MODO Module 1 Book Chapters PDF

1 Doing development Learning goals ToTo recognize the continuing need for development. exist, and the complex have an outline of the range and role of development organizations that networks of activity in which...

1 Doing development Learning goals ToTo recognize the continuing need for development. exist, and the complex have an outline of the range and role of development organizations that networks of activity in which they are engaged. has changed over time and according To understand that development is a contested concept whose definition to perspective. done, that can be achieved, but that thisviewed To appreciate that development is often as something that is is not the only way to understand development. To have an awareness of the major changes in development understanding over the past 65 years. To be familiar with the contemporary agenda of Millennium Development Goals. Introduction Have you ever donated money to a charity working in sub-Saharan Africa, or used an online system to contribute to an appeal following a natural disaster: the Indian Ocean tsunami or Haiti earthquake perhaps? Do television campaigns highlighting the extent of child poverty provoke an emotional reaction, or do you find yourself questioning why such inequalities in conditions still exist today? Have you ever participated in an event to raise money for a charity working in a developing country, or used your mobile phone to send money in support of a particular appeal? If you can relate to these examples, then you have contributed or connected to some of the organizations that exist within the development sector. You have also engaged with the continuing reality of poverty across the globe, and the continuing justification of strategies implemented by organizations that aim to achieve development. However, have you considered why these development organizations were established and why they adopt particular strategies and tactics, including those that you might have participated in? Are you aware of how they operate with the many other organizations within the 2  Doing development development sector, or how effective they actually are in meeting their own goals or the aims of development policies? This book addresses these various issues in order to explain which organizations are involved in development and how they have evolved in the modern era of development, and to evaluate their motivations, strategies and the outcomes of their activities. The need for ‘development’ More than half of the people of the world are living in conditions approaching misery. Their food is inadequate. They are victims of disease. Their economic life is primitive and stagnant. Their poverty is a handicap and a threat both to them and to more prosperous areas. (Truman 1949) This quotation, from a speech by the president of the United States of America in 1949, represented recognition of the existence of poverty in many parts of the world and inequalities within and between countries. It also heralded the post-war modern era of development, as Truman advocated that countries with greater material, industrial and scientific wealth should work to assist other nations to achieve a better life. He argued that, ‘for the first time in history, humanity possesses the knowledge and the skill to relieve the suffering of these people’, and that wealthier nations ‘should foster capital investment in areas needing development’, representing ‘a worldwide effort for the achievement of peace, plenty, and freedom’ (Truman 1949). This optimism about the power of investment and technology, and the emphasis on cooperation to achieve global goals, defines the early post-war era of development. However, the results of this worldwide effort were rather mixed. The past quarter century has seen great progress in developing countries. In virtually all of them, income has risen faster than population, with a consequent rise in income per person. Economic growth has been accompanied by a rapid expansion of education systems, growing literacy, improvements in nutrition and health conditions, increasing technological sophistication, and structural changes, including a growing industrial base and greater urbanization. (World Bank 1978:1) And yet despite this impressive record, some 800 million individuals continue to be trapped in what I have termed absolute poverty: a condition of life so characterized by malnutrition, illiteracy, disease, squalid surroundings, high infant mortality, and low life expectancy as to be beneath any reasonable  Doing development  3 definition of human decency … the twin objectives of development, then are to accelerate economic growth and to reduce poverty. (McNamara, cited in World Bank 1978:iii) Truman’s early optimism and identification of poverty as a problem, and development as its solution, are reflected in the first World Development Report (WDR) produced around 30 years later by the World Bank. However, another 30 years on, the language is depressingly familiar, as the 2010 World Development Report admits that ‘the needs remain enormous, with the number of hungry people having passed the 1 billion mark this year for the first time in history. With so many still in poverty and hunger, growth and poverty alleviation remain the overarching priority for developing countries’ (World Bank 2010:2). Figures 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 demonstrate the continued existence of poverty and the persistence of significant global inequalities in development, while Plate 1.1 depicts the poor quality of housing and living conditions in Asia’s largest slum, Dharavi in Mumbai. In particular, South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa demonstrate significantly lower levels of income, education and health attainment in comparison with other regions. It is clear, therefore, that there is a continuing need for development to address issues of poverty, inequality and environmental degradation. It is this need that has resulted in the emergence and evolution of a wide range of organizations involved in addressing aspects of the development process and attempting to enhance people’s quality of life. Range and role of development organizations Organizations involved in the development process vary considerably, in terms of their scale and scope, the focus of their activities, their power, their sphere of influence, their evolution and their geographical location. They include the global governance organizations of