DevPolitics

What Would We Do Without a Little Bit of Guilt - The Ethical Edge of Development

On a global and personal level there exists a notion that the general WE has a moral obligation to care about the injustice, scarcity, suffering in the world! How nice. Our mothers would be proud! Even the politicians’ mothers would be proud!

We dedicate our work and our money (whatever doesn’t really break our bank) to alleviate the suffering of many of those “less fortunate”. Nice after-school special set up…

A great number of  power dynamics and political motivations get to hide under our good intentions, and for all the good that we do, good is also undone, something is taken, the price is paid. Unless, of course, the setting is politically/economically uninteresting and then it gets a lot less attention, money, “love.”

I think the ethical dilemma lays not in the question weather or not we need to help, the real question that requires clarifying is weather or not it’s ethical to discriminate against who gets that help.  

Definition of Development - The Identity Crisis

In addition to the predictable, too-familiar definitions of Development as "well-meaning", "good-serving" confluence of activities (economic, human rights, political, environmental, medical, institutional, etc.), initiated by developed countries to improve the human condition in underdeveloped countries, I would like to suggest that Development is also a science, an industry, an ideology, a  vogue, a buzz word, a business model, a self-serving beast. And this politicization is what gives it its edge, its "darkness." Do we help because we are morally obligated, or because it all somehow adds up?

Development often serves developed countries first and foremost. Through employment and service contracts, developed countries make sure that a great percentage of the development aid money stays at home. The money is not necessarily given according to the greatest need, or equally, but where there is most interest in control, opportunities, political dynamics. We, the developed countries, focus our attentions convenientl, and we know who our allies are; we make sure that we don't press them too hard on the issues of human rights violations, for example. The examples along these lines go on and on...

 I think we suffer from an identity crisis: we are not clear weather we want to solve the problem (whatever it may be) or perpetuate our clique (which includes many - sometimes even the enemies of the very problems we are trying to solve).

"Development", simply defined.

Development - The attempt of (any) institution to change the public status quo. 

Development

The goals of development range.  Depending on the donor, depending on the policy, development can be social, political or economic, or all three at once.  However, what defines “development” within each of these areas?  Who defines this?  What I have seen through my studies and travels, is that “development” is equal to what the “developed” society deems it to be.  Sure, I agree with the larger society that areas in which people die from starvation or die from violence could use improvement or “development”.  However, I have also seen areas in which a small community has led and continues to lead a sustainable life, only it is not according to the broader western views.  Rather than defining development through the lens of the donor, I believe it is important to think about the overall well-being of the people affected most by development. 

in light of recent cynicism...

I recently watched a documentary entitled "The Reckoning" regarding the ICC. It's available on PBS until October 21.

Ben Ferencz, a prosecutor from the Nuremberg Tribunals states the following:

"I cant accept the world the way it is. It's too horrible. So I have to try to change it. My choice is either take it or do something about it--or try to do something about it. I think we have an obligation to those who have died...to those who have survived...to try. Never to stop trying to make it a more humane world. And that's what I do, and I ask others to do the best they can. Try. And if we try hard enough and long enough, I'm confident it will come about."

While definitions of development can be technical and cynical, lofty and ideal, Mr. Ferencz says it all for me.

My Definition of development and more grand thoughts on humanity.

Development is the belief that interventions, beyond traditional laissez-faire market forces, improve conditions for a given group, demographic or geographic area.

I attempted to keep the above definition simple because in truth I’ve decided that a lot of what we actually debate regarding development is the type of intervention and rarely the merits of development all together (beside’s Easterly on some occasions).   Yet the philosophical debate about development has larger implications in my mind.  It presents the even grander question, where is humanity headed?  If we are headed for a global society and governance, then I’d say development is a means of homogenizing human conditions to reach this goal.  If humanity should remain fragmented as a species then development still has a role, but only to serve self interest.  This last idea seems rather cynical, but authors such as John Perkins have made these allegations and even suggested a level of conspiracy behind it them.

I’d like to believe that the human species can achieve more together and a policy of development interventions can help include a great number of people in the process.  In this sense, development interventions may actually be the early stages of global cooperation.  Just as periods of empire, colonialism and industrialization have left their mark on the shape of human civilization, development interventions also contribute to the future landscape of humanity. This is why I believe it is important to think critically about the intervention process and its affect on culture, inclusion and equity.

