Learning from international development projects: Blending Critical Project Studies and Critical...

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx

JPMA-01605; No of Pages 15

Learning from international development projects: BlendingCritical Project Studies and Critical Development Studies

Lavagnon A. Ika a,⁎, Damian Hodgson b,1

a Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, 55 Laurier Avenue East, Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5, Canadab Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Booth Street West, Manchester M15 6PB, United Kingdom

Received 27 May 2013; received in revised form 19 December 2013; accepted 14 January 2014

Abstract

This article aims at making international development (ID) projects critical. To that end, it shows that project management (PM) in ID has evolved asan offshoot of conventional PM moving like the latter, but at varying speeds, from a traditional approach suited to blueprint projects where tools matter(1960s–1980s); towards eclectic and contingent approaches suited to process projects where people matter the most (1980s–now); and finally pointingtowards the potential contribution of a critical perspective which focuses on issues of power (1980s–now). Consequently, it points to a confluencebetween the Critical Project Studies movement and Critical Development Studies movements. More specifically, it argues that the postdevelopment, theHabermasian, the Foucauldian and the neo-Marxist lenses may be effectively called upon in that scholarship. Thus, it suggests a framework to encourageproject actors to reflect on their personal positions in light of the power relations which shape PM in ID.© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Critical Project Studies; Critical Development Studies; International development; Project management approaches; History; Power

1. Introduction

The past few decades have witnessed a rapid expansion in thereach and impact of project management (PM) (Morris, 2013;Shenhar and Dvir, 2007), notably so outside its traditionalheartlands in construction and engineering. Nevertheless, PM isstill largely based on experience and research within a relativelynarrow set of industries and sectors (Carden and Egan, 2008;Kloppenborg and Opfer, 2002). Since PM is a pluralistic area ofmanagement, navigating at the crossroads between specialisationand fragmentation, there is a pressing need to learn from otherrelated areas, sectors, and fields (Gauthier and Ika, 2012; Morris,2013; Söderlund, 2011).

International development (ID) is one such sector which isspecific yet similar to other sectors of PM application in termsof the ubiquitous use of projects to deliver change (Morris,2013; Shenhar and Dvir, 2007) or in this case, economic

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 613 562 5800x4781; fax: +1 613 562 5960E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L.A. Ika),

[email protected] (D. Hodgson).1 Tel.: +44 161 3068791; fax: +44 161 3063505.

0263-7863/$36.00 © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.01.004

Please cite this article as: L.A. Ika, D. Hodgson, 2014. Learning from internatioStudies, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.01.004

.

nal de

growth and/or poverty reduction in the global South drawing onfinancial support from the North. Within ID, the seeminglymundane, neutral and taken-for-granted conceptions of projectsand PM practices have also become ubiquitous (Dar, 2008; Ikaet al., 2010; Kerr, 2008; Landoni and Corti, 2011). Arguably,PM in ID has developed as an offshoot of conventional PMsince the invention of ID by the US President Truman in the‘Point Four’ of his Inaugural Address on 20 January 1949 (Rist,2008). Thus, both conventional PM and PM in ID date back tothe 1950s. Both share a central concern for change in the world.Both historically embody an entrenched inclination towards amanagerialist, technocratic, and instrumental approach — aworldview of PM inherited from the fields of engineering,construction, and economics (Hodgson and Cicmil, 2006; Ika,2012). Both thus have been dominated by assumptions thatinclude an embedded faith in instrumental rationality, objec-tivity, reductionism and expectations of universal validity(Cicmil and Hodgson, 2006; Ika et al., 2010). Finally, both,as we will contend, have fairly similar project failure rates – atleast by some accounts – and the managerial reasons for thesefailures seem to be virtually the same (Ika, 2012; Lovegrove etal., 2011; The Chaos Report, 2011).

velopment projects: Blending Critical Project Studies and Critical Development

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.01.004





2 L.A. Ika, D. Hodgson / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx

In light of this affinity, there have been remarkably fewattempts to traverse the divide and compare theory and practicein both PM in ID and conventional PM. The conventional andindeed critical PM literatures have paid relatively little attentionto ID projects (notable exceptions being Diallo and Thuillier,2004; Ika, 2012; Ika et al., 2010; Khang and Moe, 2008;Landoni and Corti, 2011; Youker, 1989). Similarly, althoughmuch has been written about ID management (Cooke and Dar,2008; Curtis and Poon, 2009; Thomas, 1996, 2000), the IDliterature has rarely analysed in detail the nature of projects andPM (here, exceptions include Biggs and Smith, 2003; Gow andMorss, 1988; Hirschman, 1967; Hulme, 1995; Khwaja, 2009).

This article represents an initial attempt to consider thedevelopment of both PM in ID and conventional PM, theirlimited interpenetration to date, and the purchase which may begained through a critical analysis of each. Both fields, it will beargued, have moved at varying speeds from a universalistunderstanding of the applicability of a rationalist PM ‘method-ology’ to a contingent and eclectic perspective faced with thelimitations, failures and necessary adaptations of practices todiverse contexts, environments and settings. Both, we will argue,may be productively analysed drawing on critical perspectives(Hodgson and Cicmil, 2006; Kerr, 2008). While attempts havebeen made to bridge critical work on ID and critical work onmanagement, as evidenced in the New Development Manage-ment (Cooke and Dar, 2008), very few authors have attempted todepict PM in ID in critical terms (Dar, 2008; Kerr, 2008), andthose who do have so far failed to relate the critical IDmanagement literature with work in the tradition of CriticalProject Studies encompassed by the Making Projects Criticalmovement (Cicmil and Hodgson, 2006; Cicmil et al., 2009;Hodgson and Cicmil, 2006). Similarly, critical research onprojects has much to learn from a fuller engagement with past andpresent research and practice in ID projects.

Thus, this article is not critical in the sense that it challengesthe inadequate or inappropriate use of PM practices in ID. Nor itis critical in some sense that there is a room for manageriallyimproving these PM practices. Rather it is critical in the sense thatthere is something fundamentally wrong with the theory andpractice of PM in ID. As such, it explores the interconnectionsthat Critical Project Studies and Critical Development Studies(Cooke and Dar, 2008; Kerr, 2008) offer in terms of scholarshipand alternative understandings of ID projects and PM. It promotesthe idea that we have to introduce critical theory into the researchprocess in order to move beyond the managerialist, narrowand taken-for-granted instrumentalism that bedevils yet largelydefines both conventional PM and PM in ID (Dar, 2008; Hodgsonand Cicmil, 2006; Kerr, 2008). This article is a conceptual one,based on a review of both the literatures of conventional PM andPM in ID and at times, for illustration purposes, uses twoexamples of ID projects.

The contribution and value of the article are twofold. First, itis an attempt to contribute to making ID projects critical and, assuch, it suggests a number of ways in which critical approachescould support analyses of ID projects, and a framework toencourage project actors to reflect on their personal positions inlight of the power relations which shape PM in ID. Second, its

Please cite this article as: L.A. Ika, D. Hodgson, 2014. Learning from international deStudies, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.01.004

insights could move forward critical research insofar as it looksat PM in ID, in particular, and the limits of projects andprojectification, in general.

The remainder of this article is structured as follows. First, ittraces the conventional PM history and scope and identifiesthree key generic approaches that have characterised PM overtime. Using this chronological and historical account ofconventional PM, it describes and summarises the history andapproaches to PM in ID. Then, it opens up a discussion on thepossibility of examining systematically PM in ID from a criticalperspective and from four specific lenses.

2. Tracing the boundaries and history of projectmanagement: from conventional to internationaldevelopment projects

As PM is a social construct that evolves with time, tracing theevolution of PM helps us to understand both what it is and what itis not (Gauthier and Ika, 2012; Morris, 2011, 2013). Varioushistories of the relatively short life of PM trace its formal existenceas a recognised and named discipline, back to the middle of the20th century (Morris, 2011, 2013), built on the technologicalachievements of the 1940s/50s onwards in engineering, particu-larly the military and defence sectors of the US. Its contribution tothe delivery of a number of high profile ‘megaprojects’ in the USthrough this period and into the 1960s and 1970s, including thevarious Apollo space missions and other activities of NASA andthe US military–industrial complex (Hughes, 1998) raised thestock of PM significantly, supported by the gradual emergence ofa number of professional associations in various countries. Giventhis foundation, it is therefore no surprise that the worldview ofconventional PM reflects the established assumptions of the fieldof engineering. Hence, it was readily argued by proponents of PMthat it provided a valuable methodology which would be effectivein most or all sectors and settings; as stated by the ProjectManagement Institute (PMI) in their published body ofknowledge, ‘the knowledge and practices described are applicableto most projects most of the time’ (PMI, 2004).

Spurred on by assumptions of (near) universal applicability,the techniques of conventional PM did not long remain confinedto engineering and construction, and, hence, the adoption of PMby other sectors, ‘from legal work to reconstructive surgery tourban regeneration’ (Cicmil et al., 2009, p. 82). This expansion ofinfluence of PM gave rise to the notion of projectification (Lundinand Söderholm, 1998), the progressive colonisation of otherareas, sectors and fields of activity by PM ‘methodologies’. Formany, then, ‘the project’ may be seen as a defining feature oflate modernity, reflecting shifts towards discontinuity, flexi-bility, insecurity and impermanence across both developedand developing societies (cf. Bauman, 2000; Boltanski andChiapello, 2005).

Faced with this diversity of contexts in which the same PMmodels and techniques were to be implemented, a gradualrecognition of the need for adaptation, even a plurality of modelsemerged (Morris, 2013; Shenhar and Dvir, 2007). For example,since 1987, the PMI PMBoK has been the subject of manyadaptations such as government, construction, and US DoD



3L.A. Ika, D. Hodgson / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx

extensions and of minor revisions including the latest one thatadded Project Stakeholder Management as a tenth knowledgearea in 2013. While the PMBoK focuses on managing the ‘lonelyproject’ (Engwall, 2003; Morris, 2013), the UK Association forProject Management (APM), which, was first published in 1993,emphasises the management of multiple projects. While thePMBoK is articulated around a set of processes, the InternationalProject Management Association (IPMA) BoK stresses thecompetence elements of managing a project. The UK PRINCEII, first released in 1996, offers a PM methodology formanaging public projects. In 1994, COBIT (Control Objectivesfor Information and Related Technology) was developed for abetter management of IT project risk.

