis, planning and programming results in identification of three key issue clusters for disability-inclusive strategic planning.

1. Policy and planning issue cluster

Full participation and equality are the goals of the World Programme of Action and a central theme of the Biwako Millennium Framework. The 2005 World Summit outcome recognizes the need to guarantee persons with disabilities the full enjoyment of their rights without discrimination. These normative statements provide important guidance for formulating disability-inclusive development policies and plans, so that planned action contributes to equalization of opportunities for full and effective participation in mainstream development.

The disability perspective should be incorporated in mainstream development through identification of disability as a key horizontal topic for visioning, situation analyses, action planning, and monitoring and evaluation. Addressing disability as a horizontal topic in mainstream development is based on the realization that disability is a normal – not atypical - condition of the lifecycle.[31]

Policy priorities from the disability perspective are similar to policy priorities in mainstream development for all, which are evident in the development goals of the Millennium Declaration and reaffirmed in the 2005 World Summit outcome. These relate to education, health and nutrition, with special emphasis directed to chronic diseases, such as HIV/AIDS and malaria, clean water, sanitation and shelter, and opportunities for gainful employment on the basis of equality between women and men.[32] From the disability perspective, the basic consideration is to ensure that accessibility with reasonable adaptation is incorporated in designs for service provisions in each of these areas.

The Biwako Millennium Framework contains similar priorities to achieve its goals of an inclusive, barrier-free and rights based society in Asia and the Pacific, which are summarized in the table below with reference to the corresponding development goal or specific target of the Millennium Declaration.

Table 1. BMF priorities and related development goal of Millennium Declaration

Both the Millennium Declaration and BMF recognizes the important role of investments in social services – health and nutrition, education, and clean water and basic sanitation - in improving human capital and building national capacities to exercise choice and individual enterprise.

The critical difference in the discussion of policies options related to social services in BMF is the emphasis accorded to the need for social service designs and provision mechanisms to make appropriate use of community approaches and organizations based on traditional forms of association; and services as well as infrastructure should be accessible to all.

Policy innovations to implement the poverty eradication policy priority of the Millennium Declaration include pro-poor approaches to micro-credit, eased regulations on operation of micro-enterprises in the formal, urban sector and actions that empower the poor to acquire and use social and economic assets for sustainable and effective poverty reduction.[33] However, none of these initiatives have addressed the role of accessibility in the work place or in the larger economy as an essential precondition to address extreme poverty and low-levels of living among persons with disability, especially in rural areas.

Checkpoint: disability-inclusive visioning, policies and planning:

• Normative guidance should promote accessibility with reasonable adaptation, progressive removal of barriers to participation in all aspects of development on the basis of equality between women and men.
• Normative consultations should be open, transparent and provide opportunities for consultations with persons with disability, particularly those who may benefit from augmentative and assistive communications devices and procedures.
• Strategic actions aimed at eradication of poverty should provide not only for equality between women and men – persons with disabilities and non-disabled person – but between urban and rural areas.
• Additional measures may be required to address the situation of persons with disabilities with special needs or in special circumstances, such as persons affected by war or conflict, natural disasters, traffic-, farm, fishery or forestry-, or industrial-related accidents.
• Accessibility represents an important metric to assess national policy options for sustainable development and eradication of extreme poverty for all – priorities of both BMF and the Millennium Declaration.

2. Institutional arrangements and coordination mechanisms issue cluster

The Biwako Millennium Framework directs special attention to the role of self-help organizations and community approaches in achieving its targets and commitments; its discussion of implementation strategies includes the role of multi-level cooperation – at sub-region, regional and interregional levels. The Millennium Declaration provides little normative guidance on institutional arrangements at national level other than noting that implementation is primarily the responsibility of countries; it identifies the role of United Nations as promoting international cooperation for development and includes a goal - goal 8 – on developing “a global partnership for development”.

From the national planning standpoint, there are three sets of institutional arrangements critical to reinforcing the disability perspective in mainstream development:

(a) Policy level institutions. This is the level where the planning ministry and other nation building ministries and agencies formulate and assess options to translate policy intent into specific outcomes. Key considerations include the extent to which disability is presented as a horizontal topic for policy analyses and plans and whether policy options and plans promote accessibility in the general systems of society for all.

