A Critical Approach to International Development
São Paulo, 01/Oct/2007 | By Rui Mesquita Cordeiro | rui@cidadania.org.br
A Critical Approach to International Development: Downsizing the Aid Chain for Alternative Strategies of North/South Cooperation
By Rui Mesquita Cordeiro*
São Paulo, Brazil, 01 October 2007
Especially written for the occasion of the Dutch Experts Meeting on International Development Cooperation; an event organized by The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs in cooperation with the Nijmegen Centre for International Development Issues, held in The Hague, The Netherlands, between 22-23 October 2007
Have international donors (multilateral, bilateral, nongovernmental/CSO[1] and private philanthropy) been doing successful aid for development in regions like Latin America, Africa, Asia and the Pacific in the last decades? Since the end of Cold War and the end of the 20th century, Majid Rahnema and others are voicing that development, as proposed in its early days of the 1940s and the 1950s, has achieved its end (Rahnema, 1997:378). As he argues, development was an ideology that was born and refined in the “north”, mainly to meet the needs of “northern” interests; moreover, it was “imposed on its target populations”, being “the wrong answer to their true needs and aspirations” (ibid.:379). “Northern” thinkers of the 1990s, like David C. Korten (Korten, 1992:54), highlights that 650 million people lived in absolute poverty in 1970, and twenty years latter this number almost doubled to something in between 1 and 1.2 billion people. Consequently, how can we attribute any success at all to development policies throughout the second half of the 20th century? In addition, Rahnema points that the new millennium is the beginning of a “post-development era”, that “does not imply in the end of a search for new possibilities of change”; on the contrary, it is a time to shift the focus, giving “birth to new forms of solidarity and friendship” among countries (Rahnema, 1997:391). In the end, the central point in post-development ideas is the possibility to unmake development, as it was once planed, and give it many brand new faces, where people can be in the centre of the action.
Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony. This “post-development era” so begun with two main contradictory development agendas coming from the “north”: the MDG[2] and the international security crises. On the one hand, domestic budgets of many “developing” countries and multilateral agencies were oriented to aim towards the millennium goals; on the other hand, bilateral and ODA[3] budgets of many OECD[4] countries were turned towards security and international boarders issues, against the fear of international terrorism. Furthermore, “northern” nongovernmental/CSO seemed to be highly divided in between following MDG or ODA trends and diversifying fundraising sources in order to pursue more autonomous development strategies, especially those based in Europe. “Northern” private philanthropists, on their side, have been more autonomous from such trends; however, private philanthropy has been realizing rapidly about the domestic problems of their countries of origin, especially those based in the USA[5], and therefore they are starting to see ways on how to act more domestically than internationally. In sum, this new “northern” scenario is the one crucially shaping the new relationships around development matters in the 21st century. However, one important question remains: are these efforts enough to address the social challenges of the planet? I am afraid that the most realistic answer here is no!
In the “south” the scenario differs a lot from the above one. From astonishing poverty in Africa to deplorable inequalities in Latin America; from overcrowding survival in Asia to endless struggles for identity and autonomy in the Middle East; we still face the same old problems of long ago. Perhaps, the only thing new in common that some of us start to share in the “south” (apart of a persistent and mixed feeling of suffering and hope) is the new brand identity of being from the “south”. At first, at least in Latin America realities, the main goal pursued by many “southern” governments was to “become” an Europe/USA like country, what arose to a significant share of the population a feeling of not to be proud of our own countries and culture. The dreamed leap from the old fashioned “third world” to the called “first world” club seems to be aborted right now, due to the multi-folded realities of our “post-development era”. Instead, movements of political empowerment from within are starting to take place.
Latin America, being the region with the longest independency processes within the colonised “south”, is a good case study about that new era. There, the phenomena of popular movements (and sometimes populist as well) achieving political power by direct and democratic means is a clear sign of something new happening. On the other hand, certain segments of civil society are each day more and more achieving new organisation standards. I say certain segments, because others (more dependent of foreign aid) are finding space for crises, as a consequence of the change of aid flown caused by the MDG and the changes on ODA policies. Local philanthropy, for instance, is creating brand new “southern” assets to promote development from within, although still lacking a lot of expertise on how to do the proposed development work. Social movements are organising international meetings and social forums all over the continent and the world, enhancing and promoting new south-south conversations. Such movements are actually giving birth to new development agendas. Issues like participatory democracy, grassroots empowerment, renewable fuels, international fair trade, south-south aid and tech cooperation, social justice, inter-culturalism, micro-credit, direct downwards money transfers, the Doha round, international democracy, and more effective participation in international and multilateral organisations, among many others, are populating this “southern” development agenda in the 21st century. Although, and naturally, the MDG and new ODA agendas still have the largest piece of the international development cake, the cake seems to be no longer made of “northern” ingredients only.
In addition, south-south ties have been strengthened: economic blocks in Latin America, Africa and Asia are trying to find their pathway in the international economic system; the called BRIC[6] countries, although still far from being considered a block or even politically aligned, have been rapidly beginning to behave as empowered actors in the international arena; the number of multinational companies with headquarters in the “south” seems to be quickly increasing; civil society’s world social forums are spreading all over the “southern” world (right now in a phase of going grassroots, with local social forums taking place everywhere), and even in the “north” as well.
Another relevant aspect is the fact that our boundaries are disappearing. Yes, even though we are trying to re-establish them, especially because of the given security crises and the migration problems, our boundaries are actually blurring. In today’s complex world, single categorisation of relationships in East/West, North/South (as we are doing in here), intra-state or inter-state is no longer enough. Ideology, governance, ethnicity, environment and identity play today a much stronger role than in the near past. “Northern” elements and actors are easily found in the “south”, just as the opposite is also true. The notion of local and global is another idea under mutation. The catchphrase “think globally act locally” is each day more confused with the idea of “think locally act globally”. Development blueprints were basically fitting within this second idea, rather than the first one. As Rahnema suggests, they were, and sometimes still are, just “northern” thinking applied worldwide, including those “northern” like thinking that are raised within “southern” regions and vice-versa.
Development, in sum, is no longer a single sided recipe predicted by actors that are already considered “developed” and therefore should have enough knowledge about how to help others to get there too. Different countries and realities require different approaches and different strategies. The unity of analysis usually used in development studies, the country, is also under doubt. Both macro and micro analysis are also needed. How developed is our planet as a whole, as if it was considered as a single country?
But it is not enough. Neither the “south” nor the “north” can be charged of solving the development problems of the planet alone. Partnerships are strongly needed, especially what I call the “north-south/south-north” ones; otherwise, unwanted conflicts may emerge, again. On the one hand, “north-south/south-north” partnerships have been by far more proposed by “northern” actors, according to their own agenda, usually aiming the development of the “south”. On the other hand, conflicts become an unwanted outcome of this relationship, when there is little space for “southern” actors to carry on their own agenda aiming not only their own development, but the development of the planet as a whole. To avoid it and to build more “southern” trust towards “northern” actors, we can try to build more partnerships based on “southern” agendas. In the end, equilibrium between both agendas is needed and necessary, but it is time now to balance this equation, and “northern” actors have a decisive role for this. Leadership and negotiation are essential skills in this stage, for both sides.
