DevPolitics

Development as Dignity

Section 10 of the South African Constitution states, "Everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and protected." The landmark case of S v Makwanyane, that abolished capital punishment, was ultimately decided on the basis of this clause. The court reasoned that because dignity is inherent, it cannot be granted or taken away, other than by birth or death. As such, by imposing the death penalty, the state would be in violation of this fundamental right. The court went on to discuss the ways in which dignity can, nevertheless, be infringed. This imaginative interpretation by the South African courts, along with Amartya Sen's conception of development as freedom, have greatly informed my definition of development. Development is the process of ensuring that everyone has access to the resources that allows them to live their lives with dignity.

Development - a measured dose of nobility and cruelty

I view development as an enterprise undertaken freely by individuals, institutions, nations and other entities, to solve a social, political or economical problem that the disadvantaged is unable to solve due to lack of resources.  Development is an instrument often used by those who are privileged, powerful and rich in financial capital (or know how to obtain it). Whether its lack of access to education, medical care, finances, political will or land tenure etc., development work is typically motivated by the purpose of ameliorating living standards. The manner in which the work is delivered or implemented is where things get tricky.

I believe though that there is a dichotomy between the theory and practice of development.  In theory it’s expressed and articulated as an aspiration to help and support the poor. However, those poised to help can wield the power to subjugate and exploit as well.  The endeavor of implementing or practicing development work can be both life changing and devastating for those on the receiving end.  The word and field is a mixture of emotion and practicality which can be characterized as noble or cruel if decisions are made from an ignorant or prideful point of view. It all depends on how the work is executed. 

 

Ooooooooohh THAT development....

When attempting to accurately and completely define development, one must acknowledge that the term was merely a "buzzword" utilized by President Truman's innovative speechwriters to evoke awe in the crowd. However later, it became an umbrella term that held secular power as to justify any and all projects the western world sought worthy of it's pursuit. This is not unlike justifying manifest destiny or slave trade with the excuse "because we're so good at it we should do it!!" Most development projects' progress was one sided and quickly rebuked the mystery and power the word once held. Now the word is acknowledged as "manager talk" by many in the field and further strikes fear in those who are to be "developed"...

Having said this, any current and all-encompassing definition must acknowledge a) progress is subjective to different cultures b) communicative, rather than prescriptive intervention (work with what is already there; don't superimpose own agenda) and c) must institutionalize the sustainability of those whose land/community is being developed, not those developing. This means that jobs, profits, social services, and proper distributive financial policy must cater to those who will remain once developers leave. This basically translates to the developing community being an integral part of the planning and continued management of said institutions. This is not often seen.

So without further ado...

Development is the process by which coordinated efforts implement a physical, social and or economical goods/service to improve the standard of living for a specific population/state/community; these interventions are most successful when designed by and to best facilitate the established cultural interactions of the populations being developed.

What development does NOT mean is a specific GDP, certain number of roads or hours logged on the internet. It seems the best measurement is well-being, which allows for those communities being developed to rate their happiness with the projects by thier invidual cultural standards; as opposed to a results-oriented metric which would likely favor the tangible and ultimately profit-seeking nature of developers.

Failure and Development

Expanding on the theme of admitting failure in development from past classes, Idealist just posted a piece about Engineers Without Borders and other forums to share lessons learned - where "the overarching goal is to encourage people to see falling on your face not as shameful or embarrassing, but a necessary part of creating change."  They're asking for stories if you want to read others' or join the conversation and share your own...  Idealist.org : Do you have what it takes to admit failure?

Development as the Empty Vessel

As several of the posts and our readings show, the term "development" is so variously defined as to be almost devoid of content. I wouldn't go so far as Gilbert Rist in calling it "toxic," but I do think it's something of doppelganger, changing form to reflect the worldview of the speaker.

As I see it, though, that's how it should be: a word can be ill-defined yet remain useful. For me, development means improvement in a society's ability to meet the needs of its people. This admittedly mushy definition allows for both a strictly economic interpretation (increased GDP per capita, let's say) and broader versions that might account for environmental impact, non-economic measures of fulfillment, and so on.

The definition is not a cop-out, though -- it's flexible because our needs change. I don't fully subscribe to Maslow's hierarchy (which claims that humans seek to satisfy physiological needs first, followed progressively by needs for security, love/belonging, self-esteem, and self-actualization), which has been criticized for being ethnocentric among other things. But I do think there is a rough progression in what we as humans value in life, and that certain aspects (such as security of future generations or community ties) cannot be considered without a roof over one's head. Thus I think any real definition of development has to allow for a moving target. This also makes development unattainable, echoing Sen in implying that societies are never fully "developed." The steady upward advance of progress is transformed into something like a winding and bumpy road, with setbacks and switchbacks but hopefully some gains in the end.