(b) Public-private advocacy and civil society level institutions. This level provides linkages between policy formulation processes, the views and interests of stakeholders, and implementation arrangements – public and private. Key participants include the national committee on disability, or similar mechanisms for consultations on issues and challenges related to persons with disabilities, and representatives of civil society organizations as well as the private sector. A major concern is to ensure that needs, interests and capacities of persons with disabilities – women and men – are appropriately reflected in policy options and plans.

(c) Operational level institutions. This is the level at which development inputs – services, infrastructure and facilities, technical, managerial and administrative personnel, micro-credit and similar inputs - are provided intended beneficiaries. Delivery of inputs, decisions by beneficiaries on use of inputs and changes observed among the beneficiary population are important issues for both plan and programme monitoring and accountability. From the disability perspective an important consideration is that no set of beneficiaries is discriminated against on the grounds of physical, sensory or mental condition.

Three distinct types of coordination activities are involved in reinforcing the disability perspective in mainstream development: (1) policy coordination, (2) sector coordination and (3) procedural coordination.

(a) Policy coordination. The major consideration is to ensure that accessibility with reasonable adaptation to the general system of society is recognized as a basic right for all and appropriately reflected in normative content and priorities of plans and programmes for mainstream national development as well as for development cooperation activities of the United Nations system and international financial institutions concerned with poverty reduction in support of the goals and commitments of the Millennium Declaration.

Consultations on consideration of options and coordination of policies should provide appropriate opportunities for views and comments by organizations of persons with disabilities and other civil society organizations. A national committee on disability provides an invaluable forum for this purpose. Governments, which have not already done so, may wish to consider policies on consultations with representatives of organizations of persons with disabilities as this pertains to reinforcing accessibility considerations in development cooperation activities of the United Nations systems and other donors – multilateral as well as bilateral or non-governmental.

(b) Sector coordination. A major concern of development planning is efficient and effective coordination of planned actions to achieve plan goals and objectives. Sector coordination obtains value and becomes an efficient and effective mechanism to guide planned actions on the basis of full and effective participation of all stakeholders – intended beneficiaries and concerned nation building ministries and agencies. Sector investment priorities for disability-inclusive development and poverty eradication are similar to those identified for mainstream development other than investments in planned infrastructure, services and facilities must provide accessibility with reasonable adaptation for all. However, none of the recommended “National investment and policy priorities” related to the Millennium Development Goals presented in the Report of the Secretary-General, “In larger freedom report”[34]address promotion of accessibility to the general systems of society or empowerment of persons with disabilities, so they do not constitute a sufficient - or just - basis to guide national action for inclusive development and poverty reduction for all.

(c) Procedural coordination. From the disability perspective a key task for procedural coordination is to ensure that accessibility considerations are recognized and effectively incorporated at the outset of mainstream planning and programming for all sectors. This should be based on clear and concise technical guidance and transparent and accountable procedures for all concerned ministries and agencies of Government.

Accessibility as the key horizontal topic in the internal development analysis and planning procedures of Government and in consultations with concerned stakeholders of national development will contribute to efficient, effective and equitable use of public resources for inclusive development and sustainable poverty eradication for all.

Checkpoint: disability-inclusive national investment and policy priorities related to Millennium Development Goals

1) Gender equality: overcoming pervasive gender bias

Empowerment should be promoted on the basis of equality between women with disability and non-disabled persons. Investments in health, education and essential community infrastructure – clean water, sanitation and shelter – should provide accessibility with reasonable adaptation should benefit all citizens in all areas – rural and urban.

2) The environment: investing in better resource management

Investments in environmental sustainability should include progressive removal of barriers to participation in the economic and social sectors as well as civil and political sectors. Investments in public infrastructure should provide accessibility with reasonable adaptation; investment decisions should include input from persons with disabilities so their needs and capacities are appropriately reflected at the outset of infrastructure planning and development.