the UN system, international financial institutions including the World Bank and International Monetary Fund that provide financial and technical assistance to developing countries and transnational and multinational corporations and the foundations connected to them, all with global reach and power to shape countries, regions and individual lives. There are also thousands of non-governmental organizations engaged in development work, from the international giants like Oxfam and Save the Children, to community-based organizations offering microfinance services to the local population. Civil society  No Expected yers of schooling GNI per capita rth 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 er nA me No ric a rth 0 er 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 Oc nA me 45,000 ea ric nia a Eu Oc ro 4  Doing development pe Eu ea ro nia an pe d Eu Ce ro nt pe Eu ra ro lA an sia d pe Ce nt Ea ra st lA As As sia ia ia Region an Ea d st th As eP ia As Source: based on data from UNDP (http://hdr.undp.org). ac an ia ific d th eP Region So ac ut ific Figure 1.1 GNI per capita in 2011 in PPP terms La hA tin sia Am So er Ar La ut Figure 1.2 Expected years of schooling (of children) ica ab tin hA Source: based on data from UNDP (http://hdr.undp.org, accessed 2012) an St Am sia d ate s er th ica Ar ab eC ar an St ibb d ate ea th s n eC ar ibb ea Su Af ric n b- a Sa ha ra Su Af nA b- ric fric Sa a a ha ra nA fric a  Doing development  5 Figure 1.3 Life expectancy at birth (years) 90 Life Expectancy (years) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 a nia pe sia ia ific sia s n a a ate ric ric fric ea As ro lA hA ac ea ibb me Af St nA Eu eP Oc ra ut nA ar ab nt ra So th eC Ce Ar ha er d rth Sa th an d an b- No d ia an Su pe As ica ro st Eu er Ea Am tin Region La Source: based on data from UNDP (http://hdr.undp.org, accessed 2012) Plate 1.1 Living conditions in Dharavi, Mumbai, India: Asia’s largest slum. Source: erin from Evanston. (CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)), via Wikimedia Commons. 6  Doing development movements are also involved in the development process, perhaps campaigning for better rights for workers, or acting to highlight injustices and raise awareness of issues. Faith-based organizations have always been important actors in development and their relevance has increased in recent times due to variations in religious tolerance and the increased visibility of religious fundamentalism. For these smaller organizations, their power and funding may be limited but their reach, relevance and effectiveness may be far greater. At national level, the state remains an important development actor, and is influenced by research institutes, think-tanks and academia. The state can also exert influence in developing countries through the military, particularly in immediate post-conflict situations and after natural disasters. Groupings of nation states are also important actors; for example the Group of 8 (G8) and the Group of 20 (G20) major economies and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) wield considerable financial power and political influence. The range of development organizations and the focus of their activities are summarized in Table 1.1. Together, they comprise what has been termed the development sector, industry or community. Table 1.1 demonstrates a number of key issues. First, the wide range of organizations or actors to be considered. Second, that each type of organization is guided by a particular view of the development process, and that this view may well change over time. Third, that the range and role of development organizations has expanded and altered over time. In particular, the dominance of the state as the development actor in the first part of the twentieth century has been superseded by a more complex network of organizations of different sizes, goals, activities, power and scope. A network of development organizations Over the past 60 years, a large and complicated network of organizations involved in the creation and implementation of development policy and practice has evolved. Rather than view these organizations as a hierarchy, with the multilaterals including the UN and the large multinational corporations at the top of the development tree, this book argues that it is far more effective and realistic to understand each organization as part of an increasingly complex network of interactions, flows and interdependencies. Within this network, organizations can, and do, work together to  Doing development  7 Table 1.1 Summary of development organizations and actors Organization View of development/development Activities and scale of focus theory UN agencies Evolved over time. Initial dominance Global scale: can set development of modernization theory. It is an agenda, provide technical, military organization of nations therefore the and monetary assistance. Large role of the state is key range of areas of activity and partners International financial Neoliberal view, particularly since the Global scale: can set agenda and institutions (IFIs) 1980s, with some softening of focus on provide considerable monetary market dominance in recent years assistance, usually provisional on implementation of national strategies Regional governance Neoliberal view, but continued power Regional scale: can be involved in aid organizations and of the state as regional entities are provision within or from the region. regional IFIs ultimately representing national Emphasis on promoting economic and interests social progress within a region (International) Grassroots approach, with emphasis Varies according to size of the non-governmental on sustainability, participation, organization. Can include small-scale organizations (NGOs) empowerment and a rights-based community-based projects, lobbying approach to development governments and corporations, fundraising and awareness-raising and distribution of aid State Modernization theory saw a key role Local to national government for the state, while the neoliberal era activities. Includes infrastructure and saw its role drastically altered to focus service provision, welfare provision, on the reduction of regulation and tax collection, economic strategy, etc. the privatization of profits. Increased contemporary regulatory role particularly as a result of economic recession National development Development view guided by Research, consultancy, government research organizations contemporary theory and academic briefings, publication