Matt Altstiel
4/28/07
GLOS 3602Redesigning DevelopmentIntroduction No matter what era in recent (post 1900) history we look at, the two separate words, development and progress have been virtually synonymous. Both concepts carry a high degree of desirably no matter which agency (governmental or non-governmental) attempts to implement a given policy. While the approach and scope of said projects have varied substantially even in the past thirty years, the result has been virtually the same: failure. Development projects, such as those sponsored by national governments, as well as those conceived by transnational organizations such as the IMF and World Bank often fail to take into account the on site social, economic and political challenges of said locality. By the same token, the increasingly large and multinational Capitalist corporations (due to the changes yielded through Globalization) cannot realize the promise of their ambitions in bringing positive change to “whole” populations. I emphasize the word “whole” due to the widening developmental gap between resource rich and poor, technologically literate and illiterate, culturally elevated and marginalized. This paper attempts to trace the history and failures of these respective approaches to development, that is, the state sponsored developmental project and capitalist market free trade policy implementation. By examining this history, one can avoid the pitfalls of both in articulating a new, overarching plan of sustainable development to greatest benefit of all. While both approaches are more or less contemporary, they will remain divided in their analysis. The final section outlines a coherent strategy for implementing a new, more desirable method of development.Traditional State and Developmental Agency Failures
The traditional development apparatus has contained the pitfall of foreign intervention and imposition of developmental schemes with little regard to local realities and conditions. Development agencies and national agendas incorrectly see increased development of any type as a positive step toward achieving a “desirable” Western standard of living. Recent critiques and development plans have highlighted the need for small scale development projects which integrate local communities. Such realistic, goal oriented projects represent a substantial improvement in developmental policy by demystifying the universality surrounding Eurocentric conceptions of progress.
The imposition of development projects as imposed by the state or large foreign agencies implies a certain smugness that colors any relation within the structure of the project itself unwitting setting up failure. Development and the high level of economic, political and cultural rationality that it hopes to foster can not accurately be employed in most projects. Since Western conceptions have formed and continue to inform policy making decisions,
Therefore, agencies and nation states the dissemination of western concepts and ideals was necessary in order to make non-western societies ready or amenable to development. Critics of monolithic large development such as Cowen and Shenton contend, “that the modern idea of development is necessarily Eurocentric because it was in Europe that development was first meant to create order out of the social disorder of rapid urbanization, poverty and unemployment,” (Gidwani 09/20/05). However, development could and cannot be desired or imposed, it must spring from the needs and aspirations of the people. The colonial independence movement in the eyes of Chakrabarty contained the “political sphere in which the peasant and his masters participated was modern – for else could nationalism be but a modern political movement for self-government?” (Chakrabarty 12) Therefore, the experience lived by members of non-western societies did not lie outside of modernity, but was directly within the confines of modernity.
The entire conception and goal of development apparatuses which stress material well being, and economic salience within a Western capitalist framework operate under specific flawed mechanisms to determine project success. The general gauge into the overall well being of all citizens cannot be determined by mere formulas and statistics. Ray continues, “a correlation between GNP and other desired features is not automatic, and that in many cases such connections may not be present at all,” (Ray 9). Additional tools such as Per Capita Income also contain numerous flaws as part and parcel of the goal of development. Therefore, the success or effectiveness which large development projects are given depends in large part on the way the data is collected, stored and presented. Most gauges of development or well being cannot take into account the complexity of lifestyles across the globe.
Furthermore, the development apparatus instituted for the benefit or improvement of previously marginalized groups always reflects an unequal balance of power that reinforces traditional power structures in new and subversive ways. Povenelli comments specifically on Australia, however the critique extends to most development projects claiming, “by referring to the shame of ‘our’ nation and the good of recognizing ‘their’ laws, ‘their’ culture, ‘their’ traditions, the court is able … confront its own discriminatory practices … even as it reproduces the nation as ‘Anglo-Celtic’ and ‘ours’,”(Povinelli 171). Therefore, even large development projects which seek to eliminate discrimination and promote equality within all segment of a population are unable to do so. Necessarily, large projects reconstitute group identity assigning normative values to the majority group while affixing values of irrationality and superstition to minority groups. The production of the authentic further burdens the non-west or those who do not fit in the national narrative and project of development through cultural expectations keep “others” in prescribed, highly stratified roles, (Labidi 2007).