3) Rural development: increasing food output and incomes

Investments in the rural infrastructure should promote accessibility and progressive removal of barriers to participation in all aspects of rural development. An area of special concern is the need to address both gender- and disability-biases in extension and marketing services to ensure full and effective participation of all citizens in the exercise individual enterprise in open markets.

4) Urban development: promoting jobs, upgrading slums and developing alternatives to new slum formation

Action to address urban slums should include full and effective consultation with representatives of persons with disabilities so that these provide for accessibility and progressive removal of barriers in new infrastructure and in the remediation of existing infrastructure, with emphasis on health, education, water and sanitation and public-assisted shelter. Employment promotion must incorporate disability-inclusive outreach, support for measures to improve accessibility in work places and include promotion of opportunities for individual enterprise in open markets for all.

5) Health systems: ensuring universal access to essential services

Universal access to essential health services must provide accessibility with reasonable adaptation. Special attention should be directed to community approaches to early detection and appropriate intervention to address preventable causes of disability among infants and promote improved health status among infants and their mother in an efficient and effective manner for all.

6) Education: ensuring universal primary, expanded secondary and higher education

Investments in education should provide accessibility with reasonable adaptation and promote inclusive education for all and include expanded training of teachers related to education of children and young adults with disabilities in mainstream educational systems. Investments in special educational facilities should address the particular needs and conditions of children and young adults with special needs; to the extent practicable, special education facilities should be planned in the context of mainstream education.

7) Science, technology and innovation: building national capacities

Science and technology should direct special attention to promoting accessibility with reasonable adaptation, with emphasis on accessible information and communication technologies in the light of their recognized contributions to providing new and expanded access to knowledge and to exchanging information that contribute to enhanced individual choice, and to improved opportunities to participate in civil and public life, in new and non-traditional employment, and individual enterprise for all.

3. Resource issues complex

Resources are a means and not sufficient condition for development and can include three categories of development inputs:

(1) material support, which includes finances, equipment and in-kind contributions, for instance from civil society in support of implementation or maintenance of programmes and projects;

(2) technical support, which includes expert advice and assistance, extension services, and training; and

(3) information support, which includes data and statistics, technical and scientific information, and marketing information.

Resource levels and allocations are determined by priorities, for instance the poverty eradication policy priority of the Millennium Declaration.

From the disability perspective, the priority consideration for resource allocation decisions is accessibility with reasonable adaptation in the general system of society. A general system of society that is not accessible will exclude many from opportunities to participate fully and effectively as development agent and beneficiary.

Resource mobilization depends on national policy priorities and internal management structures for plans and budgets. Development partners – multilateral, bilateral and private sector – look for policy coherence[35] with regard to international policy priorities and transparent and accountable procedures for development management.[36] Experience would suggest a need, for greater burden sharing between partner countries and donors in the design,[37] implementation and evaluation of development cooperation activities, which will require increased in-kind as well as direct financial provisions by the concerned partner Governments. This may involve both capital investments and operational costs. Careful analysis and planning for burden sharing is a key factor in ensuring sustainability of operations and local control of development cooperation activities.

A second consideration is a need for improved management of development cooperation activities among the donor community,[38] so that analysis, planning and evaluation of development cooperation activities promote accessibility with reasonable adaptation in mainstream development and promote inclusive development and poverty reduction for all. Since none of the current procedures for analysis and planning of development cooperation among the United Nations system or in the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper process of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund[39] specifically address the situation of persons with disabilities, Governments are at a disadvantage when negotiating external grant support for building capacities and strengthening institutions for development from the disability perspective.

Checkpoint: reinforcing the disability perspective in development cooperation

1) Common Country Assessment (CCA)

The Common Country Assessment (CCA) is the instrument by which the United Nations system prepares an analysis of the national development situation and assesses key development issues and trends. Current policy states CCA is prepared under the leadership of Government with the assistance of the United Nations Country Team as well as civil society and the non-governmental community. A key function of CCA is to support formulation of the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF); it also can provide input to the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) in cooperation with the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Current CCA policies and procedures do not address the situation of persons with disabilities and implications for international cooperation.

