DevPolitics

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.

 

Culture...borders or behavior?

Yesterday's class discussion was insightful and it was great to hear diverse perspectives on culture; as such, it got the wheels in my head turning a bit.  My thought on culture is that whether we live in America, Iceland, Tanzania or anywhere else for that matter, everyone subscribes to and is part of many cultures.  

For instance, when it comes to politics, someone with liberal views is part of a culture in which every member is politically liberal; that is culture #1. Next, if we look at that same individual's leisurely behavior and taste in music, he/she may prefer jazz; hence, he/she is part of a culture comprised only of jazz fans.  Within this music culture, some members happen to be from culture #1 as well (i.e. the politically-liberal culture discussed earlier), and some are from a politically-conservative culture; this music culture is culture #2.  Next, we look at profession and find this individual works as an attorney specializing in international law.  This puts him/her in a culture comprised of other attorneys of shared professional interests; this is culture #3.  Within this third culture, some members also happen to be politically liberal or conservative, fans of jazz music or some other type of music.  This illustrates that we may have opposing views with someone in one instance, but then come together based on a shared interest and behavior.

When culture is viewed in this context, we see that the lines often used to divide us become blurred.  The compartmentalizing and branding of people becomes more difficult.  But that's a good thing.  The fact that we are members of many cultures speaks to the complexities and varied tastes of people (all people).  A key point I am making is that whether we live in a nation that is considered: developed, developing, rich, poor, etc., we are part of many cultures that transcend geographically-imposed borders. Culture is more a function of human behavior, rather than geography.  We share more similarities, than differences.  

Feelings of personal obligation...what should we do about them?

On many occasions while speaking with friends and various acquaintances, the conversation has predictably shifted to career and education. Of course the: "What do you study?" and "What do you want to do for a living?" questions arise.  I tell them I am studying international policy and management at Wagner, and want to be a project/program manager of development projects in SE Asia or Africa.  The response is usually positive.  But, in some instances, people have said: "Why do you want to help those people?  We have enough problems here in the U.S.".  Admittedly, some members of my family have voiced similar questions and comments. 

In making those comments, they are implying that a person should be more concerned about the well-being of someone within their country, rather than outside of it.  But, their logic is flawed and short-sighted.  My concern for those outside the U.S. must not be viewed as a slight against Americans; instead I am motivated by a personal obligation to help anyone lacking access to what I deem as inalienable human rights.  This includes: clean water, access to a meaningful education, food, shelter, the opportunity to earn a decent living and provide for their family, etc.  Certainly, I am well aware of and sensitive to issues in the U.S.  But, the reality is that people living in “developed” nations are fortunate to at least have access to them; of course the issue of inequitable distribution is a long conversation in and of itself and I will not address it right now. 

So what should we do about our feelings of personal obligation?  Certainly we (i.e. individuals, NGOs, etc.) can sit back and buy into the notion that our involvement in development merely serves as a crutch for the: uninterested, ineffective and corrupt government officials of developing nations.  To some degree, this is true.  But, what’s the alternative?  Should we not get involved and hope they suddenly “learn their lesson”, develop a conscience, and decide to serve the interests of the people, instead of their own?  That alternative fails to account for the complexity of the institutional issues (i.e. lack of incentives, etc.) that enable them to largely disregard the welfare of the people within their nation/state.  As mentioned in “Institutions” class last semester, “development is messy”.  At the very least, the issue of development must be addressed by: providing resources and tools to the so-called ordinary citizens; and focusing on the governmental level via: building infrastructure, developing and implementing applicable policies, advocacy, etc.  

When thinking about development, the sense of personal obligation many of us feel must not be discounted; it is what motivates us to try and rescue the babies that have been thrown into the water, and helplessly float downstream.  For many, their skills lie in rescuing the babies, rather than walking upstream and finding the person responsible for throwing them in.  For them, the alternative to sit back and wait is superseded by their personal obligation to help.

Angels fear to tread?

