What is "Development"?

Development, as many have come to know it, is synonymous with modernization and progress. In other words, to develop is to become more like the Western world. The idea of development is thought to be inextricably linked to what the world wants and needs; development is a necessary good for sustaining human life. In this essay I will first discuss what my previous understanding of development was. These ideas are widely shared throughout the world and more so by international development professionals, something I had long aspired to be. Next, I will discuss the creation and romanticization of development work before I delve into my newfound understanding of this field of work and how I see myself fitting into the world as a practitione

For the purpose of this essay, I will be using several terms interchangeably. The West includes those societies deemed economically developed, such as Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa among others. These are developed nations considered the global north and the first world, while the global south includes regions deemed “economically backward” like Asia, Latin America and Africa. This group of countries is also known as the underdeveloped, non-westerns and the Third World or the Majority World, defined by what they are rather than what they lack.

While growing up, I was often confronted by television ads of seemingly helpless and hungry victims of poverty unfailingly from Asia and Africa. For just pennies a day one could “save” these impoverished beings. This molded my perception of the Third World, a perception that I would later find to be a complete and utter delusion. Soon I was well underway in my undergraduate career studying International Studies with the objective of landing a job as a professional development worker in Sub-Saharan Africa.

It was during this time period that I learned what it meant to develop, including the various methods used to do so. To develop is to adopt a democratic and capitalist society. Progress is building modern roads leading to modern cities that are host to Westernized hospitals and universities. Growth is industrialization. All of these things and more will lead to a more developed society, which is what everyone aspires for, who wouldn’t want development? The more I studied, the more I learned the benefits of helping the underdeveloped develop. By helping a country to develop, they will have a lower infant mortality rate, people become educated (we undoubtedly know this is beneficial to all civilization), new access to Western health care will save millions of lives, and adopting Western agricultural practices will lead to a more nourished, healthier and more productive population.

From the start, I had always critiqued methods such as the Washington Consensus, sweeping solutions like the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), and international actors such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). These methods to me were obviously an extension of colonialism and further pushed the people deeper into poverty while benefiting the rich. SAPs, which started in the late 1970’s, have had an undeniable negative effect on the very countries they originally sought out to help.  These programs were a type of “tied aid”, meaning that the borrowing countries were required to put into practice several economic policies in order to get a loan from the World Bank or the IMF.  As a result of such “aid”, the wealth gap widened due to exploitation of recipient countries. Often times these program encourage Transnational Corporations (TNCs) to move into said countries to take advantage of cheap labor and lax laws (Slusser, 2006).

During my undergrad education, I was reading books and blogs of “famous” development professionals such as Jeffrey Sachs and William Easterly, educating myself on the best way to “develop” poor countries. As mentioned before, these professionals and many others believed that development was growth, and primarily, economic growth. I was schooled on the various theories of development, such as modernization and structuralism. “Modern economic growth was not only a question of ‘more’ (output per person) but also ‘change’” (Sachs, 2005, p. 38). This particular recipe for change had several ingredients: changing gender roles, mandatory and free education, urbanization, and eradication of traditional beliefs and methods, among many other things.  

Since obtaining my bachelor’s degree in 2012, I’ve had the opportunity to work abroad in Cameroon for 16 months and have continued to ponder my role in the world as a development worker.  Here at SIT Graduate Institute, I have been able to view the aforementioned theories of development through an entirely new lens, leading me to a better understanding of the world and my role as a practitioner. For several decades, the white man has been dictating the lives of minorities all around the world. First, this came in the form of colonization as several groups of people were conquered and deemed as savage, barbaric, and backwards. This gave the white man leverage to pillage and steal resources from countries they were attempting to “develop” for their own economic benefit. As colonization became outdated and regarded as wrong, even in the eyes of Westerners, the white man needed to keep his control of the so-called uncivilized populations for his own prosperity (Escobar, 1997).

This is when the social construct of poverty and “underdeveloped” began to take flight. Those lacking a capitalist society revolving around material possessions were regarded as underdeveloped. As stated by Escobar (1997), “Development proceeded by creating ‘abnormalities’ (such as the ‘illiterate’, the ‘underdeveloped’, the ‘malnourished’, ‘small farmer’, or ‘landless peasant’) which it would later treat and reform” (p. 88). Groups of nomadic herders who carried everything they owned on their back were seen as non-contributors to society in terms of the economy. These people are what our Western first world society considers to be poor. This creation of the underdeveloped by the white man was an opportunity to not only “help”, but to control these populations whilst reaping endless socio-economic benefits from destroying the livelihood and culture of these “poor” people. These ideas continue to pervade the general consciousness of development work. They are the reason why the West is still spewing their propaganda of “helping the poor develop”, through their endless charity campaigns portraying poor African children starving to death.

Today, I am aware that poverty is a fabricated fallacy invented to dichotomize the “developed” and the “underdeveloped”. This enabled development workers, mostly hailing from Europe, America or Canada, to legitimize their work as the betterment of the poor helpless people. “Growth is a collection of ‘things’; well-being is nothing else but ‘well-having’”(Latouche, 1997, p. 139). The objective of development is no longer about the quality of life of a person but more so the amount of material possessions one has produced, purchased, and consumed.

