Journal of International Development

J. Int. Dev. 21, 787–791 (2009)

Published online in Wiley InterScience

(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/jid.1618

WHERE NEXT FOR DEVELOPMENTSTUDIES? COVERAGE, CAPACITY,

COMMUNICATIONS

SIMON MAXWELL*,y

ODI, 111, Westminster Bridge Rd, London, UK

Abstract: Three challenges face development studies and development studies institutions—

the three ‘C’s’. The first ‘C’ is coverage: making sure that the sector has sufficient coverage of

new topics. The second ‘C’ is capacities: recognising that growth in the number and strength of

developing country institutions requires developed country institutions to re-think their role.

The third ‘C’ is communications: using new technology to deliver policy messages faster and

more effectively. With the geographical scope of the development studies ‘industry’ also

changing, as more countries reach middle income status, change management becomes a high

priority. Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: development studies; research; teaching; think-tanks; change management

1 THE CHALLENGES TO DEVELOPMENT STUDIES

The field of development studies has an honourable history and a distinguished present. It

has evolved as a focus of teaching, research and practice, linking different disciplines in

multi- and inter-disciplinary frameworks, and creating its own distinctive approaches to a

changing agenda (for recent examples see Clift, 2002; Kothari (ed), 2005; Sumner and

Tribe, 2008; Sumner and Tiwari, 2009). In the UK and Ireland, the pre-eminence of the

Development Studies Association is one indicator of success;1 in the UK, another is the

inclusion of development studies as a unit of assessment in the latest research assessment

exercise determining research quality and funding.2

As well as being an arena of professional endeavour, development studies is an industry,

a community of university teaching and research departments, specialist research

*Correspondence to: Simon Maxwell, ODI, 111, Westminster Bridge Rd, London SE1 7JD, UK.E-mail: s.maxwell@odi.org.ukyDSA President 2001–2005.1For information about the Development Studies Association of the UK and Ireland, see www.devstud.org.uk2http://www.rae.ac.uk/

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

788 S. Maxwell

institutes, think-tanks and NGO policy teams (Maxwell, 2003). The industry is present in

all regions of the world, characterised by a relatively high degree of cooperation and

collaboration, despite the differing mandates or niches of its members.3

As with any industry, change is constant, whether incremental or more fundamental.

Recent work sponsored by the European Association of Development Institutes provides

examples of both types (Maxwell, 2008b,c).

The current financial crisis and recession provide many challenges to current work

programmes,4 but there are deeper challenges to institutional futures, and to development

studies itself, especially as it has been constructed in developed countries. In work at ODI,

we established three such, which we called the three ‘Cs’. These are coverage, capacities

and communications. Taken together, they imply a need for new topics, skills and ways of

working.

2 COVERAGE

The first challenge is to the content of development studies, reflecting a stream of work on

‘What’s Next in International Development?’ (Maxwell, 2006; ODI, 2006). The main

themes include: the management of a new phase of globalisation; the intersection of

development and foreign policy, especially in fragile states; the growing importance of

global and regional public goods, especially but not only in the area of climate change; and

the implications of all these for global institutions and global aid. A recent DFID

conference identified all these issues as central to international development, alongside

long-term challenges like urbanisation and population.5

These are not new topics. For example, the impact of China on the world economy is an

established theme in the development studies literature (Kaplinksy, 2005). The question to

ask is more about the balance of capacities in development studies institutions. Do we—as

an industry—have sufficient depth on China? On international finance? On urbanisation?

On foreign policy? On global governance? On population?

No doubt there are centres of expertise on each of these topics, but an industry body like

the DSA or its European equivalent, EADI, should be concerned about the capacity to

respond to new challenges. A personal view is that the financial crisis has revealed a lack of

capacity on international finance. Similarly, the food crisis of 2008 revealed to this

observer that the industry was better resourced on local livelihood and food security issues

than it was on international trade and markets.

Interesting questions follow. Is the funding available in sufficient volume and with

sufficient flexibility to enable institutions to respond to new needs? Are the skilled

professionals in place or being trained? How can current researchers be supported in

adapting to meet new demands? It is surely better for institutions to take the lead in

delivering change, rather than waiting for external pressure.