and perspective and background dissemination Military Short-term perspective on the Peacekeeping, peace-building, development process, with particular post-conflict reconstruction and emphasis on seeking and implementing development technical solutions Community-based Grassroots approach Small-scale community-based groups activities, including small projects, microfinance services, small enterprise development, education schemes, etc. Other civil society Grassroots, rights-based approach Can operate at a range of scales, with movements and local events prompting global action organizations Transnational Neoliberal view, representing the market Can be small companies or global corporations and other and drawing on benefits of globalization corporations with operations in variety private companies and the freer movement of people, of countries. Emphasis on seeking goods, services, money economic comparative advantage Philanthropic Funding potential of contemporary Varies according to the size of the organizations, foundations often made possible organization. Can have financial and including foundations through adherence of private companies political power to influence global to neoliberal principles. Funding from agendas and undertake a multiscale foundations is provided to organizations approach, with activities at global and representing a range of development local levels approaches 8  Doing development influence the development process and drive the development agenda. A network perspective also highlights the varying strengths and weaknesses of each type of organization, and helps to demonstrate how a collaborative and context-specific approach to development has evolved. The value of exploring the development community as a network is that it draws attention to the relationships between organizations, as well as the organizations themselves. In particular, it helps to recognize the role of horizontal, as well as vertical, connections between and within organizations, and in doing so the importance of scale and place is evident. It also emphasizes the importance of power, conflict and the decision-making activities that take place through these connections and relationships. For example, a large international non-governmental organization (INGO) will have groups of employees working on different aspects of its operation, including fundraising, education, disaster response, longer-term development projects and head office functions. There is considerable potential for conflict within these horizontal relationships, perhaps related to decisions over the strategic direction of the INGO, the allocation of resources to different departments or teams and the tension between humanitarian relief and development activities (Nederveen Pieterse 2010). The INGO will also have more vertical relationships to local NGO partners ‘on the ground’, which are involved in implementing the projects and distributing the funding. These are likely to be smaller organizations in terms of their size and resources, and as such are dependent on the INGO for their continued ability to operate. However, their position as local distributors for the INGO also puts them in a position of power. The INGO will also be connected to other INGOs who may be competing for funding from the large range of private, national and multilateral donors. Adherence to global development strategy and priorities also forms another connection between the INGO and global governance organizations. Access to resources, knowledge, donors, partners and recipients can represent considerable accumulation of power, and depends fundamentally on the nature of the relationships involved. This network of relationships is summarized in Figure 1.4, with the example of an INGO at the centre of the network. Development organizations are inherently social as they are composed of individual people, and as such the networks that they form can be said to be self-organizing, emergent and complex. These concepts are used in a number of different areas of study, including systems  Doing development  9 Figure 1.4 Network of relationships within the development sector. Multi- Nation Private lateral state (as Global sector donors donor) governance Global INGO INGO INGO Departments Teams Individuals Nation state (as recipient) Local (NGO) partner Local stakeholders Individual (e.g. village participants/ councils) recipients Local theory and complexity science, and they explain that large-scale or global patterns and characteristics are formed from smaller-scale or local interactions and attributes (Byrne 1998). These global properties are different from the sum of their parts, and are therefore more than the combined characteristics of the individuals within them. These global, or emergent, properties of the system, including the way it operates, arise as a result of the actions and interactions of local actors, governed by relatively simple rules within the system, but they cannot be reduced to this local level of action (Stacey 2001). That is, the relationship between individual actions and those of the organization as a whole is not linear. Examples include the emergence of communication networks, cooperation (Contractor 1999), divisions 10  Doing development of labour (Agar 1999), group norms, traditions and habits. This means that to understand a system, it is necessary to take a holistic perspective: to view the wholes in relation to their parts, which are themselves wholes to be viewed in relation to their parts (Uphoff 1996). Consider a football match: this would make little sense if the viewer focused only on the actions of one player throughout. It is only in watching the interactions of all the players on both teams that it is possible to understand the patterns and result of the match as a whole. To gain a similar appreciation of the development sector it must also be understood as a system, comprising individual organizations as systems that are themselves made up of smaller systems of teams, groups and individuals. Focusing on development organizations and the sector as a whole using a systems perspective is therefore valuable as ‘to understand things systematically literally means to put them into a context, to establish the nature of their relationships’ (Capra 1997:27). This can inform an exploration of the operation of individual organizations as well as considerations of how organizations work together, by emphasizing the relationships between individuals and organizations, the power