Reinventing the models for a more efficient “north-south/south-north” cooperation
Traditional models of aid flow also differ from each other, but basically they share a common characteristic: the economical decision making power remains at the top (Biekart, 1999), and consequently its accountability is predominately upwards. Kees Biekart presents his representation of the “aid chain”, in the case of Northern ODA through CSO:
Image 1: Aid Chain – Northern ODA through CSO (Biekart, 1999:79)
On this traditional European model, at least five direct accountability chains are linked compulsorily upwards (and optionally downwards). At the top, a northern government is drafting and taking decision upon the main themes and issues to be addressed by the chain, downwards. At the bottom, southern citizens in need rarely know where the money is coming from, and how much of the original amount is actually reaching them at the grassroots. Although very much common in Europe, this model is quite costly, once a significant amount of the original money donated at the top as taxes or private donations are spent with intermediary costs (as personnel, equipment, and so on) within an elevated number of intermediaries from top to bottom.
Image 2: Aid Chain – Multilateral Agencies through CSO
Similar to the previous one, this model brings five direct chains of decision making and accountability. Some would say six, because there is also an accountability relationship between the northern government and its citizens, who pay the taxes. Even though a great example on how countries may cooperate with each other through partnerships, usually the politics within the multilateral organisations create a higher level of bureaucracy on their decision making processes. Again, this is a very costly model, maybe even more in relation to the first one. However it has a different purpose, as said: the cooperation among nations.
Image 3: Aid Chain – State Owned Aid Organisations through CSO
Another common architecture takes place when a state creates its own aid agency, to operate development donations. It is less bureaucratic and has fewer intermediaries; however, the government influence is really high. Such influence may be too much dependent of the political health and tendency of the government. Less continuity and identity shifting could be usual and a threat. Three to four levels of accountability are seen (four if you consider the relation between the northern government and its tax payers).
Image 4: Aid Chain – Private Foundations through CSO
In theory less bureaucratic, and normally established through private endowments (sometimes also through public endowments), private foundations’ aid model (or philanthropy, as many would prefer) involves three levels of accountability and decision making. Less costly, this model can be very efficient; however, the quality of the foundation’s board of trustees is critical for its good governance. Many foundations, especially in the USA, are reluctant of inviting foreigners as board members; therefore, such board configuration is less qualitative and legitimate to operate internationally. CSO-led public foundations (state originated) would certainly be a very innovative and creative manner to pursue international development.
Another common feature shared by all these models is the bet on the “northern” decision making of development processes, once always “northern” organisations are ultimately at the top. None of them, in fact, bet on “southern” decision making models for “north-south/south-north” cooperation. In times of MDG and terrorism, new models of international cooperation are needed to respond to the new complexities of our “post-development era”. A new international agenda, built from both the “north” and the “south”, should be shared. However, additional “southern” empowerment at the decision making level of the aid chains is critically necessary.
In concert with empowerment, another important concept is participation. Indeed, participation and empowerment are two close concepts, once participation is ultimately about decision making and for that empowerment is needed. Even being related, there is no causality between one and another. On the one hand participation is understood as both means and ends for the people to directly participate in political, economical or social decisions in issues that affect their life; on the other hand empowerment is meant as the ability of individuals, groups and organisations for achieving some autonomy and independence, as well as “the structural conditions which affect the allocations of power in a society and give access to its resources” (Breton, 1994). Furthermore, participation is also seen as complementary to empowerment, as a way to encourage people to assume their rights and to strengthen popular organisations, trough cognitive, psychological, political and economical dimensions (Molyneux and Lazar, 2003).
The challenge for the “north-south/south-north” cooperation lies on the connection between them, as foreseen by Sherry Arnstein (Arnstein, 1969), when she clearly defines participation as citizen power; furthermore she distinguishes the participation in a qualitative scale, the ladder of citizen participation (ibid.). Although this scheme cannot be generalised, it adds that there may be different qualities of participation/empowerment, and it opens up the box of such concepts in a more analytical and critical way.
Image 5: The ladder of citizen participation (Arnstein, 1969)
How to achieve higher levels of “southern” citizens’ empowerment through participation in a suitable aid chain model? From the current models one can say that the relationship between “north” and “south” is located somewhere in between placation and partnership, at Arnstein’s ladder. Moving this “southern” participation upwards is therefore a necessary condition to achieve such higher levels of empowerment. Another good question in order to answer our previous questioning is: how could “northern” development actors delegate more power to their “southern” counterparts?
My search for alternatives to approach an answer to such questionings meets some new discussions that already take place within the Latin American branch of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation[7], a private donor foundation created in the USA in 1930 with the mission of “helping people to help themselves”. Such discussions aim to the case by case adaptation of the Community Foundation Model of community development.
Rethinking community foundations in the light of “north-south/south-north” cooperation
Community foundations are CSO, driven by the community itself. Usually, they are created by endowments that are capable to sustain its development mission and programs in the long term. Another important characteristic of community foundations is that the owners and the beneficiaries are, in part, the same people. Higher levels of empowerment can be exercised here, if the owners are well prepared to run it, representing more realistic delegated power for citizen control. Delegated because the endowment can be done not only by the community members themselves (when that is the case, like in many places in the USA), but also by third parts, usually interested in fostering the development of the community or the territory in question.
According to Fabiana Hernandez-Abreu[8], community foundations may also act as “bridges between donors and nonprofits”. She states that the New York Community Trust, for instance, presents its funds in this way:
“Donors with every kind of philanthropic interest find that a fund with The Trust is a simple, flexible, and rewarding way to accomplish their charitable goals. There are four different funds to choose from: Unrestricted, Field of Interest, Advised, and Designated.” (Abreu, 2007:17)
She highlights that “on the other end of the bridge is the Grant-making or Programming area, in which community foundations, driven by mission and areas of interest, create programs in order to make grants to local non-profit organisations to address community needs” (Abreu, 2007:18).
Certainly, the context of creating community foundations in the USA, or in any other “northern” country, is rather different of creating them in the “south”. In the “north”, the communities themselves are probably more able to create their own initial endowments from within, but in the “south”, with the short of income, this is less plausible. In the “south”, the endowments should be raised from more diverse sources, including (why not?) international sources.
In 2005, Andrés Thompson[9] asked himself: “Is it the ‘community foundation’ concept adaptable to Latin America? And if so: under what conditions?” (Thompson, 2005:5) He argues that, despite of the variety of approaches and definitions, “community foundations are about money and community” (ibid.). For him, two simple approaches to the concept of “community foundations” are: the “money” driven approach and the “community” oriented approach.