3For information about ICCDA (the Inter-regional Coordinating Committee of Development Associations) seehttp://www.eadi.org/index.php?id¼2994See e.g. work on the financial crisis by the Overseas Development Institute at http://www.odi.org.uk/odi-on/financial-crisis/default.asp5See, for example, the discussion at the DFID Conference of March 2008 on ‘Securing our Common Future’(http://www.dfid.gov.uk/securingourcommonfuture/default.asp). See also International Task Force on GlobalPublic Goods 2006.

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Int. Dev. 21, 787–791 (2009)

DOI: 10.1002/jid

Where Next for Development Studies? 789

3 CAPACITIES

The second challenge is about capacities: in developed countries, but, more importantly,

among research institutes and think-tanks in developing countries. Today there are many

more institutions in developing countries, of course patchy in geography and sometimes

quality, as is the case also in developed countries but nevertheless performing many of the

functions that developed country counterparts might have taken on in earlier times. It is

estimated that there are now 1000 think-tanks in the world dealing in different ways with

development issues.6

What, then, is really required of institutions in Europe, taking account of the growth of

capacity in developing countries? Should they work on topics which can be managed

locally? Perhaps their mandate should be to concentrate on developed country policy—as,

for example, the Centre for Global Development in Washington, which works exclusively

on developed, mainly US, policy.7

Some institutions have a teaching mandate, in which case strong programmes can be

justified in developing countries. But should developed country institutions have an

independent institutional presence, a ‘brass plate’, in developing countries?

At the heart of this is a debate about partnership between developed and developing

country institutions. The Swiss Commission for Research Partnerships is one body that has

explored this issue and produced principles to govern equitable partnerships between

institutions in north and south.8 The potential can be seen in successful international

collaborative programmes like the Chronic Poverty Research Centre.9

4 COMMUNICATIONS

The third challenge is communication. In a previous age, the ‘unit of production’ was the

book, the research report or the paper in an academic journal, supplemented by the

occasional briefing paper and public meeting. Today, the internet has changed the way

researchers communicate, and the proliferation of media outlets has changed the way they

engage with audiences. Communication needs to be brief and much, much faster: the two

page opinion or the five paragraph blog, turned around in just a few hours, is an essential

vehicle for policy influence. In the future, technology is likely to challenge further the

expert status of researchers.10 It will require developed country institutions to assume a

different kind of role in facilitating new knowledge networks and supporting ‘open-source

innovation’ (Taylor and La Barre, 2006).11

These three challenges, especially the second and third, are more acute in a think-tank

like ODI than they might be in a traditional university department or research institute. ODI

has always insisted that research quality is the foundation of its work and continue to do so.

6James McGann (personal communication). See also http://www.fpri.org/research/thinktanks/7www.cgdev.org8See the principles for research partnership established by the Swiss Commission for Research Partnerships withDeveloping Countries: http://www.kfpe.ch/9See http://www.chronicpoverty.org/10See Enrique Mendizabal ‘Not all think-tanks are created equal’: http://blogs.odi.org.uk/blogs/main/archive/2008/10/15/5670.aspx11See also an interesting discussion on the ODI blog at http://blogs.odi.org.uk/blogs/main/archive/2008/04/10/5542.aspx

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Int. Dev. 21, 787–791 (2009)

DOI: 10.1002/jid

790 S. Maxwell

However, it has also been the case that ODI researchers need to have the right skills for the

think-tank environment. ODI succeeds because its staff have the skills of the ‘policy

entrepreneur’: they are story-tellers and communicators, networkers focussed on practical

change, and highly sensitive to political and policy processes (Stone and Maxwell, 2005,

Court and Maxwell, 2005, Maxwell, 2008a). Furthermore, and unlike think-tank staff

working on purely domestic issues, policy entrepreneurs at ODI are mostly concerned with

multi-national and multi-stakeholder policy processes on issues like trade or international

finance. They need to work with partners around the world. Just as airlines work together in

code-sharing alliances, the partnership model developed at ODI is one of ‘policy code-

sharing’ (Maxwell, 2004).12

5 A POSTSCRIPT

In tackling these challenges, a final issue relates to how large the domain of developing

countries is likely to be in the future, and therefore how the field of development studies

will be bounded. Already, some large developing countries have achieved middle income

status: China, of course, and now India. There are currently nearly 90 middle income

countries. Projecting to 2015 for the World Bank, Francois Bourguignon (2007) estimated

that another dozen would join the club. By 2015, and assuming that the current financial

crisis does not excessively disrupt long-term progress, the number of IDA-eligible

countries will have fallen to 38, with the number of people living in those countries falling

sharply, from the present total of 2.5 billion, to only 1.1 billion. Of course, many of these

countries will be conflict or post-conflict countries. Indeed, a DFID (2005) report suggests

that, by 2010, half of the world’s poorest people could be living in states that are

experiencing, or at risk of, violent conflict. Of the 34 countries furthest from reaching the

MDGs, 22 are in or emerging from conflict. Is this the future territory of development

studies?

