By Dev Raj Dahal
Development Studies
Specialist, Nepal
Introduction:
Learning the art of development
is a continuous process about people, ideas about them, and the context in
which they have to live. This implies that the process of learning about
development is incremental. Development thinkers who keep abreast of the change
process feel the gyrations of economic, political, social and ecological processes
and transition from the past to the present and the future. This transition may
be spontaneous or induced, backward or forward, and slow or accelerated. But,
the irreversibility of change is being governed by, or conditioned to, specific
yet interrelated settings. This establishes the fact that generalized
formulation on the theory of development is social scientific rather than
general scientific, subjective rather than empirical, value-oriented rather
than value-free expressions.
Intersubjectivity:
Development is a multidimensional
notion. It has been designed to address the widening gulf between the
philosophy and the experience of haves and have-nots in a hierarchical and
competitive national and international system. Interest constellations of people
with the structures of such a system and functional necessity to recognize the
emerging concepts of power diffusion, diversity and identity seem to have been
revolving around three tendencies: those trying to maintain and promote the
existing political economy; those trying to reform it; and those trying to
restructure and delink from it. Liberal capitalist theorists are trying to
maintain it. Social democratic theorists are trying to reform it; while Marxist
and nationalist theorists are trying to formulate strategies of restructuring
it in some cases while delinking in others. Dependency theorists have also
tried to furnish analytical links to explain the sources of their underlying
tendencies in terms of the position of nation-states in the world system (the
core, semi-periphery, and the periphery) and its implications on different
layers of their internal units, such as, social and economic classes,
geographic regions, agricultural and industrial bases, urban and rural
settings, and male and female roles.
It is important to bring under
this the general frontiers of development. The conventional reference point of
development is economic development. It is commonly associated with the growth
of markets, firms, industries, technology, and information. Before it received
system treatment by political economists, economic development has often been
identified by growth theories. The sterility of these theories renewed the need
for the transformation of stagnant society, economy and polity of developing
countries into productive ones by involving a state of coherent social and
political policies that can facilitate economic growth. Mainstream economics as
a science grew out of the needs of society but, consequently, being unable to
articulate societal needs either confronted the same society as if its laws are
like natural laws external to society or justified the polarization of society
and unequal development. Why did it happen?
The mainstream economics
succumbed to the essence of predatory state, corporate business, praetorian
force, bureaucracy, and dominant political party and consequently ignored the
historical causes of social formations and the origin of poverty and
inequality. Like utilitarianism and positivism, it stressed the rational choice
of individual and invisible macroeconomic processes of market rather than
ecologically and socially rational use of the productive capacity of enterprise
and, in the process, demonstrated the virtue of the modernization and
monetization of human lives. The current economic defense of equating
adjustment with the logic of internal development and integrating national
development to globalization as a natural course for general solutions of the
lot of masses has only negated the national confidence of managing the economy
through social planning.
The prevailing economic
transition from the national construction to the laws of the market has,
however, yet to allay the growing fear of losing human consciousness toward the
poverty and powerlessness of the masses, a fear vividly shown by modern social
and political economists. They further indicate that nations’ integration to
the globalization processes without competitive edge would spawn a continuous
erosion of cultural identity and individual dignity as well as undermine the
fragile boundary between geopolitics of nation-states and international market
on the one hand, and the marginalization of social and cultural lives of the
majority of people on the other. In several cases, these processes have already
foreclosed the national politics of policy options as well as priorities for
the poor, women and indigenous.
