by

Inclusive Cities and Inclusive Governance

According to the World Bank, in 2016 54% of the world population lived in cities. The urban population is expected to grow at the rate of 1.84% per year between 2015 and 2020. Persons with disabilities, which take up about 15% of world population, are also part of the growing urban population. This is why many international policy initiatives are starting to include access to cities for persons with disabilities in their development agenda. For example, in Goal 11 of the Sustainable Development Goals, there are direct references to “persons with disabilities” in terms of access to public spaces and transport systems. These policy initiatives that include persons with disabilities are indeed a sign of progress for the field of international development. But not all policy initiatives have made the same progress. For example, in “Inclusive Cities” published by the Asian Development Bank in 2011, although it states that one of the goals is to improve “urban environmental infrastructure development… to serve the poor and the vulnerable,” persons with disabilities are not directly included in “the vulnerable.” “Slums” seem to be the keyword connected to “the vulnerable” and not “persons of disabilities”. It is important that we reflect on why there are such differences between policy initiatives and how we can ensure inclusion of persons with disabilities in future initiatives.

One important factor that leads to omission of persons with disabilities in policy initiatives is that persons with disabilities don’t have access to the discussion table. The UN Sustainable Development Goals are able to have direct references to persons with disabilities because those who are affected by the goals participated in the process of policy-making and made an impact on the final document. Inclusion of major groups and other stakeholders should be regarded as a requirement for future international convention. Some may argue that there are too many physical and logistical difficulties to try to include diverse groups, especially persons with disabilities whose ability to travel is limited. Luckily, there are some tools invented to solve these issues. The Disability Inclusive Development (DID) Policy Collaboratory developed by the Institute on Disability and Public Policy is a tool that will allow persons with disabilities to participated in governance processes at all levels virtually. Governance institutions at different levels can only build truly inclusive cities by including representatives of all urban dwellers. With technological advances, persons of disabilities will have more and more opportunities to voice their opinions and make an impact on policies that will affect them.

by

Three Concepts

When considering a development project, the way in which things are measured and worded has a large effect on the project mechanisms and outcomes. The three concepts outlined by Andy Sumner and Michael Tribe in International Development Studies: Theories and Methods in Research and Practice are Development as a long term process of structural societal transformation, Development as a short-to-medium term outcome of desirable targets, and Development as a dominant discourse of western modernity. All three of these are presented as separate entities with different processes and outcomes. Despite this, one would hope that all three could be used in a way to make a cohesive form of development.

Development as a long term process has been attributed to academia as it is not practiced as often as it is spoken about. While the rhetoric of development has a clear impact on the way people think and how they wish to act through it, it is true that the idealistic ways in which long term development is projected does not easily lend itself to implementation.

Development as a short-to-medium term process is more measured than the long term processes desired by academics. There are performance goals and indicators that allow for this measurement to be documented within the development community and understood by funding groups and International Organizations. While this approach is able to tangibly accomplish more than long term processes, it typically only scratches the surface of the issue and has the ability to leave an even larger issue than before.

Development as a dominant discourse of Western modernity is a concept that criticizes the two aforementioned concepts. As a whole, it argues that the development being done may not benefit the communities reached in the correct ways. For example, a development scheme may detract from a community’s ability to engage in a cultural event. Considering the development community takes Western models and applies them elsewhere, this has some validity. It creates a superiority complex that continues to drive down those in receipt of development. Even with this, there are not many solutions offered that have been taken seriously.

Because all three of these have their positives and their drawbacks, they can play of each other to learn new techniques and measurement methods. Along with the third concept of development, the people being benefited can have input and truly benefit from the projects being implemented.

by

Molehills into Mountains: How smaller issues compound into Grand Challenges

When people discuss “grand challenges” facing our world today, defined often as “technically complex societal problems that have stubbornly defied solution” (Branscomb). While organizations such as USAID have several “grand challenges” which define their organizational priorities, global climate change is seen as the quintessential “Grand Challenge”; other environmental issues such as urbanization and deforestation also often take the fore. But just as the solutions for grand challenges require a vast and complex network, the challenges themselves also possess a network of further causes and effects, which can magnify understood problems into issues equally deserving of the moniker “Grand Challenge”.

To give an example, urban flooding has been extensively studied and understood; cities would plan for a variable amount of rain which would need to be drained away in quick order. Yet, as we have seen most recently in the Houston, Texas urban area, climate change and increasing urbanization have both exacerbated the potential of flooding events. Increasing sea-level temperatures, particularly within the Gulf of Mexico, strengthen hurricanes, elevating the frequency of exceptional weather events to form a new statistical norm.

The alarming frequency of “hundred-year” storms is not the only factor in worsening floods. The devastation of coastal cities multiplies as cities in flood-prone areas develop over lakes, parks, and other natural formations which might absorb some floodwater. Without these natural drains, more neighborhoods become inundated by higher levels of flooding, worsening the issue even beyond what the increased intensity of storms would do alone.

