|
Do you know where my Papi is?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: thanks for the help on the paper! go to labor/employment section to read it
Age: 4
Posts: 3,612
|
Developing The Concept of 'Development'
If a person were to examine the foreign policy of the United States, they will find that much of its foreign policy hinges on the development of non-industrialized nations and the societies of people within them. For instance, much of the American foreign policy towards Africa is geared towards developing Africa, so that the people can learn to live in a more prosperous environment, where they can truly be free; for when people are dependent upon others for their food and livelihood, they cannot really be free. However, what is meant by this term 'development'? Does development mean that there should be more roads and airports? Does it mean that people should be given electricity, that they should be given jobs, and that they should be given greater access to technology? Many times, although a system of development has good intentions when it tries to bring prosperity and freedom to the people of a given region, such development either does not do anything for, or works against, the goals of the developer when they try to bring such things as freedom or prosperity to people. When development does not work for, or works against, the goals of the developer, it is because the developer failed to take into account the existing power structures and the relevant forces in play in the lives of those they wish to develop – as such, the goals of the developer can only be achieved through an understanding of the dynamics of development and power, in relation to the people that they wish to develop.
In order to understand how development can fail in achieving its goals, and where it must be perfected, it is first necessary to understand the term development, and the context that surrounds it. In the process of development, there is the developer and the developed; the developer is the person or the group of people who initiate and fund the development, while the developed is the person or the group who are the target of the development. Beyond the actors involved, there are two different styles of development – the first style of development is where the developer and the developed mutually agree on a style of investments for the developed, while the second style is where the developer decides what should be the proper construction of the development. The later style of development is the objectionable style of development – many times, this style of development prompts the local people to oppose such development because it undermines the accepted beliefs of those within society.
The unilateral style of development fails because it is unable to truly take into account the underlying forces that govern peoples' actions in the developing area. One example is the instance of Lesotho and The World Bank; Lesotho had been described by the World Bank in its 1975 Country Report on Lesotho as a, “...traditional subsistence peasant economy, virtually untouched by modern economic development”1. The World Bank goes on to imply that, “the migrant labor originated only in recent years”2 and was intricately linked to soil erosion that arose from misuse of the land by the newly independent country. James Ferguson, in The Anti-Politics Machine, refutes both of these claims; he writes, “Lesotho entered the twentieth century, not as a “subsistence economy”, but as a producer of cash crops for the South African market; not as a “traditional peasant society,” but as a reservoir exporting wage laborers in about the same quantities as it does today”.3 Essentially, Lesotho was not a traditional peasant economy because it had a lot of modern technology and exported many of its products for consumption, and its migrant labor was not created in response to soil erosion, but had existed for over 100 years. Thus, Lesotho did not have an underdeveloped economy – it had an economy that was primarily based upon migrant workers who worked in South Africa, while exported products for South African consumption. Therefore, the development project sought to deal with conditions that a majority of Lesothian’s did not face, and was doomed to failure because of it.
In addition to failing to recognize the greatest economic influence in Lesotho, The World Bank's project implicitly sought to upset established social norms. Within the herding community, it was perceived as a good thing to have more animals, even if they are of lesser quality. This perception existed because animals were seen as a symbol of social status, where the more animals someone had, the more important that person was perceived to be. In addition, the less effort the animals took to raise and maintain, the more they were seen as beneficial for the future and 'retirement'. These beliefs conflicted with the World Bank’s development project; The World Bank sought to introduce markets into Lesotho, and sought to develop, maintain, and control the use of grasslands. Those who restricted their grazing would need to keep fewer, but better quality animals; this was seen as a way to demonstrate to the rest of the herders the benefit of the commercialization of livestock. However, this push for the commercialization of animals was perceived negatively; animals were seen as good, and integral to social status, thus attempts to promote them as tools for commerce were resisted by the people. In the same spirit, people did not accept the mandatory culling of their herds – those who had large herds, and those who had good herds, both did not accept the forced reduction in the size of their herds, because that would mean a loss of status and an increase in the amount of work required to maintain the herds. Overall, the World Bank, failed to achieve its development goals because it failed to understand that the economy of Lesotho was intricately linked to the economy of South Africa, and promoted projects that violated established social norms which provoked resistance from the people they sought to develop.4
The World Bank would have been successful in achieving its development goals in Lesotho had it taken into account the true economic forces and social norms that influenced the people there. Instead of trying to create an artificial national economy in Lesotho, the World Bank should have pushed for pro-labor laws within South Africa, such as the establishment of labor unions. Such laws would have the effect of bringing a lot more wealth into at least sixty percent of Lesotho. Beyond that, if they wished to make herding a more profitable enterprise, technology should have been shown to the herders that would allow them cheap means to make their animals fatter, such as genetically modified grass that grows bigger and requires less water, or more trees in order to limit soil erosion. Ultimately, the people of Lesotho needed to perceive the projects as beneficial to them financially and socially. If these criteria were met, development would have succeeded in achieving its goals.
Another example where there have been a failure of ‘development’ is in the case of Chad. Chad is an oil rich nation that has attracted investments from the World Bank and China. The World Bank and China have different styles of development. The World Bank has attached to its loans many conditions, among them a guaranteed level of spending to combat poverty by the government of Chad, as well as efforts to reduce corruption within the Chadian government. These conditions had to be met in order for aid to be delivered. Contrastingly, China has approached such development opportunities as ‘business deals’, and has signed no-strings attached development aid. The Chinese style of development has been much more successful in achieving its goals, because it incorporated the desires of the Chadian government. Thus, an understanding of why China has been successful in Chad, while The World Bank has been met with failure, is integral in understanding how development projects can be ideally structured to achieve their goals.