In contrast to the PMBoK and conventional waterfall ap-proaches that plan the entire project up front, a range of agilesoftware development methods including Rapid ApplicationDevelopment (RAD), SCRUM, Extreme Programming (XP) andtheir variants became popular in the 1990s. In today's complexand rapidly changing and at times turbulent environment, there isincreasing evidence that PM is not a one-size-fits-all proposition.In their best selling and influential book, Reinventing ProjectManagement, Shenhar and Dvir (2007) advise to adapt our PMstyles according to four project characteristics: Novelty, Tech-nology, Complexity, and Pace (NTCP) and, thus, to distinguishbetween assembly, system and array projects.

Other scholars suggest that project sponsors and managersshould adapt their PM style and, in particular risk management,to the context of the project, especially in the public sectorwhere the number of stakeholders, media scrutiny, politicalinfluences, and regulations are paramount (Flyvjberg, 2005;Wirick, 2009). The project team must adapt to the internationalcontext and local practices, language, time zones, resources,laws, politics, etc. when embarking on projects which areconducted in multiple countries and cultures (Grisham, 2010).

Also, a PM methodology for post-disaster reconstructionwas developed in 2005; recently developed PM guidelinesPM4DEV and PMD Pro are now available for managing IDprojects in the NGO context; the Japanese P2M is applied toJapan International Cooperation Agency activities (JICA).Landoni and Corti (2011) have shown that the project cyclemanagement approaches, although similar, are different amongID agencies and have changed over time.

All of these developments can be traced to specific‘moments’ in the history of conventional PM reflecting, inour view, key generic approaches to managing projects. Butwhich ones? “History is always seen through the eyes of thehistorian” (Morris, 2011, p.16). Thus, the story of PM can betold in different ways by different scholars with differentemphases, objectives and perspectives (Morris, 2011, 2013).Here, drawing on the works of Joffre et al. (2006) and Hodgsonand Cicmil (2006), we argue, from a research perspective, thatchronologically and historically, three ‘moments’, genericapproaches can be identified:

• First, a pioneering, traditional, scientific, instrumental anduniversalist approach that dates back to the 1950s and thatbears the influence of NASA and the US military–industrial


complex and the engineering and construction sectors. Thistradition is currently exemplified by the activities of the PMI,focusing on the identification and codification of so-called‘best practices’ and critical success factors;

• Second eclectic, contingent or middle-range approachesemerge from the mid-1980s, highlighting the limitations ofthe traditional approach and attempts to re-contextualiseprojects, drawing on social constructionist traditions inmanagement and other social sciences, paying particularattention to ‘soft’ factors in PM such as leadership and culture(as in the Scandinavian School of PM). Later, this diversity ofunderstandings gives rise to a contingency approach to PM, asexemplified most recently by attempts to tailor PM styles toproject types (Shenhar and Dvir, 2007) and to identify ‘NineSchools’ of PM (Turner et al., 2010);

• Third, critical perspectives on PMhave been articulated, whichattempt to broaden our understanding of the impact of PM bylocating PM in a wider political and sociological perspective(Hodgson and Cicmil, 2006). Such approaches have openedthe door to analyses of project organising which highlight, forinstance, “issues of power and domination in project settings,ethics and moral responsibility within projects, tensionsbetween standardisation and creativity in project organisations,the limits to projectification and the broader dysfunctions ofproject rationality” (Cicmil et al., 2009, p. 86).

In the two latter approaches, the ‘widespread assumptionthat a universal theory of project management can be applied toall types of projects’ has been challenged (Engwall, 2003;Morris, 2013; Shenhar and Dvir, 2007). The critical perspectivetakes this argument one step further, inferring that attempts toconstruct PM as universal and invariant are part of a politicalproject of domination and colonisation, imposing a specific andinstrumentalist understanding of project and PM upon diverseactivities across sectors and silencing alternative conceptions ofhow discontinuous undertakings might be organised andstructured (Cicmil et al., 2009). Thus, rather than asking thequestion ‘What is a project?’, the PM critical writer wouldinstead ask: ‘What do we do when we call something “aproject”?’ (Hodgson and Cicmil, 2006, p. 32).

But how to fully answer such a question if, in spite of theabove diversity of application, the PM knowledge base remainsdominated and structured by its traditional activity area? AsKloppenborg and Opfer (2002) note, some two thirds of articlesin the conventional PM literature draw on PM's traditionalheartlands of engineering and construction. The question of thetransferability of PM is a key theme which locates the faultlines between the different approaches to PM. In its quest for abroader empirical base and a robust knowledge base (Morris,2013), PM needs to confront the challenge of diversity andlearn more from other sectors of PM application.

Evidently, PM in ID deals with global challenges and offers apotent source of learning for conventional PM. Of course, bothconventional and ID projects fail. The failure rates appear, bysome estimates, fairly similar: 64% of ID projects fail toproduce much needed intended impact for beneficiaries(Lovegrove et al., 2011) and 63% of IT projects fail according




to the Standish Group's 2011 Chaos Report. Such bluntstatistics are open to disputation, but the point remains thatboth conventional and ID projects all too frequently fail, inpart, because of mismanagement, and that the reasons in bothfields seem to be virtually the same (Ika, 2012), as we will seein the next section. Furthermore, at a time when uncertainty,complexity, strategy and the links between projects,programmes, portfolios, policies, organisational, societal andglobal challenges matter a good deal in all projects (Morris,2013; Shenhar and Dvir, 2007), PM may benefit from a betterunderstanding of ID projects. Such understanding may shedlight on the practice of conventional PM and on what isrequired from conventional projects that comprise fewersectors and dimensions, given that ID projects are typicallymultisectorial, social, technical, and political undertakings,and, thus, far more complex, as we will see later.

In light of the above, we focus on the ID sector as a ‘criticalcase’ where projects have for many decades served as the mainvehicle for activity, and a particular and distinctive mode of PMhas evolved to reflect the distinctive conditions of ID as a sectorand activity, and the political and social contexts within whichID projects and operations are conducted.

3. What is distinctive about international developmentprojects and why are they so difficult to manage?

3.1. International development projects cover almost everysector of project management application

Projects have always been part of the ID landscape, whether asstand-alone or part of programmes (European Commission, 2007;World Bank, 1998). Since its inception in the 1950s, a goodproportion of ID aid has been spent through projects funded bymultilateral agencies (e.g., the World Bank); bilateral agencies(e.g., the UK Department for International Development, DFID);and many other governmental and non-governmental organisa-tions (e.g., OXFAM). The idea is to deliver goods or services thatare intended for public use in every single ‘poor’ country aroundthe World and in almost every sector of activity: infrastructure,utilities, agriculture, transportation, water, electricity, energy,sewage, mines, health, nutrition, population and urban develop-ment, education, environment, social development, reform andgovernance, etc. (Diallo and Thuillier, 2004).

As they cover almost all possible sectors of PM application,they inevitably share some characteristics with conventionalprojects in that they deliver goods and services; are limited,temporary, unique, multidisciplinary; they develop through alife cycle; they face time, cost and quality constraints; andrequire some specific tools and techniques for their implemen-tation (Ika, 2012).

3.2. International development projects are public sectorprojects

ID projects are typically public sector projects and, as such,have: often intangible and even conflicting objectives andoutcomes; changing scope or ambition levels; many layers of


stakeholders with conflicting, if not contradictory, expectations;over-optimism and political interferences and manipulationsincluding strategic misrepresentation or misinformation aboutcosts, benefits and risks (support for ‘pet’ projects for politicalgain, knowingly pitching initial budgets low, and overestimatingbenefits), in particular, for the largest projects (Flyvjberg, 2005);media scrutiny; intolerance of failure; rigid bureaucratic proce-dures or guidelines and often cumbersome policies; and make dowith existing staff more often than private sector projects (Ika etal., 2010; Wirick, 2009). As with many public initiatives, thetime between conception and delivery is relatively long. Theyare typically not-for-profit, social and political undertakings(Diallo and Thuillier, 2004; Khang and Moe, 2008) and they fitinto programmes, strategies and policies such as the recipientcountry Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) (Europeancommission, 2007; Ika, 2012).

There are, however, grey areas. Some ID projects areinternational private–public partnerships (Flyvjberg, 2005).Examples include international energy infrastructure projectspartly funded by donors and partly by international corporateinvestors. This is the case of a nearly 4-billion $ US pipelineChad–Cameroon project partly funded by the World Bank andan international consortium led by Exxon-Mobil.

3.3. International development projects are internationalprojects

ID projects are also, de facto, international projects. They arefunded by ID agencies and donors from the West andimplemented in the South. They utilise resources from or inmore than one country. This exposes them to high levels of riskand socio-political complexity and, in particular, culturalcomplexity in terms of local ways of life, institutions, politics,laws, regulations and rules, customs, practices, standards,languages, time zones, holidays, processes, contracts, conflicts,and resources (Grisham, 2010).

3.4. International development projects share managerial/organisational challenges with conventional projects

Like conventional projects, ID projects all too frequently failto achieve their goals due to a number of issues that are of amanagerial/organisational nature: imperfect project design,poor stakeholder management, delays during project imple-mentation, cost overruns, poor risk analysis, inadequatemonitoring and evaluation failure, etc. (Diallo and Thuillier,2004; Gow and Morss, 1988; Ika, 2012; Ika et al., 2010).