He says that “those that see community foundations mainly as channels for the circulation of financial resources are mostly concerned with some of the following issues: Raising endowed funds from a collection of donors; Providing philanthropic services to donors by advising them how to invest their money in worthy causes; Investing the foundation’s assets (usually independently of where) and monitoring its portfolio return; Appointing trustees with influence in the richest segments of local society; Building of assets for perpetuity; Stewardship; and Accountability and transparency in the use of funds” (ibid.: 6-7); among others.
On the other hand, he ponders that “for most of the practitioners in the field of community foundations that see their potential for addressing the community’s problems their major concerns are: Building community capacity; Awareness of community needs and responsiveness to the community; Accountability and transparency in the use of funds; A focus on “living” people and their needs; Board formation and development that reflects (not represent) the varied community interests; Diversity; Building on community assets; Building of social capital; Strengthening the local nonprofit sector; and Community involvement, including governance” (ibid.: 7-8); among others.
Altogether, Thompson considers that “the general concept of a democratic, non-profit, community oriented institution that collects money from within and from outside the community and redistribute it to address the interests and needs of the same community seems a very attractive one, both as an exit strategy for external donors or for resource mobilization within communities, the community foundations’ approach appears to be the ideal one. Several cases from the developing world are there to demonstrate their feasibility” (ibid. p.9). And in relation of its adaptation to “southern” regions, he concludes that factors to be considered in such analysis are: 1) Time (it is a medium to long term strategy); 2) The local legal and tax incentives (they may facilitate, or not, the implementation of a community foundation); 3) Wealth (are the sources enough to generate a sustainable endowment?); 4) Responsiveness to community (they should answer the pressure of addressing the urgent needs of the communities); 5) Resource mobilization and capacity building (sustainable assets building); 6) Leadership role (permanent building of local leadership is essential); and 7) Strategic Grant-making (a clear development agenda to operate the built trust) (ibid. p.10-17). In the end, he concludes that “community foundations are not a model to be copied and replicated everywhere; their feasibility depends of the specific environment in which they intend to grow and develop and, to a large extent, on the leadership capacity of the pioneer group” (ibid. p.18).
The Chinese have already said it long before: where there is a threat, there is also an opportunity. If it is not another blueprint to be copied, than it should be adapted to the context-specific environment in which favourable condition may be set. From my perspective, the adaptation of the model, according to each local place where it is going to be tried, is equally complex as the “north-south/south-north” development relationship of nowadays. The idea, for instance, of a “community foundation” for South America, where South-Americans could address their own development needs through endowments gifted by “northern” development actors is not at all a bad idea to be considered (the same for other “southern” regions). In such case, a new aid chain would be configured. Image 6 bellow attempts to represent it, in a most simple way; once, depending on the context-specific environment, it could be remodelled as the context requires of it. On it, I’ll call it “southern endowment”, not to mislead it with the concept of community foundation. This “southern endowment”, as I call it by now, could be not strictly community oriented, but also thematic or even territorially oriented. In other words, it could be serving a community, a theme (or problem), or a territory (a city, a country, a region).
Image 6: Southern Based Endowment Model
With two-three direct chains of accountability, this attempt risks a downsizing of the traditional aid chain models. Furthermore, a “southern” placed endowment would also entrepreneur in bringing the decision-making of the endowment to the “south”, advancing the empowerment of the “south” on the international development agenda.
Its foreseen sources of resources may be diversified as well, not putting the charge of this asset building in single actors. Here, both resources from “northern” and “southern” sources are introduced, in a joint “north-south/south-north” endeavour.
One of the main challenges would be the board of trustees’ setting. Depending on how this board is set, downwards accountability could be drastically enhanced. For instance, a quota for the participation of grantees in the board is something that could guarantee some downwards accountability.
“Northern” and “southern” actors who gifted the endowment could also have a space in such board; as well, legitimate specialists of the community, theme, and/or the territory served would either find a space there, especially on its first configuration. It is important to highlight that, most probably, space for the endowment donors in the board (especially in the board’s first mandate circle) is also crucial to give such donors the necessary guarantee that in the long run the donated funds must be used towards agreed and shared ends. Ultimately, a culture of full accountability and transparency (upwards and downwards) is mandatory for such type of organisation.
Additionally, a democratic rotation system should be created, in order to guarantee internal democracy and legitimacy for the board of trustees. Altogether, I would defend a mixed board configuration, having on it grantees, specialists (thematic, territorially, and/or community members) and interested donors. Undoubtedly among the initial attributions of the first board, the identity, the programmatic grant-making planning and the administrative/financial use of the trust are key to be set.
The financial feasibility of such endeavour should be realistic. A large experience on trust management has been captured by many foundation officers around the world. Usually, they work with the yearly “5% budget rule”. That means that each year, an average of 5% of the total assets should be spent in both the operation and the programming of the organisation. If one takes into account the amount of ODA/OA expended by a country like The Netherlands, for instance, one could see the following picture:
Image 7: Dutch Gross Bilateral ODA, 2004/2005
For a rough example, if 50% of what The Netherlands gives to, say, India (a democratic country, and a relatively stable and growing economy) would be addressed to the creation of a CSO Indian-led Endowment Fund; that would represent USD 38 million each year, considering the 2004/05 amount to that country. In five years, that would be USD 190 million. Applying the “5% budget rule”, such USD 190 million endowment would represent USD 9.5 million of annual revenue for both operations and programming of this Indian organisation. Usually, the average share of the annual revenue of foundations is 10%-12.5% for operations and 87.5%-90% for programming. By operations I mean all administrative costs of the organisation (including salaries, office expenditures, equipments, and so forth), and by programming I mean the actual grant-making work plus the execution of some project, if that is the case. Considering the example above, this organisation would have an annual budget for operations of about USD 1 million, and a programming annual budget around USD 8.5 million, which is nothing bad at all for a brand new “southern” development organisation.
What about the other 95% of the original endowment? That would be the asset to be invested on the market in order to generate new revenues for the next year. Normally, foundations’ staff members target a minimum 5%-6% return, yearly, over this 95% amount. In our example, this 95% represents some USD 180.5 million; that amount is to be invested at the financial and economical market and it could even help to develop the local economy of the region where it is to be invested.
Please, do take into consideration that the example is very limited, including in terms that, on it, we only explore one endowment source. In general, if well managed, the outcome would be an autonomous and sustainable new way of promoting development through international cooperation efforts, with a shared power balance between “northern” and “southern” partners.
Concluding Remarks
Our new and complex world requires new and complex strategies. The one proposed in this paper is far from being simple, but it is a chance for “northern” development policy makers to listen to “southern” development thinkers, sharing agendas and delegating more power southwards. As one of the consequences, this position has a strong potential to revert a lot of the criticism against the “north” coming from “southern” voices. Moreover, more than a simple development thematic strategy, this is a sustainable legacy strategy to foster long term development among nations. You plant a seed, and let it blossom.