 

Defining development: Any reasons for optimism?

Development...hmmm.  When we think about development, our minds become inundated with various: concepts, definitions, projects/programs, "developing" nations and more.  This is partially due to our confusion and desire for definitive answers to our bewildering questions.  After all, what is development supposed to accomplish (or not accomplish)?  What are the markers/milestones that tell us development is actually occurring?  A person may be in the middle of it and not even know it.  At what point is something (i.e. a nation, a project, etc.) officially developed?  There is certainly no shortage of questions.  At times, it feels like the more we learn, the more confused we become.  But we must be optimistic, and remember our confusion also reflects the wide array of topics under the expansive umbrella known as "development".  

We must not forget the complex nature of development lends itself to ambiguous answers; and that is okay.  Rather than having the comfort of a cozy, well-defined answer, we have an opportunity to be creative and blaze a trail, so to speak.  What is wrong with defining development in our own normative terms and having it serve as our road map?  It does not matter whether everyone has the same definition or not.  Who cares?  As long as we hold on to one that inspires us to be positive and achieve the great things we all dream about.  Development is messy... but not impossible.  With that said, I will leave you with my normative definition of development.  

Development: the process of putting the necessary resources in place to ensure a better quality of life that is self-sustainable over the long-term; the goal is to achieve equitable lives for all.

Development

Development. The dynamic set of circumstances that are produced when a group of government, individual, and nongovernmental institutions view themselves as superior to others and make attempts to provide access to this self-proclaimed superiority to others, while maintaining (whether by force or by default) power over these other entities.

There is no such thing as development

The definition of development is a very personal thing as this blog – and the discussion in the 'real' world – clearly show, and that is exactly why it so difficult to reach 'development'. It doesn't exist: what works towards reaching my version of development might be detrimental to someone else's vision of development. Yet, just as everybody else I think often about what development means to me.

To me, the end goal of development is the right and means to equality. This does not mean we should all be equal in every respect, but if one wants to be equal to somebody else, he/she has the right - and should have the means - to reach that goal.

Development is...

Though I had some general ideas, I wasn't sure where I would start with this blog post.  I realized, that though I've been tossing around the word development for a long time, I wasn't sure if or when I had last actually looked at a proper dictionary definition of that word.  I directed myself to that somewhat reliable old source, Wiktionary.com and found this:

development (countable and uncountable; plural developments)

1. (uncountable) The process of developing; growth

   The development of this story has been slow.

   The organism has reached a crucial stage in its development.

2. (countable) Something which has developed

   Our news team brings you the latest developments.

3. (countable) A real estate development
4. (uncountable) The application of new ideas to practical problems (cf. research)

   Our development department has produced three new adhesives this year.

5. (chess, uncountable) The active placement of the pieces, or the process of achieving it

   White's development is good, but black's has been hampered by the pawn on e5.

6. (music) The second section of a piece of music in sonata form.

Definitions 1, 4, and 5 are the most appealing, in my opinion.  They give the general sense of a deliberate effort to progress, to move through plans, actions, physical metamorphosis, etc to a different stage of being.  I use the word progress with the caveat that this word need not connote those generally-accepted attributions of goodness and improvement.  A disease progresses.  A student's progress in school can be dismal.  One's life is a progression towards death.  (I don't want to be too morbid, so I'll cut this off here.)  We often think that the opposite of progress is regression, but progress in itself can lead to both improvement and deterioration.  In the same sense, we should keep in mind that development, though we hope to avoid such uncertainty, can lead to both outcomes as well.  In those well-observed knowledges of disease and mortality, it is relatively simpler to know how a certain case will progress.  However, in the pursuit of development of man writ large (economic, social, political, cultural, etc) there are many more variables and far fewer hard and fast laws.  Assuming that all efforts in human development are generous (though, in reality, I would never assume this), it is impossible to guarantee that a project, a plan, or an action will result in a benefit for those involved.  (Benefit, of course, as Ben pointed out, being determined in each case by those directly impacted.)  Perhaps, then, development is just the process by which things change - voluntarily, organically, or with external catalysts.  Good development, the kind we all hope to engage in, might only be determined ex post facto.