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!
5 comments:
Here's a little op-ed I did that highlights the inherently political problem of dev work, but let us keep blogging nonetheless!
Davosocracy: The Same New Players
By Sean Maloney
February 1, 2006
New York
The theme of this year’s World Economic Forum in idyllic Davos (quite possibly the most absurd place to discuss the world’s pressing needs—except for climate change!) is “Shaping the Global Agenda: The Shifting Power Equation”. Klaus Schwab, WEF organizer, described this shift to the New York Times’ Mark Landler as “twofold…shifting from the center to the periphery, and from the top to the bottom.” If one were to take this statement at face value, one might conclude that Schwab is announcing the death of the exclusive monopoly of power over the global agenda traditionally held by business elites and technocrats. The theme, as David Rothkopf argues in his Davos Diary 2007 for Foreign Policy Magazine, is supposed to remind us that there is a plethora of new players and forces in the game. But has the emergence of blogging and other techno-hip forms of communication by amateur foreign policy buffs and esteemed journalist and academics really had an impact on the global agenda? Is more information being shared by more people and are more people truly influencing what Rothkopf very accurately calls the “Davoisie?” Unfortunately, the goings on at the old show seems to conclude the contrary.
First, the structure of this year’s WEF remains as follows (from the WEF website):
Over the course of the five-day Meeting, 2,400 participants from 90 countries will convene in Davos, including 24 heads of state or government, 85 cabinet ministers, along with religious leaders, media leaders and heads of non-governmental organizations. Around 50% of the participants are business leaders drawn principally from the Forum's members [....]
The above description certainly suggests a more cynical view that the WEF is just paying lip-service to the idea of “shifting power” so as to draw attention away from actual demands to increase external participation, transparency, and power sharing of the global agenda.
Secondly, rather than commenting on actual policy, the ubiquitous messages in last week’s press and blogs focus mainly on the absence of the American and European WEF celebrities of past years. Only Bono endures. Notably missing were President Bush, former President Clinton, Brangelina and Condi. In his January 24th New York Times article, Mark Landler describes the new “A-list” at Davos – a more substantive set of players from the emerging world economies and businesses – the Prime Minister of Vietnam, Sergei and Larry—the Google lads, Chad Hurley from You Tube, and Mark Warner, the techy former governor of Virginia … the list goes on and on. While clearly the absence of current and former political leaders from the United States is not insignificant, they seem to have been replaced by a different kind of elite--the self-made, techno-elite.
In the Landler piece, Mr. Schwab sees blogs as further evidence of the “power shift.” Landler notes “for some, the openness at a gathering of world leaders is welcome” while “others” believe that this just slows things down and makes the Forum less effective. As noted in the most recent edition of the Economist (January 27th), the real substance of the WEF is the trade component, which still takes place behind closed doors, so bloggers can’t possibly opine and impact the scene if the juiciest of meetings are still off limits to the non-elites. And if the power has shifted so dramatically, as Schwab would have us believe, or the attendees have shifted, as the media would have us believe, then why don’t they trade in some elites for some regular folk like farmers and fisherman—people whose lives are being discussed over thousand-dollar dinners?
While the WEF would have us believe that new voices have greater power than ever before, the WEF remains composed of leaders of the top 800 world corporations – the wealthiest selection of (mostly white and mostly male) people you could possibly cram into a fancy hotel. Google just announced their fourth quarter profit nearly tripled – to $1.03 billion. Are we to believe that the presence of Sergey Brin and Larry Page represents a shift from the center to the periphery? The poor people that the new social entrepreneurs are so eager to help are not eating lobster bisque, networking at “Jazz Night”, or debating multi-culturalism with Tony Blair. Bloggers, though increasing information flow, remain on the outskirts of the real debate. And the only clear “shifting power equation” is the transfer of the old guard to an even wealthier, techno-savvy, corps of neo-elites. Behold the Davosocracy.
Oh, but what am I going to do if I just joined a consultancy firm that focuses on global trade, corporate social responsibility, capacity building, poverty reduction, and may or may not be perfectly effective and I need this job to pay my student loans that I accumulated while studying how messed up development is?
This is very passionate stuff, which I think is great, because it will probably create some kind of dynamic, put something into motion. On the other hand, I have a few questions. First, what is the development industry exactly? Where does it start and where does it end? I guess places like certain UN agencies or the World Bank are firmly part of it. Now what about the Oxfams of this world? And if they qualify, what about those small, radical NGOs, or Fair Trade partners, or the Bill Gates Foundation for that matter? I am sure they all use projects, as they represent a way to plan and implement activities. And their existence is also dependent on the existence of problems for them to solve, problems that aren't addressed by the market and companies and their projects. So, I guess that would all make them part of the development industry. So, that brings us to social movements, real grass roots political mobilization. That surely would not be considered the development industry. But what if they start being organized, having a formal, paid leadership, exposing themselves to international forums and discussions (i.e. flying to international conferences or events), and, god forbid, starting some kind of project.
