Development Theory and Actors

by

Towards Inclusive Development

As stated by Andy Sumner and Michael Tribe in their book International Development Studies, there are three different definitions of development. It can either be a long-term process of structural transformation, a short-to-medium term outcome of targets, or a Western discourse. In Armatya Sen’s well-regarded book Development as Freedom, development is expansion of the five freedoms listed by him. Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson propose in their book Why Nations Fail that development entails inclusive political and economic institutions. These are some theoretical understandings of development. Some of these theories overlap and complement with each other while others disagree with one another. An easier way to understand development for the general public is to observe the global reality. In the beginning of their book, Acemoglu and Robinson depict the drastic difference in all aspects of life between the US side of Nogales and the Mexican side of Nogales. The vast disparity is hard to neglect and is also the cause behind many global crises.

In my opinion, the origin of the field of development is embedded with many historical problems, such as the legacy of colonialism. As Acemoglu and Robinson have argued in their book, different colonial experiences lead to different political and economic institutions that shape the societies in various ways. Without colonialism and the exploitation and human abuses that it has brought upon societies, our world today would have looked quite different. It is unfortunate that the world system today is perpetuating the same power dynamics as colonialism, with the former metropoles in the powerful situation to provide aid to former colonies. This prevents international development from becoming more inclusive. Whether it’s development as a long-term structural change, as short-term outcomes, as five freedoms, or as inclusive political and economic institutions, the mainstream development discourse indeed reflects Western countries as ideal models, and grant these countries the legitimacy to tie development aid with conditionality. This is not to say that the experience and practices of more developed countries do not have anything to offer or that all donor countries are post-colonial. I am simply suggesting that we should also value the perspectives from the developing world on the matter of their own development. In order for development practices to become more inclusive, development theories have to first include more ideas. The alternative path to development offered by developing countries such as Russia, China and Brazil, is seen as a threat by many Western governments because of ideological differences and competition over spheres of influence. In a multi-polar world, this inevitable collision opens up room for choices in development and helps make development more inclusive by incorporating different and even conflicting ideas. Development theories and practices today should reflect the multi-polar international society and should include more actors from the developing world.

by

Moonshot Thinking in Economics: Grameen Bank

Throughout the discipline of economics, scholars study models of perfectly functioning markets and what these markets would look like if all of the right conditions were met. It is a fascinating discipline which shows what a perfect world could look like, but the difficult reality of things is that often these models represent unrealistic expectations based on human behavior, availability of resources, and allocation of land, capital, and labor. We do not live in a perfect world where capitalism is a well-oiled machine that works perfectly for all people, or where everyone in the world embraces a single communist ideology. No, we live in a very diverse world with people from different backgrounds who have different interests, beliefs, norms, and values. This diversity is a fundamental element of our existence that makes our world more beautiful, but also more complex, and this is something that is often left out of economics.

When the Grameen Bank in India was founded in 1983, it was met with a lot of criticism because people expected it to function the same way any other bank functions, by loaning money with high interests and making a profit. People held the Grameen Bank to the standards of what people already knew, without thinking that they could ever operate differently. Instead of operating for profit, the Grameen Bank is a rare institution that offers microfinancing opportunities to poor communities by loaning them money to expand their operations, but offering very low interest rates that give the customers flexibility and reduces the pressure of paying back the loans. This model of operations is extremely risky from the perspective of a bank that runs on making a profit, because society leads us to believe that poor people are a liability when it comes to managing money. The Grameen Bank didn’t see poor people as a liability, but more as an opportunity to give back to the community and allow rural areas to develop and grow.

Not only is the Grameen Bank the first microfinancing institution of its kind, but it is also the first that favors women entrepreneurs and empowers women to become business managers and participate more actively in societies where they were often oppressed. According to statistics by the bank, around 95% of the women that took out loans from the bank consistently managed to pay back their debts and the interest, showing a high rate of success.