In 2000, the World Bank funded an oil development and pipeline project in Chad, that would transport oil through Chad and Cameroon, to be exported to the world. The World Bank stated that the revenue received from this project needed to be used to combat the problems of poverty within Chad.5 This project was promoted as a means to solve the ‘resource curse’ of sub-Saharan nations, where poverty is unable to be dealt with because there are not sufficient resources. However, the Chadian government faced strong political opposition, and wished to use the oil revenue to fund the military rather than help the poor; in 2006, the Chad government mostly reneged on its promise to combat poverty within its country. It soon became apparent, that although this reneging could be dealt with through a freezing of Chadian oil funds, the project required the backing of the Chad government to continue. Therefore, the parties reached an interim agreement to settle this dispute.6 Recently, however, the Chad government has reneged on this interim agreement, and as a result, currently “The World Bank presence in Chad is almost nil” 7. Overall, The World Banks funding of the constructing of an oil pipeline, failed because it contradicted the desires of the Chadian government.
In addition to the failure of the project because it stipulated that a certain percentage of revenue needed to be spent combating poverty in Chad, the project also failed because The World Bank tried to implement some measures that would minimize corruption with the dispensation of the oil revenue. One way that the World Bank tried to minimize corruption is through making non-governmental organizations an integral part of the revenue handling. This, however, failed to take into account the role that corruption plays within the lives of many sub-Saharan African nations. According to Jean Francois Bayart in Politics of the Belly, corruption is intrinsic to the African State; that is, corruption is not seen as something that it is bad; it is seen as a legitimate social interaction that gives a certain group of people access to wealth. Thus, in attempting to ‘deal’ with the problem of corruption within the Chadian government, they sought to overthrow the established method by which the government operates. In general, The World Bank failed in achieving its development goals because the stipulations of the development contradicted the will of those in power within Chad, while concurrently seeking to undermine established social practices.
The approach of the World Bank towards the development of Chad contrasted with the approach of China. Like the World Bank, China invested in Chad because Chad is an oil rich nation; however, unlike The World Bank, China did not seek a minimum level of commitment towards combating poverty, and did not seek to ‘deal’ with corruption within the Chadian state. In general, Chinese development has been accepted by the Chadian government, and correspondingly succeeded very well; between the years of 1980 and 2000, Chadian trade with China has increased from $10 million a year to $55 billion a year.8 There is, however, relatively little of this money that has been spent directly on combating poverty. Contrasting the results of the two different approaches, where the World Bank's projects have faced constant opposition and failure, while the Chinese projects have been accepted and prospered, it becomes apparent that Chad has been far more welcoming to the Chinese than they have been to The World Bank, despite the fact that they both brought 'development' to Chad. Thus, through a policy of non-interference with local power holders and established social norms, China has structured its development projects as to guarantee their success.
The World Bank would have been more successful in achieving its goals of dealing with poverty within Chad had it adopted a similar policy of non-interference with local power holders and established social norms within Chad like China did. The primary reason why the government of Chad reneged on its promise of social spending was because it was an unstable government that desired a better military. These two views are reconcilable – there could have been stipulations saying that a certain percentage of this military spending had to have some legitimate domestic use, such as providing jobs to people who want to serve in, maintain, or work for the military. The money from the oil could have been used to develop the area that was the cause of political instability, such as providing the rebels with jobs or other paths to wealth; such development would be mutually beneficial to The World Bank because it would promote stability, while concurrently promoting prosperity and development. With the increase in money that would be spent combating poverty throughout Chad, there would be less of an incentive for people to engage in the practice of corruption. In general, The World Bank could structure its development to ensure that the maximum amount of money is being spent to combat poverty, which in turn should also combat corruption, while adopting a policy promotes the authority of local power holders.
In both Lesotho and Chad, The World Bank failed to adequately achieve their goals of development, because the way through which they implemented their development focused on the wrong issue, and failed to win over the right people. In the case of Lesotho, the World Bank believed that the economy was primarily a subsistence economy, while it was primarily a migrant worker economy. In addition, the World Bank wrongly believed that people would accept the commercialization of their livestock. Beyond Lesotho, the World Bank's 'development' failed in Chad, because it contradicted the desires of the Chadian government for a more stable regime, while similarly contradicting the intrinsically corrupt nature of the African State.
As a result of these failures, it becomes apparent that the World Bank and other development organizations that try to instill certain values among the people they wish to develop need to understand the context in which these development projects take place. These development agencies should forget the idea of trying to ‘develop’ the world – that is; they should cease trying to change the societies that they try to develop through ‘combating poverty’ or ‘combating corruption’. Instead, these development projects should work with existing societies to make them more profitable. For instance, instead of trying to make people see their animals as vehicles for profit, promote environments which make animals naturally more profitable. Instead of saying that a state needs to allocate a certain percentage of its resources towards development, the development, and the revenue received from the development, should be constructed so that the desire of the state for stability and the desire of the people for prosperity are reconciled. Overall, there needs to be a contextual understanding for any policy; at the World Bank, or any institution that seeks to 'develop', there needs to be people who understand the context of those who receive the development aid. Beyond that, these people need to understand the true conditions that face the people that they are trying to develop; it is useless to attack the problem of corruption, when it is through corruption that many people depend on their livelihood. Understanding the context in which people operate is the surest way to ensure that development is successful in its goals of relieving poverty and suffering around the globe.
Works Cited
Ferguson, James. 1990. The Anti-politics Machine: `Development,' Depoliticization, and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres
Bayart, Jean-François. 1993. The State in Africa: The Politics of the Belly. New York: Longman. Chapter 3
www.nytimes.com
www.bicusa.org
|
Today
Linear Mode