This is exactly the dynamic the World Social Forum has gone through. It began as an outgrowth of true political social mobilization. It was a success and an inspiration. Now it has become somewhat institutionalized. Why? Because its participants wanted more than to criticize and attack. They wanted to make a real contribution to changing things for the better, to come up with concrete proposals for action. But suddenly they were caught in a trap - they needed to create a hierarchy to facilitate decision-making and to exclude certain groups from this process. In other words, they were starting to replicate the inequality they were criticizing. They were becoming part of that big monster - the development industry.
So, what do we do about this dilemma? I am not sure, but I feel like some projects and programs might be OK. Good economic management and social policy combined with sustainable resource management is probably not bad either. And if this can be supported by the development industry, why not?
The point, I think, is not to generalize and discard a whole profession or 'industry'. It is to stay active and critical and find the things that are worth supporting or even start your own little 'project' if you want to. Maybe it is not about arriving at some final destination, but about the journey. Both for the individual and our society. What do you think?
Rainer,
Great comments and I’m glad you raised these questions. I would define the “development industry” in terms of four main parameters: people, power, space and time.
An organization/agency qualifies as part of the development industry if it (1) is project or money-centered, rather than people-centered, (2) depoliticizes poverty reduction/social change rather than mobilizing people to act for political change, (3) falsely dichotomizes the globe in terms of “developing” vs. “developed countries,” rather than recognizing that struggle for economic, social and environmental justice are located in communities across the globe, and (4) operates on short time horizons that are incompatible with intended outcomes of poverty reduction and social change.
In general, I deeply admire and support the work of Oxfam, ActionAid, Global Fund for Children and many progressive foundations (like Gates, Annie E. Casey, Tinker, etc). These groups are generally people-centered; politically active; local and/or global; and contribute meaningfully to long-term progressive change. This activities of these groups are not perfect and do require deep reflection, but for the most part are contributing to the solution not to the problem.
The develpment industry, I reiterate, is the problem. James Ferguson, in his book “The Anti-Politics Machine: Development, Depoliticization and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho,” (1994) characterizes this industry very clearly, with a particular focus on the power dimension. James Scott and much older thinkers like Antonio Gramsci also have offer useful thoughts on the topic.
More postings soon to come, but hope to keep the dialogue going!
Susanna
Rainer, Susanna - this is an interesting debate. I agree that there are clearly problems with the way the development industry works. Perhaps organizations like the Bank and the UN fall more into the trap of being project oriented, creating dichotomies of developed and developing etc - but I am not sure if the Oxfams of the world are not guilty of the same things. For one, these organizations get most of their money and their people from the “developed” world and they have no real constituency in the communities they are trying to serve – just take a look at Oxfam America’s board of directors – there is no one there who in any real way represents the interests of the developing world. At least the Bank’s board has legitimate representation from developing nations and its workforce and leadership is a lot more diverse than Oxfam’s. Also, many people who've worked in smaller NGOs have said how the internal politics and hierarchies can actually be a lot more vicious in such organizations because I guess resources are scarcer (Simon’s email).
So I would lean towards the argument that grassroots social movements that emerge organically are perhaps the only ones who are not part of this industry. And Rainer raises an important point that when such movements get professionalized and more institutionalized, they do loose some of their authenticity. And then you have social enterprises which are clearly very project and outcome oriented, and they often do not explicitly contest power inequalities, but yet seem to be achieving a lot in terms of advancing people’s rights to livelihoods, health, education, water etc. I think the strength of the model lies in the fact that because it is more “market oriented”, there is a very strong emphasis on demonstrating results and ensuring a bang for the buck Clearly my fondness for social enterprises reflects my own biases, and I am sure social enterprises have their own set of problems that I am probably not aware of.
So while I do agree that there is a lot that is problematic with the development industry, I don’t believe that one kind of organization is necessarily better or worse than another. I think what we can do as development practitioners is to ensure that the processes are fair no matter where we work (even if we work in a private sector setting). So whether we are working on a big hydropower project in India, or a community based project in Kenya, or figuring out how to sell more cell phones in emerging markets like Cambodia, I think if we can ensure that the process is grounded in core social justice principles and values, that would in and of itself be something.
Post a Comment