Why is this bank an example of moonshot thinking in my opinion? No one ever believed that there could be a “Bank of the Poor” and people never believed that a banking system could have the effect of reducing rural poverty and protecting social capital whilst also empowering women in local communities. The Bank was met with much opposition from people that believed that it was merely exploiting the poor and believed that the bank just put poor people into more debt that previously, or people criticized the bank for overstepping and intervening in the role of the government in providing poverty alleviation strategies, but it is undeniable that this Bank has brought a new way of looking at poverty alleviation and has generated a new conversation looking specifically at how this could potentially provide solutions for people not just in India, but around the world as well.

by

What is Development?

In terms of how we look at “development,” it is integral to take into consideration the many current frameworks and theories. In the context of international development today, we see how the field is constantly changing. These alterations can be traced to multiple intertwined factors that at the same time foster their own impact on the development arena. We see how our environment can impact the food security and agricultural production of an entire nation. Or how an international sanction can endanger a country’s economic development. Foreign aid can help, but also hinder a nation. With such topics all having their own roles in the sector, identifying the best approach appears to be tricky. This is why we need to determine what should serve as a platform or foundation for international development. As discussed in class, Amartya Sen’s Development As Freedom highlights how development consists of choices involve where you live and how you decide to live along with the totality of a developed society. In terms of long-term major structural changes, Sen explains how these do not take place quick or may not even occur at all.

We see the practical exemplification of theory in development through the dependency theory. In this theory, there is a form of labor internationally divided between countries. Moreover, we have two sets of nations: the core and the periphery. In terms of industry, the core dominates. The periphery has cheap labor and agriculture that is exploited, expropriated and then appropriated by the core for their own economic benefit and gains. In each country, there is a clear divide between the rich and the poor and elites cooperate across national divisions to maintain this system. All of this exists in a larger international system under global capitalism. Under this theory, the system is geared towards solely benefiting the wealthy. Through this flow of development, we see how developing nations mainly consist of the regions. We can include nations in Africa, Latin America and parts of Asia in this category. Those nations in the core include those in North America, Europe and in many cases China. These nations consisting of the core utilize the resources available in the periphery with little respect for the rule of law of human rights in these nations. In the case of many African nations, China has become a beacon for trade and investment. Due to the Chinese, development has been rampant across the continent in areas such as ICT development, infrastructure and economic development.

by

Development Theory

Development theory is an exceedingly important aspect of IR theory. Development theory explores what can be defined as development and why the concept of development is important to begin with. Predictably, the answer to the question, What can be defined as development? is not as simple as it may seem. In fact, the concept of development as a whole is often criticized because it seems to paint western society as an ideal should be striven for or as the pinnacle of what can be achieved from a society. According to people who subscribe to such an argument, the very term “developed” and therefore “development” alludes to some fixed point or measure that has been established by western society and ideals. However, beyond the critiques of the study of development as a whole, a complex debate on what constitutes development and how development can be achieved also exists. As with any debate of this magnitude, there are copious amounts of literature pertaining to development theory. This class explored primarily the work of Amartya Sen and the lens through which he perceives and discusses development.

As Amartya Sen explains in his book, “Development as Freedom,” he perceives development as, “… A process of expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy.” He goes on later to explain in his book that, “Development requires the removal of major sources of unfreedom: poverty as well as tyranny, poor economic opportunities as well as systematic social deprivation, neglect of public facilities as well as intolerance or over-activity of repressive states.” In short, Sen perceives development as access to real freedoms that can only exist when tyranny and poverty are eliminated. Sen’s perspectives on development have shaped how other scholars perceive development as well.