embedded in those relationships and the decisions that are made through those relationships. Development organizations do not operate as individual entities and understanding their interaction is essential for understanding the process of contemporary development. For example, they may be connected through funding relationships, advisory or advocacy roles, or implementation or monitoring activities. They can include relationships between donor and recipient governments, developed and developing country-based NGOs, NGOs and the target ‘community’, central and local government, and between agencies within the UN system. As Robinson et al. (2000:3) argue: [M]anagement of interactions between development organizations, and between types of organizations, can fairly be seen as the essence of how development takes place. The multiple actors involved have at least partially differing values; usually no single individual or organization can control the process; nor can the outcomes be very clearly set in advance. Case studies will be used in this book to map out some of these connections and contrasts in values in order to illustrate the nature of this development network.  Doing development  11 For example, INGOs like Oxfam work with community-based organizations on small-scale solutions to poverty and injustice, but also have powerful lobbying roles to influence government and multilateral agendas. They are also involved in distributing funding and government aid. Large multinational companies have started to invest more explicitly in development through foundations, including the Gates Foundation, developed from the success of the Microsoft Corporation, which collaborates with NGOs, businesses and governments to achieve desired goals through provision of funding. The World Bank works with other international institutions, including regional development banks and national development agencies, including the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DfID) and USAID, the US government agency responsible for economic and humanitarian assistance. The World Bank also works with national professional and academic associations and civil society organizations, including faith-based groups, NGOs, trade unions and community-based organizations. At this point, it is important to clarify the definition of the term ‘organization’, which has been used quite deliberately in this book, while the term ‘institution’ has been used to refer to the international financial institutions of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Organizations and institutions There is a lack of clarity over the definition of these terms and the difference between them. Much confusion arises as a result of their interchangeable use in everyday language, where the term institution is often used as a loose synonym for a group or collectivity. Organizations are collective enterprises which exist for specific purposes, and can include business corporations, schools, churches, charities. In contrast, institutions represent the more enduring and often more abstract features of social life that tend to be reproduced, and could include family, marriage, religion, government, education, the economy, the free market, civil society and the state (Mohr and Friedland 2008; Brett 2000). Mohr and White (2008:425) view institutions as ‘linkage mechanisms that bridge across three kinds of social divides – they link micro systems of social interaction to meso (and macro) levels of organization, they connect the symbolic with the material, and the agentic with the structural’. ‘Institutions are sets “of rules that structure social interactions in particular ways”, 12  Doing development based on knowledge “shared by members of the relevant community or society”’ (Knight 1992:2 in Brett 2000:18). These norms, rules and habits govern society at large and they influence the structure, function and behaviour of organizations, which are ‘groups of individuals bound by some common purpose which come together to achieve joint objectives’ (North 1990:4 in Brett 2000:18). It is possible, therefore, to undertake an institutional analysis of organizations, but it is important to avoid conflation of the two terms. A formal organizational structure can reflect institutional forces: these might include rule-like frameworks, rational myths, knowledge legitimated through education systems, by social prestige, by laws and the courts (W.R. Scott 2008). The institutional elements that exist within organizations, including rules, norms and beliefs, are formed through interaction of the people involved, as well as being borrowed from the environment outside the organization. These institutional elements (structures and processes) constrain and empower social behaviour: i.e. they have a strong influence on what the organization can and cannot do as well as affecting the scope of the organization’s agenda and power. ‘Effective organizations depend on the existence of institutions which create rules which everyone (including the manager) must accept, thus subordinating their personal needs and interests to those of the organisation as a whole’ (Brett 2000:19). In this book, we are looking quite deliberately at the structure, function, aims and effects of development organizations. However, it is important to recognize the institutional elements that influence these organizations. Organizations are subsumed within and are influenced by wider social contexts and these institutional forces can affect the organization from outside and from within (W.R. Scott 2008). For example, cultural values and behaviours can become institutionalized in any organization (Kondra and Hurst 2009). A key concern, as will be seen throughout this book, is how organizations respond to institutional pressures, whether through superficial or more substantial changes in rules and operation, and the long-term effects of that organizational evolution. Certain organizations can also have institutional effects, impacting the policy agenda beyond the specific organization. It is for this reason that the World Bank and International Monetary Fund are referred to as institutions, reflecting the extent of their influence on other organizations within the development network.  