Even if we leave the valid question of ‘What is development?’ unanswered, trying to think about personal obligations towards development is like embarking on a challenging and confusing trip in which each question – answered or not – always reveals yet another question. As a teenager I believed that I had the moral obligation to help those who I considered less lucky than me. But now, just a few years later, I start to examine this obligation more closely and ask myself ‘how’ and ‘why’ I would fulfill such a responsibility. Three main questions keep reappearing:

• If I regard certain norms and values (be it equity or the right to education) to be universal, does that give me – not only the right – but the obligation to impose these values upon others?
• If these norms and values are truly universal, how then can we reach them? Rather cynically, it seems that acting on these norms and values does not help: it has resulted in many overpaid consultants, conflicting policies and poverty and inequity growing around the world (cf. Sachs and Rist).
• Do we need to go ‘out there’ to fix the ‘problem’? What if the root cause of this problem lies either in our home country or in our very presence in the countries that cope with this problem?

I do not nourish the belief that I will answer these questions but I am convinced it is important to keep asking them in order to force myself to think before I act.

Pondering the ''obligation''/''ethical" development question...

In preparation to respond to this prompt, I spent several days reading other people's posts and re-considering some of the readings and class discussions up to this point.   My conclusion is that I have no clearer understanding of the complexities of development than anyone else, and the only way to continue forward with my studies and career is to continuously keep these types of questions in mind. 

Development, whatever it's definition, is multi-layered and it seems ridiculous to attempt to subscribe to any single philosophy because the causes and solutions to poverty, human injustices, and failed states, seem to come from every angle and direction.  The poorest of the poor in North Korea hold a different social, cultural, economic, and political history than those in Ecuador, or Kenya, so it seems to follow that addressing their varied situations will require varied types of actions.    

Rists' approach in ''Development as a Buzz Word" came across sounding caustic and whiny, but his underlying point that belief in an ambiguous concept is a dangerous and ignorant way to to create policy makes sense.  Those that are critical of the development process up to now, such as Rist, but also William Easterly and Wolfgang Sachs, among others, are quick to jump on the pessimistic bandwagon and label essentially all development work either guilt-based or economically selfishly-motivated.   And certainly, looking at the actions of the IMF, the UN, the G-8 and G-20, and the bilateral foreign policies of developed countries themselves, the negative repercussions from the development paradigms and efforts seem as great as the positive effects.  Maybe there is reason to question what the reasons have been behind some of the policies, some of the aid and restrictions. 

On the other hand, this new concept of ''post-development'', where those more developed countries stop blaming the lesser-developed and turn inward to examine if their own policies are the reasons behind why some states are suffering more than others, is simply more of the same.  This new idea, born of those critics mentioned earlier, still requires the center of the development debate to revolve around developed countries.  As stated in class, questions about development would no longer be examined abroad but in the centers of London, New York, Washington, DC.  So, once again, if the critiques of previous development policy hold any weight, the poorest of the poor are left out of the 'development process'.  While the global leaders of the developed world head back to their offices beating their chests and crying mea culpa, the world's under-served and underdeveloped will fade back into the background to wait to feel the reverberations of whatever decisions the global elite make.  And how is this 'post-development'?

My conclusion as to whether the developed world has an ethical or moral obligation to assist in development is hazy and ill-formed.  Of course global development efforts are questionable if they seem one-sided, impractical, or insensitive, but due to the complexity of the issues as I stated earlier, is it even necessary to spend so much time questioning the paradigms and frameworks when this energy could be spent finding more and more effective solutions and avenues?  The babies coming down the river can be saved a million different ways, but the best way to ensure they all drown is to stand around arguing about the ''one best way'' and questioning the ulterior motives of different propositions.  Also, developing countries are not filled with drowning babies, but with communities and people who are just as much citizens of the world as everyone else, and shouldn't they have the option and their own obligation to participate in the action as well?

Cultural Barriers to Global Citizenship

Since the beginning of class I’ve been struggling to succinctly define my moral and ethical obligations to development.  After reading YDG’s earlier post I started to think about national versus global identity.  This led me to consider how my own culture has influenced my perspective on development.

