Abstract
Motivation
Individual knowledge and professional learning among donor-agency bureaucrats play a decisive role in the design and implementation of development interventions. Understanding how to provide optimal training curricula for their staff is key for these bureaucracies’ effectiveness as central organizational actors in the international development field.
Purpose
We analyse individual preferences for professional learning pathways in three bilateral donor-agency bureaucracies—the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), the Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA), and the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad)—to understand determinants of decision-making and opportunities for improvement. We ask: how do bureaucrats in these organizations assess different options for knowledge acquisition and learning?
Approach and methods
We integrate experimental and qualitative data to provide a comparative perspective on learning practices among donor-agency bureaucrats. Drawing on 89 randomly sampled interviews across three bureaucracies and representing both headquarters and recipient-country staff, we conducted a web-administered choice-based conjoint analysis among 81 bureaucrats to capture interactions between five dimensions of professional learning. We then contextualize our experimental findings through our interview data.
Findings
We find that the bureaucrats in our sample have a statistically significant preference for mandatory as opposed to optional training. We note that among the five dimensions of professional learning, the mode of training is the only one that an organization can directly influence. Triangulation with our interview data suggests that this preferred modality of learning is complemented by a staff preference for more targeted substantive training on thematic competencies as opposed to focusing on administrative procedures.
Policy implications
Although broad administrative knowledge and experience are indispensable for professionals working at the interface of politics and programming, they are not enough. Donor agencies must take their staff members’ learning preferences seriously and not shift the burden of learning about substantive issues onto individual staff.