Doing development  13 Development organizations Development organizations can be seen as rather different from other organizations. Robinson et al. (2000:3) argue that this is particularly evident through the difference in aims: The key aims of development organizations and of development action are externally directed to the public sphere rather than, as in most organisations, being principally internal. They are goals which have to do with the quality of people’s lives rather than simply with production or profits. These goals are shaped by the history, vision, activities and success of the organizations, and are inevitably underpinned by different meanings and visions of development and different theories of how development can and should be achieved. Each of these organizations has its own perspective on what development means, the purpose of the development process, the strategy towards the desired development result and the barriers standing in the way of achieving this result. These perspectives guide the activities of these organizations, they structure their policies and programmes and they define their mission statements. These organizations cannot be fully understood, and their successes and failures cannot be effectively evaluated, without reference to the development definition, vision and understanding that underpin them. In each chapter, these elements of each organization type are discussed, in order to enable greater awareness and appreciation of the operation and outcomes of different development organizations. Defining development Development definitions, which are linked to underlying theories of development and perspectives on the desired goal of development, have varied over time and according to academic discipline. Much debate also centres on dimensions of development, with early policies and projects focusing explicitly on economic development, a result of defining development as ‘modernity’ (Willis 2005). Over the past 60 years, a more holistic view of development has emerged, expressed through the ideas of basic needs, human development and more complex concepts including wellbeing, which incorporates material, non-material and subjective dimensions of development (McGregor 2007). This means that while income and physical possessions are 14  Doing development important, it is increasingly recognized that emphasis on these material aspects should not override consideration of other non-material aspects including relationships, security, self-esteem, skills and aspirations. While this book does not intend to grapple with critiquing the many and varied discussions over development definitions, it does attempt to link different definitions and theories of development with particular development organizations and the visions and goals they foster, and the activities they promote in order to reach these goals. It is vital to connect understandings of development with motivations and activities, in order to evaluate the operations and effectiveness of the various actors in the development community. There are many different definitions of development. Many are contested, some overlap, they vary according to academic perspective and position in the development community and they have evolved over time. Generally speaking, development is a process of change or evolution to something more advanced or elaborate (Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English). The term ‘development’ is used often within everyday life, added to terms including housing, child, personal, industrial, product, technology and many others to indicate some kind of change in these areas, as well as suggesting a process of planning and guiding these changes (Potter et al. 2008). On a global scale, Potter et al. (2008) argue that development discussions refer to the gap between ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ nations and the strategies to reduce this gap by enabling the advancement of ‘developing’ countries. Hence, in the international development arena, Chambers (2004 in Sumner and Tribe 2008a) argues that development can be seen as good change, though quite what constitutes good change is not clear and is an obvious point of contention. The advancement or ‘development’ of a country means different things to different people, and even if there is agreement on the desired goal, the process of reaching that goal can also be highly contested. Sumner and Tribe (2008a) posit that there are three broad definitions of or perspectives on development. The first is that development is a process of historical change, involving structural transformations and long timescales. They argue that this perspective is emphasized by the academic or research parts of the development community. However, the long timescales involved mean that it has limited relevance for practitioners and policy-makers, who tend to operate within much shorter time periods.  Doing development  15 The second perspective on development is as a set of short- to medium-term goals, progress towards which can be measured using indicators. A key concern with this view of development is that of ownership, with indicators, targets and goals set by governments, and those governments wielding the most power to set the agenda will be those in the developed, rather than the developing world. Therefore ‘there is a paternalistic assumption as to what is good for people’s well-being based on a set of universal values and characteristics’ (Sumner and Tribe 2008a:13). The third conceptualization of development, according to Sumner and Tribe, is a post-modern view of development as a ‘dominant discourse of Western modernity’ (2008a:14). It is a critique of the first two perspectives on development, and highlights the assumptions of superiority that underpin approaches to development, the nature of development and poverty as social constructs and the view of the developing world as inferior because of its difference from the developed world. Within this critique is a recognition that development has come to be associated with some form of intervention. Indeed, Nederveen Pieterse (2010:3) defines development in the modern sense as ‘the organised intervention in collective affairs according to a standard of improvement’ and argues that what constitutes improvement and appropriate intervention is negotiated through different development theories. This coincides with one of the definitions of development identified by Gasper (2004 in Potter et al. 2008:5), as ‘intervention and action, aimed at improvement, regardless of whether betterment is, in fact, actually achieved’. This brings us to another key point of contention in the international development arena: the normative nature of development. There is a strong sense in the development