3.5. International development projects are different and morecomplex: unique goals and way of organising

ID projects may often appear to be ‘hard’ — with a tangibledeliverable like the building or repair of a new road, school,hospital or pipeline. However, this physical infrastructure mustcorrespond to a need or value on the part of beneficiaries.Specifically, an impact in terms of poverty reduction is whatsets ID projects apart from conventional projects. While there



High

Socio-political Complexity

Weak

Type of project

Private sector projects

Public sector projects

International projects

InternationalDevelopmentprojects

Fig. 1. International development projects are extreme case of socio-politicalcomplexity.


are generally two categories of stakeholders for conventionalprojects and, in particular, for industrial projects: the clients,who pay for the project and benefit from it, and the contractors,who get paid by the client to implement a project and deliverexpected results, ID projects require at least three separate keystakeholders: the funding agencies, who pay for (through loansor outright grants) but do not receive project deliverables, theimplementing units who are involved in their execution, and thetarget beneficiaries, who expect some benefit from them(Hirschman, 1967; Ika, 2012; Khang and Moe, 2008).

Let us consider here the case of a World Bank funded project.While the project manager works for the recipient government,the project supervisor works and oversees the project implemen-tation for the World Bank. The project manager is not under theproject supervisor's authority. Consequently, the former needs tosecure a ‘no-objection’ from the latter when it comes to proceedwith important transactions such as terms of reference, short lists,and contract awards. When the no-objection is not granted, theproject manager must return to the drawing board and repeat thewhole process (Diallo and Thuillier, 2004; Ika and Saint-Macary,2012).

3.6. International development projects are different and morecomplex to manage: unique context and institutionalchallenges

Since ID projects are part of a broader and specific context,they face serious problems in developing countries which mayreflect political, economical, physical/geographical, socio-cultural, historical, demographical, and environmental chal-lenges. This context is characterised by institutional andsustainability problems such as corruption, capacity buildingsetbacks, recurrent costs of projects, lack of political support, lackof implementation and institutional capacity and overemphasison visible and rapid results from donors and political actors.Consequently, many ID project failures are more institutionalthan technical (Collier, 2007; European Commission, 2007; Gowand Morss, 1988; Ika, 2012; Moyo, 2009; Rondinelli, 1983).

For example, the failure of a $ 4 billion Chad–Cameroonpipeline project to deliver impact for the beneficiaries, despiteits completion a year ahead of schedule in 2003, can beexplained by pointing to institutional factors. The project failedto deliver services to the poor as the Chadian government usedthe oil revenues to purchase arms and military equipment (Ikaand Saint-Macary, 2012).

3.7. Different types of projects emerge with time and with anincreasing complexity

Building on the idea that at a certain period of time a specifictype of project and a specific type of project organisationprevail (Söderlund, 2009 calls these periods, “epochs”), weargue that there are different types of ID projects and that theymirror different ID management phases (Cooke and Dar, 2008;Ika, 2012). First, ‘blueprint’ projects in the form of eitherinfrastructure projects typical of the 1950s/1960s or agricultur-al/rural projects typical of the 1970s. They prevailed in the


early phase of ID administration. Second, the autonomousprocess projects typical of the 1980s include projects in policyadvice, education, health, and institutional building, etc. Third,whether ‘hard’ or ‘soft’, all projects became programmecomponents and, thus, prevailed during the ID managementphase which emerged in the 1990s, and transformed into a‘managerialist’ ID management in the postdevelopment era.These projects as programme components are still prevailing inthe ‘New Development Management’ phase that embraces acritical perspective (Cooke and Dar, 2008). Thus, differenttypes of projects have been the focus of different eras of ID,reflecting different ID management phases and an increasingcomplexity because of the socio-political aspects.

3.8. Overall, international development projects are an extremecase of conventional projects

In light of all the above discussion, we argue that ID projectsare not necessarily unique but, perhaps, they are an extremecase of characteristics common to conventional projects,whether they are private or public sector, national orinternational projects (Ika, 2012). Their socio-political com-plexity, we argue, is often high and, thus, they would fit at thefar right end of the spectrum on a continuum from privatesector projects, through public sector projects and internationalprojects.

Fig. 1 compares the extreme socio-political complexity ofID projects to that of conventional ones.

In this distinctive context, there have been various shifts inphilosophy over time over the way in which PM in ID shouldbe approached and implemented. These shifts will be analysedin the next part of the article.

4. Traditional project management approach ininternational development: tools matter

Projects were fundamentally prominent in ID untilmid-1990s, despite the early debate between the project andprogramme approaches (Rondinelli, 1983). Projects used to bethe building blocks, the privileged particles or the predominantvectors of ID assistance (Hirschman, 1967) and the cuttingedge of ID (Gittinger, 1984). This period was the reign of the



Table 1


ID administration phase, as suggested above (Cooke and Dar,2008). The justification for the project approach has been thebelief that ID primarily poses a technical and managerialproblem, and that rationally planned and controlled projects canprovide the best structure and the most efficient means todeliver capital investment and thereby achieve ID goals andobjectives.

In its first decades, then, PM in ID was dominated by aprescriptive approach, a ‘paradigm’ grounded in the tradition offields such as engineering, construction and economics, interms of process and content, with a mechanistic rationality atthe basis of all project models, cycles or sequences (Baum,1978; Biggs and Smith, 2003; Ika et al., 2010; Johnson, 1984;Landoni and Corti, 2011; Youker, 1989). Fig. 2 depicts theWorld Bank project cycle.

These project cycles have been around in ID for more than40 years; they have been promoted by aid agencies; and theyhave been the subject of many ID textbooks. Although they aresomewhat different, they share the same essential characteris-tics (Landoni and Corti, 2011); they are normative or ideal; theyrely upon logically ordered sequences of activities which aredetermined by a known and explicit objective or set ofobjectives; they are rational since their objectives constrainthe analysis of options and risks; their planners are professionaland, as such, are expected to act rationally, suppressingsubjective considerations (Hulme, 1995).

The pioneers of this traditional approach have attempted togeneralise procedures over a range of different types of projectswithout significant consideration of organisational structure ormanagerial responsibility and control (Johnson, 1984). There-fore, a kind of ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach similar to thetraditional approach within conventional PM dominates PMpractice in ID (Ika et al., 2010). For example, the commonancestry of the World Bank project life cycle can be traced backto the Baum cycle (Baum, 1978; Biggs and Smith, 2003;

Fig. 2. The World Bank Cycle. New phases added to Baum (1978)'s cycle initalics (Adapted from Ika et al., 2010).


Landoni and Corti, 2011). As Baum argues, “No two projectsare alike; each has its own peculiar history, and lending has tobe tailored to its circumstances. On the other hand, each projectpasses through a cycle, that with some variations, is common toall” (Baum, 1978, p. 12), a description deeply resonant of theconstruction and engineering intellectual roots of conventionalPM. It is not coincidental that those PM practitioners and fieldconsultants who outline ID project cycles are often embeddedwithin and informed by these fields (Gittinger, 1984; Johnson,1984; Youker, 1989). It is in this true technical tradition thattools like Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) with related appraisaltechniques such as discounted cash-flow, net present value,Internal Rate of Return (IRR), sensitivity analysis and financialrisk analysis, budget monitoring, monitoring of disbursements,and technical targets have been developed; CBA for large scaleinfrastructure or agricultural projects, financial analysis forprivate business investments, and technical targets in the caseof public investment projects and process projects. In the1970s, the classic planning tool in ID became the logframe, andin particular, its 4 by 4 matrix, as it gives a convenient overviewof the project to be implemented (Ika et al., 2010; Youker,1989) (see Table 1 for many of these tools).

This prescriptive ‘one-size-fits all’ approach, also called the‘blueprint approach’ is mostly concerned with ‘what should bedone’ rather than ‘what does happen’ (Analoui, 1989). Thus, ittends to define ‘what should be without relating it to what is’(Hulme, 1995, p. 230). In this orthodox approach, the humanside of PM in ID has been severely neglected and the role of theproject manager is self-evident, at best peripheral and by andlarge, overlooked (Analoui, 1989). The project manager simplyhad to execute the ‘mini-project cycle’ of implementation fortime, cost and quality (Gittinger, 1984, pp. 17–20; Youker,1989).

Project management tools in international development (adapted from Ika et al.,2010).

Project managementapproaches

Key “Tools of the Trade”

Traditional Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA); Critical Path Method(CPM); Programme Evaluation and Review Technique(PERT); the logical framework; Results BasedManagement (RBM); Project Management InformationSystems (PMIS); budget monitoring; monitoringof disbursements; performance indicators; scoringtechniques; with/without analysis; before/after analysis;technical targets; etc.

Contingent Action-Planning Participatory Worskshops: Apprecia-tion/Influence/Control (AIC); Objectives-OrientedPlanning (ZOPP); teamUp; Community-Based Partici-patory Approaches: Participatory Rural Appraisal(PRA); Selfesteem, Associative strength, Resourceful-ness, Action planning, and Responsibility (SARAR);Beneficiary Assessment (BA), Social Assessment (SA);Gender Analysis (GA); Systematic Client Consultation(SCC); Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation(PM&E); Poverty Reduction and Strategy Papers(PRSPs); grid/group framework; stakeholder and con-flicts resolution frameworks; organisational and cultur-al analysis frameworks; etc.




This traditional approach is founded on the principles offormal rationality, reductionism and a top-down conception ofdevelopment (Bond and Hulme, 1999). Not surprisingly, theplanning view of projects is the prevailing one where “a projectis a planned complex of actions and investments, at a selectedlocation, that are designed to meet output, capacity, ortransformation goals, in a given period of time, using specifiedtechniques” (Johnson, 1984, p. 112). Hence, the belief thatproject planning is the fundamental activity since there is aneed for a systematic way of ‘getting the job done’ (Analoui,1989; Ika et al., 2010) (For a discussion on the type of planning,strategic vs. implementation planning, and the role of theproject manager, see Ika and Saint-Macary, 2012). As aconsequence, project analysts have shared a deep convictionthat ID project failure can be best addressed by the use of betterprocedures, tools and techniques which would lead to moreeffective PM in ID, and thus, project success, which ismeasured by time, cost and, mostly, financial return oninvestment (Internal Rate of Return, IRR) (Ika et al., 2010).

