The predominant top-down approach raises problematic issues about what goals are placed on the international agenda, why they are prioritized, and how they are implemented. In my understanding of contemporary world order, fragmentation exists between each level of the system (international, national, local), resulting in the breakdown of ideals, policy, as well as resources (aid, staff, structural capacity) as they move down the system, brining little benefit to communities. Furthermore, current development models operate within a predominantly economic framework, which often exacerbate social and economic inequalities rather than alleviate them. Little accountability is given to international financial institutions such as the World Bank, WTO, and IMF for neoliberal policies and SAPs that undermine state sovereignty and harm social welfare systems of poorer nations—all under the guise of ‘development’. It is critical to analyze how power relations and complexities in the international system complicate human development.
My definition of development challenges the top-down approach, and instead advocates for a more civil-society centered approach. I consider the questions: What if the local level set the policy? What if community-based programs were the development models? While national policies can strengthen development efforts, empowering communities in planning and implementation can increase effectiveness, transparency, and sustainability. While there are no one-size-fits-all solutions to development, communities can offer innovative models for self-determination and development.
-Nadirah Blassingame
Comments