Good Intentions

"Definitions belong to the definer, not the defined." -Toni Morrison

Development, as a term used by the relatively rich in aspirations of bettering the relatively poor, reflects the desire to cultivate basic human needs to those countries it perceives of lacking. Sociological and operational definitions aside, "development" as far as I'm concerned, is based on intention. We hope to "develop" a country by providing aid or changing their institutions or offering fair trade, and it's in the realm of development to us as long as the intention is being a small saviour to the less fortunate. What are "basic human needs"? Food, water, oxygen-- sure. Is education? Is economic opportunity (I'm not sure how you would operationalize that, anyway)? Is entertainment? Happiness? Who knows. It's a question for philosophy and we'll never fully agree. The intention, however, is what ultimately defines how we use "development," no matter how misguided or problematic that intention reuslts in being.

Development expresses a desire to progress a 'poor' nation, to help. Do the actual consequences of interventions play a role in terms of its definition? Of course not. We call something "development" long before the consequences are seen, because we intend the interventions to do something good. And I guess we're allowed to do that. We're the definer.

What is Development? State and Society - Responsibilities Taken.

On defining what is development, I think we need to look at the realization of various capacities and capabilities of both state and society. (It’s an awkward dichotomy but let’s just proceed with that.

I agree that we can never overemphasize the importance of development of individual capacity and capability – including and beyond survival, the inalienable and equal rights of achieving economic well-being, political freedom, social mobility, cultural engagement, etc. (I am trying to expand the list but I shall stop now.)

All of theses, however, cannot be fully achieved without a strong state – a state with its own capacity and capability, not only able to claim its sovereignty on international arena (it does not equal to jeopardizing domestic human rights), but one with proper and working institutions to supply public goods – food, water, health, security, rule of law, property rights, access to information, etc., so that its citizen do not live in fear or other countries, of their future and of its government.

I am not, however, advocating for a state-centric approach to development. If state comes from society, then a strong state comes from within a strong society - I think that is probably what Duncan Greene means by ‘active citizens’ and what Wangari Maathai mean by ‘holistic development’, as she said, ‘rights come with responsibility’,  ‘to believe in themselves, don’t leave all the responsibilities to government, they should take charge of their own destiny, fighting to restore justice, accountabilities.’ (Is development, then, all about the mentality prescribed by ‘Enlightenment’??)

While talking about development as freedom, capacity and capability, we shall not exempt the state from taking its responsibilities, nor the citizens. 

A post on the personal obligations/ethical issues associated with development.
Thus far, I have realized there area of development is more complex than I have ever imagined. The individual’s obligation towards development manifest from their personal frame of reference to the world. The question boils down to, how much are persons willing to invest their personal time, energy, and funds, for the betterment of a third worlds country population. Ethics vary on the individual, for me, I come from a lower socio-economic background, thus, many of my assistance comes form that “shared” reality. I understand that living in America, I am allotted more privileges than under developed countries. I seek to find development projects that do not necessarily require monetary capital.

Development as creating a social welfare state...

Development is giving people the social, political, and cultural tools/ability to advance economically. I very much agree with Sen’s approach to development in that one cannot solely focus on the business and economic side of international development. To a large extent, I feel that has been the trend well through the 80s, and recently we have a focus on governance and institutions. But the idea that social rights and a strong welfare state contribute to the development of a country is often neglected and therefore needs more attention in the development literature. Development largely depends on one’s social and political ability to improve one’s economic situation, though admittedly this is a more complicated cycle. But one thing that makes me wonder is the role a strong social welfare state is to play in development, and I often feel that’s what development is largely about: getting a society to the point where people’s basic social and cultural rights are provided for, sustainably through a strong tax base. How you get to this point I am not entirely sure, but I do think the ‘development world’ needs to start thinking more seriously about Sen’s argument and, consequently, investing in and creating programs that empower people socially and politically. I want to say that the rest will follow.

TypePad Conversations » Answer this question!

Development is personal evolution on a larger scale

In trying to work out a personal definition of development, I keep thinking of the feminist motto, “The personal is political.” Likewise, development should be personal.

The starting point of any aid program should be an assessment of the needs of individuals. Not a brief survey of their income, educational level or access to infrastructure, nor the offer of a “proven model” for success. But a hard look at the everyday experience and mindset of people.

Besides economic and structural disadvantages, people can lack the awareness and trust of formal programs run by outsiders. Or, they may lack hope or the vision of a better life. Alternately, they may have a complete vision of a better life and simply lack the tools or means to act on it.

Regardless, I believe that development is the evolution of individuals’ personal empowerment—their growing sense of security, opportunity, and satisfaction. Whether similar needs are connected and translated into a program, or individual members of a community turn their personal achievements into a benefit for all, our job is: first, to understand needs, and then address them.

TypePad Conversations » Answer this question!