No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Revisiting Knowledge-for-Development
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 September 2023
Abstract
The Knowledge-for-Development (K4D) approach has been characterized by a marked concentration of the production of research on development in developed countries. The underlying utilitarian approach to social science research misrepresents the nature and making of policy, raises entry barriers for developing country researchers, and focuses on the production of research to the detriment of its use. Using such research in developing countries requires informed debate, consideration of the local environment, and sufficient local research capacity. Foreign assistance should focus on research capacity building as a specific objective, distinct from the production and publication of research, with its own management, implementation, and monitoring. This is essential if the objective of the K4D approach, namely the better use of scientific knowledge to enhance the quality of policies, is to be achieved.
Keywords
- Type
- Original Article
- Information
- World Trade Review , Volume 22 , Special Issue 3-4: Double Special Issue: Trade Policy, Openness, and Development in Honour of L. Alan Winters , October 2023 , pp. 359 - 369
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The World Trade Organization
Footnotes
*
President (2012–2022).
References
Acemoglu, D., Aghion, P., and Zilibotti, F. (2006) ‘Distance to Frontier, Selection and Economic Growth’, Journal of the European Economic Association 4(1), 37–74.10.1162/jeea.2006.4.1.37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akude, J.E. (2014) Knowledge for Development: A Literature Review and an Evolving Research Agenda. Deutsches Institut Für Entwicklungspolitik Discussion Paper 2014/18, Bonn (Germany).Google Scholar
Albaek, E. (1995) ‘Between Knowledge and Power: Utilization of Social Science in Public Policy Making’, Policy Sciences 28(1), 79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arocena, R., Göransson, B., and Sutz, J. (2014) ‘Universities and Higher Education in Development’, in Currie-Alder, B., Kanbur, R., Malone, D., and Medhora, R. (eds.), International Development: Ideas, Experience & Prospects. Oxford University Press, 582–598.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199671656.003.0035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baggini, J. (2018) How the World Thinks. A Global History of Philosophy. London, UK: Granta Books.Google Scholar
Bardsley, C. (2017) ‘The Pursuit of Impact through Excellence: The Value of Social Science for Development, a Funder's Perspective’, in Georgalakis, J., Jessani, N., Oronje, R., and Ramalingam, B. (eds.), The Social Realities of Knowledge for Devleopment: Sharing Lessons of Improving Development Processes with Evidence. Sussex: Institute of Development Studies.Google Scholar
Benassy-Quéré, A., Coeuré, B., Jacquet, P., and Pisani-Ferry, J. (2019) Economic Policy, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cash, D., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N., Eckley, N., and Jäger, J.. (2002) ‘Salience, Credibility, Legitimacy and Boundaries: Linking Research, Assessment and Decision Making’, Kennedy School of Government Research Working Paper RWP02-046.10.2139/ssrn.372280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christoplos, I., Pain, A., Kluyskens, J., and Fruhling, P. (2019) ‘External Evaluation of the Think Tank Initiative (TTI), Phase Two, 2014–2019’, NIRAS. https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/bitstream/handle/10625/57710/IDL%20-%2057710.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y.Google Scholar
Das, J., Do, Q.-T., Shaines, K., and Srikant, S. (2013) ‘U.S. and Them: The Geography of Academic Research’, Journal of Development Economics 105, 112–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, J. (1929) The Quest for Certainty. A Study of the Relation of Knowledge and Action. New York: Milton Balch And Company. Gifford Lectures.Google Scholar
Fayolle, J. (2020) ‘Philosophie Pour Temps Incertains: A Propos de «La Quête de Certitude», de John Dewey’, https://jackyfayolle.net/2020/11/15/philosophie-pour-temps-incertains-a-propos-de-la-quete-de-certitude-john-dewey/.Google Scholar
Gluckman, P. (2016) ‘The Science–Policy Interface’, Science 353(6303), 969–969.10.1126/science.aai8837CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haas, P.M. (1992) ‘Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination’, International Organization 46(1), 1–35.10.1017/S0020818300001442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harberger, A.C. (1993) ‘Secrets of Success: A Handful of Heroes’, American Economic Review 83(2), 343–350.Google Scholar
Harris, R. (2015) ‘The Impact of Research on Development Policy and Practice: This Much We Know’, in Chib, A., May, J., and Barrantes, R. (eds.), Impact of Information Society Research in the Global South. Singapore: Springer, 21–43.Google Scholar
Jacquet, P., Jimenez, E., Fardoust, S., and Sarris, A. (2021) Measuring Impacts –The Experience of the EIB-GDN Programme. Luxembourg: European Investment Bank.Google Scholar
Krugman, P. (2022) ‘Europe's Gonna Party Like It's 1979’, The Financial Times, 30 August 2022.Google Scholar
Landry, R., Amara, N., and Lamari, M. (2001) ‘Utilization of Social Science Research Knowledge in Canada’, Research Policy 30(2), 333–349.10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00081-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, D. (1983) ‘The Rhetoric of Economics’, Journal of Economic Literature 21(2), 481–517.Google Scholar
Mercier, H. and Sperber, D. (2017) The Enigma of Reason. Cambridge, MA (U.S.A): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
National Research Council (2012) Using Science as Evidence in Public Policy, edited by K. Prewitt, T. Schwandt, and M. Straf, Committee on the Use of Social Science Knowledge in Public Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Nustad, K.G. and Sending, O.J. (2000) ‘The Instrumentalization of Development’, in Stone, D. (ed.), Banking on Knowledge. London: Routledge, 44–62.Google Scholar
Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005) ‘The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for Action’, https://www.effectivecooperation.org/system/files/2020-09/Paris%20Declaration%20on%20Aid%20Effectiveness%20.pdf.Google Scholar
Pritchett, L. (2018) Knowledge or Its Adoption? CGD Note. Washington. DC: Center for Global Development.Google ScholarPubMed
Schon, D.A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books, Inc.Google Scholar
Sloman, S. and Fernbach, P. (2017) The Knowledge Illusion. Why We Never Think Alone. New York: Penguin Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Stiglitz, J.E. (1999) ‘Knowledge as a Global Public Good’, in Kaul, I., Grunberg, I., and Stern, M. (eds.), Global Public Goods. Oxford University Press, 308–325.10.1093/0195130529.003.0015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiglitz, J. (2000) ‘Scan Globally, Reinvent Locally: Knowledge Infrastructure and the Localization of Knowledge’, in Stone, D. (ed.), Banking on Knowledge: The Genesis of the Global Development Network. London: Routledge, 24–43.Google Scholar
Stone, D. (1989) ‘Causal Stories and the Formation of Policy Agendas’, Political Science Quarterly 2(104), 281–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, D. (2002) Policy-Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
The Economist (2016) ‘The Post-Truth World: Yes, I'd Lie to You’, The Economist, 10 September 2016.Google Scholar
Wagner, R.G. (2018) ‘Can We Speak of East/West Ways of Knowing?’, KNOW: A Journal on the Formation of Knowledge 2(1), 31–46.Google Scholar
Weiss, C.H. (1979) ‘The Many Meanings of Research Utilization’, Public Administration Review 39(5), 426–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winters, L.A. (2016) ‘New Zealand's Recognised Seasonal Employer Scheme: An Object Lesson in Policy Making But for Whom?’, Migrating out of Poverty –Research Program Consortium, January.Google Scholar