In a mordant critique of this leading approach, Hulme arguesthat projects here are seen as ‘the products of technical analysisconcerned with the cost-effective achievement of well-definedgoals’; as a consequence, “project failure can be explained bypoor implementation (if one is a planner) or poor planning (ifone is an implementer). Political representatives can point outthat there was a shortfall because of errors in the technicalanalysis, whilst bureaucrats argue that political interferencehampered the project. There are escape hatches for all, exceptthe project's intended beneficiaries!” (Hulme, 1995, p. 216).Thus, in this orthodox approach, “poor project outcomes havebeen seen as a consequence of ‘weak links’, rather than afundamental misconception of the overall approach” (Hulme,1995, p. 218). This is in fact reminiscent of the first moment ofthe conventional PM history: “While this traditional core of thefield has indeed met serious challenges over the years – such asthe need to coordinate projects within project portfolios, themanagerial and the motivational aspects often referred to as the‘human side of projects’, or the unavoidable impact of externalcomplexity on the internal project process – the responseremains the same; to construct new, even better, rational toolsto ensure project success” (Cicmil et al., 2009, p. 83).

The traditional approach has, thus, not lived up toexpectations. As a matter of fact, despite the billions of dollarsinvested by donors and the tireless efforts of project supervisorsand managers, the strong belief that tools matter and that theywill deliver ID, the results of infrastructure projects (roads,railways, dams, ports, airports, power stations, telecommuni-cations and so forth) and agricultural and rural projects (forexample, water supply projects) continue to disappointstakeholders. In fact, dissatisfaction with project results andperformance dates back to the first decade of development (see,for example, J.F. Kennedy's speech to Congress in 1961).

Also, early evaluations of the infrastructure projects of the1950s and 1960s and the agricultural/rural projects of the 1970shave concluded that many projects have produced poor results(Hulme, 1995; Tacconi and Tisdell, 1992). The well-knownHowell report demonstrates that, based on a rate of return


criterion below 10%, 54% of the World Bank rural ID projectsin the early 1970s in Africa were failures (Howell, 1990). Thefirst ever sustainability evaluation carried out after 38 years ofexistence of the World Bank reveals that only 12 agriculturalprojects out of 25 achieved sustainability (Cernea, 1985;Youker, 1989). Thus, the need to ‘go deeper’ has surfaced inPM in ID.

5. Contingent project management approaches ininternational development: people matter the most

The poor results of projects from the 1950s through the1980s have led to disillusionment with the traditional approachand widespread calls to change or even reject outright thetraditional PM approach in ID and adopt instead what havebeen described as ‘process’ projects (Bond and Hulme, 1999;Hulme, 1995; Korten, 1980; Rondinelli, 1983). A large numberof disparate ideas and alternatives have been drawn upparticularly from inputs from social scientists, emerging as areaction to the ineffectiveness of the traditional PM approach inID (Hulme, 1995). “At the heart is the recognition that thechallenges of development are not well-structured problemsthat can be “thought through” by clever people. Rather they are“messes” that have to be “acted out” by social experimentationand interaction” (Johnston and Clark, 1982, pp. 23–28).

It has been argued that project appraisal focuses only onfinance, cost-effectiveness and technical accomplishment andgives the problems of managing a project little attention.Hence, Goodman and Love (1980) have identified the urgentneed of skilled project managers and insisted on staffing as animportant part of the project life cycle in their Integrated ProjectPlanning and Management Cycle (IPMC). Acknowledging thisprogress, Analoui (1989) has suggested moving from thetraditional prescriptive approach to a more descriptive approachwhere the role of the project manager is significant as adecision-maker, a change agent or a leader and not just animplementer.

In this descriptive approach, the concern is mostly on ‘whatactually takes place’ rather than ‘what ought to happen’. Theproject manager under the descriptive approach is no longer aneconomic man or an objective arbiter of interests, or even atechnocrat or a responsive man but a proactive and engaged keyactor. “In contrast, a ‘descriptive’ approach tends to view projectsand managers as they really are and ‘situations’ through eyes ofthe key actors, stakeholders and the management (and even thebeneficiaries)” (Analoui, 1989, p. 42). The ‘enlightened’ projectplanner recognises that traditional techniques, although notperfect, may be helpful but micro-political considerations arealso key to project success (Johnson, 1984). Some have evencalled this a sensitised traditional approach (see Hulme, 1995 fordetails).

Other authors have suggested other perspectives to over-come the poor results of projects. For example, proponents ofthe social planning school suggest adapting the traditionalapproach and including sociological variables such as partic-ipation. In fact, in a blueprint approach, participation does existbut it is limited to the involvement of beneficiaries in project




costs and sharing of benefits — and even this restricted notionof participation – ‘consultation’ – is often seen as a cause ofproject implementation delays in the usual timely budgetingand delivery system, a source of project inefficiency due to thefact that it is personnel intensive, and an element that decreasesthe control of bureaucrats and powerful élites (Tacconi andTisdell, 1992).

However, in the social planning approach, participation isviewed as a success factor implying the involvement ofbeneficiaries in decision-making as a source of informationabout local conditions without which the project will likely fail;it entails the involvement of beneficiaries in decision-making,and means putting people first and empowering them (Kottak,1985). Therefore, this approach does not trade-off participationagainst other variables and, so, pays attention to micro-politicalissues (Tacconi and Tisdell, 1992).

Furthermore, some writers have suggested incorporatingenvironmental implications, scale issues and government role,capacity-building and local management in the debate overparticipation (for a discussion of these approaches, see Tacconiand Tisdell, 1992). For example, many advocates of participa-tion suggest scaling down projects because ‘small is beautiful’(Schumacher, 1974). Others, however, argue that small scale isnot necessarily ‘beautiful’ (Adams, 1990) and that scale canaffect sustainability in different ways.

Overall, participation, whether it is low level communityparticipation such as monetary contribution of households tocapital and maintenance costs of water supply projects, or highlevel community participation such as community-drivenapproach to social investment fund projects, is considered toimprove project outcomes and community members' percep-tions of their effectiveness (Heinrich and Lopez, 2009).

Elsewhere, writers have proposed rejecting the traditionalapproach and suggested an alternative to the prescriptivemodel, arguing that “a more flexible, adaptive, experimentaland responsive set of planning and implementation proceduresmust be used” (Rondinelli, 1983, p. 325). Following the workof Rondinelli, Korten (1980) proposed a ‘learning process’ inwhich projects are not decisively ‘thought through’ butincorporate flexibility, learning, reflection and a revisedacting-out in a virtuous and iterative process. Picciotto andWeaving (1994) have even proposed that listening, piloting,demonstrating, and mainstreaming make up the new ‘learning’cycle for donors.

Bond and Hulme (1999) have proposed considering processapproaches as schools of thought that fall on a continuum thatranges from purists to managerialists. Purists tend to emphasisebeneficiary participation and learning, and to argue for theabandonment of the concept of project (Korten, 1980). Forpurists, then, “process is seen as synonymous with localinstitutional development in which the role of external agentsand resources should be minimised” (Bond and Hulme, 1999,p. 340). In contrast, managerialists still view the role of externalactors as significant but argue for flexibility and adaptation forprojects, managers and management systems (Bond andHulme, 1999). We are then in the era of ‘people-centredmanagement’ where ID projects, alongside their goals, are now


seen as participatory, relatively fluid and flexible, andnon-hierarchical (Dichter, 1989), and ‘putting people first’ hasbecome the modus operandi or the success formula (Cernea,1985).

The proponents of these eclectic and contingent approachesconsider that the orthodox or traditional approach is flawed. Theirassumption is that technical aspects, alongside organisational,sociological, environmental, institutional variables, scale, gov-ernment role, beneficiaries and stakeholder involvement, willaffect project results. Hence, the older ‘blueprint’ project cyclehas been greatly refined and developed over the years to take on,at various points of the project cycle, process ideas such asparticipatory processes and concerns such as the environment,poverty, gender, empowerment, human rights, institutionaldevelopment, capacity building, and sustainability (Biggs andSmith, 2003). These participatory approaches include tools suchas workshop-based or ‘action-planning workshops’ used to bringstakeholders together for project design purposes, community-based methods such as Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA),methods of stakeholder consultation, and methods for socialanalysis including Social Assessment (SA) and Gender Analysis(GA) (Ika et al., 2010) (See Table 1 for a few of theseparticipatory approaches). Since the voice of beneficiariesbecomes important, this gives rise to the proliferation of NGOsin the ID landscape.

According to the proponents of this position, there is no onebest approach. Rather, “the approach best suited to anyparticular circumstance is dependent on the objectives of theintervention and the specific context” (Bond and Hulme, 1999,p. 1354). This is in fact reminiscent of the second moment ofconventional PM history: contingent approaches and theincorporation of soft critical success factors (Engwall, 2003;Hodgson and Cicmil, 2006; Joffre et al., 2006). Thus,paraphrasing Peter Drucker, one may advance that then themost basic principle of PM in ID is: ‘It depends’. As a result,here, there is more than the single point of view of the donor;project success becomes a question of perspective. Theassessment can be made, at least, from the perspectives of thedonor, the recipient government and the beneficiaries. Howev-er, time, cost, objectives and, most importantly, satisfaction ofthe beneficiaries and stakeholders become the key successcriteria (Diallo and Thuillier, 2004; Ika et al., 2010). Forexample, the Chad–Cameroon pipeline was delivered on time,which pleased both the donor and the Chadian Government butfrom the perspective of the beneficiaries, it was a failure (Ikaand Saint-Macary, 2012).

Other attempts to broaden the PM agenda in ID include theanalysis of projects as micro-political arenas for conflict,bargaining and trade-offs, in which power and skill are used inmanipulating agenda, blocking a potential item, or withholdinginformation that does not suit the holder's needs (Hulme, 1995;Schaffer, 1984). In these arenas, the objectives are not onlyseldom precise but also multiple; some of the objectives arevisible and many other are hidden and ‘what is must becomewhat should be’ (Hulme, 1995, p. 225). As no starting pointexists for the project cycle, and there is no clean slate, partiescompete to set and manipulate the agenda for public discussion



Table 2Approaches to project management in international development (PM in ID) and their assumptions.

