David Hudson’s research while affiliated with University of Birmingham and other places

Though not new, adaptive approaches to development are increasingly becoming mainstream in development discourse and practice. An underlying premise of adaptive development is that outcomes cannot be assumed or planned in advance, such is the case with linear, technical approaches to development. Rather, development programmes must be responsive both to their environment, and to learning along the way in order to find successful pathways to change. Advocating adaptive development, Aidan Craney, Lisa Denney, David Hudson and Ujjwal Krishna highlight the need for adaptability and reflexive practice in development work that centres a strong emphasis on cultivating a deep understanding of the local context and investing in learning. Drawing on case studies from the Philippines, Sri Lankan and Oceania, the authors offer examples of adaptive management, problem-driven iterative adaptation (PDIA), and thinking and working politically (TWP) as a way of providing pedagogies, strategies and tools relevant to students and practitioners of development.

Iterative approaches to development under banners such as ‘thinking and working politically’ and ‘doing development differently’ build upon decades-old commitments to fostering locally led and -owned development. These approaches are increasingly popular with academics and development practitioners. In this paper we argue that outsiders seeking to deliver locally led, politically smart programmes need to either accept that competing priorities, results and values will work to limit the extent of true local ownership, or be sufficiently committed to true local leadership to accept that this may well cut against organisational imperatives. Using the example of the Pacific-based Green Growth Leaders’ Coalition, we discuss how politically tricky partnerships challenge tenets of local leadership and ownership.