The Fallacy of Free Trade Buzzword of the neo-liberal, purported savior of national economies, and key to universal development, free trade to many observers offers a global solution to alleviate poverty and raise standards of living. However, to the average farmer, industrial worker or local citizen, free trade has led to anything but the economic, social and political mobility it promises. Free trade leads to creative destruction, critical misallocation of resources, erodes national structures, creates unhealthy competition between nation states, and advises unsustainable levels of accumulation. Linkages between free trade and desirable development are not only false, they are dangerous. Most neo-liberal economists, developmental organizations and international businesses contend that free trade represents the only viable economic strategy to achieve the efficient allocation of resources and the greatest level of economic development. Free trade policy mandates that barriers to the uninhibited movement of goods, technology and intellectual property must be removed. Any form of government interference such as tariffs, subsidies, or welfare programs prevents (in theory) the market from allocating resources for maximum economic growth. Removal of trade barriers allows a nation to export commodities it can produce most efficiently in exchange for an import commodities the nation cannot. When a nation operates correctly allocates resources as dictated by the market; wages, purchasing power and political participation should increase. Free trade therefore facilitates development. Development, for the purpose of this essay is the process to raise the quality of life and standard of living enjoyed by a society. Therefore, free trade policy, dubbed outward orientated economic policy by Jugdish Bhagwati allowed “poverty to decline from an estimated 28 percent in 1978 to 9 percent in 1998 in China Impressive as Bhagwati's numbers may appear, the reality of free trade policy paints a markedly different picture as evidenced by “creative destruction”. The increase in economic attainment within and between nation states is not universal. Harvey remarks that under free trade, “it is not that labor process absolutely cannot work in a particular place, but that it cannot generate a ...rate of profit,” (Harvey In the name of free trade, development and increased productivity; the nature of farming and crop cultivation has changed for the worse. In order to produce the most cost efficient supply of food, free-trade proponents advocate shifting crop production to single homogenized crops available in large quantities for export to the global marketplace. Traditional land tenure structures and farming methods disappear as large-scale farms using mechanized technology take their place. Land restructuring forces millions off their land and creates a jobless, landless and increasingly destitute populace. Reliance upon a single export based crop makes already poor nations even more vulnerable to global commodity price flectuations. In addition, food crops once grown alongside exported crops such as wheat, corns, oats and rice must now be imported. Formerly self-sufficient food producing regions face mal-nutrition and starvation when overpriced imported grains flood the local market. The mono-crop export based style of agriculture supposed to liberate rural populations, promote development and ensure a cheap food supply fails miserably. In fact, multi-crop as opposed to mono-crop agriculture “produces 100 units of food from 5 units of inputs, whereas an industrial (mono-crop) system requires 300 units of input to produce the same 100 units,” (Shiva 2000: 13). The policy of mono-crop and export based agriculture and advocated by free trade proponents hinders development and lowers quality of life rather than improving it. During the time free trade and neo-liberal economic policy gained mainstream acceptance, the erosion of government sponsored social programs and the disparity between rich and poor steadily increased. Post-War societies in the both the global North and South achieved significant growth rates even while worker wages and benefits increased. However, traditional safety net mechanisms associated with the welfare state lost viability under the pressure free trade institutions and corporate flexibility. Elected leaders must weigh the desire of corporations and the promise of “economic development” against the demands of the voters who desire a basic quality of life. Longstanding laws and corporate practices ensuring social benefits have come under fire as business seeks to raise profitability. Workers now pay for the same services that were previously included. This development coupled with the reality that, “the real hourly wage of young males with 12 of fewer years of schooling has dropped more than 20 percent in the last two decades,” has reduced the purchasing power for individuals and families (Rodrik 1997: 11). Therefore, the widening income gap between rich and poor as well as the decreasing ability for national governments to serve its citizens stands in stark contrast to the egalitarian virtue espoused by free trade adherents. Free-trade’s adherents claim, by adopting its strategy in the formation of economic and governmental policy, nation-states occupying the global South can eventually turn their primary production based economies into diverse, multi-faceted economies. Many economists reflect that low-skilled, labor intensive industries represent the first stage in industrialization. However, many nation states occupying the global South must lower social and economic standards to lure transnational employers in search of the greatest profits margins to build facilities and create jobs. Nation-states compete, making working conditions and workers right, and environmental resources expendable. Furthermore, many corporations that operate under special tax agreements generate no governmental income nor any increased spending for social services. Per Naomi Klein, “development has built on starving wages, and far from kick-starting a steady improvement in conditions, (free trade) has proved to be a case of one step forward, three steps back,” (Klein 228). Labor thus becomes a commodified resource, even though it is fixed and non-transferable. The high-sounding rhetoric of free trade cannot mask the social scars of misguided development as nation-states fight for, rather than share economic prosperity. Even at the theory’s very core, the rapid increases in standards of living, rises in the level of development and universal amieloration of poverty for all global citizens assured under the doctrine of free trade are simply untenable. Many economic policy theorists believe a growth rate of ten percent per year would allow the global South to eventually resemble the differentiated economy and society of the global North. However, in order to achieve this shift, a nation must discard traditional loyalties to its people and place a premium on material accumulation. This narrow viewpoint obscures evidence that almost every society and nation on earth contained mechanisms to support its populace, reduce poverty and encourage beneficial development before the advent of free trade. Serge LeTouche clearly demonstrates the fallacy of Free Trade theory by explaining, “Such unlimited growth, at the rate of 10 percent per year, will lead to 736 times more production within a century. What could that mean, living 736 times better?” (LeTouche 1997:142). Therefore, Free Trade and culture of accumulation it promotes and unrealistic and flawed view even in theory.