In developing countries a false
dichotomy between economic and political development has emerged. Politics has
increasingly been reduced to structural mechanism for shaping the political
will to economic growth rather than strengthening the moral foundation of
society and political economy. Economic growth, devoid of any imagination of
the real history of societies, can hardly promote political development that commonly
involves the growth of democratic governance, power diffusion, public
responsibility, institutions of people’s participation, building system
capability, and collective action for the management and the allocation of
resources, goods and services. The notion of political development underlies
the philosophy of nation-building bringing diffused sub-nations and people into
national society and making them participants in the institutional resources of
the state. The social nexus to politics, in this sense, becomes a conceptual
framework for linking development to people and articulating reciprocity,
mutual trust and social interaction for building the community and accurate
representation of social interest in the economic and political processes. This
aspect of development also involves the integration of diverse social
forces-women, poor, indigenous, and marginalized in the nation-building process
with a key consideration of their empowerment. One way of such empowerment is
the recruitment of citizens in the authoritative structures. The other is
providing secular policy orientation to the individuals allowing them to freely
choose their relationship with the society.
The fundamentals of development
put premium on the social context, equitable and participatory development
process, and social learning from the mistakes of the development process
originated elsewhere in an entirely different context. It is founded on the
ecological regeneration and resilience postulating on the sustainability of
nature and establishing a delicate balance between the greed of the individual
and the need of community for the present and future generations, and assuring
their sustainable livelihoods. The tendency towards imbalance is likely to
breed tension between ecological and other systems thereby disturbing the
existing equilibrium.
Paradox:
Any concrete thinking on
development tries to escape from the intrinsic flaws in the trade-off
approaches, such as growth versus equity, dichotomization of development
actors, such as, state versus market, and emulation of the dominant ideology
and image of development, such as, capitalism, communism, authoritarianism, etc
to developing countries. To be sure, growing inequality, regional disparity,
and persistent concentration of wealth and power faced by the people so far are
conclusive proofs that mechanical models could neither incorporate the specific
interests of developing countries nor well represent the welfare of the people.
Instead, alienating the people from their heritage and changing them in the
image of developed countries injected a suspicion between the donors and the
recipients. Such models of development have even met broadly based grassroots
resistance that continues to set the terms of public policy debates in developing
and developed countries alike. What went wrong? Attempts to transplant
development models manufactured elsewhere in a very different milieu missed one
critical fact: the traits of social context.
Whether the emerging consensus of
donors on the attachment of third generation of human rights, the right to
development through self-determination (the first being civil and political,
and the second being economic, social and cultural rights) as aid
conditionality to developing countries, would crisply focus on this specific
context remains a moot issue here. The new strategies of channeling aid through
local non-governmental organizations in assisting grassroots people participate
in the development process has opened doors to deepen and broaden the space of
civil society. But the most unsettling question is: does it instill in people
the feelings that it is the same development they have self-perceived and
self-defined? Perhaps yes, in some cases. But, there are also tendencies to
resort to the same transformatory process of uniform adjustment that the
discarded growth, trickle-down and modernization theories had advocated in the
past.
Emerging Canvas:
The canvas of development is
built on a social partnership between the government and the people in the national
framework, and its intermediation with the international institutions and
global civil society forces. The dynamism of the globalization of prices
without any sign of globalization of income levels now has trapped the poor
nations and people into a new set of challenges. The scale of social problems-
poverty, income disparities, alienation, unemployment, crushing debts, ethnic
conflicts, ecological degradation, moral decay faced by these nations, and
their increasing marginalization from the world political economy--trade,
investment, and aid point nothing but a crisis of underdevelopment. It is a
crisis brought by global problems where there is neither global development
theory not concrete governing policy to address them. Will such a crisis inspire
political stability for necessary economic growth? Or, can one just dismiss
them noting that crises are the forces of system change?
It is in this context that social
development enters the scene. The basic question still is: how the notion
‘social’ is preserved in the melting pot of the global transformatory process
so that the moral and cultural system of strengthening family, personal
responsibility and civic virtues is not eroded? Ideally, the future development
of developing countries is neither predetermined not forged in the past. There
are scores of success stories that proved the dire portrayal of developing
countries wrong. This is the case with too optimistic expectations attached to
development models. Certainly, development construction is not a blank canvas.
It is filled with missions of people. In this sense, painting of global vision
in social development is undeniably a new mission beyond this century.
