My thoughts on the nature of "development" have taken a long time to solidify into something relevant and concrete enough to put to words, and even now I hesitate to try to make tangible something that strikes me as so illusive and multi-faceted. Some have caustically defined "development" as a field born of the self-righteous, the greedy, the well-meaning but woefully ignorant or ill-educated - and there may some truth to some of that. But often critiques of "development" seem more focused on identifying where development efforts have failed or been harmful than really trying to get at the heart of the matter: there exists inequalities of varying degrees across the globe, but trying to understand what the inequalities are, whether some are of greater importance to others, what has led to these differences, and what, if anything, can be done about it, is extremely difficult and complicated.
If one takes a more political science perspective, development can be traced back to the philosophical concept of the existence of natural rights and law. Without delving into Locke/Hobbes or theology overly much, many of the ideas about modern statehood and functional society that have led to the political and civic institutions that govern a significant portion of the world today. In short, the idea goes that without the presence of a government to act as an arbitrator/enforcer or if that government has no legitimacy by the individuals it proposes to govern, people are in effect in a state of nature, but they have certain inalienable rights that allow them to thrive as individuals. Due to the natural pro-occupation with survival, and the mutual acknowledgment that everyone wants and has a right to thrive, individuals (and later societies) participate in the development of a structure of laws and morays that moderate the competition for survival. Later, as this social contract grew, states formed and became the competitors. Whether or not this extremely sweeping and and brief description of the history of man and state is flawed or incomplete is another issue from the fact that the political players and philosophers of the mid to late 17th century based many of their ideas about fair and adequate government on these theories. Out of these ideas is what came the Constitution of the United States, which rightfully so or not, has become the symbol of modern democracy.
The importance of the theories of rights (be they inalienable, natural, human, etc) and it's effect on the rise of the modern state over the past 3 centuries cannot be separated from the field of development. The movement is based on an idea that all individuals have a right to thrive, and the agreements that they make with their fellow members of society and their government should enhance this right, not hinder it. Development begins with the the acknowledgment that, in some way, there has been a breakdown in the system - if only because of the fact that while one person lives a life in excess, another person is starving to death.
It may be an unpopular opinion, but development could be defined as the process by which we all acknowledge that there is something (or a million somethings) going wrong with our human evolution and we attempt (through aid, war, sanctions, charters, creation of ngo's and diagnostic tools, and so forth) try to fix it.
Cultural norms and process are vital, and maintaining the integrity of what a person deems important to them should be the center focus in their achievement process. However, to suggest that because people, like Paul Farmer's Haitian communities, have lived without the benefits of modern medicine and have relied for centuries on local medicinal solutions, means that they should be denied access to the same medical relief and knowledge that communities in other parts of the world are receiving is ludicrous. More so, to suggest that these people are not aware of and do not want at least the option (to take a page from Sen) to have access to some of the more basic benefits available to those in the wealthier, more modern countries, seems to be the real elitist, self-righteous opinion.
The process of development that I have outlined is a global process that can not exist without the participation of everyone involved. In practice there have been countless mistakes and actions have been more destructive and hurtful than helpful. I, like everyone don't have any of the answers, and though my ideas may not strike completely true for everyone, I don't think there is any room for simply throwing up our hands and letting the chips fall as they may.
Recent Comments