Ex-development ethics

A recent comment on this blog highlighted the importance of grounding international development work in social justice principles. I think very few development practitioners would disagree with this. But let’s take this a step further.

Think about the following scenario: Every day at work and in life you are doing your personal best. You are a model of integrity, support causes you believe in, and make daily choices that reflect your (or your religion/faith’s) highest values. So far, it seems that you are acting paragon of ethical behavior. But there is more to the story.

While you may be doing your very best, you are actually working within a larger structure that maintains and perpetuates an unjust status quo.

For instance, let’s say your work in “international development” and you have to write a background section of a project document for a rural development project. After you finish the chapter, you learn that this chapter helped justify the passage of a multimillion dollar project that will fund the expansion cattle-raising among large landowners in the Amazon Rainforest. Now, do you still think you still acting ethically when you were simply “doing your best” to write your section of the document? Here we have an ethical dilemma.

To answer this question, I will invoke a simplified version of the ancient wisdom of my favorite philosopher, Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, also known as RaMCHaL, who wrote a book called Mesillat Yesharim or Path of the Just. In this book, which is a foundation text for the Musar [Ethics] Movement, RaMCHaL elaborates a practice of individual character development. This model guides individuals through a process of refining their character by spending time working on--through study, prayer, meditation and action--a series of different traits or attributes, in a quest for ethical/spiritual improvement. A person’s “success” in this process is evaluated by how the person’s actions impact others. If, for instance, a person is working on improving his/her “patience” and this leads to a more peaceful and productive interaction with family or work colleagues, then this person is measurably progressing along the path of spiritual development.

Anyway, let’s return to the ethical dilemma. This situation might fall under the attribute of “vigilance” a key attribute in Luzzatto’s framework of spiritual/ethical development. "Vigilance,” in this case, means that you are responsible not only for your actions, but also for knowing the context in which they are being used, and considering their likely implications for other people. So, if you don’t know how the fruit of your labor is being applied in the world, you should find out. To act ethically, one must be as vigilant and aware as possible of all his/her actions’ implications.

If you are a Musar purist, you might note that RaMCHaL's framework is meant to be studied alongside of Jewish Law (Torah & Talmud). Then again, I imagine their are not many Musar purists working in international development.

The point is, as Luzzatto suggested about 267 years ago, maybe we all need to pay more attention to developing our sense of ethics. It seems that these attributes are particularly important if we are to engage meaningfully to combat poverty and injustice--the most intransigent problems in the world.

This post might seem somewhat esoteric. However, I want to use this space to delve into issues of ethical and psychological development, as I believe these are critical elements of social justice work that are too often left unexplored.

The problem with projects: an ex-development perspective

Many development practitioners have an ongoing obsession with “projects.” Some go so far as to anthropomorphize the projects they manage. This may sounds ridiculous, I’m serious. I’ve heard project managers discuss at great lengths the project’s “needs and requirements” and how important it is that this “project’s needs be met in order for the project to survive and succeed.”

The way I understand it, PEOPLE have needs, projects do not. After all, aren’t projects just different combinations of people and actions? A means to an end? Come to think of it, what exactly is a “project”? How do we define this entity?

Here is one definition I found: A project is “a unique venture with a beginning and an end, undertaken by people to meet established goals within defined constraints of time, resources, and quality.” That sounds pretty benign. In Haitian Creole, on the other hand, the translation of project literally means “money.”

It seems to me that development is much more of a long-term, nonlinear, complex and holistic process, and that “projects,” with their associated short-term plans, imposed goals and rigid timelines, are not always the most appropriate mechanisms for advancing this process.

Whether we are talking about constructing a school, training a teacher, developing a functioning healthcare system, or building a democracy—we should remember that the key to lasting change is the PEOPLE (leaders, workers, residents, technicians) who commit and remain involved, and lasting PARTNERSHIPS among committed groups and individuals.

I, for one, am going to try to be more careful about the way I use the word “project.” Instead, I will try to use more intentional language that highlights people and actions and processes that promote social change.

Why ex-development?

I came to the field of “international development” thinking that the goal was to eliminate poverty, to empower the poor, to move towards social justice. I now realize that I was mistaken. This blog is for people like me who started working as idealistic “development practitioners” only to become disenchanted. I am not a cynic, and this blog is not intended to be a negative place. Rather, I designate this as a place for hope to bloom out of a critical assessment of where the industry is. Over the last four years as a “development practitioner,” I’ve repeatedly seen something very sad and ironic—that it’s possible for people to advance their careers and be considered “successful” in the field of international development without helping a single poor person. In other words, I have learned how perverse and dysfunctional the development industry is.