The use of “grand challenge” in numerous fields is a fairly recent development, designed to evoke ideas of heroism and struggle in what might otherwise be mundane or overtly technical tasks. The factors surrounding grand challenges are not a simple knot which can be undone with a singular “silver bullet” solution, but a Gordian knot which can only be untangled with great effort and knowledge. Even as one challenge’s solution is sought, however, we cannot lose sight of other challenges woven into the same rope.

by

Grand Challenges and International Development

Tom Kalil accurately describes Grand Challenges as, “ambitious yet achievable goals that capture the public’s imagination and that require innovation and breakthroughs in science and technology to achieve.” This notion of Grand Challenges coincides with our classroom conversation of “moonshot thinking.” Moonshot thinking also creates ambitious but achievable goals that answers, “not what should we do” but “what can we do.” In my opinion, moonshot thinking lead to the creation of the largest grand challenges in International Development, specifically the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). As a result, the world has developed clear, time sensitive action plans in order to achieve their lofty goals.

USAID’s The Grand Challenges for Development initiative cites two quintessential beliefs of international development. They are: (1), Science and technology, when applied appropriately, can have trans-formative effects and (2), Engaging the world in the quest for solutions is critical to instigating breakthrough progress. The second belief of engagement strongly mirrors the idea of moonshot thinking as well. The SDGs work to engage the world to tackle challenges. Within each goal, they highlight its significance, along with previous progress. Additionally, each goal expresses targets and indicators in order to track and assess future progress of each goal. Through this, the SDGs’ Grand Challenges become attainable.

Furthermore, USAID’s Grand Challenges for Development tackle global issues by utilizing non-traditional practices such as businesses, sciences, and researchers. This provides USAID with a critical lens that constantly assess the success of partnerships, grants and the applicability of science and technology. As a result, mechanisms used within these grand challenges can evolve throughout their timeframe and work to better achieve their set targets.

Grand Challenges bridge the gap between technology and society. As USAID’s Grand Challenges for Development state, science and technology have the ability to transform communities. For instance, David Pescovitz notes that technology can spur economic growth and the creation of jobs that require strong collaboration across institutions. Through this, society becomes stronger as they can work together to foster development that best suits their community. As a result, communities become stronger, the necessary steps of grand challenges become clearer, and the goals become achievable.

Community Moonshot thinking, or as Kalil states, “the captur[ing] of public imagination” catalyze Grand Challenges. They push partnerships, technological innovation, and collaboration because they all work towards a common goal. Global Grand Challenges are ever present facets of International Development, and will continue to evolve.

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

Grand Challenges

Grand Challenges are major problems that international development faces today. They can range from education to healthcare, gender equality to climate change. These are the issues that we are facing today that need to be solved for tomorrow’s children. While these challenges often disproportionately affect people in the Global South, it is the responsibility of the world to solve them.

The conceptualization of Grand Challenges has changed throughout the decades. What used to be country by country problems are now seen as global issues. I think the recognition that all actors should have a seat at the table has greatly impacted this shift in responsibility. Multistakeholder participation is now seen as a key component of implementing any international strategies or programs. By including a variety of actors, the international community is beginning to understand just how connected and interwoven our world is. The problems faced in one country, may be the result of another’s misguided help. Or the issues that one business is facing in implementing a strategy may be better supported with a partnership with similar companies. By connecting these links, we are learning that everyone has played a part in these Grand Challenges and it is going to take the cooperation of many stakeholders to solve them.

While approaches to development have yet to drastically shift on a national policy level or ODA level, individuals, organizations and communities are changing the way development is approached. I think that the MDG’s and the SDG’s have been a unifying factor in shifting the capabilities and programs of many organizations. I think the goals encouraged cooperation among individuals and organizations and greatly improved communication between communities and organizations. The MDG’s were a massive undertaking and I think professionals in the development field realized that they would never be able to achieve them without community input and feedback. While I do not think that all organizations listen to the communities they serve, nor is community engagement a new phenomenon, I think the MDG’s helped put these Global Challenges in perspective and forced people to realize just how large and systemic these problems were. This encouraged more people to look to the local level to make changes from the bottom up. These Grand Challenges can be daunting, however I think the local engagement and community involvement that has been rekindled in light of the MDG’s and SDG’s bodes well for the future of international development.

by

Intersectionality in Sustainable Development

Intersectionality is an important factor to consider when looking at inclusive sustainable development. Intersectionality is a concept for the multiple identities that people ascribe to and each of those identities combines within a person to create a unique experience and perspective on the world. It is these intersections that can create varying opinions within a major group. Female youth have a different identity and experience from male youth. One identity does not necessarily define your whole person, but rather the combination of many identities creates a complex identity that needs to be respected in each of the communities that that individual ascribes to.

