Draft only please do not cite or distribute without author’s permission



Yüklə 170,35 Kb.
səhifə2/9
tarix26.09.2018
ölçüsü170,35 Kb.
#70718
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9

A Critique of Development


Gordon and Sylvester distinguish between development as theory or idea,26 as practice27 and as a construction of the law.28 For the purposes of this piece, development is approached as an idea or a theory, since the purpose of this paper is to locate the idea of empowerment, specifically the empowerment of mine communities, in the development paradigm. Development as a practice and legal construction will also be considered briefly, however, to illustrate the extent to which development as an idea is situated in a specific worldview.

The reason for this approach is to be able to critique the notion of development, as has been done by Gordon and Sylvester,29 thereby exposing the politics of development. Analysing30 the notion of development provides the opportunity to acknowledge that development is not a neutral and objective ideal. As will be shown in this section, the politics of development emphasise that the entire project is located in Western imagination and centres on a specific construction of poverty.

Development as an idea dates back to the European enlightenment philosophy.31 Whereas development as enlightenment covered a broad range of aspects,32 development in recent times has focused on addressing poverty and narrowing the gap between poorer and wealthier nations.33 This gap was especially visible after the Second World War. Development, therefore, became closely related to modernisation34 and national economic growth.35 It signifies progress or transformation of a society in both an economic and social context.36

There, however, is no consensus on what would present transformation, especially social transformation.37 Economic development is easily translated into economic growth that is measurable in terms of, for instance, gross domestic product.38 It has been defined as the

“structural transformation of an economy from one based primarily on the production of primary goods…generating low levels of income for the majority of populations, to another based on modern industries, generating higher levels of income for the majority of populations”.39

Defining the idea of social development or social progress is more difficult. There really are no objective means of measuring social progress since it is heavily dependent on the cultural beliefs and ideological setting of the specific society.40 Lee, therefore, argues that a type of agreement amongst persons “sharing common cultural and ideological backgrounds” is required to classify social change as social progress or development.41

The idea or theory behind development has not been stagnant since its inception in the post war era. The initial focus of development initiatives on reducing gaps between developed and developing countries42 culminated into a view of development pursuing more than just economic values.43 The United Nations Development Programme presented the idea “human development” that turns on the promotion of human abilities, such as the ability to live a “long and healthy life” and to have access to a “decent standard of living”.44 Conditions for human development should be created for individuals to participate in life on community and political level in a society pursuing “environmental sustainability, human security and rights, and gender equality”.45

The proponents of a more “holistic view” of development include Sen, who regarded development as the freedom to choose one’s own economic destiny and freedom from poverty.46 This view, therefore, signifies a move away from regarding economic growth as the only means to secure opportunities for everyone.47 A more “holistic view” of development is also promoted in the World Bank’s Comprehensive Development Framework (CDF) & Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) promoted by UN.48

The idea of development, therefore, has been conceived mostly from a Western perspective. Even when regarding development as a practice, this Western perspective becomes apparent. Here, consideration is given, on the one hand, to the institutions implementing development and these institutions’ interactions with developing nations. The institutions are for instance the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the World Bank) and the International Monetary Fund (the IMF).49 On the other hand, looking at development as practice requires consideration of the changes in the global, economic, and social climate since the Second World War, since the development institutions had to respond to these changes.50 Gordon and Sylvester identify four stages of development practice.

Initial development practices were state-led and focused on addressing income disparities.51 Pursuing economic growth, therefore, characterised the initial, golden age of development (1950-1970) but it soon became apparent that theories upholding the promised “trickle-down”52 effect of economic growth were inaccurate.53

The second phase of development, therefore, saw the amalgamation of social and economic development with a focus on bottom-up approaches and the empowerment of local communities.54 These theories were all created in the West.55

The third phase of development practice constitutes the antithesis of the earlier golden age. The effects of the developing world debt crisis largely negated the impact of development initiatives. Institutions such as the IMF had to intervene to assist developing countries to manage their debt, but these interventions did not have favourable outcomes for the debtor countries.56

The fourth phase in development practice can furthermore be identified. This phase is characterised by an embrace of neoliberalism and, therefore, “denationalisation, deregulation and devaluation”.57 The Washington Consensus58 and the global dominance of American economic and political views meant that modernisation and development now required national economies to be integrated into the global economy, to lessen government regulation and to pursue free market principles.59

Development is also constructed by the law. Three “moments” of law and development60 have been identified that roughly correspond with the four phases of development practice mentioned above.61 During the first, postwar or neo-classical “moment”, the law was regarded as an instrument to achieve economic growth and development and was therefore used to regulate effective state intervention in the economy.62

The 1980’s saw the second “moment” of law and development with the neoliberal market at its centre.63 The law provided the foundation for market relations and a limitation of state intervention in the economy.64 State intervention was allowed only to protect law and order, and more importantly, in terms of the private law, to protect property and contracts.65 An important aspect of the second “moment” is that the modernization of the legal systems of developing countries was set as a prerequisite for development and a functioning market system. These countries had hoped that acceptance of the development ideal would bring about equality and freedom from poverty.66 The law and development movement, however, remained firmly embedded in Western thinking.67

A third “moment” in law and development emerged during the early 1990’s which moment corresponds with the current context.68 Whether this moment constitutes an entirely new paradigm or merely another form of neoliberalism has not been confirmed.69 The third moment constitutes a response to the critiques of the first and second moments, requiring the recognition of the limits of markets and the expansion of the definition of development.70

Development and decolonisation required the reinstatement of countries’ permanent sovereignty over its natural resources.71 Thereafter, the developing nations demanded the legal recognition of the right to development. If development is regarded as a legal right, the developed world is compelled to assist in the development initiatives of the developing world.72 The subsequent declaration of development as a human right73 confirmed that development was an entitlement and a pre-condition for social life.74 Other legal instruments75 were also created to give effect to the ideals of development.