Granted, it’s always easier to identify a problem rather than pose a solution. For this reason, until I find a compelling solution, I am considering myself an ex-development practitioner. I don’t know how to solve the problem yet, but I do know that I am no longer willing to be complicit in this farce of an industry. Instead I am committing myself to seek real ways to catalyze social justice, always grounded and always able to proudly answer the question “what side are you on?”

This blog is called “ex-development” because my hope is that it does exactly what the disturbing for-profit DevelopmentEx.com site fails to do…expose the truth about the field and create space to think about alternative models that promote real social and economic change.

Let’s be honest: do we really believe that that flying rich consultants around the world to provide “expert” advise to poor governments and communities is likely to help even one poor person (much less poor country) improve their situation? No. In some ways, this industry is unlike many others. In the development industry you can manage a project, fail dramatically and be promoted. In fact, you can mange a program and lead a country to shambles, and still be promoted. It’s OK because the poor people who you were supposed to help are still there to pick up the pieces.

Why does such a perverse situation perpetuate itself? Because it is constantly reinforced by stakeholders. I’m not referring to the billion people living on less than a dollar a day (who are sometimes referred to as “stakeholders” in development projects). I am speaking of the real industry stakeholders—the donors and the contractors. “Success,” in the development industry is determined by reports written by consultants for donors. But wait, what about the so-called “beneficiaries”? As long as the project ‘logframe’ shows significant poverty outcomes, no one really asks any questions.

I’m not saying that accountability is absent. In fact, accountability relationships are strong, but these relationships create loyalty between those who pay and those who get paid—the donors and contractors. The people who have less resources (i.e. the poor) ironically left out of the equation.

While countless books and articles have been written on this topic (Lords of Poverty, The Road to Hell, and more recently Globalization and its Discontents and Confessions of an Economic Hit-man, among many others), the industry continues to barrel along virtually unchanged, growing unapologetically, supported by billions of donor dollars and opportunistic contractors and consultants.

Is growth in this industry correlated at all with poverty outcomes? Are these short-term contracts leading to long-term poverty reduction for the “bottom billion”?

If this industry is really succeeding, then shouldn’t it be shrinking, rather than growing? Of course it should. But the unfortunate truth is that “poverty reduction” is not what this industry is about. It’s about wealth generation and job security for high-paid government bureaucrats, contractors and consultants. The industry I am describing has very little to do with helping the poor or to establishing social justice.

Gender trainers have identified two very distinct modes of change: practical and strategic. “Practical” change improves the functioning of a system and “strategic” change shifts the balance of power and thus changes the rules of the system itself. For example, in the case of a village where the women feel they spend too much time carrying water, a practical approach to change would bring the pump closer to the village so the women wouldn’t have to walk as far. A strategic approach to change would question why men don't share some of the labor.

These two approaches are useful to understand the topic at hand. Many of us are stuck talking about and engaging in practical changes in the development industry—how to reduce inefficiency in the market place (a la Development Ex), how to best invest scarce resources, how to build more infrastructure and even how to make more micro-loans. These practical changes may seem very important, but in the midst of all the rushing around, the fighting for turf and contracts and grants and funding, we as people who care about poverty reduction have neglected the much more fundamental strategic questions: how will the balance of power have to shift to privilege local, tacit knowledge? How will citizen groups hold governments accountable? How will resources be meaningfully redistributed and equity achieved? How will human rights be systematically respected and defended across the globe?

If we are too busy flying around and churning out reports that continue to fuel the expansion of the development industry, how will we find the time to seek out the people or the experiences that will help answer (or even ask) the important questions?

The laws of the market are successful in maximizing profit. But how many times do we have to rediscover that the laws of supply and demand are an insufficient answer when the question is about how to level the playing field; redistribute resources; provide opportunities; create “platforms” for change, collective action, and power shifts? When unfettered laws of the free-market are used to respond to problem of poverty and inequity, they only futher entrench the status quo, to exacerbate inequities and disparity.

Obviously, it true that in many cases, increased market access and efficiency can help poor people. It’s also true that poor women can benefit from and successfully repay micro-loans. But credit for people should be seen a basic need, not as a radical strategy for ending poverty. After all, not everyone is an entrepreneur. Credit is necessary but not in any way sufficient for creating the conditions for social or economic justice.

I’ll stop here, but my point is not to disengage from these problems, but rather to engage in a reflective and constructive way. The next posting will present some ideas along this vein but in the meantime…comments are welcome!