Human Development as the Dominant Paradigm – What counts as success?

Christopher ColcloughUniversity of Cambridge

Outline

• Periodicity of ideas/theories of development• Origins of HD as a distinct and separate set

of writings in 1960s• Steady evolution into a body of theory and

policy advocacy with enormous influence• Selective successful global policy impact• Impact on development outcomes remains

uncertain

Determinants of Aid to Education: DFID and Global aid

DFID education aid 2008/9 Total education aid 2007

Step 1 Log total population .504**

(2.90) .585*** (8.77)

Intercept 4.313*** (5.71)

-.736** (-2.67)

R2 .170 .458 Adjusted R2 .149 .452 Step 2

Log total population .600*** (3.95)

.572*** (8.81)

Log GNI per capita -1.145*** (-3.91)

-.235* (-2.52)

Intercept 6.983*** (7.40)

.012 (.03)

ΔR2 .229 .036 Adjusted ΔR2 .220 .031 Step 3

Log total population .604*** (4.44)

Log GNI per capita -1.193*** (-4.54)

Commonwealth membership .622** (3.30)

Intercept 6.818*** (8.05)

ΔR2 .131 Adjusted ΔR2 .125 # of observations

43

93

Final R2 .530 .494 Final adjusted R2 .494 .483 Dependent variable: Log of DFID aid to education 2008-09, and of total aid commitments to education 2007. t-values in parentheses. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Source: Colclough 2011 Tables 5 and 6.

Conclusions

• Structuralism challenged assumptions of orthodoxy – they were absorbed by it and made economic theory more grounded

• HD more radical, challenging the overall objective chosen as focus for analysis and for development policy

• HDI is well established as preferred means of assessing development performance

• HD is informed by, and helped develop, new theory• HD has influenced aid intentions and national policies • But impact on outcomes less certain – counterfactual

isn’t known; lags are important; historical links matter; political economy of reform is challenging

• Is it a dominant paradigm? – Answer: It has been a great run, but not quite there yet.