2) United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF)

UNDAF is the common strategic planning document that guides operational activities of the United Nations system. UNDAF links United Nations system support to national priorities and provides a framework by which members of the United Nations system for development cooperation can prepare the respective Country Programme Document. UNDAF complements the Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) of the World Bank, and similar development cooperation programme documents of other multilateral and bilateral institutions. As is the case with CCA, UNDAF policies and procedures do not address the situation of persons with disabilities.

3) United Nations Development Programme Country Programme Document (CPD)

CPD is the third product of development cooperation programming procedures of the United Nations system. It is based upon the common assessment of development issues, trends and needs and the results matrix of UNDAF. CPD is prepared by concerned members of the United Nations system, which include the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the World Food Programme (WFP) – and considered for support by the respective Executive Board. CPD outcomes describe how intended results will contribute to UNDAF outcomes, and CPD outputs describe the specific products or services for which the respective United Nations programmes are accountable and will contribute to expected outcomes of the country programme or project and to UNDAF outcomes.

4) Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper process (PRSP)

PRSP is the joint World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) approach to reduce poverty in low-income countries, which is based on “country-owned” poverty reduction strategies set forth in the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. PRSP provides a framework for development assistance, which can go beyond the operations of the Fund and Bank, and normally has four parts: (1) description of national participatory development process; (2) poverty diagnosis; (c) targets, indicators, and monitoring systems; and (d) priority public actions over a three-year horizon. PRSP cross-cutting themes are: (a) participation; (b) governance and exercise of power through national economic, social, and political institutions; (c) community-driven development; (d) gender – equality between women and men; (e) environment, with the focus on improving environmental conditions to reduce poverty; and (f) strategic communications and dialogue among stakeholders. Persons with disability are considered members of a “vulnerable group” in the poverty diagnosis, whose needs are assessed in terms of social service provisions.

Initiatives for procedural changes so that development cooperation activities promote accessibility to the general system of society – and contribute to empowerment of persons with disability as development agent and beneficiary - must come from decisions by Governments in the intergovernmental body that supervises the respective United Nations programme or international finance institution: the United Nations General Assembly, Economic and Social Council and concerned subsidiary bodies, and the Development Committee of the World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund.

V. CONCLUDING REMARKS

The paper has considered options to reinforce the disability perspective in mainstream development. It is based on the premise that disability is not a sector but an essential horizontal consideration in mainstream development analysis and planning. The principal consideration is that analysis and planning must promote accessibility to the general systems of society and progressive removal of barriers.

The development case for accessibility is inclusive designs are more efficient since no one group is discriminated against due to a condition or gender. No additional resource commitments are required to support special measures or actions to address development goal and objectives for a particular social group.

An observed barrier to inclusive development is organizational inertia, which is to say the tendency to identify persons with disability as a vulnerable group requiring care and social protection rather than persons with special abilities to participate as agents and beneficiaries of development, on the basis of equality with society as a whole. For instance, the 2005 World Summit outcome refers to the need to guarantee the full enjoyment of the rights of persons with disabilities without discrimination (General Assembly resolution 60/1 of 16 September 2005, para. 129). However, there is no reference to empowerment of persons with disabilities in the context of development in the outcome document (General Assembly resolution 60/1 of 16 September 2005, sec. II).

Since change in organizational culture requires changes in processes, the paper has discussed the role of agile concepts and principles in efforts to reinforce the disability perspective in strategic planning for inclusive development.

Achieving planned intent also introduces questions related to management strategy.

A major study on organization behaviour has identified five key factors as central to achieving “great results in good organizations.” [40] The first factor is leadership, which includes capacities to formulate and articulate a vision and to develop and implement an effective plan of operations. Others factors relate to the organizational environment:

1. Disciplined core organizational team, who are essential in achieving sustained greatness in operations;
2. Disciplined thought, with the focus on simplifying and unifying organizational processes in terms of (i) determining what the organization can best do and what it does better than others, (ii) determining the economic denominator of organizational operations for purposes of cost-recovery, and (iii) determining what defines the “passion” that will motivate the core organizational team;
3. Disciplined action and the ability to decide upon what to do, what not to do and what activities to stop;
4. Disciplined focus on results among intended beneficiaries - or constituencies, rather than internal processes.

