Comments on: Building accountability in Tanzania: applying an evolutionary/venture capitalist theory of change

By: Tony Boniface

Tony Boniface — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:24:39 +0000

A process to encourage sustainability and accountability within Tanzania has to be a good venture. The project has huge potential to involve communities in tracking political promises but the main benefit has to be the development of local political awareness and the possibilities of working together for equitable and improved conditions for remote communities. The involvement of faith leaders, traditional birth attendants and healers has to increase the validity of the campaign using known local community leaders and support networks. Tanzania is evolving fast in the urban areas but little progress has been made in the rural remote districts due to poor infrastructure, communication, health provision and education. The Chakua Hatua project has the possibility to bring internal accountability to Tanzania, an evolutionary challenge as Tanzania’s economy grows. The urban/rural divide is inequitable in Tanzania and Chakua Hatua may build capacity to help address this problem.

By: Lisa Faye

Lisa Faye — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 14:42:26 +0000

I think this is amazing. I am also working on a project something like this at the moment in Bangladesh. We have found that even the “dud projects” aren’t really duds since we – the project team, community, surrounding villages, etc. – learn as much from what doesn’t work as from what does. Right now the project is 15 months in, with only 9 months of funding left. The key to these kinds of projects, I think, is a long term commitment.

Oxfam, so much respect! Great work!

By: Duncan

Duncan — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:44:00 +0000

The time issue is genuine, Jake – i.e. what if the dud project you kill off after a year would actually turn out to be a star if given a bit more time (a bit like Toyota’s dire early models). But it’s also a classic excuse for backing losers in spite of the evidence – iIn the end, it’s a judgement call which of these is true, sorry!

By: Jake

Jake — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 09:57:20 +0000

I’ve suddently been sent this from several different people in the space of a week, so congrats on that i suppose. I have two questions/thoughts:

1. Cost. In our VFM-ridden times, how did you/could you sell this way of working i.e. hey can i get funding which will potentially 90% come to nothing? Or is it as you say, higher risk, higher reward (potentially)?

2. How does/can this work for interventions which tend to need a bit longer to show progress, benefit etc i.e. by the time you get to the point where you can make a judgement on relative quality, you could actually have just funded 10 projects for 3-5 years; the ‘normal’ project length?

But i’ve already been arguing against myself. I like the idea of a basket of inception phases, and i there’s clearly appetite out there for this, or something like it…

By: Duncan

Duncan — Tue, 08 May 2012 13:06:12 +0000

Fair cop……

By: Calvin

Calvin — Tue, 08 May 2012 11:39:49 +0000

People in glass houses…

When it comes to clunkiness nobody does it better than Oxfam and “Building accountability in Tanzania: applying an evolutionary/venture capitalist theory of change” take some clunkety clunk cluckiness beating.

By: Duncan

Duncan — Tue, 08 May 2012 10:51:20 +0000

Some thoughts from the latest programme report, covering October 2011-March 2012:
‘Pressure from communities and from some of the councillors is increasingly leading to reactions and responses from leaders at the village, ward and district level. In some instances this has been positive – e.g. a cross-section of councillors in Ngorongoro supporting community demands, and the DC in Kahama visiting Mwime Village near Barrick mine to discuss solutions with the community there. In instances where the reactions have been more negative, this has increasingly taken the form of harassment of Oxfam staff and partners on the ground, the closing of space for discussion and consultation with leaders, and pressure on reformist leaders to return to the ‘usual’ way of working. This is a visible change from the previous 6 months where we did see more backlash from leaders to communities, particularly in the Active Musicians pilot,- now we are increasingly seeing elected leaders working with communities yet coming up against obstacles from civil servants and appointed District Commissioners and District Executive Directors.
Although early days, Chukua Hatua appears to be creating the beginnings of a movement- it is being used by communities as a brand/ shield from which to be able to question leaders and officials with ‘I belong to Chukua Hatua’ being used as a response in some cases when asked why a person is asking question, which unfortunately is still taken as ‘causing trouble’ by many. During a recent learning event, when asked what is Chukua Hatua, no one mentioned Oxfam- from our perspective a great indicator and exactly what we want to see from a governance programme. At the end of the 2 days, the positioning of Chukua Hatua in the minds of all the participants had moved from ‘programme’ to ‘movement without borders’.’