Traditional PM in ID: tools matter Contingent PM in ID: people matter the most Critical PM in ID: does power matter the most?

Periods 1960s–1980s 1980s–now 1980s–nowID management phases The ID administration or “blueprint”

administration phaseThe “people-centred management” phase and then the IDmanagement phase (1990s)

The critical and postdevelopment management or the“New Development Management” phase

Project types Blueprint (physical capital) Process (human capital) Projects as programme componentsDevelopment metaphor Development is a technical problem

(top down conception)Development is a ‘messy’ technical, managerial andsocio-political problem (bottom-up conception)

Development is a historical, social and political power play

Project metaphor Projects are means to achieve development objectives Projects are context-specific and micro-political meansto achieve specific development objectives

Projects are arenas of social and power play in the contextof global capitalism and ethnocentrism

Key questions What is the best way to achieve project objectives?What should be done?Is the project cost-effective?

What is the best way to achieve project objectives accordingto the context?What is or what does happen? How do we create consensus?

What really is?Who is in? Who is out?How are the decisions really arrived at? Cui bono?

Underlying philosophicalconcepts

Rationality; objectivity and reductionism Experimentation, learning, interaction, participation,adaptation, flexibility; empowerment, etc.

Power, domination, manipulation, exploitation

Project manager figure Architect; economic man; planner Searcher; engaged actor; experimenter; learner Political and ethical actor; reflective performer; phronetic manager.Key stakeholders Donors; agencies; recipient governments and

organisations; execution agenciesDonors; agencies; recipient governments and organisations;execution agencies; civil society; beneficiaries' groups NGOsand philanthropist organisations and people including pop andmovie stars (George Harrison; Bob Geldof; Bono, etc.)…

Donors; agencies; recipient governments and organisations;execution agencies; civil society; beneficiaries' groups;NGOs and philanthropistorganisations and people including pop and movie stars(George Harrison; Bob Geldof; Bono, etc.)…

Key tools Logical framework; Cost Benefit Analysis; ResultsBased Management, etc.

Participatory rural appraisal; participatory monitoring andevaluation; poverty reduction strategy papers, etc.

Critical discourse analysis, deconstruction, criticalethnography, etc.

Success criteria Time, cost; mostly Internal Rate of Return(e. IRR over 10%)

Time, cost, objectives, and satisfaction ofbeneficiaries/stakeholders

N/A.

Key authors Baum (1978), Gittinger (1984), Johnson (1984) Hirschman (1967), Rondinelli (1983), Cernea (1985),Korten (1980), Schaffer (1984)

Barnett (1977), Dar (2008), Kerr (2008), Rist, (2008),Escobar (1995), Harvey (2005)

Intellectual roots Engineering; economics; construction Sociology; anthropology Political science; political economy; sociology; anthropology

9L.A.Ika,

D.Hodgson

/International

Journalof

Project

Managem

entxx

(2014)xxx–xxx

Please

citethis

articleas:L

.A.Ika,D

.Hodgson,2014.L

earningfrom

internationaldevelopmentprojects:B

lendingCriticalP

rojectStudies

andCriticalD

evelopment

Studies,Int.J.Proj.M

anag.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.01.004



in terms of their self-interests; trade-offs between the interestsof different parties are commonly but informally agreed. Insuch arenas, the search for a consensus is hence a permanentquest in the ‘chaos of purposes and accidents’ before anyagenda receives a serious consideration (Hulme, 1995). Thismicro-political analysis of ID projects, similar to the (micro-)political PM perspective, sees projects as organisational andsocial arrangements (Pinto, 1996) and tends to criticise thenaivety or duplicity of proponents of the traditional approachfor overlooking, ignoring or suppressing the intrinsicallypolitical nature of projects in favour of an idealised andapolitical rationalism.

However, writers such as Hulme (1995) argue that themicro-political approach similarly ignores the contribution oftechnical analysis to PM in ID. Some writers therefore argue infavour of a hybrid model in which projects are simultaneouslytechnocratic exercises and micro-political arenas for conflict,bargaining and trade-offs, in which data and technical tools,power and skill are used to set and manipulate the agenda, to blocka potential item, or to withhold information that does not suit theholder's needs (Hulme, 1995; Schaffer, 1984). Such a hybridmodel, at mid-point between the traditional and the micro-politicalones, we argue, also represents a contingent approach to PM in ID.“Such political perspectives on projects tend to suggest the need fora wider picture which considers what goes on in the socialconstruction of projects and project management making process-es…” (Cicmil et al., 2009, p. 85). Table 1 showcases many of the‘tools of the trade’ that prevail in PM approaches for managing IDprojects and Table 2 summarises these PM approaches, theirdefining features and assumptions.

The contingent approaches seem to have failed to settle thepolitical question of power and influence in PM in ID. “Aserious attempt at a process approach to intervention does notmerely incorporate beneficiary participation; rather, it entails afundamental reconfiguration of the involvement of stakeholdersin programme-objective setting, design, implementation andmonitoring. This means a redistribution of power and influenceover decision-making” (Bond and Hulme, 1999, p. 1451). Buteven if this works, it still falls short of addressing the globalimbalance in power which influences the international,economic and macro-political context.

For example, the contingent project design orthodoxy (Khwaja,2009) bears little weight in face of the broader asymmetricaldistribution of power between the world's richest countries,institutions, and people and its poorest (Ika and Saint-Macary,2012). It might be next to impossible to adapt or even discardrationality and efficiency-driven PM tools such as the Gantt chartor accountability-for-results-oriented tools such as Results-BasedManagement (RBM) if the powerful and bureaucratic aid agencieswilling to show to the generalWestern public ‘value for money’ fortheir projects still politically advocate their use (Ika andSaint-Macary, 2012; Ika et al., 2010). In fact, quite apart from themicro-political myopia of traditional PM in ID, identified andattacked by various approaches in contingent PM in ID, themacro-political dimension of ID projects is not only ignored butalso obscured by PM's emphasis on rationality, as the activity istherefore presented as “technocratically neutral, with the words


‘assistance’ or ‘cooperation’ implying a non-existent parity ofpower between the technical helpers and the helped” (Cooke, 2004,p. 607).

In such a macro-political and international context, PM in IDis a social construct and, thus, the idea that PM is somethingobjective is naive. As a consequence, PM departs from an idealwhich purports that the project goal and objectives are thesource of meaning, direction and raison d'être for allstakeholders. Both the traditional and contingent approachesshould therefore be challenged in light of a detailed, explicitand critical examination and problematisation of the practicesunderlying PM in ID (Dar, 2008; Kerr, 2008).

6. Towards critical project management in internationaldevelopment? Does power matter the most?

Despite all the above attempts to pay particular attention totools and techniques vs. people or ‘hard’ vs. ‘soft’ factors, thepoor performance of ID projects and the disappointment ofproject stakeholders and beneficiaries seem to have become therule and not the exception in contemporary development (Ika,2012). The Meltzer Commission claimed, in 2000, that 55% to60% of the World Bank operations including projects werefailures. The World Bank found that its project failure rate inAfrica was over 50% over the past 20 years; likewise, itsprivate arm, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) foundthat only 50% of its Africa projects succeed; the IndependentEvaluation Group (IEG), in an independent rating, claimed thatin 2010, nearly 40% of World Bank projects were unsuccessful;many other agencies have not fared better (Ika, 2012); in fact,a recent McKinsey–Devex survey suggests that 64% ofdonor-funded projects fail (Lovegrove et al., 2011).

The paradox of the above prevailing conventional approachesto PM in ID becomes apparent as there seems to be a disparitybetween the robustly rationalist toolbox of PM in ID and theeffectiveness of its use (Hulme, 1995; Ika et al., 2010). The IDproject practitioners appear to repeat the same mistakes (lack ofbeneficiary participation, weak design, scope creep, goal-changesand so forth). Hence, there seems to exist, for example, a paradoxof learning in the project cycle despite its refinements to includeprocess ideas.While the underlying idea behind the project cycle islearning, it appears to be ‘remarkably robust against such learning’(Biggs and Smith, 2003, p. 1).

On the one hand, there is a vast normative and traditionalPM literature in ID that advocates, in a true Baum (1978)tradition, ‘best practice’ guidelines or ‘what should be done’.On the other hand, and alongside this literature, there is acontingent one that goes deeper, describes what really happensin practice, in a true Hirschman (1967) tradition, and thatquestions the use of project cycle and its associated tools suchas the logical framework (Biggs and Smith, 2003).

So, ‘crises’, deadlock, and impasse in the theory and practiceof ID management (Cooke and Dar, 2008) and conventionalPM (Cicmil et al., 2009) point to ‘cracks in the façade’ of thetwo above prevailing PM approaches in ID. As a consequence,many ponder whether there is something fundamentally wrongwith the theory and practice of PM in ID. Thus, it is time to




look behind and beyond the PM ‘façade’ in ID (Cicmil et al.,2009; Dar, 2008; Kerr, 2008). So far the dominant response tothis ‘deadlock’ has been a greater emphasis on technicist andmanagerialist solutions such as logical frameworks, RBM and areturn to a strong instrumental rationality (see for example,Kerr, 2008).

This is reminiscent of the kind of response that conventionalPM has offered when facing a similar ‘crisis’ (Hodgson andCicmil, 2006). Furthermore, whether it is ‘plain’ PM (traditional orblueprint approach) or ‘fancy’ PM (eclectic and contingentapproaches) that is practiced, some suggest that the approachesand tools are not the problem but the underlying instrumentalrationality: “It is not the tools but the kind of fuzzy thinking that hasweighed them down with so much symbolic freight” (Dichter,1989, p. 384). Yet, if some authors strongly call for improving PM(Dichter, 1989; Ika, 2012), they fall short of outlining an alternativeto the prevailing PM approaches.

