Written evidence submitted by Sue Unsworth (former Chief Governance Adviser with DFID, and Principal of The Policy Practice. This note is submitted in a personal capacity).

International Development Committee's Inquiry into Democracy and Development in Burma

Summary: some of the assumptions underlying the terms of reference for the inquiry are questionable; the Committee thus risks focusing on the wrong issues.

1. The terms of reference for this inquiry seem to accept that it makes sense for DFID to be building up its bilateral aid programme in Burma, and to have the target of doubling spending within three years. These are assumptions which deserve to be challenged: does Burma really need a build-up of bilateral assistance programmes which will inevitably impose additional transaction costs on the government? And does adopting an ambitious spending target for DFID’s programme run the risk that spending will drive programming decisions? At the very least the basis for the proposed target should be questioned, and the rationale should take account of Burma’s capacity to absorb external assistance as well as needs.

2. Another question, related to the above, is how DFID will find the staff resources to run a programme that requires in-depth understanding of a complex and rapidly changing local context. Can it find suitable people, including locally engaged staff, without depleting already weak Burmese institutions?

3. What assumptions underpin the questions about whether DFID is doing enough to assist Burma to move towards democracy, and especially whether it's doing enough to strengthen parliament? These seem to imply that the way to build democracy is to strengthen formal democratic institutions, and also perhaps civil society organisations; but research shows that building effective, accountable, legitimate institutions is a much more complex and uncertain task. Moreover the challenge in Burma is surely about nation building and state building as much as about strengthening democratic institutions and processes. The Committee should probe DFID’s understanding of the processes they believe to be involved in strengthening democratic change in Burma, and their relationship to other development goals including conflict management and poverty reduction. 

4. Questions in the Committee’s terms of reference about economic governance are central to the inquiry, because of the complex links between natural resource extraction in volatile border regions and ethnic conflict, and because the readjustments taking between political, economic and military elites are critical to political stability/development, and closely tied up with who controls and benefits from natural resources extraction. This is something that involves British investors and companies, so one of the things that DFID and HMG may be able to do is to have some influence over their behaviour. The Committee should ask questions about DFID's relationships with private sector actors in Burma, not just with other government departments and other donors.

5. In short, it is not self-evident that DFID should be building up its bilateral programme in Burma. If it is to do so, however, then what seems important is not whether it does more in one sector than another, but whether its efforts are underpinned by a really deep, on-going understanding of the rapidly shifting political and economic dynamics at work, and some rigorous questioning of what, as a relatively small external player, DFID can really hope to influence. This means having staff who understand the country context, with sufficient time and operational flexibility to invest in building knowledge and relationships, and without undue pressure to meet ambitious spending targets. It also means being very realistic about what a "good governance" approach to building democracy can achieve in the short to medium term; and being very alert to the potential influence – positive and negative - of external (including British) investors and donors on the interests and incentives of powerful political, military and business elites in Burma.

October 2013