Papers by Craig A Valters
The politics of the results agenda in DFID, 1997-2017
Overseas Development Institute Paper, 2017
This case study is part of the Overseas Development Institute’s (ODI’s) work on the politics and ... more This case study is part of the Overseas Development Institute’s (ODI’s) work on the politics and governance of public goods and services in developing countries. As a case study of successful pro-poor legal mobilisation in Bangladesh, it contributes to the effort to document approaches and ways of working that make a difference in terms of achieving development results.
In many countries, marginalised groups and their allies use the law and justice systems to contest and improve their access to rights, goods and services. This is the essence of legal empowerment. Taking a claim to a dispute resolution mechanism, such as a court or community mediation forum, is one way poor people can use the law. Yet there is no automatic link between litigation, or other forms of legal action, and improved outcomes for poor people. The success of legal mobilisation depends not only on a favourable legal ruling or decision. It also requires the enforcement or implementation of rulings in ways that redistribute power and resources to poor people in practice.
We use two cases of successful public interest litigation in Bangladesh to explore the conditions that favour, and constrain, pro-poor mobilisation. One case centres on a 2008 Supreme Court ruling that confirmed the citizenship rights of thousands of Urdu speakers living in camps set up after the War of Independence in 1971. As a direct result of the 2008 ruling, Urdu speakers now have national identity cards and can vote, hold a passport and work in the formal sector. The second case centres on a 1999 Supreme Court ruling that has prevented the government’s forcible eviction of thousands of residents of low-income settlements in Dhaka, and continues to do so.
Critically analysing assumptions is a much needed endeavour in international development... more Critically analysing assumptions is a much needed endeavour in international development policy and practice: existing management tools rarely encourage critical thinking and there are considerable political, organisational and bureaucratic constraints to the promotion of learning throughout the sector. The Theory of Change approach – an increasingly popular management tool and discourse in development – hopes to change some of that. This approach explicitly aims to challenge and change implicit assumptions in world views and programme interventions in the lives of others, yet
little is known about the extent to which it really does so. This paper provides a much needed analysis of how Theories of Change are used in the day-to-day practice of an international development organisation, The Asia
Foundation. They use the approach in three ways: to communicate, to learn and to be held accountable, which each exist in some tension with each other. Creating Theories of Change was often found to be a helpful process by programme staff, since it provided a greater freedom to explain and analyse programme interventions. However, the introduction of the approach also had some troubling effects, for example, by creating top-down accounts of
change which spoke more to donor interests than to the ground realities of people affected by these interventions. Ultimately, this paper argues that while a Theory of Change approach can create space for critical reflection, this requires
a much broader commitment to learning from individuals, organisations, and the development sector itself.
Uploads
Papers by Craig A Valters
In many countries, marginalised groups and their allies use the law and justice systems to contest and improve their access to rights, goods and services. This is the essence of legal empowerment. Taking a claim to a dispute resolution mechanism, such as a court or community mediation forum, is one way poor people can use the law. Yet there is no automatic link between litigation, or other forms of legal action, and improved outcomes for poor people. The success of legal mobilisation depends not only on a favourable legal ruling or decision. It also requires the enforcement or implementation of rulings in ways that redistribute power and resources to poor people in practice.
We use two cases of successful public interest litigation in Bangladesh to explore the conditions that favour, and constrain, pro-poor mobilisation. One case centres on a 2008 Supreme Court ruling that confirmed the citizenship rights of thousands of Urdu speakers living in camps set up after the War of Independence in 1971. As a direct result of the 2008 ruling, Urdu speakers now have national identity cards and can vote, hold a passport and work in the formal sector. The second case centres on a 1999 Supreme Court ruling that has prevented the government’s forcible eviction of thousands of residents of low-income settlements in Dhaka, and continues to do so.
little is known about the extent to which it really does so. This paper provides a much needed analysis of how Theories of Change are used in the day-to-day practice of an international development organisation, The Asia
Foundation. They use the approach in three ways: to communicate, to learn and to be held accountable, which each exist in some tension with each other. Creating Theories of Change was often found to be a helpful process by programme staff, since it provided a greater freedom to explain and analyse programme interventions. However, the introduction of the approach also had some troubling effects, for example, by creating top-down accounts of
change which spoke more to donor interests than to the ground realities of people affected by these interventions. Ultimately, this paper argues that while a Theory of Change approach can create space for critical reflection, this requires
a much broader commitment to learning from individuals, organisations, and the development sector itself.