These are the questions that have preoccupied those who are involved in policymaking in the poor countries.
While the answers are many, one area that has not received much attention is that of  "idea generation."

In reviewing the history of public policy in the US, I find that the foundations, think-tanks and professional
associations have played a critical role in the policymaking of this country. These institutions create a network
of idea exchange, competitive funding and peer review, thereby underpinning  the innovative research work
done at universities and institutions. Additionally, they also develop an interface between those who develop
ideas and policymakers.

Unfortunately, in low income countries, professions, professional associations and think-tanks remain largely
undeveloped. Foundations do not exist and are replaced by aid-giving institutions that are run from far off
capitals with little vision. Whatever public policy debate takes place, is conducted in the relatively closed
groups comprising mainly of these aid institutions, their professionals and consultants. In such discussions the
only group that has a marginal participation is the government - marginal because the government has neither
the capacity nor often the political time to concern itself with longer term implications of public policy.

A collaboration of donors and the government has attempted to develop public policy debate capacity.
However, given the inefficiencies and corruption in the bureaucracy and political system in these countries,
such efforts have not allowed any creative activity to flourish. Despite substantial funding, all that was achieved
was another government department and no domestic capacity for public policy research and investigation.
Given the lack of domestic organized capacity for public policy, research
and debate, low income countries remain dependent on expatriate advice for their policy reform ideas.
There are at least three shortcomings arising from this dependence.

* First, the design of the expatriate expert who has limited familiarity with that society as well as limited time to
acquire such knowledge, may not fully conform to the needs of the domestic
society. In the absence of organized fora such as research universities, professional associations
and  think-tanks, the scattered thought that may exist in those countries in stray newspapers and periodicals
may be too inaccessible for the expatriate.

* Second, and related to the first point, the ideas developed in this manner may not end up being *owned* by
the domestic populace. Given that the ideas have not been borne out of domestic experience, nor have they
been digested through domestic debate, there may be a lukewarm response to
them. This lack of ownership often has been the cause of poor implementation and lack of success of
the reform.

* Third, there is a danger that the reliance on the expatriate advice "crowds out" domestic thinking and policy development capacity. Like a child that has little room for growth in the presence of an oppressive parent, domestic talent continues to be limited in its capacity to grow.

Surprisingly, lessons for institution-building have not been drawn from the  experiences of the more successful
institutions in the world such as Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, and Chicago, think tanks such as the Bookings,
Carnegie, and Rand. I found it very surprising to learn that in the space of a few short years, the combination of
a generous grant from a non-interfering philanthropist, John D. Rockefeller, and a talented visionary, William
Rainey Harper created a major force in the academic world, the University of Chicago. Indeed that university
with its polemics in public policy has been credited with sparking off much  of the recent, highly-successful,
market-oriented reform not only in the US but also in far off places like Chile.

A study of the history of such innovative institutions emphasises the need to nurture and retain domestic talent.
Strong institutions in the industrial countries have developed around local  talent. The expatriate may provide
the training or the knowledge, if need be. But it requires dedicated and talented people such as Robert S.
Brookings, Harold G. Moulton and Robert D. Calkins to create important domestic learning and research
centers that are so critical to public policy development. Such institutions are managed in the main by local
professionals with a minimum of bureaucratic or sponsor demands. Only the right domestic talent can provide
the vision and the sense of mission required to make it happen. Moreover, to succeed, all institutions must
create a core professional staff. Finally, competition among these institutions and participation in professional
associations, allow for public policy debates and peer review that guides their work and allows their evaluation.

Thus for institutional development, a core grouping of professionals in institutions and professions is required.
Considerable domestic professional development must take place and be deployed for the appropriate cores
to form. Do the current arrangements allow for this?

The current approach to developing these institutions in the low income countries depends too heavily on the
notion of superior knowledge of the grouping of the donor and the government. This approach leaves no room
for a Harper to take charge of his institution and make it happen. He will
be hidebound by externally drawn plans, as well as rules and reporting requirements that will leave him
little room for innovations.

Additionally, the incentives are not for attracting talent and inducing the  required effort but more for migration
out of the needed professions or out of the country. Domestic talent continues to be rated as inferior to foreign
talent, with lower salary incentives as well as a lower stature in the hierarchy. Indeed the UN actually mandates
two tier salary scale and organizational structure in each poor country that places local expertise of all kinds
well below all expatriate staff. Naturally, the response to this discriminatory arrangement is that the more
capable people in the poor countries move into other activities or migrate overseas. The goal of competent
professionals from these countries then is to join the international agency  staff. As a result, domestic
institutions are stripped of talent.

The view of the inferiority of domestic talent results in little effort being made by the sponsors to find that special
*Harper*. Instead it is believed that any retired government official or any minor academic from the West can
create a *Chicago of the East.* Unfortunately experience has shown otherwise. Should this approach not be
changed?