But: I think Oxfam still has a lot more growing up to do. I can think of three main areas:

First, there’s Oxfam’s size. With a global budget of over $1.25 billion and over 6,000 staff, Oxfam is a huge global institution. It dwarfs most Southern development organisations. Like other similarly very large INGOs, Oxfam often crowds out other smaller, Southern actors, both at the in-country level, and in global policy discussions. Oxfam needs to do a lot more thinking about the implications of its growing size and presence – both within developing countries and at the global level.

Second: despite the SMS process, and the emergence of Oxfam India and Mexico, Oxfam remains essentially a Northern governed and run confederation. The big, most powerful Oxfams are in the North; it is their staff who control policy and programming decisions. Despite its genuine attempts at solidarity with the South, Oxfam remains driven by Northern-inspired development perspectives and thinking. In the long run, and for Oxfam to really grow up, this needs to change: in terms of Oxfam’s governance, programming and policy.

And the third area is the question of how Oxfam actually does its work in developing countries. Within the confederation there has always been the full spectrum of programming approaches: from staff-intensive, direct operational approaches, to minimalist approaches working through intermediaries and partners. Oxfam has traditionally justified this spectrum on the basis of maintaining diversity in its programming (which is really code for: “we can’t agree on a preferred approach”). In the long term, Oxfam needs to ditch the approaches that don’t work, get its thinking straightened out on how it can best work in developing countries, and then develop its expertise behind that model.

So where are you getting the excitement from Mr Green(Reminds me- you changed the colour of your site too-how wonderfully obedient and corporate!)

Be that as it may- most of the country excitment and some of the reasons and examples bears good even in the past when we, the bortherhood of Oxfam was flying fiercely independent flags.

The real change in our conceptualisation came about by federating as International and the overall conceptual frame work that became global.Indeed until the begining of say 2000 there was always independent country analysis based on the specific political economy which therefore meant that we followed local to National history and the responses.Not to mean they were all perfect and glory and all that but atleast it tried to respond to the National needs and in a lighter vien-the eccentricity of the country director and team!.Which is one of the main reason that we atrated to think Global.And:
For the first time in its Herstory-Oxfam became prescriptive, with the global analysis came global strategy.the time ,effort, resources, the specialist and recentrlaization is all the product of this tumultuous change informed by the Fundemental Stratergic Review(I wonder how many in that group in the photo you have know about this- a straw poll would be good).I know there was a watered down version of a review of this most crucial and historical document and change which,in my view, was a very substantial and far reaching one.Honest review of the post life of this document in action should be so revealing .that will also include the whole notion of regionalisation- and its cost and impact(There were five indicators mentioned to measure this in the process-if my memmory serves me right)
Global always means less local and vice-versa(even I understand this).Oxfam GB and others have done well with this approach.Campaign, communication and work on change become more prominent and added to the profile.I am not saying this lightly-that post 90s India, Oxfam was known more mostly because of our global campaign(I know this from my personal experience as both a National staff who worked from the bottom rung to being a global campaigner).

So, this business of cross country themes and all that HQ bashing and quick scurrying to safety is a product of muddled thinking to put it lightly and If I may, a lack of leadership.

The whole concept of SMS- and the time/resources it has taken and still takes would not be accepted in any business-mind you, the most significant fact that led to this protracted change was and is about Money!(I am not saying that is wrong but being factual).A great Oxfam supporter and donor asked me-”would you take so much time if it was your money”-something to reflect about.

You are a global organization that works in-country-will be informed by various country analysis-PERIOD.All other discussion about the centre vs periphery is reduntant.If we are serious and real(Honest) than we should use our global anlysis to inform each country programme so that it will be a better country programme than the one country-led programmes we had before the turn of the century.So why have a global strategy?

Sorry for this long response for what it is worth- here is my two paise worth-if anyone reads that is.

Oxfam should be very proud that it managed to pull this change off and it is great to see the Country Directors beginning to enjoy what the new model makes possible for them.