Understanding Sen’s definition of development, and the many other perspectives on development are essential to understanding the subject as whole. As is to be expected, perceptions of what development is and how it can be accomplish profoundly shape the approach that the international community takes to addressing the issue of development as a whole. During a time when many new international agreements and goals are emerging pertaining to development, it is more important than ever to fully understand what development means and the various scholarly opinions surrounding the subject. Only then can one formulate their own opinions on what are effective means to achieving development and what types of policies should be implemented.

by

What is Development?: Theoretical and Conceptual Approaches

The concept of development to me, appears to be a relatively broad term that can be inclusive of multiple facets depending on what a person may believe to constitute as development. For example, according to the Center for Global Development, it seems that before Amartya Sen’s multifaceted approach towards international development, levels of income use to be the main indicator when measuring levels of development. Since Amartya Sen’s work in the 1980s, it has become much more common ground to look at a variety of “quality of life” indicators to determine a more holistic view of development levels within a community (such as access to quality healthcare and education). Furthermore, another fascinating concept introduced by Amartya Sen in his book, Development as Freedom, is essentially the potential of freedoms such as economic and political freedoms, to provide individuals with greater access to the commodities that will enable an improved quality of life through greater capabilities for economic and social mobilities. The ability for social and economic mobilization appears to be one of the key influences on reaching sustainable development solutions and the foundations for capacity building when working for community improvement in the long-term.

Furthermore, one important idea that I was able to take away from the book, Why Nations Fail, is the idea of man-made political and economic institutions having an effect on the capabilities of a citizen’s economic success. It was interesting to realize that the inclusivity of a government in providing individuals with the equal opportunity for success is potentially one of the main determining factors in the degree of mobility that citizens have the right to take advantage of.

Finally, I believe that in development discourse, an important component to keep in mind is the promotion of sustainability and resilience in development solutions. Resilience according to USAID, is “the ability of people, households, communities, countries, and systems to mitigate, adapt to, and recover from shocks and stresses in a manner that reduces chronic vulnerability and facilitates inclusive growth” (Building Resilience to Recurrent Crisis 5). The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 is a good example of the discourse used for development solution resilience. For example, one aspect involved in promoting long-term effective development projects is engaging with the communities themselves as a means of capacity-building,  to ensure that communities will be more equipped to manage disasters and be able to mitigate some of their the long-term negative effects (Sendai Framework 19).

by

Development Theory

Development, as so many other terms in the field of International Studies, is not easily definable. It has many interpretations, argued by extensive academics and practitioners with diverse backgrounds. Traditional development studies were largely based on the concept that development was directly related to development. Acemoglu and Robinson uphold this focus on economics for development in their recent work, Why Nations Fail, along with the concept of strong institutions. For this pair, these two concepts are the fundamental keys to whether a nation will prosper or, as titled, fail. While there are strengths to their arguments, their conviction in the economic model of development did not do much to change the minds of most development scholars and practitioners who have come to largely accept more humanistic approaches to development.

Thus far in my studies and work experience, Amartya Sen seems to be the leading figure in explaining what it means for a nation to be “developed.” Sen challenged the traditional beliefs that development is directly related to economic prosperity and income levels by proposing that, instead, development is much more dependent on freedom. In his own words, “Development consists of the removal of various types of unfreedoms that leave people with little choice and little opportunity of exercising their reasoned agency. The removal of substantial unfreedoms, it is argued here, is constitutive of development” (xii).

This view was innovative in that it essentially supports individuals as actors who contribute to the overall development of a nation and, more generally, the world, as opposed to policy-makers and national leaders. Additionally, Sen’s concept is very inclusionary as it supports freedom for all and recognizes the need for representation from every group in a country, not just the usual elites who lead decision-making. Acemoglu and Robinson do make mention of the importance of inclusion, explaining, “Inclusive economic institutions…are those that allow and encourage participation by the great mass of people in economic activities that make best use of their talents and skills and that enable individuals to make the choices they wish” (74). However, their exploration of inclusion is limited by the emphasis on economic institutions.

With the adoption of international frameworks like the past Millennium Development Goals and the current Sustainable Development Goals, it seems as if development practices are becoming increasingly attuned to the needs of individuals. However, as the MDGs continue to be criticized as a failure, it remains unclear if the SDGs and similar frameworks will do their job in supporting the assurance of freedom that Sen so avidly promotes and that many, including myself, have come to accept as the true nature of development.