This alternative way would certainly require new roles of both “northern” and “southern” donors, CSO and policy makers. New researches should be foreseen, as well as new kinds of more horizontal relationships between governments, CSO and people. The locus of such relationships, in our case here, would be primarily within the board of trustees of these endowment organisations. The balance of power among the board members and a diverse composition are vital.
Southern visions of long-term structural development would finally achieve a new level of implementation; a practical one. Goals and indicators can be easily used to measure the effectiveness of such process, including social and economical indicators. Additionally, market actors could also play their role, once market expertise is a requirement for the good governance of the endowment assets and for the long term financial sustainability the organisation.
To conclude, all of that might be an effective and innovative new strategy to foster development on this planet, rejoining “south” and “north” in a common endeavour. Some practical experiments about this logic are already under early stages of planning and drafting in the western side of the Atlantic. Other initiatives would be very much welcomed, but how far this is going to get is a question for time, visioning and political will to answer.
References______________
Abreu, Fabiana Hernandez (2007). Community Foundations: a Vehicle to Endorse and Sustain Local Development Processes Taking Place in Colonia/Uruguay? New York: City University of New York.
Arnstein, Sherry R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. In: JAIP, Vol. 35 (4). Pp. 216-224. http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry-arnstein/ladder-of-citizen-participation.html (10-July-2006)
Biekart, Kees (1999). The Politics of Civil Society Building. Amsterdam: International Books & Transnational Institute.
Breton, Margot (1994). Relating competence: Promotion and empowerment. In: Journal of Progressive Human Services, Vol. 5 (1). Pp. 27-45.
Friedman, John (1992). Empowerment – The Politics of Alternative Development. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
Korten, David C. (1992). People-Centred Development, in Bauzon, Kenneth E. – Development and Democratization in the Third World – Myths, Hopes, and Realities. New York: Yeshiva University.
Molyneux, Maxine and Sian Lazar (2003). Implementing rights: participation, empowerment and governance. In: Maxine Molyneux and Sian Lazar, Doing the Rights Thing: Rights-Based Development and Latin American NGOs. London: ITDG Publishing. Pp. 50-62.
Rahnema, Majid (1997). Towards Post-Development: searching for signposts, a new language and new paradigms, in: Rahnema, Majid & Bawtree, Victoria (1997) The Post-Development Reader. Dhaka: University Press LTD.
Thompson, Andrés A. (2005). Exploring the concept of “community foundations” and its adaptability to Latin America. New York: City University of New York.
____________________
*Rui Mesquita Cordeiro is Brazilian and is currently working for W.K. Kellogg Foundation as its Program Associate for Latin America and the Caribbean, based in São Paulo, Brazil. His Masters degree in Politics of Alternative Development Studies was achieved at the Institute of Social Studies, in The Hague, The Netherlands. Other articles of him are published at http://www.igloo.org/politica
* rui.mesquita@wkkf.org / rui@cidadania.org.br
) +55 11 8541-9186 / +55 11 4191-2233 x. 113
[1] CSO: Civil Society Organisation.
[2] MDG: Millennium Development Goals.
[3] ODA: Official Development Assistance.
[4] OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (http://www.oecd.org/).
[5] USA: United States of America.
[6] BRIC countries: Brazil, Russia, India and China.
[7] W.K. Kellogg Foundation (WKKF): http://www.wkkf.org/
[8] Uruguayan, Fabiana is a local leader of development processes in the city of Colonia, Uruguay.
[9] Argentinean, Andrés is Program Director for Latin America and the Caribbean for the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, based in Brazil.
On Alternative Development
On Alternative Development
The Hague, 16/Jan/2006 | By Rui Mesquita Cordeiro | rui@cidadania.org.br
ISS – Institute of Social Studies | Master student in Development Students 2005/2006
Development, as a field of study and a planed practice, is on the spotlight since the end of the World War II and the creation of the United Nations, back in the 1940s. It was not accepted by anyone that after two wars of world proportions in half a century peace would not prevail. Hope was everywhere, and with it, development ideas and ideals were born towards a planet that was in poverty and disgrace.
Soon after this period, still during the reconstruction of European and Asian countries, the world became divided between two main paths towards development, two main ideals and two main ways of doing politics. Capitalism and socialism were starting another dispute, an ideological dispute. Suddenly the world was facing the brink of a new war, a Cold War.
Developmental ideas (and ideals) were also divided in two. In the end, those who believed that the path to development lies on free-market and liberal politics won that cold battle against those who believed that its path was more likely to lie on state control of the means of production. That “victory” happened by the beginning of the 1990s, with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Hereafter, I will focus on what happened in between the extremities of this cold battle, with the very hearts and minds of some people who started to believe in alternatives out of the two main paths. Moreover, I will also focus on the current debate on alternative development and contrast it with the nowadays’ conventional development approach, a direct offspring of the victorious part of the Cold War.
Understanding Alternative Development
Historically, I identify three main facts related to the raise of an alternative development thinking and practice: (a) the Non Aligned Movement; (b) the emergence of new social movements; and (c) an intellectual academic production aiming towards alternatives.
The Non Aligned Movement was a worldwide political movement of governments declaring not to be aligned with either the socialist or the capitalist blocks. Over 100 countries formed this movement which the origin “can be traced to a conference hosted in Bandung, Indonesia in 1955. The world’s ‘non-aligned’ nations declared their desire not to become involved in the East-West ideological confrontation of the Cold War” (Wikipedia, 2005). This was a political signal of dissatisfaction with the way politics and development were being addressed by the middle of the 20th century.
Another fact was the emergence of the called new social movements, during the 1960s. Friedman says that many people “know the sixties as the decade of a ‘movement politics’ that stirred the world from Beijing to Paris” (1992:1). He talks about the new social movements of ecology, peace and woman, the China’s Cultural Revolution, the America’s Black Power movement and the Paris student uprising of May 1968 (most of these movements were youth led). Moreover, I stress that there were many others movements like, for instance, the reclaiming the streets youth movement in London (Weinstein, 2004:181), and the Zurich youth riots, the squatter movements in Berlin and Amsterdam and the runway-west conflicts in Frankfurt (Eckert and Willems, 1986); as well as in Latin America all the re-democratisation social movements, along the 1970s and 1980s. Before these movements emerge, there was basically the workers movement (said to be the “old movement”) in the social movement arena, and they were very aligned with the socialist block. Now, civil society gained force, and also it achieved some emancipation to do politics. Differently of the unions, the new social movements were doing politics outside the institutionalised framework of the political parties. In their agenda, they were reclaiming rights towards the state and society, and also they were bringing about new and alternative politics.