The responses to development from the non-Western (or developing) world have therefore also shaped development, but without necessarily challenging the Western or Eurocentric consciousness in which development theory is situated.76 The industrialised world has also not necessarily accepted the acknowledgement of development as a right or their responsibilities in providing development assistance. Whether acknowledging development as a human right has substance, can, therefore, be questioned.77

Development can consequently be seen as the Western ideal, discourse or ideology that argues for all societies transforming (and conforming) to reach a certain level of functionality. When development is regarded as an ideology, it means that development is presented as the ideas, attitudes and values of a specific group or class of people with significant power in society. These values or ideas may therefore not constitute an accurate depiction of reality, but because of the powerful interests that are being represented the values are held to be true and universal.78

As a discourse,79 the concept development is not simply talked about but is actually given meaning or “brought into being” through the discourse.80 Established practices are implied that determine who can participate in this discussion, from what points of view and with what authority.81 In the context of development, these practices cause the exclusion of certain points of view, therefore, resulting in the misrepresentation of the beneficiaries of development.82 Such misrepresentation leads to ineffective policies and presents developing countries and its citizens as objects of development.83

The misrepresentation or misconfiguration of beneficiaries can be witnessed in the efforts to define poverty and underdevelopment. It is often argued that USA President Truman’s inauguration speech initiating the Point IV Program84 in 1949 created the “underdeveloped” world.85 He described the “economic life” of the poor as “primitive and stagnant” and “(t)heir poverty … a handicap and a threat both to them and to the more prosperous areas”. Because of the advances that had been made in science and industrialisation, developed nations, such as the United States, had the duty “to relieve the suffering of these people”. 86 As part of the plan, various institutions and professions were to be created with the specific mandate to promote development.87 The Bretton Woods institutions, the World Bank and IMF, were created during this time.88

The World Bank subsequently quantified poverty and in so doing classified a large part of the global population as “poor” and “underdeveloped”.89 The measures used reflected standards of industrialised countries, inevitably disregarding how “the poor” viewed themselves.90 The setting of a poverty threshold furthermore immediately created a gap between industrialised countries and the rest of the world,91 thereby actually constructing the problem of underdevelopment.

Poverty or underdevelopment, therefore, is a social construct. It, however, cannot be denied that there are concrete aspects of poverty, such as the lack of the basic means of life.92 The question is who is empowered to make this construction and to determine the nature and distribution of these basic means?93

In a neoliberal system, in which the idea of development is embedded,94 access to resources is determined by economic markets and the law regulating transactions between persons. Whereas economic markets represent certain economic and political power relations, the law regulates transactions between individuals and the state and its subjects, through the rules of property, contract and procedure law. The conclusion of these transactions has the effect of allocating resources.95 The legal rules in terms whereof these transactions are concluded are based on ingrained ideas and assumptions about poverty and development.96 If “the poor” are viewed only in terms of “their corporeal needs for shelter, clothing, food, medical treatment, ablution facilities, clean running water…” they are left objectified and dehumanised.97 In this context, initiatives such as “development” and “empowerment” will not do much to restore agency.98

Moreover, development problems are phrased in such way as to require external, expert intervention,99 therefore necessarily disregarding local knowledge and experiences.100 Governments of developing countries are not left without authority over their citizens, but their actions will be dictated by Western policy makers to a certain extent since Western powers still offer access to financial and other assistance.101 Development is consequently pursued by implementing ill-suited policies and, unsurprisingly, delivers unsuccessful results.102

Therefore, the deconstruction of development shows that addressing poverty and inequality from within a development paradigm necessarily means adopting a specific (Western, neoliberal) worldview and understanding of what it means to be poor. The development “problem” to be solved and beneficiaries to be assisted are therefore framed in a very specific way, requiring a specific kind of intervention. The result is the creation of the inferior “Other” that requires the assistance of the developed world to achieve the same levels of development of the West.103 The fact that development theory is situated in Western thinking need not mean that development should be disregarded, but it does mean that development is not necessarily part of the human condition, and can, therefore, be questioned. 104 Pursuing development in an African country, such as South Africa, also requires a critical and cautious approach, to ensure suitability for the local context.

In the following section, it is shown how the politics of development, as described in this section, also affect the relationship between mining company and mining community. It is argued that the notion of empowerment originates from within the development paradigm. In addition, it is shown how the empowerment of mining communities as provided for in the Mining Charter, suffers the consequences of the politics of development.


  1. Yüklə 170,35 Kb.

    Dostları ilə paylaş:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©genderi.org 2024
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə