Critical Reflections on Development: Ambivalence, Hope and Necessity

Preamble:

Over the past decade, I have observed, contributed to and contemplated the subject of international development (or simply development). Development as a concept is loaded with connotations, negative and positive. As a field practice, it is no less contentious.

Reconciling the enigmatic and even polarizing nature of development is confounding. More often than not, ambivalence is the binding constant among my thoughts, reservations and questions regarding development theory and practice.

To explore my misgivings and to posit considerations for changing how development is approached and understood, I have opted to do so in an open-letter.

*****************************************

Dear Development,

I have so many questions.

What are you? Who do represent? Why don’t you work? Are you needed? Such questions, fill me with intrigue and consternation.

Your notions of societal betterment (equity, happiness, prosperity) are morally seductive but also catalyzing, in rousing the imaginations of people to want, even demand a more just world. You draw attention to unmet social needs and unnecessary suffering (poverty, preventable disease, social exclusion, etc.).

In a world of abundance, where so few have so much and so many have so little – you are hope, and you are freedom.

Yet, for others you are not who you say you are. Your benevolence superficial, your actions rapacious. You are a project of domination (e.g., Chossudovsky, 2003; Veltmeyer, 2005; McMichael, 2007). The perpetuation and maintenance of an asymmetrical power structure premised on political submission and economic exploitation. A figment, necessary for global order. You are packaged and sold as a dream that is likely unrealizable.

These conflicting characterizations lead me to think – at worst you really don’t care about the betterment of humanity, and at best, your ‘experts’ really don’t know what they are doing, despite their earnest of intentions.

Over the past five decades more than $2.3 trillion in foreign aid has been spent on signature projects espousing Western conceptions of ‘progress’, countless workshops and publicity tours held by development gurus touting the next ‘big idea’ and numerous fleets of Land Cruisers and office air conditioners purchased.

To what end? What results are there to show? For instance, the World Bank estimated that the failure rate of its structural adjustment programs in the poorest countries was 65 to 70 percent and 55 to 60 percent in all developing countries (Bello, 2006).

In spite of the suffering instigated by such neo-liberal reforms, your proponents in the United Nations, World Bank or International Monetary Fund want us to continue to believe, to have faith in your prescriptions and experiments will pull poor nations from poverty to prosperity.

At the heart of your present orthodoxy is the narrative that measures like trade liberalization, financial deregulation and privatization have been instrumental in achieving the Millennium Development Goal of reducing poverty by fifty percent by 2015. The World Bank estimates that the number of people in the developing world living on less $1.25 a day has dropped from 50 percent in 1981 to 21 percent in 2010.

I want to believe the purported poverty reductions are true. But so much of beating poverty is tied to how it is measured.

To start, is a poverty line of $1.25/day a reasonable proxy for individual survival?[1] I have concerns this figure may disguise or underestimate the scale of global poverty (Edwards, 2006). Conversely, it may inflate the degree of success.

Second, do your reductions include or exclude for the effect of China? It is widely known that the increasing incomes in China in recent decades have had a disproportionate impact on poverty rates globally (Woodward, 2015).

Third, why do your poverty statistics focus on proportions rather than absolute numbers? Are you trying to shift the poverty line downwards to make things appear better than they are?

I ask these question because when the absolute numbers are examined and China controlled for, the poverty head count is unchanged from 1981, when using the poverty line of $1.25 per day (Hickel 2014; 2015).

The growing disparity between wealthy and poor nations also leads me to question that the war on poverty is being won.

An examination by the Economist found that “in every decade from the 1950s to the 2000s, proportionally more poor countries than rich ones saw falling living standards.” Additionally, the growth rates of the bottom quintile of 22 nations saw their annual per capita GDP decline from 2.2 percent in 1960 to 0.67% in 2010.

The declining incomes reflect a broader pattern of growing wealth inequality. Oxfam (2015) reported that the richest 1 percent have seen their share of global wealth increase from 44 percent in 2009 to 48 percent in 2014. At this rate, it will be more than 50 percent in 2016.[2]

Despite the above concerns, I do believe that progress is being made. Data from the three decades of Human Development Index reports seem to suggest that even the poorest of countries have made incremental gains.

Whether such marginal gains are true or merely a ‘statistical sleight-of-hand’ remains an elephant in the room. Equally paradoxical given your dubious record is whether the appearance of success is more important than validated results?

Sadly, I am loathed to believe that without the perception of success the impetus for saving the world  would be displaced by fatalistic notions of your demise.

Despite your past failings, the immense and unprecedented challenges of the present (e.g., climate change, urbanization, mass extinction and ecological decline, etc.) have only emboldened your potential value (if not necessity).

To be clear, there is no place for the development of old. At stake is a new paradigm. One that has purged itself of false ideas, historical biases, path dependence, and conflicting and counter-productive policies.

