You are on page 1of 1

My approach in the synopsis compared to Andrew and Steffens as it is outlined in the foreword to their book: Translation seems a good

way to / is one (among several) answer my question about how to design a HR policy that takes the local political and social context into account. Their - good basic points has similarities with organizational pathologies now classics within the organizational literature. Thus no doubt that it is a good investment to look at the supply side / donor organizations to study how policies are designed and implemented and evaluated. This is not to say that thc e demand side is neglected by Andrew and Steffen its clearly well-analyzed in their focus on translation and the state official as the object of analysis, clear demand side concepts so to say. However, you could introduce the following criticism (difference between my approach and theirs): They identify the problems as being donor related. More specifically, there are SOPs / darlings / existing tools that the donors prefer with no recourse to the actual local context. This is why they talk about imaginary reform. Having so identified the problem, however, they turn to the local phenomenon of the state official. This could seem strange as theyve 1. Identified the problems with imaginary reforms as being caused by donors 2. They do not as such criticize donors for lack of knowledge (but lack of willingness) Alternatively, in case it can be said that lack of knowledge about local contexts is, in fact, a major problem, then A&S analysis of donor policy pathologies strongly points to the need to analyze donor policies more closely from an organizational perspective. This is, indeed, a fertile field of study as their analysis (as well as other) indicate that the problem is not so much poor knowledge of the local setting in which donors work, but lack of will among donors to take it into account. This opens for speculations as to what exactly motivates donors when they design and implement HR strategies. See A&S text pp. 23-25. See also p.34 where A&S advocates increased levels of reflexivity and self-questioning amongst policy-makers and practitioners. If one wants to compare the European historical experience with Africas, one should be careful. Scholars seem to dismiss the idea of a common evolutionary path. Chr. Lunds twilight institutions is a critique of a certain use of the concept of civil society and a warning that by applying this concept, you leave out the less nice, but equally important, parts of society.