Document(s) 3 of 7

In the absence of similar organizations with which it could be compared, IDRC undertook its own internal reviews. It monitored its program choices and operational performance, and the changing national and international political environment.

IDRC’s reputation was in large measure linked to its support for agricultural research. This research had yielded effective solutions to specific problems, and had increased capacity by training researchers and strengthening institutions. For example, IDRC assisted the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and established new agriculture research centres such as the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF), now the World Agroforestry Centre, and the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas
(ICARDA).

An early evaluation found, however, that the application of the scientific method and technology to international development was not necessarily “self-executing.” The use of these methods presumes that the capacity already exists for their effective absorption. This new awareness — that the benefits of technological innovation can only be fully realized when appropriate socioeconomic conditions are in place — crystallized around the concept of “social innovation.” This turning point saw support for the social sciences become central to IDRC programs.

The shift in program direction coincided with a reassessment of the Canadian political environment in which IDRC operated. IDRC’s first decade of work overseas — especially when it brought praise for Canada’s international relations — was viewed with favour in development and diplomatic circles at home. But by the 1980s, when Canada was challenged by its domestic politics and by the politics of oil abroad, attitudes had changed.What had been regarded as innovative and right in the birthday glow of 1967 now seemed precocious and disjointed.

Faced with this change in perception, IDRC repositioned itself within Canada’s foreign policy and aid family. As it entered the 1990s, in order to preserve the principles underpinning its reputation in development circles, IDRC redefined itself as an expression of Canadian foreign policy.

It was confident that the Board, with its arms-length relationship from government, would ensure that IDRC did not become an instrument of Canadian foreign policy. Indeed, the Act was explicit in making sure IDRC was not an “agent of Her Majesty.”

A test of this interplay of program and politics had come earlier, in 1980, when the Board responded to the human rights violations by the dictatorship in Chile.While the Canadian government maintained relations with the Government of Chile, IDRC’s Board backed the view that the social sciences can be a liberating force. IDRC’s support for local research enabled key social scientists to remain in their jobs in Chile, to do research, and to teach. This helped ensure a plurality of choice for social and economic policy.When democracy was restored, many of these same researchers went on to senior political and administrative positions, meanwhile acknowledging the support of Canada and IDRC.

Similarly in 1986, Canada’s official relations with South Africa were based on outspoken opposition to apartheid and a call for sanctions and an academic boycott. Amidst the growth of independent organizations and movements in the country, and the national and international momentum of South Africa’s anti-apartheid movement, IDRC began to reconsider its own strategy. In 1988, IDRC made the promotion of democracy and development in South Africa a priority, later funding various research support projects in the areas of health, economic strategy, urban issues, the environment, and science and technology, with the knowledge and consent of the mass democratic movement in South Africa and the African National Congress in exile. It also cosponsored
several workshops in which members of the democratic movement came together to discuss policy options for a new government. Ultimately, the Centre established a regional office in Johannesburg in 1992. IDRC’s support through the political and economic transition out of apartheid enabled Canada to work outside the confines of strict diplomatic channels.

IDRC’s proven sensitivity to diplomatic concerns attracted international recognition. The organization was invited to host meetings of the 1980 Brandt Commission and of the 1984 Brundtland Commission (the archive for the Brundtland report, Our Common Future, resides at IDRC). And IDRC organized the fifth international HIV/AIDS conference in Montreal in 1989. These meetings drew upon IDRC’s convening power and upon its reputation for bringing knowledge-based arbitration to contentious development issues.

IDRC’s political realignment did not limit its sphere of activities. On the contrary, the Canadian government showed its appreciation for the agility that IDRC offered to Canada’s foreign relations. In 1989, the government allocated $10 million to IDRC to assist developing countries in planning for sustainable energy supplies. IDRC’s scope for independent programing enabled it to fund ground-breaking research across the energy spectrum, including in sensitive areas questioning the politics of oil and the possibility of nuclear power for developing countries. And at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Brazil, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney designated IDRC as Canada’s prime agency for working with developing countries on the implementation of Agenda 21. This new “national” assignment was a good fit with IDRC programing: concern for environmental issues had been implicit in much IDRC-funded research.

In the 1990s, IDRC was not, despite the affirmation of its place in Canada and abroad, exempt from the decline in Canada’s aid budget. Despite budget and staff cuts, IDRC continued to carry out its mandate. At the beginning of the 1990s, however, faced with diminished resources, the Centre again rethought its program rationales and delivery mechanisms.

Next: Innovative Management

Document(s) 3 of 7