Principally, your past manifestations have been an Orwellian exercise in doublethink leaving injustices unchallenged and conflicts of interest unquestioned. For instance:

• Liberalized markets and democracy have been championed as recipes for freedom and prosperity. Yet, the realization of such ends have relied on the brutality of authoritarian governments to suppress dissidence as poorer nations have been strong-armed into accepting economic reforms and the opening of their markets (Klein, 2010).

• Anthropogenic climate change resulting from the consumption of fossil fuels is an existential threat to humanity with potentially acute impacts on nations with high levels of poverty (IPCC, 2014). Yet, the fossil fuel industry enjoys significant subsidies and the exploitation of such energy sources is positioned as an engine of economic growth and a solution to developmental challenges.

Despite these two illustrations of the contradictions and dissonance between your rhetoric and action, change is possible but it has be transformative.

You must be reconceptualised in how you are understood and approached. To this end, I offer you three considerations:

1. Development is not just for poor countries, it applies to all nations.

All nations are developing. Why? Because development is not an end-state but a (uneven) process of perpetual improvement. Therefore, a country (regardless of wealth) should not be defined as ‘developed’ or ‘undeveloped’ because achieving the status of ‘developed’ is impossible as it is constantly being redefined.

The intent is to unfix the definition to eliminate a singular model or understanding. We need a plurality of models that give deference to context, respect the right of self-determination, and cultivate a diversity of approaches that enrich human life.

2. Development is shackled by the tyranny of economic thought.

The reductionism of neoclassical economics has falsely equated prosperity with increasing material consumption. Investments in human, social and physical capital aligned to this end.

Development is more than fulfilling one’s consumer potential. It is dynamic and multifaceted process connecting human and environmental systems in ways that should promote harmony, happiness and sustainability (of which economic considerations are part but not the totality).

3. Development is constrained by the integrity of political systems that govern it.

Many of the undesirable, even deplorable aspects of development reflect deficits in representativeness, transparency and accountability within political systems internationally and nationally. For instance:

• Why is it acceptable that the Trans Pacific Partnership was negotiated in secret, where corporations had a voice but not citizens?

• Why is it acceptable that banks and transnational corporations are able to socialize losses and privatize profits?

• Why it is acceptable that government leaders (not all) in poor states live lavishly while their constituents endure poverty?

These questions draw focus to the fact that development falters when political systems do not represent the interests of people, exclude the people and are not accountable to the people.

Reforms must place people at the centre, emphasizing inclusion and participation in the decision-making process.

The above considerations are neither exhaustive nor novel but are necessary in provoking an epistemological reflection of who you are and who you may wish to become.

Please remember that humanity is at a critical juncture. The problems are grave. The stakes are high. There is no room for development as usual.

Notes

[1] One World (2008) report suggests that more representative poverty line may be $2.50/day depending on region. Others like Hickel (2014) or Woodward (2015) have suggested much higher poverty lines – $3.50 and $5.00 respectively.

[2] The Oxfam report highlights that the 85 richest people on the planet have the same wealth as the poorest 50 percent (3.5 billion people). That figure is now 80 – a dramatic fall from 388 people in 2010. The wealth of the richest 80 doubled in cash terms between 2009 and 2014.

 

References

Bello, W. (2006). The Capitalist Conjuncture: over-accumulation, financial crises, and the retreat from globalisation. Third World Quarterly, 27(8), 1345-1367.

Chossudovsky, M. (2003). The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order. Montreal: Global Research Publishers.

Edward, P. (2006). The ethical poverty line as a tool to measure global absolute poverty. Radical Statistics(89), 53-66.

Hickel, J. (2014, August 21). Exposing the great ‘poverty reduction’ lie. Al Jazeera. Retrieved November 14, 2015, from http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/exposing-great-poverty-reductio-201481211590729809.html

Hickel, J. (2015, March 30). It will take 100 years for the world’s poorest people to earn $1.25 a day. The Guardian. Retrieved November 10, 2015, from http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/mar/30/it-will-take-100-years-for-the-worlds-poorest-people-to-earn-125-a-day

Intergovernmental Pannel on Climate Change. (2014). Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts,Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Klein, N. (2010). Shock Doctrine. New York: Picador.

McMichael, P. (2007). Development and Social Change: A Global Perspective. Thousand Oaks, California: Pine Forge Press.

Veltmeyer, H. (2005). Development and Globalization as Imperialism. Canadian Journal of International Development, 26(1), 89-106.

Woodward, D. (2015). Incrementum ad Absurdum: Global Growth, Inequality and Poverty Eradication in a Carbon-Constrained World. World Economic Review, 4, 43-62.

 

 

No hay comentarios / 10 Jan 2016 por dlarkin
IMSD /

Comentarios cerrados.