The deceptive illusion of multi-paradigm development practice

This article responds to commentaries by Blunt, Bell and Joy on Cooke's ‘From process consultation to a clinical model of development practice’ in the August 1997 issue of Public Administration and Development. Following the paradigmatic analyses those commentaries introduce, it begins by trying to clarify the range of meanings attributed to the term ‘paradigm’. It then argues, that Blunt's critique does actually derive from a particular single (i.e. mono-) paradigm, the application of which causes my initial arguments to be mis-represented, and exemplifies the limits of that paradigm in practice. It goes on to agree that generic process approaches do have some cultural limitations, and that they can be used for ideological manipulation, although not inevitably in the pursuit of so-called democratic values. The clinical-process model is, however, distinct from these generic approaches and actually provides some safeguard against these problems. The article moves on to demonstrate that a multi-paradigm approach to practice, as opposed to analysis, is illusory, because it is impossible, and deceptive, as claims for multi-paradigm practice conceal the practitioner's inescapable paradigmatic assumptions. In conclusion it argues that until we recognize that ‘development’ per se is a ruling paradigm we are all imprisoned within it. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Social Impact Bonds: Implementation,Evaluation, and Monitoring

Traditional approaches to public policy increasingly fail to resolve social challenges, particularly in the field of criminal justice. High rates of juvenile recidivism, for example, are often linked to inequality in education and persistent, long-term unemployment—factors which, while complex, are nonetheless conducive to preventative strategies.

Social impact bonds (SIBs) are “pay-for-success” programs that attract private-sector, upfront funding for social interventions. If the program achieves agreed targets, taxpayer funds repay the investor. If the program fails to meet agreed targets, investors take the loss.

This innovative form of social finance through public–private partnership has helped spur efficiencies and improvements in the provision and outcomes of criminal justice services. However, the success of a SIB depends on careful implementation, evaluation, and monitoring.     

Five Arguments for Deliberative Democracy

Five arguments in favour of deliberative democracy are considered. These focus on its educative power, on its community-generating power, on the fairness of the procedure of public deliberation, on the epistemic quality of its outcomes and on the congruence of the deliberative democratic ideal 'with whom we are'. The first four arguments are shown to be inadequate. The fifth argument, it is claimed, not only provides the most convincing defence of deliberative democracy but can also be used to decide rationally between competing interpretations of the deliberative ideal. By way of illustration, the essay concludes with a critical discussion of the rival versions proposed by Rawls and Habermas.     

Regional Development in the Knowledge-Based Economy: The Construction of Advantage

In this introduction the editors showcase the papers by way of a structured project and seek to clarify the two key concepts cited in the title. We consider the history of the idea that knowledge is an economic factor, and discuss the question of whether regions provide the relevant system of reference for knowledge-based economic development. Current transformations in university-industry-government relations at various levels can be considered as a metamorphosis in industry organization. The concept of constructed advantage will be elaborated. The various papers arising from a conference on this subject hosted by Memorial University, Newfoundland, Canada are approached from this perspective.     

‘The Biosciences Knowledge Value Chain and Comparative Incubation Models’

This research derives from an EU DG Enterprise (IPS Programme) project on bio-incubation, called Bio-Link. The Bio-Link project is innovative in three ways. First, it involves an international comparative analysis of biotechnology incubators of the kind that is rarely if ever done. Second, the incubator representatives are monitored and investigated by an academic partnership team. Third, there is a stated aspiration by the incubator companies to engage in co-incubation across borders. Co-incubation is, as far as we are aware, a new kind of boundary crossing innovation in which advanced start-up businesses are assisted to enter other national markets and/or benefit from specialised services or scientific, technological, or commercial knowledge absent in the home country but present in a partner country. Evidence from research on European, Israeli and North American bioincubators is included to compare, contrast and enable future judgements of incubator appropriateness to biotechnology.