However, in order to move beyond this narrow instrumen-talism, we argue that we may turn to a critical social theoryscholarship in PM research in ID. In the remainder of thissection, we suggest four dominant critical research lenses inwhich we might plant the seeds for making ID projects critical:the postdevelopment, the Habermasian, the Foucauldian, andthe neo-Marxist lenses.

While distinct, there are several core similarities between thesecritical lenses. The postdevelopment lens sees development itselfas embodyingWestern, modernist values and imposing these upon(what are for such writers, problematically termed) ‘developing’countries, arguing instead for “local culture and knowledge; acritical stance toward established scientific discourses; and thedefense and promotion of localized, pluralistic grassroots move-ments” (Escobar, 1995, p. 215). The Habermasian lens is equallysuspicious of ‘objective, abstract and universal body of knowledge’suggesting that the knowledge “proprietary to project managementfails to live up to the challenges of the embodied and power-ladenrealities of its operation” (Hodgson and Cicmil, 2006, p. 13). AFoucauldian position also focuses on the operation of power,highlighting “the implied calculability and formality of projectmanagement methodology” (Hodgson and Cicmil, 2006, p. 13).Pointing to the interdependence of power/knowledge, work in thisvein examines how power works on and through the formation andaction of project managers themselves, through for instance theprofessionalisation of project management (Hodgson, 2002).Finally, the neo-Marxist perspective tends to examine the operationof power in projects as a practice of domination or coercion, aimedat controlling the means of production and the project labourprocess (Metcalfe, 1997).

Although each of these approaches has its own distinctivecontribution to make, the collective value of a criticalperspective on ID projects can be illustrated by addressing thequestion of corruption as it affects PM in ID. Corruption is seenas a distinguishing feature which bedevils ID and is regularlydescribed as a silent killer of ID projects and growth (Collier,2007; Hobbs, 2005; Moyo, 2009). Yet, the identification andunderstanding of corruption is frequently taken-for-granted; theWorld Bank defines corruption as ‘the misuse of public officefor private gain’ and the Asian Development Bank defines it as


the ‘the abuse of public or private office for private gain’, whileTransparency International suggests replacing these definitionsby ‘the abuse of entrusted power for private gain’.

These prevailing definitions and the related anti-corruptionfight build on the idea that we may certainly know and dosomething about corruption. Indeed they are part of theneoliberal ‘good governance’ framework to reduce povertyand achieve economic growth in developing countries. In thatsense, there exists a World Bank's stated policy of zerotolerance of corruption in the projects it finances. However,there seems to be “… an apparent paradox whereby the Banktalks a ‘no corruption’ talk but plays a ‘tolerate corruption’game. This paradox exists because it is too costly for the Bankto implement measures to eradicate corruption of its funds.Corruption also plays a functional role in making the projectsthe Bank funds a success. The Bank therefore tolerates a levelof corruption; however it must also convince influentialconstituents that it considers corruption of its funds unaccept-able. The Bank engages in a process of ‘organised hypocrisy’,whereby it says one thing, does another and all the while tries toconceal the fact that it is being hypocritical” (Hobbs, 2005, p.18).

So, while, for mainstream PM, corruption may simply be aproblem or contextual factor to be ‘managed’ away, a criticalreading might see corruption as a function of the broader wealthdisparity between developed and developing countries; or as areflection of the Western dichotomy of public and privatespheres; or might question the (arbitrary?) distinction betweenimmoral but legal corporate behaviour on a grand scale(regarding, say, aggressive tax avoidance) and relatively pettyillegal behaviour by employees (Brown and Cloke, 2011;Lennerfors et al., 2012).

6.1. A postdevelopment critical lens

In a true postdevelopment tradition (Escobar, 1995), acritical PM writer in ID may question and even outright rejectthe very notion of a project. “In the name of this fetishisticterm – which is also a portmanteau or “plastic” word – schoolsand clinics are built, exports encouraged, wells dug, roads laid,children vaccinated, funds collected, plans established, nationalbudgets revised, reports drafted, experts hired, strategiesconcocted, the international community mobilized, damsconstructed, forests exploited, deserts reafforested, high-yieldplants invented, trade liberalized, technology imported, facto-ries opened, wage–jobs multiplied, spy satellites launched”(Rist, 2008, p. 11). So, what's a project really is? What does‘project’ have to do with ID? Can projects really deliver ID? Isnot ‘project management’ an oxymoron?

Take for instance the Chad–Cameroon pipeline. Taking theHodgson and Cicmil (2006)'s stance, a critical writer mightponder: Is it really an ID project? What do they do when theycall it a project? From the perspective of the World Bank, it isan ID project as it would deliver services to the poor in Chadpaid for by oil revenues. Thus, the World Bank uses itssubstantial financial and symbolic power to build a public–private partnership with the Oil Consortium led by Exxon




Mobil. As the latter is a commercial entity, they have to make itprofitable for the investors, the lending financial institutionsand themselves. But, the Chadian government uses oil moneyto purchase arms and military equipment to win their battleover the rebels. Thus, a critical postdevelopment writer mightargue that it was not an ID project in the first place and,therefore, there is no surprise in the end.

Undeniably, there are ID projects but they are not necessarilyprojects for ID as they may in fact be promoting other objectivessuch as capitalism, imperialism and globalisation (Rist, 2008).Thus, paraphrasing Thomas (2000), one may argue that PM for IDremains an ideal rather than a mere description of what does reallytake place. The weaknesses of projects have already beenhighlighted in ID (European Commission, 2007; World Bank,1998). Stand-alone donor projects tend to undermine theownership of ID by national authorities insofar as donors exert ahigh control on the selection, design and implementation ofprojects. They also accelerate the deterioration of governmentsystems by bypassing them with parallel, non-government anddonor-established project management structures, special staffingand accounting requirements. In doing so, due to proliferation,fragmentation, duplication of efforts and loss of coherence betweenprojects funded by local and external resources, they often corrodenormal structures of democratic accountability, force governmentsto be accountable to donors rather than to parliaments and theirpeople, and generate high transaction costs of aid delivery.

This is what is happening now in Haiti where hundreds –even thousands according to some estimates – of NGOsreceived and spent an estimated $ 3 billion in privatecontributions in numerous projects with little to show for itother than creating a parallel state more powerful than thegovernment itself. “It would be of help to no one if every NGOand private contractor in Haiti packed up and left the countrynext week. But it is equally problematic that they continue tooperate on multi-billion dollar contracts with no accountabilityand no requirement for publishing public budget and projectdata” (Ramachandran and Walz, 2012, p. 30).

Furthermore, a postdevelopment analysis of the use of soft PMtechniques by the World Bank such as the Poverty ReductionStrategy Papers (PRSPs) shows that, behind the ostensibleconcern for poverty reduction, there still exists a set ofneoliberal requirements in terms of economic, social and fiscalpolicy. “Associated with PRSP implementation is a narrativethat suggests that the failure of their predecessors – notably theinfamous structural adjustment programmes – was a conse-quence not of their flawed (to say the least) ultra-neoliberalism,but of the failure of World Bank experts to achieve ‘ownership’for such programmes on the part of national governments.Hence the turn to soft managerialism is a tool of neoliberalism,rather than a shift to a genuine democratic participation ”(Cooke and Dar, 2008, p. 5).

6.2. A Habermasian critical lens

From the Habermasian perspective, it might be argued that boththe traditional and contingent PM approaches in ID fail to live up tothe challenges of the embodied and power-laden realities of the


technicist and instrumentalist forms of rationality in ID projectsettings. “From this perspective, the possibility of critical projectmanagement will depend on the extent to which a social theoryabout the nature of projects provides concerned actors withauthentic insights into their position in project environments,leading to their enlightenment, changed attitudes and emancipatoryaction” (Hodgson and Cicmil, 2006, p. 13). Two examples willshow how this might work.

First example, conceiving the project as a universal andinstrumental methodology and as a terminology and practice ofcontrol and surveillance, Kerr (2008) uses a Habermasian criticalperspective and shows that ID projects are seen by managers andteam members as matters of technical control and surveillance inwhich their lived experience is irrelevant. “‘Becoming, change, andrenewal’ are what projects are supposed to be about, but they havebeen devised as technologies, as articulations of instrumentalreason – devised by the Centre, the policy makers and strategists,the established order, those with hierarchical rank, privileges –projects are thus constructed as systems of constraints on agency(norms, prohibitions), not as what they might be, celebrations oradventures” (Kerr, 2008, p. 109). Then Kerr also shows that thelogical framework tool, a part of management and accountabilitysystem that measures the managerialists' concepts of effectivenessand efficiency, can be seen as a technology of governance thattakes the place of the manager in the hierarchy. Hence, “the role ofthe manager is delegated to the logframe, which then becomes theorganizer and monitor of the work. So in this model the projectdisappears leaving the local manager, who is replaced byregulation and accountability systems, operating to concentratepower in the hands of the bureaucratic policy makers andperforming the division labour between the thinkers and thedoers” (Kerr, 2008, p.106).

In a similar vein, Cooke and Kothari highlight pressing butoften unarticulated concerns over the motivation and practice ofparticipation in ID, pointing to “the naivety of assumptions aboutthe authenticity of motivations and behaviour in participatoryprocesses, how the language of empowerment masks a realconcern for managerial effectiveness; the quasi-religious associa-tions of participatory rhetoric and practice; and how an emphasison the micro-level of intervention can obscure, and indeed sustain,broader macro-level inequalities and injustice” (Cooke andKothari, 2001, p.14). Even participative models of PM in IDgenerally fail to take account of the ways in which “participationand empowerment are used in the workplace as means of control”;indicating that participation and empowerment in PM in ID, farfrom combating inequities, “can sustain, through co-optation andundermining resistance, macro-level inequalities and exploitation”(Cooke, 2004, p. 253).

6.3. A Foucauldian critical lens

With the Foucauldian influence on making ID projectscritical, it might be possible to draw attention not only on theinner-country power relations that shape PM and the socialreality of projects in ID; but also on the asymmetry of powerbetween rich and poor countries in the world including the




postcolonial asymmetry of power (Kenny, 2008). One examplewill illustrate doing research within the Foucauldian tradition.