Influenced by both the previous two facts, among others, a new intellectual academic production emerged from the 1970s and on, looking for alternatives to our divided world. Scholars like Andre Gunder Frank (dependency theory), Paulo Freire (pedagogy of the oppressed), Jürgen Habermas (post-modernity), Ivan Illich (development as planed poverty), Majid Rahnema (post-development), John Friedman and David C. Korten (people-centred development), Dilip P. Gaonkar (alternative modernities), and many others, led to a complete new scene in development literature. For a more deeply understanding of the framework of alternative development thinking, let us focus on three of these contributions: post-development, people-centred development, and alternative modernities.
Post-development
Development achieved its end! That is the main Rahnema’s claim (2001:378) about the failure of the development strategies to achieve development. Rahnema refers to development as it was proposed in its early days, back to the 1940s and 1950s. He argues that development “was an ideology that was born and refined in the North, mainly to meet the needs of the dominant powers”; it was “imposed on its target populations”, being “the wrong answer to their true needs and aspirations” (ibid.:379). Once development has failed, now we live in an era of post-development. In addiction, Korten (1992:54) says that 650 million people lived in absolute poverty in 1970, and twenty years afterwards this number almost doubled to something in between 1 and 1.2 billion people. Consequently, how can we attribute any success to development at all throughout the second half of the 20th century?
The post-development era “does not imply in the end of a search for new possibilities of change”. Otherwise, it is a time to shift the focus, giving “birth to new forms of solidarity and friendship”. Furthermore, this shift “should prompt everyone to begin the genuine work of self-knowledge and self-polishing” (Rahnema, 2001:391). Rahnema argues that “if we want to change the world”, we should start “changing ourselves”, “overcoming our fears of the unknown and looking at things as they are, and not as we want them to be” (ibid.:392). The central point in post-development is the possibility to unmake development, as it was once planed, and give it many brand new faces, where everyone can be the example for a collective processes of positive change, where people can be in the centre of the action.
People-centred development
The people-centred development approach is the basis of the alternative development thinking, and it was pushed by militants (new social movements) and leftwing academics. They all opposed the way development was being held. Soon around the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s, they discovered some obvious things. The first one was that poverty and hunger were in higher levels than in the time United Nations was created, even with high level of production in both dominants economic systems, capitalism and socialism; the first one centred on the market forces, and the second one centred on the state force. Therefore, a second obvious issue was observed: where are the people? Must development agenda be market-centred, state-centred or, alternatively, people-centred? And that was not all: capitalism and socialism are both production-centred systems. Economic growth and its social implications was an important concern for both. It was natural, due to the increasing levels of production in both systems, to realise a third obvious thing: the world is finite and the environment should have been observed and respected, and that was not the case. After the collapse of the socialist doctrine the market forces found themselves free to explore and to exploit the resources of the planet in order to generate economic growth. For how long can our planet support an unsustainable growth centred-development?
John Friedman (1992) describes a moral justification for people-centred development, in harmony with the environment. He sustains his argumentation affirming that to be people-centred is to focus on the basic needs of the people, basically food, water and shelter; and in order to be in harmony with the environment, the planetary sustainability should be respected, and therefore growth should be limited. This view is in direct opposition to the mainstream development agenda, based on growth maximisation. Friedman also states that to defend this alternative development approach “has more to do with morality than facts” (ibid.:10). He shows us three foundations for a morally justified alternative people-centred development: “human rights, citizen rights and ‘human flourishing’” (ibid.). Firstly, on human rights, he defends the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, stressing its civil, political, economical and social rights, including liberty and basic needs. He says that a “wilful exclusion from these rights is a kind of violence on the person excluded” (ibid.). Secondly, on citizen rights, he brings about the importance of the “citizens’ relative autonomy vis-à-vis the state”, presuming, “therefore, a modern, democratic state, where the holders of authority are ultimately accountable to the people organised as a political community” (ibid.:11). Lastly, his third moral foundation is about “human flourishing”, an “evocative and open-ended” term (ibid.) that has to do with the possibility of each human being live up to her or his capacity.
David Korten (1984, 1992) also defends a people-centred approach for development and describes the main principals for an alternative development agenda. For him, poverty, environment degradation and communal violence are the three main elements of a global crisis (1992:54). To begin with poverty, he stresses the crescent number of people living in absolute poverty from the 1970s to the 1990s, as well as the inequality problem: “the trend toward increasing poverty accelerated in the 1980s as the gap between rich and poor grew at an alarming pace” (ibid.). Additionally, he highlights the mistreatment with the environment and the high levels of pollution, mainly caused by a production-centred logic: “the dominant logic of the industrial era was a production logic and its dominant goals were production centred” (1984:299). Then, he says that communal violence “is a manifestation of the increasing disintegration of our social fabric” (1992:55). In other words, violence is becoming common; it is becoming part of our day-by-day life, especially in Southern countries. For him, these problems are also related to the division of classes we face today. He divides the society in three classes: over-consumers (20% of the world population), sustainers (60%) and marginals (20%) (1992:59). Are those who are over-consumers ready to reduce their living standard in order to favour the inclusion of those marginals? To summarise, he says that “the survival of our civilization depends on committing ourselves to an alternative development practice guided by the three basic principals of authentic development: justice (priority must be given to ensuring a decent human existence for all people), sustainability (Earth’s resources must be used in ways that ensure the well-being of future generations), and inclusiveness (every person must have the opportunity to be recognised and respected contributor to family, community, and society)” (1992:60-61). These three principals are the main ones to understand and to define what alternative development is.
Alternative modernities
Alternative development aims for people, and people live in the local level: in our cities, communities, neighbourhoods and families. Each local space develops its own culture that interacts with a developing global culture. This interaction provokes changes and a constant scale shift: local-global and global-local. My perception tells me that the predominant tendency observed today is the global-local flow; thus, the local is being much more influenced by the global than the other way around. For the alternative development approach, more equilibrium in this equation is needed.
To better understand this global culture, we need to understand modernity. “Modernity is a term used to describe the condition of being ‘modern’. Since the term ‘modern’ is used to describe a wide range of periods, modernity must be taken in context” (Wikipedia, 2006a). For our recent world context, modernity has to do with a set of societal and cultural transformations that has taken place mostly, but not exclusively, in the western world. “Important events in the development of Modernity in this context include the arrival of the printing press, the English civil war, the American revolution, the French revolution, the revolutions of 1848, the Russian revolution, and the first and second world wars” (ibid.). For Gaonkar, modernity “has arrived not suddenly but slowly, bit-by-bit, over the longue durée–awakened by contact; transported through commerce; administered by empires, bearing colonial inscriptions; propelled by nationalism; and now increasingly steered by global media, migration, and capital” (2001:1). Modernity is composed by two pillars: societal and cultural modernisation. In one hand, he describes societal modernisation as those cognitive transformations that imply in a scientific consciousness with a secular outlook and a bureaucratic administrative structure seeking for efficiency, among others, being a source of convergent thinking. In another hand, he defines cultural modernity as a source of divergence that aimed to break traditions and was “repelled by the middle-class ethos” (ibid.:2). There were no norms for expressions; all kinds of expressions were valid. To look at this in another way, in one side societal modernity brings about ideas on progress and efficiency, and, in another side, cultural modernity brings about ideas on freedom and liberty; thus we can see that we are talking about liberal ideas. This liberal modernity is spreading around the whole world, and step-by-step it is becoming this single global culture that exercises some influence in our local contexts.