A closely related consideration is the need for management in both public and private enterprises to manage the risks associated with change, which include economic, social and political risks. Policy options to reinforce the disability perspective in mainstream development need to provide for modal choice in implementing priority actions allow for feedback and include mechanism to adjust to unexpected consequences of planned changes. Managerial attention also needs to be directed to development of institutional capacities to identify, assess and take action to mitigate risk. It must also engage in dialogue at all levels and develop and carry out public awareness efforts concerning inclusive development and poverty reduction for all.

* This document has been prepared by Mr Clinton E. Rapley, Director of Planning Services, Associates for International Management Services (AIMS), Syracuse, USA, for the Regional Workshop on Comprehensive National Plan of Action on Disability – Towards the Mid-point Review of the Biwako Millennium Framework for Action towards an Inclusive, Barrier-free and Rights-based Society for Persons with Disabilities in Asia and the Pacific (BMF), 19-21 October 2005, Bangkok. The document has been reproduced as submitted. The views expressed are those of the authors only. They do not reflect the views of the United Nations of its secretariat.

NOTES TO THE TEXT

[1] See United Kingdom, Department for International Development (2000). Disability, poverty and development, pp. 11-12 <http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/disability.pdf >.

[2] Herbert A. Simon, “A behavioral model of social choice,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 69 (February 1955), pp.99-118.

[3] Charles E. Lindblom, “The science of ‘muddling through”, Public Administration Review, vol. 19, no. 2 (Spring 1959), pp. 79-88.

[4] The central concerns of economics are production, consumption and exchange and its “central aim is to predict and not merely to explain”. See Mark Blaug, The Methodology of Economics (London, Cambridge University Press, 1980).

[5] See Clinton E. Rapley, “Promoting Accessible Information and Communications Technologies with Reasonable Adaptation: learning from the Manila "Declaration" and "Design Recommendations" on Accessible ICT,” paper presented to United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Westerns Asia “Expert Group Meeting on Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) for Persons with Disabilities (Beirut, 25-26 May 2004)” <http://www.worldenable.net/reasonablea/promoting1.htm>.

[6] Values of agile software programming are:

• Individuals and interactions over processes and tools;
• Working software over comprehensive documentation;
• Customer collaboration over contract negotiation;
• Responding to change over following a plan.

<http://www.agilealliance.com/intro >.

[7] Overview <http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/reports/index_overview.htm>. The document is only available in the Adobe® Portable Document Format (PDF), which may pose accessibility difficulties for those who user assistive devices.

[8] General Assembly resolution 55/2 of 8 September 2000 <http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm>.

[9] A/59/2005 <http://www.un.org/largerfreedom/>.

[10] Ibid. paras. 36-38.

[11] Overview, op. cit., p. 24.

[12] Ibid, p. 25.

[13] “In larger freedom…” op. cit., paras. 39-46.

[14] Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, “The Strategic Framework for FAO - 2000-2015; A. ‘Reducing food insecurity and rural poverty’” <http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/x3551e/x3551e03.htm>.

[15] United Nations. “Proposed system-wide Medium-term Plan for the Advancement of Women 2002-2005 (E/CN.6/2001/4)” <http://www.un.org/womenwatch/ianwge/swmtp.htm>.

[16] United Nations Children’s Fund. “Draft Medium Term Strategic Plan for 2006-2009; ‘Investing in children: The UNICEF contribution to poverty reduction and the Millennium Agenda’ (E/ICEF/2005/11)” <http://www.unicef.org/about/execboard/files/05-11_MTSP.pdf>.

[17] See Mark Collins-Cope, “Planning to be Agile?” (unpublished paper, September 12, 2003) <http://www.softwarereality.com/lifecycle/PlanningToBeAgile.jsp>.

[18] Planning Commission, “Vision,” East Timor National Development Plan (Díli, May 2002).

[19] < http://www.eoc.org.hk/CE/home_ce.htm>.

[20] Goal 1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; Goal 2. Achieve universal primary education; Goal 3. Promote gender equality and empower women; Goal 4. Reduce child mortality; Goal 5. Improve maternal health; Goal 6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; Goal 7. Ensure environmental sustainability; Goal 8. Develop a global partnership for development.