 

by

Sen’s Theory Toward Inclusive Development

Development is a loaded term, difficult to define in one finely packaged sentence. Traditionally (and wrongly), the picture that comes to mind with “development” is a cross-comparison, one side in a remote village with no running water, children working the fields rather than attending schools, etc. with the other side taking the shape of a large city, covered in high-rise buildings, cars crowding the streets, the latest mobile technologies in everyone’s hands. In the past, “development” was seen as a mission, something the picture on the right needed to intervene and help the picture on the left achieve. I recall being guilty of this myself, even. In a World Studies course in middle school, a woman came to speak to us about Africa as a continent. She showed us a series of pictures, some of naked children, wild animals, women with water in jugs on their heads, and small huts and some of tall buildings, bustling city centers, and highway systems. She asked us “which of these photographs are of Africa?” and we all chose those that seemed to fit our definition of “underdeveloped,” a notion that she quickly turned over on its head.

Much like this guest speaker did for me (and I am so grateful to her that she did), Amartya Sen has done for development as a concept on a global scale. In Development as Freedom, Sen has changed the discourse on development from the “developed” saving or fixing the “underdeveloped” with an end goal of increased income to an understanding of freedoms and unfreedoms. Thanks to Sen, we know that it is an unfreedom for people and entire countries to be left out of the discussion on what makes them “developed” with countries that claim to be already developed making all of the rules.

He defines development as discourse and more importantly, development as freedom, noting that it goes beyond income and applies to freedoms as the opportunities and choices that exist for people. These choices may included where you live and who you live with, what type of transportation you take, where you go to school, what you study in college, and what career you will have.

In turning our previous notions of development on its head, Sen acknowledges that by these standards, some “developed” countries are not truly developed at all and sets the standard for inclusive and sustainable development. As we move from the Millennium Development Goals to the SDGs to the CRPD, WSIS, and Habitat III and the NUA, it is exciting to see the impact a theory of inclusive development has on the progress we are making and the lens through which we frame these goals and their results.

by

Development Theory

What do we mean when we say that a person or a group or a country is better off? This complex question drove Amaryta Sen to write Development As Freedom, in which Sen tackles the issue of development. Unlike my fellow classmates, development was not an area that I focused on during my academic studies. As such, Development As Freedom was my introduction to development theory. Development is a multi-disciplinary field that is convoluted by a myriad of perspectives as to what constitutes development of a nation. Prior to Sen, development was largely measured by economic growth. This idea of development as a measure of economic prosperity is culminated in Why Nations Fail. In Why Nations Fail, Acemoglu and Robinson address development in regards to economic growth of a nation and the inclusivity of the institutions of a nation. However, in Development As Freedom, Sen challenges this predominate view by claiming that money is not a measure of all things. Instead, Sen argues that development is the process of expanding human freedoms. Sen focused on the concept of freedom, rather than the means to achieving freedom. He believes that freedoms are restricted by social, political, and economic opportunity. Sen asserts “development consists of the removal of various types of unfreedoms that leave people with little choice and the opportunity of exercising their reasoned agency.” Sen’s assertion led to a critical paradigm shift in the field of development that focuses on the expansion of individual freedom as the primary end and primary means of development.

In International Development Studies, Sumner and Tribe address the three inter-related views on development including: (1) the long-term process of structural change in the international system, (2) short to medium-term process, and (3) development as a discourse. Contextually, these inter-related views on development and the paradigm shift in the field of development brought about the discourse of inclusive sustainable development and more importantly, disability inclusive development. The idea of development as a means of expanding freedoms is especially challenging when viewed from the perspective of persons with disabilities. There are over one million individuals in our world that face a myriad of unfreedoms because of their disability. Inclusive sustainable development practices aim to tackle these unfreedoms. Specifically, efforts focused on disability inclusive development are culminated in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

Upon my introduction to development theory, the idea of freedom as the primary end and the primary means of development, was inspiring. Sen highlights the importance of freedoms that allow people to help themselves and influence the world; this inspired me to choose my capstone topic focused on disaster risk management at the community level. My capstone project, when viewed from a larger context, is an attempt to reduce the unfreedoms that communities face in building resilience to natural disaster. It highlights the importance of freedoms that allow communities to help themselves in the face of natural disaster.