community and literature that development ought to be good; that changes and interventions ought to yield positive outcomes and that these outcomes should be positively received by all. As Rigg (2007) details, development can be interpreted as bringing a range of good changes: economic growth, national progress, modernization along Western lines, provision of basic needs, sustainable growth and improved governance. However, the reality can be rather different, as alternative interpretations of the process of development show, where development is seen as a dependent and subordinate process: it creates and widens inequalities, it undermines local cultures and values, it perpetuates poverty 16  Doing development and poor working and living conditions, it is environmentally unsustainable, it infringes human rights and undermines democracy. The range of development issues is as wide as the debates over meanings and interpretations. Development is multidimensional and the dimensions are arguably interdependent in that they can all affect one another. The areas that ‘development’ covers include health and education, child poverty, urban and rural development, housing, gender roles and (in)equality, population growth, globalization, industrialization and economic growth and natural resource use. A wide range of terminology is also used to indicate different geographic areas of interest and the relationships between them. It is important to recognize that these terms are not neutral and embody a particular vision of development, and a particular set of power relations. For example, the use of the term ‘third world’ was originally intended to indicate an alternative path, differing from capitalism and communism. However, it has come to suggest a ranking position and so its use has declined. Many terms that are used denote a division of the globe into two, with North and South, developed and developing, minority and majority as prominent examples. While these binaries can be convenient they do represent a simplification and obscuring of global and national realities and differences. In this book, the binary of developed and developing world is used where necessary, bearing in mind the limitations and inaccuracies already noted. Doing development The term ‘development’ is now commonly used by development organizations to mean the intentional doing of development to reach short- to medium-term desirable targets. At present, this relates directly to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (see Box 1.1). The study of development organizations means that this book quite deliberately adopts this discourse of development as something that is done, that good change can be implemented through strategies, policies and programmes, and that goals can be achieved through interventions of organizations, measured by indicators. As a result, it highlights that development is not only a political process of decision-making and strategy formation, but also a technical activity with specific projects and outcomes. However, underlying the discussion of development  Doing development  17 organizational activity, and their mixed successes, is an inherent critique of this view of development, a topic to which the book’s conclusion will return. Even within this perspective, there is considerable contestation however, over how development is actually done, and a brief tour of the history of development since the mid-twentieth century will help to highlight this. Historical context of development post-1945 Sixty years of ‘development’ since the emergence of post-war Europe in the 1940s shows that there is considerable messiness in the reality of development interventions, not least because of power relations and the reality of social, cultural, political, economic and environmental contexts. Views of what development means, what theories underpin it and strategies to achieve it have continually changed and evolved, and this book is not the place to attempt to cover the entire range of development thinking. What follows is a summary of the main approaches to development that have guided the discipline. These are illustrated in Table 1.2, which includes some of the key thinkers and influences that became prominent and guided understandings of development during those time periods. International development as an intentional process for the developing world, guided by organizations, strategies, policies and programmes, has occurred predominantly since the late 1940s. As Willis (2005) argues, at this time there was increased international discussion about how ‘development’ was to occur, and international organizations were established to try to achieve ‘development’. Much of this discussion is reflected in the inaugural address made in 1949 by Harry S. Truman as president of the United States, when he used the term ‘underdeveloped areas’ to describe what would become known as the third world (Potter et al. 2008). During this speech, delivered during a period of increasing concern over the rise of communism and the threat from the USSR and its allies, he also positioned the West into a ‘development-bringing’ role: a created position of power that arguably still underpins much development activity today: We must embark on a bold new program for making the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas … For the first time in history, humanity possesses the knowledge and skill to relieve the suffering of these people. (Truman 1949) 18  Doing development Table 1.2 Summary of different understandings and theories of development Time period Development approach Development understanding Key thinkers and influences 1800s Classical political Catching up, Ricardo, Smith, Marx economy industrialization, although not couched in ‘development’ terminology 1850s Colonial economics Resource management, trusteeship 1930s, 1940s Development economics Economic growth, Keynes, Hirschman industrialization 1950s, 1960s Modernization theory Linear progress, economic Rostow, Lewis, growth, social and cultural Myrdal modernization 1960s, 1970s Dependency theory National-centred Frank, Prebisch, development, development Cardoso, Rodney, of underdevelopment Wallerstein 1970s, 1980s Basic needs, Human flourishing, providing McNamara, Boserup, Grassroots, Alternative basic needs for the poorest. Streeten development, Women in Emphasis on local-level development (WID) community development and the role of women in development 1980s onwards Neoliberalism Market-led economic growth