Sandakerveien 130 (map)
1st and 2nd floor
There are numerous well-intentioned global efforts and development agendas and a multitude of stakeholders involved in saving lives as well as promoting long-term development in many developing countries. But what characterizes the relationship between good intentions and actually achieved results? How well are such activities coordinated? How effectively can external actors make a meaningful contribution to alleviating local problems? And most importantly, whose priorities do such interventions address, and to what extent are the so-called “beneficiaries” consulted?
It is great to be back in Malawi, where there is considerable political excitement following a recent landmark ruling by the Constitutional court that has received massive attention in large parts of the world.
SDG 7 aims to ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all by 2030. However, despite considerable talk in national and international circles on the urgency of solving Africa’s power woes, all available evidence points to slow and uneven progress.
Development is not only about income and there has been growing attention in recent decades to better understand the non-economic aspects of human wellbeing.
Malawi is an illustrative example of the challenges that low-income countries face as they try to make themselves attractive for aid agencies, international institutions and private sector actors in the quest to promote development and reduce poverty.
One my recent trips to Malawi, I have noticed a growing amount of interest and attention on the leadership question. Many scholars, journalists, students, political commentators, activists and even politicians are now openly talking about the new breed of leaders the country needs to jumpstart development and help reduce poverty. There is also considerable talk of how Malawi should emulate Rwanda, which a growing number of Africans consider to be a beacon of hope in a continent that longs for rapid economic growth, more equitable distribution of incomes and a drastic improvement in social services. But does it make sense to compare the two countries?