Of course, there will be many poor people in middle income countries. The recent

Chronic Poverty Report (CPRC, 2008) demonstrates the extent of chronic poverty in India,

for example. But does the nature of our engagement change as countries become richer?

There are poor people in the UK and Ireland, after all. Do we need to revisit the issue of

linkages between poverty studies in North and South (Seers, Schaffer and Kiljunen 1979,

De Haan and Maxwell (eds) 1998)?

Put all this together. A changing landscape of poverty. New issues, many of them global

in nature, many of them covering new topics for traditional development studies. The need

for new partnerships. The changing forms of communication. There is no doubt that

development studies will need to evolve.

The challenges will be different in university departments, especially those with high

intakes of foreign students, compared to research institutes and think-tanks with a focus on

policy. Every institution will have to address its individual mission and mandate. Where the

professional associations can help is by providing a space within which information about

changing needs can be shared, and in which the management problems of delivering

change can also be addressed.

12See also the Evidence-Based Policy in Development Network (http://www.ebpdn.org/)

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Int. Dev. 21, 787–791 (2009)

DOI: 10.1002/jid

Where Next for Development Studies? 791

REFERENCES

Chronic Poverty Research Centre. 2008. Escaping Poverty Traps. CPRC, Manchester and London.

Clift C. (ed.). 2002. Cross-disciplinarity in development research. World Development 30(3).

Court J, Maxwell S. 2005. Policy entrepreneurship for Poverty Reduction: Bridging Research and

Policy in International Development. Wiley: London.

De Haan A, Maxwell S. (eds). 1998. Poverty and social exclusion in North and South. IDS Bulletin

29(1): 4.

DFID. 2005. Why we need to work more effectively in fragile states. Department for International

Development, London.

International Task Force on Global Public Goods. 2006. Meeting Global Challenges. Report of the

International Task Force on Global Public Goods, Stockholm.

Kaplinksy R. 2005. Globalization, Poverty and Inequality: Between a Rock and a Hard Place. Polity

Press: Cambridge.

Kothari U. (ed.). 2005. A Radical History of Development Studies: Individuals, Institutions and

Ideologies. Macmillan: London.

Maxwell S. 2003. Development research in Europe: towards an (all)-star alliance? European Journal

of Development Research 15:194–198.

Maxwell S. 2004. Bridges across boundaries: linking research and policy in international develop-

ment. Opinion 20, Overseas Development Institute, London.

Maxwell S. 2006. What’s Next in International Development? Perspectives from the 20% Club and

the 0.2% Club. Working Paper 270, Overseas Development Institute, London.

Maxwell S. 2008a. Inspiring Action to Reduce Poverty. ODI Opinion 108, Overseas Development

Institute, London.

Maxwell S. 2008b. Managing change in development research institutes. EADI Newsletter

December 2008.

Maxwell S. 2008c. Planning for the future and managing change in research institutes and think-

tanks. Available at http://www.eadi.org/index.php?id=926

ODI. 2006. What’s Next in International Development? Annual Report 2006, Overseas Development

Institute, London.

Seers D, Schaffer B, Kiljunen M-J. 1979. Underdeveloped Europe: Studies in Core Periphery

Relations. Harvester Press: London.

Stone D, Maxwell S. 2005. Global Knowledge Networks and International Development: Bridges

Across Boundaries. Routledge/Warwick Studies in Globalisation, Routledge, London.

Sumner A, Tiwari M. 2009. After 2015: International Development Policy at a Cross-Roads.

Palgrave Macmillan: London.

Sumner A, Tribe M. 2008. International Development Studies: Theories and Methods in Research

and Practice. Sage: London.

Taylor WC, La Barre PG. 2006. Mavericks at Work: Why the Most Original Minds in Business Win.

Harper Collins: Canada.

World Bank. 2007. Meeting Global Challenges: A Long-Term Strategic Exercise for the World Bank

Group. World Bank: Washington DC.

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Int. Dev. 21, 787–791 (2009)

DOI: 10.1002/jid