Lal, Balassa, advocating deregulation, Friedman, World privatization, liberalization Bank, International Monetary Fund 1980s onwards Human development, Human capacities and Sen, Chambers, Gender and development entitlements, participation, UNDP, Cooke and (GAD), empowerment, role of Kothari, Edwards Sustainable development gender relationships and and Hulme, Moser, societal expectations, role Brundtland, Kabeer, of the natural environment Elson, Momsen, Shiva, Blaikie 1990s Post-development Challenges idea of Escobar, Sachs, ‘development’ as a form of Esteva continued colonialism and Eurocentrism 2000s Millennium Development Specific goals to alleviate United Nations Goals poverty, measured by specific indicators by 2015 2000s Diverse interdisciplinary Wellbeing, sustainable Kabeer, Momsen, views development, localism and O’Riordan, Redclift, Optimistic post- decentralization McGregor and Gough development Sources: adapted from Nederveen Pieterse (2010); Willis (2005); Potter et al. (2008).  Doing development  19 Prior to this, much thinking about development did occur, although it was not necessarily couched in the same terminology. For example, Marx was concerned with issues of economic growth in the nineteenth century, but from a political economy perspective, with the aim of catching up with the advanced industrialized economies (Nederveen Pieterse 2010). This view has earlier origins in the work of Adam Smith and David Ricardo and in the Enlightenment thinking of the eighteenth century, which ‘stressed the belief that science and rational thinking could progress human groups from barbarism to civilisation’ (Potter et al. 2008:6). A rational, scientific approach to all issues became equated with a Western approach, as the Enlightenment was a movement of European intellectuals, and those who did not conform to its principles were considered backward and traditional. In this way, the concept of development became directly associated with Western values and ideologies (Potter et al. 2008). As the nineteenth century progressed, with the radical changes of the industrial revolution, development became equated with economic growth and progress, as well as modernization and Westernization of society and culture. At the start of the post-war era of development, the aim was modernity, achieved through industrialization and shaped by a particular Westernized vision of what the result of development should be. Developing countries were supposed to ‘catch up’ with the rest in the West, with the state as the key agent in the development process. This process involved the transformation of ‘traditional’ countries into modern, Westernized nations (Potter et al. 2008). This era, from the late 1940s to early 1960s, saw the prominence of modernization- theory-inspired linear models of progress, including Rostow’s take-off model, which suggested that all countries could move through stages of development on their path to modernity and a Western- inspired future. This emphasis on a Western vision highlighted that development was no longer just about economic advancements, but had broadened to encompass political and social modernization, including nation-building and encouraging entrepreneurship (Nederveen Pieterse 2010). The emphasis in modernization-focused strategies was on large-scale, top-down projects, with economic growth as the main driver. The benefits of these projects were intended to trickle down to individual people, for example through job creation as a result of a stronger economy and more industrial opportunities. People would have greater incomes and so could then improve their own quality of life. Changes in lifestyle would 20  Doing development result, enabling the social modernization that was also promoted. Governments would also have greater tax revenues and improved infrastructure as a result of these mega-projects, including dams for hydroelectric power (HEP), which would then allow more spending on other sectors beyond the economy. This idea of trickle-down and the inherently uneven nature of development was put forward by Hirschman in 1958, when he argued that development would take place first in the core regions and then trickle down to the peripheral or ‘backward’ regions (Hirschman 1988). However, over the past 60 years, much of this thinking has changed. Modernity has been questioned as the desired end goal for a number of reasons. These include the ecological problems that have resulted, the consequences of the technological change that it promotes and the failure of the process of trickle-down to bring improvements to all people and places. In addition, a Western vision of the future is no longer as desirable or realistic in the context of cultural and religious diversity; many other actors have overtaken the role of the state in the development process; and the idea of a linear route to one ambition has been widely discredited (Nederveen Pieterse 2010). Modernization theory was not without its contemporaneous critics. In the 1950s and 1960s, dependency theory gained prominence particularly in Latin America, in newly independent countries including India and many African nations and in other countries searching for a third way, beyond the Western ‘first world’ and the communist states. While dependency theory also emphasized economic growth, it encouraged the growth of national infant industries through import substitution industrialization (ISI). Advocates of dependency argued that incorporation into the world trading system as a peripheral rather than a core component resulted in the continuation of a dependent and draining relationship to the advanced industrialized core, rather than the creation of a strong, independent, sustainable economy. This thinking was exemplified in the work of writers including Andre Gunder Frank and Raul Prebisch. Frank coined the phrase ‘the development of underdevelopment’ in his 1966 work, which argued that the capitalist system required both conditions – development and underdevelopment – to exist (Nederveen Pieterse 2010). The maintenance of underdeveloped conditions in certain parts of the world was a necessary result of the growth and prosperity in other areas. Integration into the global trading system and network was argued to be the main cause of this  Doing development  21 situation, and the closer the link between satellite regions and central metropoles, the more the development of the satellites is hindered. As with other approaches to development, dependency theory has