While I can’t speak for all Americans, my experience has been a conflicting battle between individualism and community. A classic American idiom such as “pull yourself up by your bootstraps,” suggests that ultimately an individual is responsible for their own welfare.  This sense of self reliance may have been born out of the growing pains of a young nation or the challenges faced by individuals during western expansion.  However, this ideal often clashes with an underlying Judeo-Christian value of caring for one’s community. American culture often cites ideals of “pulling together during times of crisis,” such as volunteering at soup kitchens, giving blood or philanthropic responsibility.  In my experience, these competing ideals of community and individualism make it difficult to define my moral and ethical obligations to development, and challenge the idea of global citizenship.

Since I am a Wagner student, studying public service, it is obvious that I have put this battle to rest.  Having settled on the side of community, it makes it easier for me to approach development as a global citizen.  Since the remaining 6.7 billion humans hale from a variety of equally complicated cultural backgrounds, it reminds me that asking others to become global citizens is no easy task.  The frontiers of human development seem to rest on overcoming our nationalistic and cultural baggage that stands in the way of the global advancement of the human species.

development: process or power-play?

I don't have twenty years of experience working on Development projects, nor do I have the theories of Sen, Easterly, and Sach's memorized. I can't clearly state my view on Marx or Durkheim, nor can I firmly agree or disagree with Guantanamo Bay. I don't profess to be a scholar of globalization, nor do I side with a particular political party. I was raised in a Christian household, but have a slightly more negative stance on missionary work. I could go on and on, but what I'm trying to say is that I live in a predicament of seeing multiple views.

In regards to the "personal obligations" associated with development, I'm tired of hearing this excuse. A jumble of powerful countries spent the last few centuries (however, one could argue this has happened since the beginning of time...) trying to take over as many other countries and state powers as possible. We live in a world of power struggles, and the goal of every large country was to be the most powerful. While some see power with dollar signs, others see power as military strength. Some view power as land mass, and others as ownership of natural resources. We (collective We) raped, pillaged, and enslaved millions. Today, we argue that we have a "personal obligation" to "help" "develop" nations. What does this even mean?

Structural Adjustment Packages force small countries into being eternally indebted to the US. Germany's agricultural reform template ruined soil beyond repair. Worldwide we see a trend toward dependency, not independence. I do not see this as us fulfilling an obligation--I see this as masking the vain attempts to retain power with some big lofty idea of "development." However, is this present form of development a step in the right direction? Is this the necessary process to create countries with permanence and rights?  The developed world came about with centuries of trial and error--is this just part of the process?

Ethically, we have run into the same problem--the human condition. Humans are greedy and power hungry. With colonialism, it was expected. With development, it is reformed. I'm appalled at the programs and processes we consider ethical. Funneling money into projects without any REAL plans to judge the short and long term effects? Creating a dependency on aid and foreign powers? Intervening only when the media and PR teams say that it's an opportune time? As "the most powerful country in the world," did it REALLY take celebrities to bring our attention to Darfur? What about the ongoing atrocities of the DRC? What about the kids in inner-city Detroit who have to fight to survive? Eventually our guilt will catch up with us--is this, too, just part of the process towards lasting and impacting change?

Something to ponder: In Human Rights tribunals in 50 or so years, will the IMF/World Bank be held accountable for the starvation of millions?

My question moving forward into this field is when will things change? When will we start to think about the effects of our actions on the people and future generations? How much trial, error, and guilt does the world need to learn?

Buzzwords and Fuzzwords

In late 2008, I had the privilege to be a part of several different projects and organizations throughout my contract in Accra, Ghana. The NYU undergrad program has a semester abroad there and I worked with Professor Regine Dupuy to hold a student based conference in response to the Accra Agenda for Action. One of the articles recommended by Professor Dupuy was "Buzzwords and Fuzzwords: deconstructing development discourse." It refers to Rist's article on the buzzword of "development" and goes into the language of development (think "poverty," "sustainability," etc) with a critical eye. I'd recommend the document if the Rist reading caught your eye.

(Hopefully the link works.)