[21] < http://www.unescap.org/esid/psis/disability/bmf/bmf.html>.

[22] < http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/diswpa01.htm>.

[23] < http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/dissre01.htm>.

[24] < http://www.globalpolicy.org/msummit/millenni/2005/0913thirteenth.pdf>.

[25] Arsénio Paixão Bano, State Secretary for Labour and Solidarity, State Secretariat for Labour and Solidarity, Dili, Timor-Leste: WP15/2005/06/18h, “Country paper of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste: issues in national policy formulation related to advancement of persons with disability;” paper contributed to United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific Workshop on Regional Follow-up to the Fifth Session and Preparation for the Sixth Session of the Ad Hoc Committee on an International Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities (Bangkok, 26-27 July 2005) <http://www.worldenable.net/convention2005/papertimorleste.htm>.

[26] Arsénio Paixão Bano, op. cit.

[27] United Nations Development Programme. “Annual report of the Administrator on evaluation 2004 (DP/2005/25)”.

[28] “Definitions and concepts of systematic monitoring and evaluation,” chap. I in Systematic monitoring and evaluation of integrated development programmes; a source book (United Nations publication, ST/ESA/78) <http://sites.maxwell.syr.edu/intleval/Sessions/Sevalchapter1.htm>.

[29] BMF, op. cit. “Strategy 4. Governments should ensure that persons with disabilities, including disability groups in civil society, fully participate from an early stage in helping to shape the laws and policies that will affect their lives and in monitoring and evaluating the implementation of these laws and policies and in recommending improvements.”

[30] See World Bank, “Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PME); a one-day learning and exchange workshop (Washington, DC, 19 April 2002) < http://www.worldbank.org/participation/pmewebfiles/papers.htm>.

[31] “…disability is normal… all kinds of kinds of disabilities happen to all types of people at all stages in their ‘normal human lifecycles.” In Robert l. Metts, PhD, “Planning for disability;” paper presented at Panel Discussion on Independent Living of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations, 3 December 1998) <http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/disid98f.htm>.

[32] See United Nations Development Programme, “Management response to ‘Transforming the mainstream: gender in UNDP’” (DP/2004/31).

[33] John Williamson, “From reform agenda to damaged brand name; a short history of the Washington Consensus and suggestions for what to do next,” Finance and Development, vol. 40 (September 2003). See also UNDP. “Evaluation… 2004,” op. cit., discussion on ‘Achieving the millennium development goals and reducing poverty, ‘ paras. 41-47.

[34] “In larger freedom,” op. cit. paras. 39-47: (1) Gender equality: overcoming pervasive gender bias; (2) The environment: investing in better resource management; (3) Rural development: increasing food output and incomes; (4) Urban development: promoting jobs, upgrading slums and developing alternatives to new slum formation; (5) Health systems: ensuring universal access to essential services; (6) Education: ensuring universal primary, expanded secondary and higher education; and (7) science, technology and innovation: building national capacities.

[35] “Alignment of aid flows to national priorities” is target 3 of the 12 targets identified by the Development Assistance Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development for improved aid effectiveness; see OECD, “Paris declaration on aid effectiveness; suggested targets for the 12 indicators of progress” (Paris, 28 February – 2 March 2005) <http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/45/35230673.pdf >.

[36] Reliable country public financial management systems, and reliable country procurement systems are targets 2a and 2b, respectively of the DAC OECD “Aid effectiveness targets.”

[37] Joint country analytical work is target 10b of the DAC OECD “Aid effectiveness targets.”

[38] Strengthened capacity by coordinated support, and avoiding parallel implementation structures are targets 4 and 6, respectively of the DAC OECD “Aid effectiveness targets.”

[39] Jeni Klugman (ed). A Sourcebook for Poverty Reduction Strategies (2 vols.) (World Bank, October 2002).

[40]Jim Collins, Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't (New York, HarperCollins, 2001).

N.B. Internet references are effective as at 5 October 2005.

Return to top

Copyright (c) 2005 Vision Office.
Last updated 10/13/05. Contact: info @ visionoffice.com