Drawing inspiration from a Foucauldian perspective, Dar(2008) shows that the ever-present monitoring and evaluationpractice of project reporting is not neutral and that a politicallyengaged discourse analysis is needed to reveal the construction ofmeanings and ideas and the fragmented representation of socialreality. She concludes that project reporting is rather symbolic inthat it gives the implementing NGO reputation, status and prestigewith the donor. It is creative in that it may create or delegitimateroles, identities and activities, and, thus, makes PM real orreal-ized, in a regime of truth and denoted legitimacy. Reportingis all about PM performativity and, thus, it plays a role inconstructing an identity for organisations, forming a relationshipbetween the reader and the author of the report, the reader and theorganisation, and also the author and the organisation. Reportingplays a significant role in concealing the political underpinningsof ID projects (‘community-self management’) in that it carvesout what community means, sets out the problem with thatcommunity, proposes a strategy to deal with it, removes all directresponsibility to beneficiaries as it redefines the community as acollective and homogeneous group, and even predicts thehypothetical fate if the project does not go ahead. Reportingcontributes to objectifying the project through the intervention‘logic’ that underlies it and, thus, the underlying problem getstranslated into a ‘situation’ that is subject to a detailed analysisfor better chances of success. In doing so, reporting helpsreconstituting people as stakeholders, thus making possible‘stakeholder analysis’. Dar concludes that textual artefacts suchas organisational reports have material consequences such as theconstructing of meanings and ideas and the revealing of thefragmented representation of reality and the gap between texts andrealities.

6.4. neo-Marxist lens

A fourth and last major influence on critical work implicationfor understandings of PM in ID is the neo-Marxist tradition. Longbefore, in parallel to the contingent positions described in thepreceding section of this article, there was a more radicalmacro-political perspective where, for example, projects couldbe considered as “a sub-category of societal actions which canonly be understood through the historical analysis of thedistribution of social and political power” (Hulme, 1995, p.229). From this position, ID projects may be understood as meansof subordination of the labouring classes to the demands of globalcapitalism on a global scale. Although neo-Marxist analysesseldom focus specifically on the project level, the assumption isthat projects as products and tools of the capitalism systeminevitably reflect the interests of the ruling classes and thereforesubordinate the interests of labouring classes, driven andsupported by a neo-liberal global agenda (Barnett, 1977;Harvey, 2005).

In an era of globalisation, ID projects might be tools for thedeployment of both the capitalist (economic) and the territori-alist (political) logics of the imperialist power (Harvey, 2005).In particular, some ID projects such as institutional, reform and


governance projects might be thought of as part of a neo-liberalimperialist project of pushing the predatory costs ofover-accumulation (or overproduction) onto the weakest statesand peoples; many other ID projects in the context of the ‘waron terrorism’, the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and theovert use of military force might be thought of as part of aneo-conservative imperialist project: ‘the establishment of andrespect for order, both internationally and upon the world stage’(Harvey, 2005, p. 190) (See also Noonan, 2010, for a broadreview of neo-Marxist critiques of imperialism).

For example, the US $ 3-billion-South-Africa-Medupiproject to build a 4800-MW coal fired power plant turns to bea failure in terms of impact because the project largely benefitsmajor industries that consume electricity below cost rather thanthe poor who suffer the negative environmental impacts of theproject, showing the inner-country asymmetrical distribution ofpower between project planners/implementers and beneficia-ries; suggesting that the project is a product and tool of thecapitalism system, and as such, reflects the interests of theruling classes at the detriment of the needy and non-powerfulclasses.

From the above four critical lenses, we hope to have set thescene for a critical debate in PM in ID by focusing on “who isincluded in and who is excluded from the decision makingprocess, analysing what determines the position, agendas, andpower of different participants, and how these different agendasare combined and resolved in the process by which decisionsare arrived at” (Hodgson and Cicmil, 2006, p. 12), locatedwithin a wider and enduring imbalance of power betweendeveloped and developing worlds, and in particular, betweenthe world's richest institutions and people and its poorest. Acritical perspective in PM in ID might help to recognise theways in which macro-politics affects the design, implementa-tion, monitoring and evaluation of ID projects.

7. Conclusion

This paper is an attempt to draw attention to the pressingneed for a dialogue between critical perspectives on conven-tional project management (PM) and project management ininternational development (PM in ID). Thus, the article arguesthat conventional PM should learn from a specific and offshootsector of PM application: ID. This exercise, we suggest, willentail and support a greater engagement with critical perspec-tives, to illuminate the theory and practice of both conventionaland ID projects.

Both PM and PM in ID, we have argued, have grown,sharing a central concern for change in the world and anentrenched inclination towards a managerialist, technocraticand instrumental approach. In particular, the same threemoments, three generic approaches that describe chronologi-cally and historically conventional PM can shed light on thespecific evolution of PM in ID. It is hence possible to describeand summarise PM history in ID as moving from a traditional,instrumental and monolithic approach suited to blueprintprojects; towards eclectic or contingent approaches that aresuited to process projects; and finally pointing towards the




potential contribution of a critical approach that draws onbroader critical, postdevelopment, neo-Marxist and postcolo-nial discourses to embed the macro-political context in ourunderstanding of the operation and impact of ID projects. Thus,celebrating the ‘power of power’, the article argues that thetraditional as well as the alternative eclectic and contingent PMapproaches are yet to sufficiently account for questions such aspower, influence, domination, exploitation and ethnocentrism.Hence, it calls for a critical perspective in the study of IDprojects from four lenses: postdevelopment, Habermasian,Foucauldian, and neo-Marxist.

However, there are limitations to this exercise. From achronological perspective, while contingent approaches followthe traditional, unitary and managerialist ‘paradigm’ inconventional PM, this has not been exactly the case in PM inID. In fact, political approaches have to some extent precededcontingent approaches such that traditional and micro-political‘models’ have been termed ‘conflicting images’ or seen as‘either…or’ situations; the contingent approaches may be seenin that perspective as hybrid approaches (Hulme, 1995).Likewise, there has not been a perfect time-isomorphismbetween PM approaches in ID and ID management phases.

Another limitation is the possible distinction or nuancebetween the labels ‘political’ and ‘critical’ approaches, whichsome in the field of ID may blur (Cooke and Dar, 2008; Rist,2008). Here we have assumed that critical approaches take amore explicitly macro-political perspective than (micro-)political ones, although the boundaries are not clear-cut. Thus,when we mean ‘critical’, we strongly refer to the very idea thatthere is something fundamentally wrong with the theory andpractice of PM in ID (Cooke and Dar, 2008; Kerr, 2008). So,like the latter authors, we are aware of what opponents of thecritical understandings would call a lack of instrumental valueor relevance, such as the lack of an immediate alternative whichmay serve as panacea to current PM approaches in ID.

Nonetheless, we would argue that this exercise is valuablefor three reasons. First, projects are still relevant and importantin ID settings, while their management and operation remaincontentious, and debates over the nature of PM in ID can beenhanced by drawing on similarities with critical perspectiveson conventional PM. Making ID projects critical does notnecessarily mean that tools do not matter. Neither does itsuggest that context and people do not count. It is neither aboutmanagerially improving PM in ID. But it instead conveys theidea that any PM approach in ID may be ‘ineffective’ to theextent that it fails to consider the intrinsic micro-political andmacro-political (both at the national and international levels)conditions, that mostly influence their planning, implementa-tion, and evaluation. Thus, we recognise the value of PMpractices which address the political sides of projects.

Second, this engagement will also move forward the case forcritical PM research. ID projects have been challenged and theirlimitations widely criticised in the ID literature (EuropeanCommission, 2007; World Bank, 1998), providing an openingfor a critical contribution to the debate. As the critical perspectivein conventional PM research investigates the limits of projects,PM and indeed projectification, by their very nature, ID projects


may be seen as an exceptional breed of projects that provide fertileground for a critical analysis, partly due to the influence ofpostcolonial studies in this area and partly due to their specificity,uncertainty, complexity, and multinationality.

Indeed, this exercise may equally help to draw attention tothe macro-political context influencing the management of allprojects. In writing this article, the authors have come to reflecton what is distinctive about a critical perspective on project andPM, and the importance of moving beyond the micro-politicaland forging clear links with global politics, internationalcapitalism, Western ethnocentrism and political, economicand indeed military domination in our studies of projects andtheir consequences.

References

Adams, W.M., 1990. How beautiful is small scale? Scale, control and success inKenyan irrigation. World Dev. 18 (10), 1309–1323.

Analoui, F., 1989. Project managers' role: towards a “descriptive” approach.Proj. Apprais. 4 (1), 36–42.

Barnett, A.S., 1977. The Gezira Scheme: An Illusion of Development. FrankCass, London.

Baum, W.C., 1978. The World Bank project cycle. Finance Dev. 15 (4), 10–17.Bauman, Z., 2000. Liquid Modernity. Polity Press, Cambridge.Biggs, S., Smith, S., 2003. A paradox of learning in project cycle management

and the role of organizational culture. World Dev. 31 (10), 1743–1757.Boltanski, L., Chiapello, E., 2005. The New Spirit of Capitalism. Verso,

London.Bond, R., Hulme, D., 1999. Process approaches to development: theory and Sri

Lankan practice. World Dev. 27 (8), 1339–1358.Brown, E., Cloke, J., 2011. Critical perspectives on corruption: an overview.

Guest Editorial. Crit. Perspect. Int. Bus. 7 (2), 116–124.Carden, L., Egan, T., 2008. Does our literature support sectors newer to project

management? The search for quality publications relevant to non-traditionalindustries. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 39 (3), 6–27.

Cernea, M. (Ed.), 1985. Putting People First: Sociological Variables in RuralDevelopment. Oxford University Press, New York.

Cicmil, S., Hodgson, D., 2006. New possibilities for project managementtheory: a critical engagement. Proj. Manag. J. 37 (3), 111–122.

Cicmil, S., Hodgson, D., Lindgren, M., Packendorff, J., 2009. Projectmanagement behind the façade. Ephemera 9 (2), 78–92.