Viewing development as a means to expand human freedoms is essential to achieving inclusive sustainable development.

by

Development Theory

Development theory is a difficult subject, because it is oftentimes purely subjective.  It is a concept that’s difficult to define, in terms of what it is and where we draw the line of whether a country is developed or underdeveloped.  Furthermore, the question of who gets the authority to make these decisions arises.

There are a lot of academic voices in this field, one being Amartya Sen.  His piece called “Development as Freedom,” is one of the most well-known development theories.  He explains that human rights and freedoms go hand in hand in the process of developing a country, and that freedoms are needed before any development will occur.  His theories were considered controversial, because before Sen most development practitioners pushed the idea that economic stimulation was the right way to go about development.  According to Sen, creating personal and human freedoms paves the way for development to thrive.  More specifically, he says for development to happen we need to provide social and economic freedoms, and political and civil rights.  In underdeveloped countries, missing freedoms that we see affecting the development process may include lack of representation in government for multiple voices to be heard, or lack of access to health care and education, for example.  Furthermore, since all freedoms are generally interconnected, people must have the rights to basic freedoms if they also hope to gain civil and political rights like the aforementioned examples of health and education.  A strong interconnected web of such freedoms can build each other up.

Sen argues that democratic governments speed up development because more voices are heard, so decisions are better informed and serve society in a more efficient and positive way.  I believe Sen’s definition would be appreciated by the UN, especially in the current context of pushing for multistakeholderism and focusing on the intersectionality of development. Traditionally, development levels were measured by per capita income.  The reason to look at many intersecting factors is because, while a family may earn more than the poverty line, the infrastructure someone is surrounded by that they use to access society may be lacking, which is half the battle of development.

by

Development Theory and Actors

Of all the development theories we covered for the capstone class and any other development class I have had over the past four years, I think that the most accurate framework for understanding what development means is the version of development presented by Amartya Sen. Essentially, Sen writes that to bring “development” to a population is to expand the freedoms population of that population. Sen argues for his framework with two reasons: the “evaluative reason” and the “effectiveness reason”. The evaluative reason claims that assessment of the progress of any development policy must be done primarily by whether or not freedoms are enhanced. For example, if a policy rises the average income of an area by increasing the income of the richest members of that community, then the freedoms of the average person have not been effected. While an economically-oriented analysis may make this policy look like a good one, it clearly does not help those in need of development programs. Sen’s analysis reveals this to be the case. We know a development plan is only as good as the degree of freedom it brings to the average individual. The second reason is the effectiveness reason: effective development is completely dependent on the lasting freedom of people. If a policy allows increases the freedoms of a group of people substantively but in an unsustainable or temporary way, then the policy has not effectively developed the area in any meaningful way. Through this metric, the major impediments to development are poverty and tyranny and their effects are inextricable.

Another use for Sen’s framework is the examination of national policies that are advertised as effective means of developing a country. Some industrializing countries have suspended freedoms such as workers’ rights in the short term to develop more opportunity for freedom. By some economically oriented frameworks, this would seem like a reasonable if unpleasant strategy. Sen’s framework shows that sacrificing freedom for wealth is illogical because the country is pursuing freedom by giving up freedom. Sen recognizes wealth as an intermediary to freedom and this reveals many overly-simplistic, utilitarian policies to be what they are. Sen cites “unfreedoms” as those issues that impede development. These unfreedoms are actually the exact issues that many of the sustainable development goals look to resolve. Some of these unfreedoms are a lack of food and food security, lack of health services, and a lack of gender equality.