Clearly, for all of its supposed success, Free Trade policy presents many contradictions and failures. Free Trade theory collapses under the weight of critical real world observations and from well informed theoretical analysis. The link between free trade and development (an increase in the quality of life) cannot be considered automatic. Instead, free trade has produced uneven cycles of capital accumulation and growth known as creative destruction with serious political, economic and social consequences. Free trade and its emphasis on export based primary products have turned food surplus nations into mal-nourished and less-developed populations. The welfare state and corporate responsibility have declined in the face of free trade adherents who claim such structures to be a barrier to economic progress. Nation-states compete with one another for jobs leading to a devaluing of worker’s right and the environment. Even in theory, free and its subsequent development demands an unsustainable level of accumulation. Therefore, the case against free trade and its putative link to development clearly shows the far-reaching consequences of such a system.
A New Way of Thinking
Crucial to any successful, or perhaps more correctly, relatively successful development program fosters community growth through participation and a more self sustaining growth mechanism as local communities members gain increasing agency to influence change. Micro-development and participatory development do not exclude cultural relevance by placing economics as the central instrumentation of policy. The process of development now takes into effect the relation between domination and resistance allows for greater policy adaptability to increase mutual benefits. A key analyst of the new conception and implementation of development, Mosse reflects, “program success depends upon the active enrollment of supporters including the beneficiaries,” (Mosse 646). Those who the project is intended to help, can help ensure the programs success through active participation and are crucial to correct policy implementation and formulation. Mosse continues, “Success in development depends upon the stabilization of a particular interpretation, a policy model,” (Mosse 646). Thus the manner of new development, the local avoids many of the most pressing concerns of larger development.
Drawing upon the above conceptions, interpretations and problems, I advocate an alternative theory of development stressing above all else self sufficiency whenever possible, connecting the local to the regional, and regional to the national. However, policy goals should be determined at the local level which would determine the level of resource allocation for a particular project. Community orientated projects would encourage the development of a local cadre of leaders, local support networks and initiatives and create broad employment for a variety of sectors. Self-production orientated within communities encourages cultural, political and economic responsibility and does not leave development in the authority of agencies or foreign nations with ulterior biases and motives. Projects advocating conservatory methods multiplied on regional and national levels would have positive implications. Jobs created for recycling programs would reduce a dependence on wasteful domestic production and decrease insistence on non-renewable imports. Such a theory reveals that development can neither be imposed, nor have the cultural and social ramifications ignored. In short, alternative development models mixing a healthy dose of non-hegemonic socialism practiced on the local level would universally raise standards of living while simultaneously breaking down unequal power structures within traditional development models.
In conclusion, the outdated large-scale models lose salience under the weight of sustained critiques dismissing them as necessarily Eurocentric and hardly universal. Geographically divergent small development models attempt to reconcile earlier developmental problems but do not wholly succeed. Therefore, the strategy articulated above provides a coherent, rational alternative to increasingly unrealistic expectations and scenarios.
Gidwani, Vinay. “Cowen and Shenton Lecture Notes from 9.20.2005.” Global Studies 3302 (Minneapolis , MN : University of Minnesota Moore, Donald S. (2000) “The Crucible of Cultural Politics: Reworking Development in Zimbabwe ’s Eastern Highlands .” American Ethnologist Vol. 26 (Washington D.C. Mosse, David. (2004) Is Good Policy Unimplementable? Reflections of the Ethnography of Aid Policy and Practice. Development and Change Vol. 35 (London Princeton , NJ : Princeton University 
No comments:
Post a Comment