Once this is modernity, where do we find alternative modernities? Gaonkar’s conclusion is that modernity itself is not one, but many; it is not new, but old and familiar; and it is incomplete and necessary. Depending on the way one interpret the world, different and alternative modernities can emerge.
In alternative modernities the local should exercise some influence in the global. Vandana Shiva gives us examples on how western science is destroying local knowledge. She says that “modern science is projected as a universal, value-free system of knowledge which has displaced all other belief and knowledge systems by its universality and value-neutrality” (Shiva, 1989:162). Moreover, while quoting Keller and Harding, she adds an important feminist critique to it stating that the “founding fathers of modern science are almost all white, middle-class, bourgeois males” (ibid.).
Altogether, the possibility of thinking in alternative modernities means that it is not all about change. Some things, like local cultures, should be kept, if this is the whish of their owners. Alternative modernities open space to balance the initial equation on the scale influence balance, making local-global flow at the same influence level of the global-local flow. It is true that the local is becoming global, but equating the equation the global can also have the opportunity to become local.
Contrasting Conventional and Alternative Development Today
As previously said, the current conventional development approach is a direct offspring of the victorious side of the Cold War. It is very much linked to the mainstream modernity (societal and cultural), as well as it is very much committed to the promotion of economic growth via free-markets (production-centred). The combination of these two characteristics forms the so called neo-liberalism, because together they mix liberal politics and market-oriented economics.
Accordingly to Michael Peters (1999), Friedrich von Hayek is one of the fathers of neo-liberalism. He says that Hayek defends the idea of market as a “spontaneous product of human action”, not predicted by human “intelligent design”. Furthermore, he says that “Hayek’s liberalism emphasized: methodological individualism; homo economicus, based on assumptions of individuality, rationality, self-interest; and the doctrine of spontaneous order” (ibid.).
In neo-liberalism, individuals are free to accumulate as much wealth as they can. Its ethical justification lies on the fact that equity is based on equal opportunities (not on equal access to resources). Theoretically, if everyone has the same opportunity to accumulate wealth, and one does not succeed, it is his or her individual fault only. For those who historically could not accumulate wealth, whatever reason, the answer is not to share the current wealth; otherwise, it is to make economic growth happen once again, so that those who are not wealthy enough can try another time, using his or her labour force, on the opportunity sea of the new surplus-value created. This becomes clearer when we look at the concept of homo economicus: “Homo economicus is a term used for an approximation or model of Homo sapiens that acts to obtain the highest possible well-being for himself given available information about opportunities and other constraints, both natural and institutional, on his ability to achieve his predetermined goals” (Wikipedia, 2006b).
Globalisation has an important role to play in the neo-liberal development agenda. Through it, neo-liberalism is achieving more global influence and power, in our anarchic international political system. For Thirlwall, it is a question of interdependence: “the term globalisation refers to all those forces operating in the world economy that increase interdependence and at the same time make countries more and more dependent on forces outside of their control” (2003:13). Accordingly to him, among these forces are: the “widening and freeing of trade”; the “growth of global capital markets”; “more foreign direct investment”; a “greater movement of people breaking down cultural barriers”; the “spread of information technology”; and “new international institutions as the World Trade Organisation, reducing national autonomy” (ibid.:13-15).
The conventional neo-liberal development is a system where women and men serve the economy. On it, people become economic commodities in the spontaneity of the market, which only helps to increase the world inequality gap. This is in direct opposition to the alternative development approach, once it is people-centred, and it leads to social justice, a sustainable future, and an inclusive political and economical society. On the alternative development approach, economy serves people, and local level realities and power are very much important, once it is there where people is born, live[1], and die.
Comparing Developments
To establish a straight forward comparison among the old and the new conventional development and the perspectives on alternative development, it is important to define some criteria. Firstly, by conventional development we will focus on the old socialism and the current neo-liberalism. Secondly, by alternative development we will focus on the people-centred approach and on alternative modernities. Lastly, to analyse altogether, we will briefly look at their rationale, objectives, principals, actors and practices, as follows:
|
Criteria |
Conventional development |
Alternative development |
||
|
Old Socialism |
Neo-liberalism |
People-centred Development |
Alternative Modernities |
|
|
Rationale |
- State-centred (state controls the means of production). - Power exercised by the proletariats (single party system). - Materialistic. |
- Growth-centred. - Individualism (homo economicus). - Free market forces. - Power at individuals to decide in democratic systems. - Secular and scientific outlook. |
- People-centred. - Basic needs and environment. - Empowerment of people. - Local access and control of resources. |
- Modernity is not one, but many. - Modernity is not new, but old and familiar. - Modernity is incomplete. |
|
Objectives |
- Redistribution of resources. |
- Wealth generation. - Growth maximisation. - Globalisation. |
- Justice, sustainability and inclusiveness. - Global network of local economies. - Participatory democracies. |
- Many modernities. - From local to global. - Privilege culture specific knowledge. |
|
Principals |
- Collectivism. - Equality. |
- Freedom and liberty. - Representative democracy. - Competitiveness. - Privet property. |
- Human rights, citizen rights and human flourishing. - Cooperation and self-reliance. - Harmony with the environment. |
- Continuous process. - Multiculturalism. - Solidarity. - Respect to the local cultures. |
|
Actors |
- Classes. - Communist party. - State and government. |
- Individuals. - Companies (market). - International institutions: IMF[2], WTO[3], WB[4], and so forth. |
- The community. - People. - Social movements. - NGOs[5]. - Grassroots organisations. - Civil society. |
- Local societies. - People. |
|
Practices |
- Dictatorship of the “proletariat”. - Armed repression to keep the control. |
- Profit maximisation. - Exploitation of the environment. - Imperialism. - Market force to keep the control. - Poverty and inequality. |
- Local empowerment and participation. - Economics: social economy, LETS[6] and SHG[7]. - Gender outlook. - Social movement protests. - Fight against the oppressors. - Local and global civil society encounters. |
- Creativity. - Self-awareness. - Inclusiveness. - Acceptance of diversity. - Cultural resistance. |
This table shows the differences and similarities between the different approaches. The importance of adding the old socialist system in this comparison is due to the historical moment when alternative development approach was first discussed. Nowadays, undoubtedly, the mainstream is the neo-liberal approach. The fact that the socialist system is not anymore on the scene does not mean that neo-liberalism is completely free to make the game the ways it likes it. Today the principal obstacles for neo-liberalism, as seen on the table, are originated by people themselves, forming a wide range of local alternatives under the umbrella of alternative development.