Collier, P., 2007. The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries Are Failingand What Can Be Done About It. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Cooke, B., 2004. The managing of the (Third) World. Organization 11 (4),589–615.

Cooke, B., Dar, S., 2008. The New Development Management. In: Dar, S.,Cooke, B. (Eds.), The new development management: Critiquing the dualmodernization. Zed Books, London, pp. 2–17.

Cooke, B., Kothari, U., 2001. Participation: The New Tyranny. Zed Books,London.

Curtis, D., Poon, Y., 2009. Why a managerialist pursuit of development will notnecessarily lead to achievement of MDGs. Dev. Pract. 19 (7), 837–848.

Dar, S., 2008. Real-izing Development: Reports, Realities and the Self inDevelopment NGOs. In: Dar, S., Cooke, B. (Eds.), The New DevelopmentManagement: Critiquing the Dual Modernization. Zed Books, London,pp. 177–197.

Diallo, A., Thuillier, D., 2004. The success dimensions of internationaldevelopment projects: the perceptions of African project coordinators. Int.J. Proj. Manag. 22 (1), 19–31.

Dichter, T.W., 1989. Development management: plain or fancy? Sorting outsome muddles. Public Adm. Dev. 9, 381–393.

Engwall, M., 2003. No project is an island: linking projects to history andcontext. Res. Policy 32 (5), 789–808.

Escobar, A., 1995. Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking ofthe Third World. Princeton University Press, Chichester, West Sussex.




European Commission, 2007. Support to Sector Programmes. Covering theThree Financing Modalities: Sector Budget Support, Pool funding and ECProject Procedures. Tools and Methods Series, Guidelines, 2.

Flyvjberg, B., 2005. Policy and Planning for Large Infrastructure Projects:Problems, Causes, Cures. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper3781.

Gauthier, J.-B., Ika, L.A., 2012. Foundations of project management research:an explicit and six-facet ontological framework. Proj. Manag. J. 43, 5–23.

Gittinger, J.P., 1984. Economic Analysis of Agricultural Projects. The JohnsHopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Goodman, L.J., Love, R., 1980. Project Planning and Management: AnIntegrated Approach. Pergamon Press.

Gow, D.D., Morss, E.R., 1988. The notorious nine: critical problems in projectimplementation. World Dev. 16 (12), 1399–1418.

Grisham, W.T., 2010. International Project Management: Leadership inComplex Environments. John Wiley & Sons Publishing, Hoboken.

Harvey, D., 2005. The New Imperialism. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Heinrich, C.J., Lopez, Y., 2009. Does community participation produce dividends

in social investment fund projects? World Dev. 37 (9), 1554–1568.Hirschman, A.O., 1967. Development Projects Observed. Brookings Institu-

tion, Washington, DC.Hobbs, N., 2005. Corruption in World Bank Financed Projects: Why Bribery is

a Tolerated Anathema. Development Studies Institute Working Paper No.05-65, pp. 1–42.

Hodgson, D.E., 2002. Disciplining the professional: the case of projectmanagement. J. Manag. Stud. 39 (7), 803–821.

Hodgson, D.E., Cicmil, S., 2006. Making Projects Critical: An Introduction. In:Hodgson, D., Cicmil, S. (Eds.), Making Projects Critical. PalgraveMacmillan, New York, pp. 1–25.

Howell, J., 1990. Rural poverty and external aid. Dev. Policy Rev. 8 (3), 269–286.Hughes, T.P., 1998. Rescuing Prometheus: Four Monumental Projects that

Changed the Modern World. Pantheon Books, New York.Hulme, D., 1995. Projects, politics and professionals: alternative approaches for

project identification and project planning. Agric. Syst. 47, 211–233.Ika, L.A., 2012. Project management for development in Africa: why projects

are failing and what can be done about it. Proj. Manag. J. 43 (4), 27–41.Ika, L.A., Saint-Macary, J., 2012. The project planning myth in international

development. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 5 (3), 420–439.Ika, L.A., Diallo, A., Thuillier, D., 2010. Project management in the

international development industry: the project coordinator's perspective.Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 3 (1), 61–93.

Joffre, P., Aurégan, P., Chodétel, F., Tellier, A., 2006. Le ManagementStratégique par le Projet. Édition Economica, Paris.

Johnson, K., 1984. Organizational structures and the development projectplanning sequence. Public Adm. Dev. 4, 111–131.

Johnston, B., Clark, W., 1982. Redesigning Rural Development: A StrategicPerspective. The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore.

Kenny, K., 2008. ‘Arrive bearing gifts…’: Postcolonial Insights for Develop-ment Management. In: Dar, S., Cooke, B. (Eds.), The New DevelopmentManagement: Critiquing the Dual Modernization. Zed Books, London,pp. 56–73.

Kerr, R., 2008. International Development and the New Public Management:Projects and Logframes as Discursive Technologies of Governance. In: Dar,S., Cooke, B. (Eds.), The New Development Management: Critiquing theDual Modernization. Zed Books, London, pp. 91–110.

Khang, D.B., Moe, T.L., 2008. Success criteria and factors for internationaldevelopment projects: a life-cycle-based framework. Proj. Manag. J. 39 (1),72–84.

Khwaja, A.I., 2009. Can good projects succeed in bad communities? J. PublicEcon. 93, 899–916.

Kloppenborg, T., Opfer, W., 2002. The current state of project managementresearch: trends, interpretations, and predictions. Proj. Manag. J. 33 (2), 5–18.

Korten, D.C., 1980. Community organisations and rural development: alearning process approach. Public Adm. Rev. 40 (5), 480–511.

Kottak, C.P., 1985. When People Don't Come First: Some SociologicalLessons from Completed Projects. In: Cernea, M.M. (Ed.), Putting PeopleFirst: Sociological Variables in Rural Development. Oxford UniversityPress, New York, pp. 325–356.


Landoni, P., Corti, B., 2011. The management of international developmentprojects: moving toward a standard approach or differentiation? Proj.Manag. J. 42 (3), 45–61.

Lennerfors, T.T., Breit, E., Olaison, L., 2012. Critiquing Corruption: A turn toTheory. Ephemera, Theory & Politics in Organization. Call for Papers for aSpecial Issue 1–5.

Lovegrove, N., Gebre, B., Lee, T., Kumar, R., 2011. McKinsey–Devex SurveyResults: Practitioners See Need for New Approaches to System-WideReform. McKinsey-Devex.

Lundin, R.A., Söderholm, A., 1998. Conceptualising A Projectified Society:Discussion of An Eco-Institutional Approach to a Theory on TemporaryOrganisations. In: Lundin, R.A., Midler Christophe, C. (Eds.), Projects AsArenas for Renewal and Learning Processes. Kluwer Academic Publishers,Boston.

Metcalfe, B., 1997. Project management system design: a social andorganisational analysis. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 52, 305–316.

Morris, P.W.G., 2011. A Brief History of Project Management. In: Morris,P.W.G., Pinto, J.K., Soderlund, J. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook on ProjectManagement. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 15–36.

Morris, P.W.G., 2013. Reconstructing project management reprised: aknowledge perspective. Proj. Manag. J. 44 (5), 6–23.

Moyo, D., 2009. Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is ABetter Way for Africa. D&M Publishers Inc., Vancouver.

Noonan, M., 2010. Marxist Theories of Imperialism: Evolution of A Concept.Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.

Picciotto, R., Weaving, R., 1994. A new project cycle for the World Bank?Finance Dev. 31 (4), 42–44.

Pinto, J.K., 1996. Power and Politics in Project Management. ProjectManagement Institute, Sylva.

Project Management Institute (PMI), 2004. A Guide to the Project ManagementBody of Knowledge, Third edition. Project Management Institute Inc.,Newtown Square, PA.

Ramachandran, V., Walz, J., 2012. Haiti: Where Has All the Money Gone?Center for Global Development Policy Paper 004 (Washington DC).

Rist, G., 2008. The History of Development. From Western Origins to GlobalFaith. Zed Books, London.

Rondinelli, D.A., 1983. Projects as instruments of development administration:a qualified defence and suggestions for improvement. Public Adm. Dev. 3,307–327.

Schaffer, B.B., 1984. Towards Responsibility: Public Policy in Concept andPractice. In: Clay, E.J., Schaffer, B.B. (Eds.), Room for Manoeuvre: AnExploration of Public Policy in Agricultural and Rural Development.Heinemann, London, pp. 142–190.

Schumacher, E.F., 1974. Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if PeopleMattered. Sphere Books, London.

Shenhar, A., Dvir, D., 2007. Reinventing Project Management. HarvardBusiness School Press, Boston.

Söderlund, J., 2009. The P-form organization and the dynamics of projectcompetence: project epochs in Asea/ABB, 1950–2000. Int. J. Proj. Manag.27, 101–112.

Söderlund, J., 2011. Pluralism in project management: navigating thecrossroads of specialization and fragmentation. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 13,153–176.

Tacconi, L., Tisdell, C., 1992. Rural development projects in LDCs: appraisal,participation and sustainability. Public Adm. Dev. 12, 267–278.

The Chaos Report, 2011. Standish Group International.Thomas, A., 1996. What is development management? J. Int. Dev. 8 (1),

95–110.Thomas, A., 2000. What Makes Good Development Management. In: Wallace,

T. (Ed.), Development and Management. Oxfam, Oxford, pp. 40–52.Turner, J.R., Huemann, M., Bredillet, C., Anbari, F., 2010. Perspectives on

Projects. Routledge, London.Wirick, D., 2009. Public-Sector Project Management: Meeting the Challenges

and Achieving Results. John Wiley & Sons Publishing, Hboken.World Bank, 1998. Assessing Aid: What Works, What Doesn't and Why.

Oxford University Press, New York.Youker, R., 1989. Managing the project cycle for time, cost and quality: lessons

from World Bank experience. Proj. Manag. 7 (1), 52–57.



Date post:	30-Dec-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	damian
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

Learning from international development projects: Blending Critical Project Studies and Critical...

Documents