In a recent contribution, Bruce Johnston and William C. Clark (1983) deplore the “inconclusive skirmishes among development advisors” which lead to the danger that “those bent on self-interested efforts to exploit or to ignore the poor can invariably find some advisory recommendation to interpret as support for their favoured programs….” While “academic pursuits may thrive on conflict, effective implementation of a social action program requires substantial consensus … because policy makers, with their time and attention limited, otherwise find it difficult to make the ‘right purchases’ of policy options.” The “nay-sayers carry the day.”

All those who have, since September 1981, been parties to the discussion of the World Bank's Report on Accelerated Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Agenda for Action (hereafter Accelerated Development) should take these warnings seriously. As the flow of words has increased, the crisis in Africa has deepened. While this paper adds to the flow of words, it attempts to find the commonalities upon which agreements for action can be based.

In particular, we attempt to clear up some widespread misunderstandings regarding the position taken by the report on certain key issues. After two years of intensive discussion, there is a clear need to reflect both on the markedly deteriorated global circumstances within which Africa has to live and to devise its programs, and on the component parts of Accelerated Development's Agenda for Action.