Network of Solidary Resistance, a Case Study
To illustrate this reflection, let us focus on the example of an alternative development practice, original from the city of Recife, north-eastern Brazil.
Accordingly to its constituency project (Rede de Resistência Solidária, 2005), the Network of Solidary Resistance, is an “affective and solidary space of provocative dialog for the raising of new community practices”. It is an autonomous and informal organisation, “constituted by cooperated individuals and collectives[8] who are searching for social transformation”, through the logic of a social economy system. The Network proposes “new labour and social relations, more equalitarian and with more solidarity”. It is focused on the communities of its members, and the initiatives are led by the proponents in a horizontal and human internal relation.
The Network is the direct result of the agglutination of force among many marginalised people and collectives from the periphery of Recife. They intended to strengthen themselves to overcome their exclusion. Recife is one of the largest Brazilian cities, and also one of its more unequal cities. It has a municipal population of 1.5 million, and a total metropolitan population of about 3.6 millions inhabitants[9]. It is located in north-eastern Brazil, that accordingly to UNDP[10] it is the most unequal region in Brazil (PNUD, 12/12/2005). Recife’s Gini index, 0.68, is the highest among all Brazilian capitals (ibid.). These data gives some clue about the social conditions in Brazilian big cities. It is not all, beside inequality violence is one of the worst problems facing Recife day-by-day life.
To explore more details about this case let us focus in some important aspects that can be linked to the discussion on this paper:
The rationale behind the Network of Solidary Resistance is based on resistance and fight against inequality. Deliberately, it opposes the neo-liberal ideals and intends to empower people in their own communities. One of the most important facts is to guarantee local control of their means of subsistence, through networks of self-help and social economy. It is very close to the rationale of the people-centred approach.
The three main objectives of the Network are: “to network (articulation where everyone is an independent and solidary cooperated); to resist (through democratization of their means of production and diffusion of local information, culture, education and work); and solidarity (to give and to receive in the benefit of all)” (Rede de Resistência Solidária, 2005). Another time, it is linked to the people-centred approach with some confluence to alternative modernities’ objectives.
The guiding principals of the Network are: “liberty, self-reliance, solidarity, collective action, honesty, equality and affectivity” (ibid.). Here there is a mixture of principals from the four models analysed.
With one year of activity – it was constituted in January 2005 – the main actors of the Network are approximately 250 individual and around 50 grassroots organisations affiliated. They are all responsible for managing the Network. In general, these organisations are all youth led organisations, informal and with strong community ties. Among them, there are: community radios “(Radio Viração FM)”, communication producers “(Ventilador Cultural, Revista Salve S.A., IN-Bolada Record’s, Zine De Cara com a poesia, Núcleo Gráfico Maloca de Sonhos)”, youth NGOs “(Coletivo Êxito D’Rua, Academia de Desenvolvimento Social)”, fair-trade shops “(Seres Sub-Shop)”, gender issue groups “(Rosas Urbanas, Força Mista)”, cultural groups “(Atitude Real, Mustar rap, 4E crew, A.P.S. Crew, Movimento Hip Hop Gospel Crer, Rima vs Rua, Mangue Crew, L.E. Crew, Inquilinus, 33 Gets Crew, Irmanadas, Donas, OPG Crew)”, community associations from at least 30 communities, and so forth (ibid.). Altogether, they clearly reflect the actors described as from people-centred approach and alternative modernities.
On its practice, the Network is gathering once a week to plan its actions. It divides its practice in three main pillars: “action (five radio programs, a monthly graffiti collective action, an artistic-solidary space, some fanzines, one alternative magazine and awareness campaigns); structure (a music recording studio, an independent musical seal, a fair-trade shop, t-shirts production, a graphical centre, a community school); and ethical internal management (empowerment of those cooperated and self-reliance, among others)” (ibid.). Once more, it fits better in the people-centred and alternative modernities approaches.
The Network has already achieved some short-term impacts, and it has planned its middle and long-term impacts as follows: in the short-term, it already achieved the “union of individuals and collectives, all previously actives in society, to make their actions more confident, interlinked and solidary”; “in the middle-term, it is intended to make all action self-reliance on each community”; and in the long-term, “economical liberty through new kinds of organisation for sustainability” is on its aim (ibid.).
Galo de Souza, founding member of the Network of Solidary Resistance, and originally from Coletivo Êxito d’Rua, says that “we need to produce solutions that bring the oppressed ones to be cooperative for their own liberation; we need to produce food, information, clothes, music, films, ideas and community ideals, reflecting ourselves. The community must consume what is produced there, what is expressed, felt and thought to its liberation” (de Souza, 2005:2).
He is referring to “community liberation” (ibid.) and to new forms of local economic systems jointed with local culture and self-awareness. The ground is the local social economy system, as an alternative to neo-liberalism. Social economy system is said to be a very good alternative for the emancipation and growth of local economies, based in solidary and cooperative values of production. Paraphrasing Williams, Aldridge and Tooke (2003:154-155), social economy is a way to tackle social exclusion, and it is an alternative to both formal and informal sectors of conventional economy.
In general, it is clear that through this kind of initiative, grassroots and community organisations, and people, are trying to break on through the great inequality gap of Brazilian cities. They are bringing about hope not only for themselves, but to many others, in the sea of fear that ordinary life of marginalised people has become.
Conclusions
Hope! This is the most important thing about alternatives approaches towards development. Marginalised people need hope to keep on fighting for a better life.
Alternative development has emerged in between waves of fear, during the Cold War. From social movements to politics, from feelings to scientific literature, it has been breaking on through the tides of pessimism and fear of recent history. From the Cold War to the neo-liberal world of today, alternative development is opening up possibilities of a better future for those who believe there is something wrong in the world, the way it has been organised in the last centuries.
Socially, alternative development gives voice, power and emancipation to people to decide about their own present and future; furthermore, it points to social justice, human and civil rights, and environmental sustainability as important issues to be set on the agenda. Economically, it is drawing concrete and inclusive alternatives to the current economic system, especially in the local level; however, the path ahead is still tremendously huge, as huge as the international powers of neo-liberalism. Politically, participatory democracy is starting to challenge representative democracy in the debate on the quality and the level of democracy. Morally, it is very well grounded and committed to people; additionally, it is not a singularity in itself, once it is not proposing any miracle blueprint to development. Academically, it has been a promising space for new thinking and for questioning of the present; however, it still lacks more space and recognition. Practically, it has already a great number of adopters, worldwide. Even not necessarily aware of the subject, they are proposing, implementing and achieving new practices, behaviours, relations and hope for society. Altogether, alternative development is a way to promote the promised people’s revolution without guns.
