162 Poverty and Hunger
continuity and irreversibility manifest themselves in different forms, with different
implications. What stands out in common is that they have been relatively neglected
as concepts and as criteria for weighing choices, for deciding what to do and for
evaluation. As the restless search for novelty in development impels us to learn and
use new words, concepts and criteria, old ones are buried and forgotten. This is the
more so with these three since at no time have they enjoyed much popularity in
development. They have been marginalized even more by the new prominence of
the words which refer to power and relationships: empowerment, ownership, part-
nership, participation, accountability and transparency. Commitment, continuity
and irreversibility have become more than ever Cinderellas, unrecognized and
overlooked.^30 Yet, as I have argued, they are fundamental to good development
practice.
Most surprising is the neglect of continuity of staff in post. It is easy to meas-
ure, which makes it odd that it is so rarely done. Part of the explanation may be
that it is so often determined by personnel or human resource departments that are
out of touch with field realities, or by central people in senior posts, or by politi-
cians, or by combinations of these. One transfer can generate a chain of other
transfers, multiplying its costs. The bad effects of one transfer can then be immense,
though unseen, unmeasured and unrecognized. Too long in a post can also be bad,
with loss of freshness and excitement; and there is a positive side to transfers – they
can give a new clean start, re-energize and broaden experience. But all too often
time in post is too short.
The neglect of commitment is less surprising. It is more abstract and not ame-
nable to measurement. It is to be optimized, not maximized. Its dimensions are
diverse: they can be personal – with commitment to, for example, an ideal, a cause
or a relationship; or organizational – with commitment to a programme, project,
a group of people or a mission; or political – with commitment to a programme or
policy. Commitment is also contextual, evolutionary and difficult to forecast.
As for irreversibility, in economics it has been overshadowed by preoccupa-
tions with risk, uncertainty and sustainability. It has not been incorporated sig-
nificantly into economic analysis. It is difficult to quantify and it confronts and
contradicts conclusions that come from discounting. Nor is it always bad: as with
continuity, more of it can be better or worse, depending upon the case. If factors
like these explain why it has been such a marginal concept, the case is strengthened
for offsetting them, developing it further as a concept and giving it more promi-
nence.
Questions of commitment, continuity and irreversibility are relevant to much
decision making and action. The issues they raise differ by context. It is tempting,
then, to dismiss them as too vague and variable to be of much use. But there is a
paradox here. For the very diversity of their meanings makes them versatile in their
applications. The lesson is not to pass them by, but to define and apply them,
context by context. They should be part of any checklist of criteria for review in
formulating policies, making decisions and taking action. They deserve to be
brought out of the shadows into the light closer to centre stage. Given more weight