What is hidden behind this simplified definition and approach to “development” that many give credence to, is that if it were actually successful, it would inevitably lead to more waste, more pollution, and more environmental degradation. Our Earth does not have the capacity to function and provide for humans if all countries are living like Westerners. By acknowledging this, it is evident that we must begin to research and apply other theories of development. We, those who aspire to work in the field of “development”, need to challenge the status quo and challenge the traditional ideology of development. We need to challenge the system in the same way that “Ivan Illich set out to challenge the very idea of development as a threat to people’s autonomy” (Rahnema, 1997, p. ix) in the 1960s. Although working in Africa, particularly West Africa, as a practitioner is still a career goal of mine, I have become much more critical of my role as a development professional, and what it truly means to develop.

Clearly, more research needs to be done on alternatives to current prepackaged solutions such as SAPs. Some researchers have suggested that we must end the idea of “think globally; act locally”, because it we need to acknowledge that people  “can only think wisely about what they actually know well” (Estava, G. et al, 1997, p. 279).  If development workers continue to implement their own global perspective, they consciously or unconsciously assume that they know what is best and therefore maintain the vision and interests of a very small group of people.  However, if things are local and initiated inside the community, they will reflect what Esteva and Parakash (1997) call “radical pluralism” which expresses the unique ideas conceived by communities rooted in specific places.

To do this, we need to look around our own environment and work with what and who we know. I find this challenging because I am realizing that like many others, I have romanticized the idea of living and working abroad and am having a hard time letting go of that dream. This is not to say that one cannot be informed on global issues and causes. On the contrary, we should be aware of our position and ability to share knowledge as well as stand in solidarity with localized movements. As Pam Simmons (1997) suggests, “Perhaps the best efforts of women in the developed world should be put into resisting the spread of Western-style patriarchy and fighting its source closer to home” (p. 252). This suggests that instead of going abroad to do “development work”, I should be working in my own country, in the environment that I am familiar with and a part of.

Another way to move into the post-development phase as a practitioner is to abandon development approaches that are not grassroots movements, those which work with the marginalized groups of people who are written off by organized politics and current development projects. In a sense, grassroots strategies take out the middleman and work directly with communities. The overall and long-term goal is to develop a new and holistic approach to development; on that goes beyond neo-classical economics and industrialization (Sheth, 1997, p. 335).

Woven throughout all of these methods of overcoming traditional development practices is the idea of an inclusive society; one that affirms all human beings are uniquely gifted. As noted earlier, traditional development values the consumption of material goods. The key in combating this is to appreciate the sheer presence of each individual human, their uniqueness and whatever ordinary and/or extraordinary gifts they bring. In doing so, we as practitioners also need to respect all peoples’ subjectivity so they will be seen as active contributing members of the society and the world that they live in as opposed to passive and incapable beings.  

It is key to my development as a practitioner to remain critical and vigil when working towards social justice and all realms of life. This is why I must be constantly evolving as a professional in the field and question my role in each and every position I hold or aspire to hold. Some strategies of application for myself in the future include: keeping the grassroots level in sight, working holistically and intuitively while always making sure that I am being inclusive. There are several local movements throughout the United States that I can become a part of or I can support others abroad. If I choose the latter, I must remember to remain local and not make the movement my own but instead act as an ally. Regardless of where I find myself working, one thing will remain constant at the core of my work my aspiration to serve others. Throughout all of this, I hope to become a researcher in the post-development field and possibly even a professor who will guide others along their way.

 

Works Cited

Escobar, Arturo. (1997). The Making and Unmaking of the Third World Through

Development. In Rahnema, M. with Bawtree, V. (Eds), The Post-Development Reader

(85-93). New York: Zed Books Ltd.

Esteva, Gustavo and Parakash, Madhu Suri. (1997). From Global Thinking to Local

Thinking. In Rahnema, M. with Bawtree, V. (Eds), The Post-Development Reader

(277-289). New York: Zed Books Ltd.

Illich, Ivan. (1997) Development as Planned Poverty. In Rahnema, M. with Bawtree, V.

(Eds), The Post-Development Reader (94-101). New York: Zed Books Ltd.

Latouche, Serge. (1997). Paradoxical Growth. In Rahnema, M. with Bawtree, V. (Eds), The

Post-Development Reader (135-142). New York: Zed Books Ltd.

Sachs, Jeffery. (2005). The End of Poverty. England: Penguin Books Ltd.

Sheth, D.L. (2007). Alternatives from an Indian Grassroots Perspective. In Rahnema, M.

with Bawtree, V. (Eds), The Post-Development Reader (329-335). New York: Zed

Books Ltd.

Simmons, Pam. (1997). ‘Women in Development’: A Threat to Liberation. In Rahnema, M.

with Bawtree, V. (Eds), The Post-Development Reader (244-255). New York: Zed

Books Ltd.

Slusser, S. R. (2006). The World Bank, Structural Adjustment Programs And Developing

Countries: A Review Using Resource Dependency Theory. Conference Papers -- American Sociological Association, 1.