· De Souza, Galo (2005) Liberdade Comunitária. Recife: Rede de Resistência Solidária.[11]
· Eckert, Roland & Willems, Helmut (1986) Youth Protests in Western Europe: Four case studies. In: Lang, Kurt & Lang, Glayds Engel (1986) Research in Social Movements, Conflict and Change, Vol. 9. London: Jai Press Inc.
· Friedman, John (1992) Empowerment – The Politics of Alternative Development. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
· Gaonkar, Dilip P. (2001) On Alternative Modernities. In: Gaonkar, Dilip P. (ed.) Alternative Modernities. Durham: Duke University Press.
· Korten, David C. (1984) People Centred Development: Toward a Framework. In: Korten, David C. & Klauss, Rudi (1984) People Centred Development. West Hartford: Kumarian Press.
· Korten, David C. (1992) People-Centred Development, in Bauzon, Kenneth E. – Development and Democratization in the Third World – Myths, Hopes, and Realities. New York: Yeshiva University.
· Peters, Michael (1999) Neoliberalism. On 15/Jan/2005, at http://www.vusst.hr/ENCYCLOPAEDIA/neoliberalism.htm [12]
· PNUD, Boletim Diário Brasil (12/12/2005) Capitais nordestinas são as mais desiguais. Brasília: UNDP Brazil, at http://www.pnud.org.br/pobreza_desigualdade/reportagens/index.php?id01=1667&lay=pde [13]
· Rahnema, Majid (1997) Towards Post-Development: searching for signposts, a new language and new paradigms, in: Rahnema, Majid & Bawtree, Victoria (1997) The Post-Development Reader. Dhaka: University Press LTD.
· Rede de Resistência Solidária (2005) Projeto de Constituição. Recife: Rede de Resistência Solidária.[14]
· Shiva, Vandana (1989) Western Science and its Destruction of Local Knowledge, in: Rahnema, Majid & Bawtree, Victoria (1997) The Post-Development Reader. Dhaka: University Press LTD.
· Thirlwall, A. P. (2003) Growth and Development. New York: Palgrave.
· Weinstain, Mark (2004) Political Activism and Youth in Britain. In: Todd, Malcolm J. & Taylor, Gary (2004) Democracy and Participation: Popular protests and new social movements. London: Merlin Press.
· Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (2005) Non-Aligned Movement. On 14-Jan-2006, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement
· Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (2006a) Modernity. On 14-Jan-2006, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernity
· Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (2006b) Homo economicus. On 15-Jan-2006, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus
· Williams, Coin C.; Aldridge, Theresa & Tooke, Jane (2003) Alternative Exchange Spaces. In: Leyshon, Andrew; Lee, Roger & Williams, Colin C. (2003) Alternative Economic Spaces. London: Sage Publications.
[1] For Friedman (1992:10), people should not only live but also flourish.
[2] IMF: International Monetary Fund – http://www.imf.org/
[3] WTO: World Trade Organisation – http://www.wto.int/
[4] WB: World Bank – http://www.worldbank.org/
[5] NGO: Non Governmental Organisations
[6] LETS: Local Exchange Trade Systems – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LETS
[7] SHG: Self-Help Groups
[8] By collective it means all kinds of grassroots and community based organisations.
[9] Accordingly to City Population ©, in 01 July 2005: http://www.citypopulation.de/Brazil.html
[10] UNDP: United Nations Development Program: http://www.pnud.org.br/ (Brazilian website)
[11] This original text is in Portuguese. All translations were done by the author. Reference in English as follows: De Souza, Galo (2005) Community Liberty. Recife: Network of Solidary Resistance.
[12] The link only works with the capital letters on for “ENCYCLOPAEDIA”.
[13] This original text is in Portuguese. All translations were done by the author. Reference in English as follows: UNDP, Daily Bulletin Brazil (12/12/2005) North-eastern capitals are the most unequal. Brasília: UNDP Brazil.
[14] This original text is in Portuguese. All translations were done by the author. Reference in English as follows: Network of Solidary Resistance (2005) Constituency Project. Recife: Network of Solidary Resistance.
Dependency Theory and International-Local Development
Dependency Theory and International-Local Development
The Hague, 19/Oct/2005 | By Rui Mesquita Cordeiro | rui@cidadania.org.br
In a provocative interview for Mother Jones E-Journal, Jeffrey Sachs, an economist for the United Nations, comes up with some points defending more co-operation among rich and poor countries for developmental ends. United Nations has said that more development aid should be given on a local level, bypassing governments, for more immediate and effective outcomes, empowering local organisations. That is aligned with Sachs’ proposal “to help people help themselves”. He says that it can be done through international co-operation focusing practical investments on very basic things, all at once, such as immunizations against well known diseases, access to water or food production to fight hunger, using our current technology. For that, he believes in public “pressuring rich nations to set aside 0.7 percent of GNP for development aid”.
Sachs’ ideas can be related with the called dependency theory in many aspects. First of all in the sense that poor countries or communities need help from outside, either financial or technological. F. H. Cardoso (1970’s) writes about it and calls it dependent development. It is a way to think that development of peripherical countries or regions can be done without delinking from rich countries co-operation. In opposition to that idea, A. G. Frank (1950’s), one of the pioneers of the dependency theory, says that delinking “metropolis and satellites” relation is the way to avoid what he calls the development of underdevelopment, a historical and structural approach to explain the development of the current rich countries over the exploitation of the current underdeveloped countries. One’s can also reflect that development aid throughout the last decades is being based on poor countries contracting debt from international institutions based in the rich countries, generating a new kind of dependence relation, called by M. Castells and R. Laserna (1990’s) of new dependency, while Sachs seems to agree that bypassing governments and sending aid directly to the local level, through donations with no pay back agreement, can avoid this new kind of dependence relation.
I agree with Sachs’ arguments mainly because I believe that each day, more and more, alternative and effective solutions for our world society, in general, should be based and decided at local and international arenas, rather than at the national level. In one hand empowerment, governance, autonomy and participation of and in the local level and, in another hand, political willing, governance, cooperation, democracy and peace in and for the international level will be decisive for the political and economical choices we, as humanity, shall make to address our own global development all over the entire planet. I also believe that international-local and local-international co-operation is a way to alleviate the historical and international economical gap we face today basically everywhere, what makes that many simple problems are still going on, together with a growing inequality. But, at international level, who’s talking for us?
____________________________
Reference:
The End of Poverty: An Interview with Jeffrey Sachs – One of the world’s top economists offers a blueprint for transforming the developing world.
Interviewed by Onnesha Roychoudhuri on May 6, 2005
(Mother Jones E-Journal, http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2005/05/jeffrey_sachs.html)
