Development
Shortly after World War Ⅱ, 'development' as we now understand it was
set in motion. Western governments and donors poured money into new
agencies that set about trying to stimulate the economies of
underdeveloped countries. Because of this emphasis, it is now widely
regarded as the Growth Model. Although we might expect poverty
reduction to be the central objective, planners at this stage were
primarily concerned with industrial development. It was hoped that the
benefits of this would trickle down to poor people through raising
incomes and providing employment opportunities, thereby indirectly
lifting them above the ascribed poverty threshold of a dollar a day. The
weaknesses of these assumptions were revealed, however, when poverty
rates and economic growth were found to rise simultaneously in many
countries.
During the 1970s, a new trend took over—trickle-up development. Instead
of focusing on macro-economic policy and large-scale industrial projects,
planners shifted attention to the core living requirements of individuals
and communities. This became known as the Basic Needs Approach to
development. It was hoped that through the provision of services such as
community sanitation and literacy programmes, poverty could be
eliminated from below. Economic growth was desirable but
superfluous—Basic Needs redefined poverty from involving a lack of
money to lacking the capability to attain full human potential. The trouble
with Basic Needs programmes, however, was their expensive,
resource-intensive nature that entailed continuous management and
funding.
Since the 1980s, development planners have moved towards the
Sustainable Livelihoods Approach, which emphasises good livelihoods
(materially and socially) that, most importantly, are independent and
sustainable. 'Sustainable' in this sense means that people are able to
recover from the shocks and stresses of daily life, absolving agencies of
the need to persistently monitor their lives. This approach emphasises a
view of poverty that comes not from the rich but from the impoverished
themselves, who are considered to be most suitably positioned to
determine the poverty indicators that contribute to the multiple facets of
their own deprivation. Although the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach has
been criticised for lacking an environmental platform strong enough to
respond to climate change, and for disassociating aspects of power and
societal status from being a contestable part of development, it is
currently the preferred model for development projects.
Though there is some linearity to the trajectory of development practice,
with paradigms shifting in and out of fashion, vigorous scholarly debate
persists around all approaches. The Growth Model, for example, is still
defended by many theorists, particularly economists. Those who believe
in the Growth Model insist that nothing trumps economic development
as a tool for poverty alleviation for the developing countries (although
there is often less enthusiasm for its applicability to the post-industrial
West). Many countries that have focused explicitly on growth have
managed to make considerable inroads into reducing poverty, even in the
absence of a development programme; Japan and Germany followed this
route after World War Ⅱ, as has China from the 1970s. On the other hand,
some countries with massive inflows of funding for aid-based
'development projects'—particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa—have
struggled to progress with meeting poverty reduction targets.
There is a good reason to be sceptical about the Growth Model, however,
as is evidenced by the numerous societies that have partly imploded as a
consequence of prioritising economic growth above the work of human
development. The experiences of many eastern European countries with
health and employment crises in the early 1990s are particularly
traumatic examples of this. The Growth Model also suffers from an
undemocratic, and 'technocratic', if not autocratic,
method—underdeveloped countries frequently make policy decisions
based on consultation with Western economists and institutions on how
to generate growth. This dissolves the autonomy of communities to make
their own decisions about what matters to them, and what kind of society
they would like to build. The move to the Sustainable Livelihood Approach
is a positive move in this regard, because by operating on a principle that
decisions should be made by those who are affected by them, it
introduces a role for localised decision-making.
It will be difficult, if not impossible, for any country in the near future to
ignore economic growth as a development indicator while continuing to
meet development targets. It is important, however, that we move away
from seeing this type of growth as the prime objective for development.
Development is ultimately about people, and human development must
be placed at the forefront; economic growth is simply one tool out of
many that can help us along the way. We also need to recognise that
foreign advisers, whatever qualifications and knowledge they may
possess, can sometimes be a hindrance; local autonomy must be
respected for real development to occur. The Growth Model may have
failed, but this does not render economic growth irrelevant. The
Sustainable Livelihood Approach offers helpful and realistic alternatives.
But it is folly to commit ourselves to a strictly-defined, systematic
programme—less constrictive mindsets will help us break the
development fashion cycle.