now been widely discredited. Key reasons for this include the economistic focus of the approach, with little consideration of social, cultural and political factors, or internal factors affecting the nature of a country’s development. The success of import substitution industrialization was also limited and many of the countries involved turned to a combination of national industrial encouragement combined with integration into the global economy and export markets (see Chapter 4 for further discussion of the impact of ISI). The success of the newly industrializing countries (NICs) including South Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong through active participation in the global market also highlighted the limitations of the dependency view, as these countries have progressed from satellite towards metropole status. Increased human focus The 1970s saw a move away from a sole focus on development as economic growth. There was recognition that the benefits of large- scale projects and economy-focused strategies were not trickling down to households and individuals, and were not improving people’s everyday lives. Instead, the poor were remaining poor, and the gap between the rich and the poor was increasing. As a result, an increased focus on basic human needs emerged, with greater emphasis on basic health care, housing and sanitation, food and water supply and basic education. This focus on basic needs and social development was followed in the 1980s by a deeper understanding of human development. This discussion was led in particular by Amartya Sen’s work on entitlements and the capacity to choose and act (Sen 1983, 1999), and was also reflected in Robert Chambers’ work on changing the focus to look at the poorest first, rather than last (Chambers 1983, 1997). This changing understanding of development, putting people at the centre of the development process, was reflected in the United Nations Development Programme’s Human Development Reports, the first of which was published in 1990, which defined development as a ‘process of enlarging people’s choices’ (UNDP 1990:1): Development enables people to have these choices. No one can guarantee human happiness, and the choices people make are their own concern. But the process of development should at least create a conducive environment for 22  Doing development people, individually and collectively, to develop their full potential and to have a reasonable chance of leading productive and creative lives in accord with their needs and interests. (UNDP 1990:1) This emphasis is reaffirmed in the 2010 report: Human development is the expansion of people’s freedoms to live long, healthy and creative lives; to advance other goals they have reason to value; and to engage actively in shaping development equitably and sustainably on a shared planet. People are both the beneficiaries and the drivers of human development, as individuals and in groups. (UNDP 2010:2) This turn towards human development, or populist approaches, also included rhetoric around participation and empowerment. These ideas, and the strategies to attempt to achieve them, are discussed in more detail in Chapters 6 and 7, as they underpin the vision and approach of NGOs, whose numbers started to grow during this period of development. There is a wide range and a large number of NGOs, from international NGOs that operate in a quasi-governmental role with considerable budgets, to small, community-based organizations, run with community funding and little influence beyond their local context. The rise of the markets During the 1980s, while humans were being put back into the concept of human development, the state’s role in development was being altered and the markets were moving in. This was the start of the era of neoliberalism: a return to neoclassical economic theory globally, rather than treating development economies as a ‘special case’ (Nederveen Pieterse 2010:7). Neoliberalism emphasizes the role of the markets and the importance of letting market forces sort out prices rather than have the unwieldy and distorting influence of the state. Under this view, economic growth remains the central goal and is achieved through deregulation of markets, privatization of state- owned assets, liberalization of financial markets and currencies and reductions in state spending. Of course the state does have a key role in enabling this privatization and reduction in state regulation, but the emphasis within a neoliberal paradigm is firmly on the dominance of  Doing development  23 the market. This strategy was adopted globally, with President Ronald Reagan of the United States and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of the United Kingdom as key advocates. It affected developing nations most acutely through structural adjustment policies and programmes that were put in place as part of debt repayment packages through the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. These structural adjustment programmes required radical alterations to the way developing-country governments were organized, and how budgets were allocated. In particular, state investment in the social sectors of education and health was reduced, and market regulation and tariffs on imports were removed, opening up developing countries to the vagaries of the global market (see Chapter 3 for more details). However, as Chapters 3, 6 and 7 will discuss, the implementation of neoliberal thinking had dramatic effects on the development community and the reality of poverty and development. Most notably, the 1980s saw a plethora of non-governmental organizations move into the gaps left by the retreat of the state, and the stringent structural reforms caused a deepening of poverty for many and resulted in it being widely termed the ‘lost decade of development’. Post-development The perceived failure of mainstream development approaches in this period resulted in strong reactions, with post-development theorists calling for alternative development strategies and activities, and alternatives to development itself. These theorists advocated a rejection of Western approaches to development, i.e. those based in the developed world, and some argued that the concept of development itself should be rejected. For Escobar, Sachs, Esteva and others, development was seen as ‘a tool of Western hegemony, a system of domination aiming to impose Western thinking and discourse about how the world should be, as universal aspiration and goal’ (Haynes 2008:168). In