In this video posted by Antonio Lambino at the World Bank blog, Rakesh Rajani (the head of Twaweza) discusses five key networks that need to be considered and collaborated with in development efforts:
- Religion
- Mobile phones
- Mass media
- Consumer goods
- Teachers
Rajani mentions that these five networks “would be there even if every aid dollar dried up tomorrow” . He also mentions that these networks are “typically not the organizations or the institutions that development actors work with”.
Do you think that the environments in which East Africa’s youth spend most of their time are encouraging of these networks? In other words, do youth engage with (not just witness) such networks regularly?
Related links:
6. CCM
Which is not to disagree with the original list. TANU/CCM is the second most resilient of the listed institutions.
Working with the leadership of the five listed institutions is fine, but typically that will mostly be behind closed doors. I don’t necessarily have a problem with that but if we are to do so, then we need a nuanced analysis of their interests and what they will look for in return. Vodacom? Tigo? Catholic Church?
Be careful what you wish for.
@swahilistreet: I think Twaweza is trying to emphasize those institutions that are “seldom” collaborated with as the author of this piece points out. Sure, CCM is important, but I feel that is old news now. It’s time to stop waiting for things to happen and to give people the power to change their futures. And their power lies in things they engage with everyday, which is a list that seems remarkably close to the list above.
Peter’s comment… well, that’s out-of-the-box sorta thinking.
Yes. I do get the consideration part of the 5 (+ CCM) mentioned “networks”. But, are the people involved (read: influential ones who really run the networks) interested in development? Are they willing to listen, if at all? Ready to challenge and shape their ideologies for the sake of (Tanzania’s) development?
@SN: What you ask is probably the reason Rakesh mentions these networks; I believe he is trying to wake them up. From my perspective (and I am involved with at least one of those networks for sure), we definately are not considering how our ideologies as you say can better suit the public need. What is this public need, then? Well… we can talk about that… but in general, a better quality of life as measured by education, nutrition, health, and sanitation indicators. Perhaps the question is about realizing compatibility: In what ways are these networks already involved in working with development indicators, and how can they increase their impact?
@jack d, the reason I added CCM to the list was to suggest (albeit obliquely) that working with the networks listed (whatever that may mean) may involve some ideological trade-offs (that’s assuming one has one to trade in the first place).
I don’t think that development is t achieved by working with ‘indicators’, but through a messy and unclear process of jostling for and compromising over power, choice and control. This lack of clarity makes it all the more important to understand the motives and objectives of these ‘networks’. All of which of course and in one way or another anchor themselves to CCM.
@SN, thanks for the out of the box remark but I think that Rakesh was usefully thinking out of the box. I’m just pointing out that we still have a box.
@swahilistreet: What you mention about this messy compromise of power is interesting, and in some ways I can see where you are coming from. But a messy process of compromising choice? This is more difficult for me to imagine or get a grip on.
If we’re going to talk about development, I don’t see how we cannot work with indicators. Once again I agree that we cannot ignore political authority, but let’s be real here, who makes mobile networks money? Who buys mass media? It’s me and you, my friend, not the regional CCM office. So what do we need to be measuring if we’re trying to figure out how to develop ourselves without constraints? In my perspective we need to begin measuring the value of our work, not the value of political rhetoric. After all, we’ve been measuring the value of political rhetoric for more than 40 years.