Thoughts From the First Class

Towards the end of our first class, the discussion seemed to focus on the question of whether it is better to do something in the short run, even if this could be considered inefficient interference, or if it is better if we, as agents of development, focus on altering the larger, national and international institutional paradigms that will result in long term results.  Though I am not sure if I even believe this entirely, my thought was that perhaps it is in fact better to do something immediate and directed rather than waiting to be able to tackle what are seen as the larger problems.  

I would suggest that we consider the success rate that the US and other world powers had in the last century when attempting to undermine or overthrow what were deemed unjust regimes.  Even today we see that there is limited success in such strong arms tactics.  I believe it was Professor Gershman who suggested that if we could be more reflective in our practices and become better at making mistakes, then we would be one step closer to being more effective agents of change.  Perhaps we have already become better at making mistakes if we consider that the current era of the targeted, community-level, decentralized approach is a reaction to failed militaristic, political, and national-plan style interventions of previous decades.  

I believe that we have learned (or are in the process of learning) an important lesson:  we don't have the knowledge, power, or leverage to effectively alter political environments from the top or from without.  Situations can't be reformed by telling people to reform.  However, where we do have some knowledge - feeding, medicine, sanitation, education, etc - we can offer our support.  Some would argue that by alleviating situations of malnutrition, poor infrastructure, and ill-health, development assistance agencies are undermining local and national constituent-elected official dependency and removing the government's responsibility to their people.  This may very well be true, but it seems to me that a well-educated, well-fed, healthy, and informed populace will be better able to challenge the status quo, demand rights, and replace ineffectual bureaucrats.  While starving citizens with pitchforks might also be able to overthrow a dictator, they could also more easily be re-subjugated by the same or a new corrupt regime.  A revolution of strong-minds and bodies will be better able to achieve sustainable political and economic change.  

Thus, my stance is that the work of the Paul Farmers of the world is neither in vein nor ill-directed.  It might take longer and the path might be more circuitous, but in the end it will help people help themselves by building much needed capacity.  To rethink the babies in the river scenario, by staying downstream and fishing out babies as they pass by, one would be creating a network of individuals who can then assist in the rescue operation of their confederates.  

It Is Not Management Theory, It Is Ethics

Last month I went with my Capstone group to Nicaragua to do our fieldwork for the final report. We traveled to a beautiful town located in a protected natural reserve, near the Caribbean called San Juan de Nicaragua. San Juan is a small town of fishermen and peasants that try to do their best despite the abandon and isolation from the central government. According to our schedule, we were supposed to meet with the Mayor and his team, some members of the City Council, and leaders from the community to talk about the local economic development projects financed by UNCDF-UNDP.    

That morning I felt confident and comfortable to make the interviews. We not only had the questionnaires prepared in advance and the background information needed, but also in personal terms, I felt very familiar with the environment. I’m Latin American and a native Spanish speaker. The whole environment was very familiar since San Juan was like any other town in my home country.  I was also aware about the class and race dynamics involved in the whole situation.  Thus, I knew there was a strong division line: we were some students from the US and they were Nicaraguan politicians or peasants.

The meeting with the Mayor and the City Council ended up being absolutely fascinating: we found a strong political leader with a social and environmental plan for the town, working with a group of young technicians trying to “do their work” and to do “the things right”.  We saw the benefits of his work: a new public library, new streets, a new landfill.  Obviously there is a significant amount of resources from NGOs and from transfers that are guaranteed because the Mayor is from the President’s political party. The interview with the beneficiaries at some point turned to be a little bit difficult: the questionnaire that we had prepared was not helping to have a fluent conversation.  I decided to leave the “script” aside and to use different words and topics for a fluent and familiar dialogue.  I ended up learning about the difficulties to commercialize their products, the importance of abundant water for the rice crops, and that the pejiyabe is not profitable. 

As far as I know, there are no classes that teach you how to have social and cultural awareness. There’s too much economics and management that try to predict the human behavior, but in the end, both have failed to “understand” it. I think that the problem is not in having formal classes to make you aware (although it would be a good idea to introduce to the international specialization a seminar about ethnographic methodology), but some basic ethical principles, like for example to listen and to recognize the others. This is not about management theories, but rather about ethics.