Like we discussed in class, people with disabilities have many intersectionalities. By asking them to lump disabilities in with other major groups is to ignore their unique needs in each category of the major group’s framework. A female with disabilities in a rural, farming community has very different needs than a male, union worker with disabilities. All of these identities interplay with each other to create the experiences of individuals and the needs of a community.

When approaching inclusive sustainable development, all perspectives and experiences should be included. This is a major challenge for development. Including the voices from the major groups, who are often the most marginalized in society, will mean restructuring the goals, programs and outcomes of projects. But it is crucial that the intersectionalities of the community be considered. What are the gendered needs of this community? What are the needs of children, indigenous people, workers etc.? All of these factors need to be explored in a nuanced and cross sectional way. Also, development planners need to look at the needs of people not included in the major group’s framework, like persons with disabilities. Inclusive sustainable development means including everyone in every way. It is a tall order to fill and has yet to be achieved anywhere in the world. But by recognizing the intersectionalities of the people you are serving and their resulting needs, development can hopefully become a more nuanced and responsive field.

by

Inclusive Education

Inclusive education is a topic that greatly interests me. It is an international strategy that was first advocated for in the 90’s in international documents. Inclusive education, while not a right in all countries, is an educational model that encourages the inclusion of students with disabilities in mainstream classrooms. Its pedagogical approach hinges on the belief that students with disabilities can and should be included with students without disabilities and students with disabilities are capable of being held to the same academic standards. The push for inclusive education has been simultaneously successful and challenging. Countries are now encouraged to enroll students with disabilities in general public schools, so their enrollment rates are increasing.

However, once students with disabilities are inside the classroom, they face another battle for the quality of their education. It is difficult to include students with disabilities in mainstream classrooms because whether it is an intellectual or physical disability, they often need specialized and individualized instruction. This presents a very difficult situation for mainstream teachers. Many mainstream teachers are not trained in special education, differentiated teaching or individualized instruction, so they are often at a loss for ways to truly include students with disabilities in the classroom.

Additionally, some disability communities do not want inclusive education. As I mentioned in the efficacy of global frameworks piece, these global goals and strategies are not universal, nor are they effective for everyone. While inclusive education may be an excellent option for some disability communities, others are advocating for their own special schools. Recently in another class, I had two professors from Gallaudet University come and discuss education for deaf persons. Through personal experience, they testified that special schools for deaf students are often the most effective way for these students to obtain a high quality of education. Even though they are separated from mainstream students, they have a tight knit community and the resources to effectively educate their students.

While in a mainstream school, one of the professors shared his challenges with the quality of education. Without the money, resources or knowledge to provide materials for him to learn, he was left sitting by himself, unengaged in class with only his textbook to inform him. When he transferred to a school for the deaf, he was able to make friends, have classroom discussions and participate in after school activities. While this experience does not speak for all deaf communities, it is important to remember that inclusive education is not a blanket solution to education for persons with disabilities.

by

Efficacy of Global and Regional Frameworks

International goals like the Millennium Development Goals (MDG’s) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s) have many strengths and challenges. With the MDG’s specifically, I think they were most effective in spreading and promoting awareness about international development and the varying conditions of life across the world. For the most part, the goals in the MDG’s were not met, but I think a conversation was started about international development and what could be done to improve gender equality, increase literacy or provide adequate health care.

I think the goals also brought nuance to the concept of development and how it’s measured. Like Amartya Sen noted in the 90’s, development is so much more than just economic indicators. I think the MDG’s biggest strength were their ability to quantify a different way to measure development. The goals were not as comprehensive or inclusive as they should have been, but I think they paved the way for more complex and nuanced goals like the SDG’s. The MDG’s served as a beginning point for so many issues to be explored.

As we often discussed in class, I think one of the largest challenges these global frameworks face is implementation and monitoring. It is really difficult to ensure that these huge goals are effective and feasible. Countries are coming from all different contexts and historical backgrounds and it is difficult to rally together from so many different starting points. However, I think the biggest limitation to the efficacy of global frameworks is the Western dominated ideals that they inherently internalize. For the most part, the West is the major governing body that creates these goals, so the ideals and standards they are striving for are things that the West values. The goals are not universal, nor are they conducive to all cultures and ideologies. I think this is a challenge for global goals, but a place for great opportunity for regional frameworks. If the global goals do not fit the goals of the area, then the regional bodies can create their own strategies and indicators.

Education is a field where many disconnects can occur between local communities and global goals. For example, if the disability community in an area does not want inclusive, mainstream education, then I think the regional frameworks can adjust parts of Goal 4 to reflect those wishes. Not everyone in the international community agrees on education, so I do not think that all communities should be held to the standards of the West and their best practices. I think the efficacy of global frameworks can be best summarized by reminding ourselves that development will never be universal. What works for some communities will not work for others and global goals will never work for everyone.