The crucial underwriter of social
development is social justice-that is, building up of a just national and
global order oriented toward the strengthening of civil and political rights
and capable of satisfying the basic sustainable livelihoods of the masses. In
one sense, it is partly a resolution of the classic dilemma between capital and
labor, a resolution that puts people at the center of the development agenda.
Partly, it is a legitimization of public debate on restoring to a new form of
collective action and a new social contract for governing the rules of
national, regional and global community.
New social movement, such as,
human rights movement, ecology and peace movements, women’s movement, etc,
located at synchronic level in the spheres of civil society and is derived from
the conditions of inequality and injustice, underlie a search for new
development paradigm that does not colonize or commodify what J. Habermas calls
‘the real life-world.’ What is unresolved and unrecognized still is how to
cement connections between particular development (economic, political,
technological, etc) and social, and between individual and community for the
crystallization of popular interests and political expression in the post
industrial culture. The motive force of development is not to anaesthetize the
genuine articulation of people and stimulate repressive tolerance but to alter
the context of mal-development, its tenacity and resiliency.
This does not mean that the past
reflects the difficulty of linking the interest of people of various social
origins to unceasing affirmation to their rights to freedom from hunger and
human dignity including the rights to development and self- determination. The
vital links between the ‘freedom from hunger’ and fulfillment of basic needs
have been well formulated in the advances of development decades, new international
economic order, The Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, and the
North-South: A Program for Survival. Yet, the persistent ‘crisis of
contraction’ inspired a series of similar other formulations, The Common
Crisis, Common Security, Our Common Future, Global Human Security, and recently
Our Global Neighborhood.’
What is common in this rethinking
is the fact that the growing economic, social, political and ecological
interdependence between nations and people has entailed a shared interest and
collective responses of the global community to cope with the problems of
underdevelopment. In this context, the consciousness raised by the World Summit
on Social Development and the vision reflected in The Copenhagen Declaration
and Program of Action, ( made some years back: Ed) indicate an eloquent
manifestation of the political interest of world leaders to express it as a
charter of humanity and guideline of action. This is a conceptual breakthrough.
Partnership through intermediation is crucial for putting the needs, rights,
and aspirations of the people at the core of decision-making and actions and
preventing the passing of unaccountable international loans to innocent
populations. People’s participation in decision-making can enforce a culture of
accountability and set them free from the psychology of silence, dependency,
dominance, and subordination. Definitely, without continuous social support
economies cannot grow. This means a common conceptual reorientation of
development includes reciprocal growth and interdependence of individuals in
the chain of social evolution. If a sense of social learning does not occur in
social evolution, people are gradually distanced from the process of
development and an element of self- interest destroys the spirit of the
community. Human beings have achieved enough potential to assure every person
the opportunity for a secure life and liberty consistent with the earth’s
biodiversity. But, at the same time, the yawning inequality generated by them
has led majority of people to suffer and dash their hopes for the future by a
growing sense of loss, despair and powerlessness.
Vision and Choices: The renewed debate on development has
recognized the centrality of the will of the people. Development means people’s
choice, to allow the people participate and decide what is best for them. It is
because only the empowered people can protect their cultures, economies, and
ways of life and exert democratic influence on national, regional and global
governance. The empowerment process is also central to strengthening the bonds
of civil society and enlarging the circle of its allies, such as, self-help
groups, communities, voluntary organizations, non-governmental organizations,
environmental advocates, human right groups, etc. A balanced societal
development equally calls for the mediating role of third sector, non-profit
organizations, between political and economic societies that can easily consort
to human values.
Development grounded in
grassroots units and initiative definitely underscores productive economic
activities and increases the wealth of society essential to foster adequate
opportunities in addressing their common problems. This is the way to promote
development from below and command popular legitimacy and support for broader
economic reform initiatives as well as to enable the people to protect the
social fabric of society from the ‘creative’ destruction that free market
spawns. The development policies, however, need to continue from the premise
that any assessment of the right to development involves the regaining of
diversity and plurality of social values, culture, institutions, and identities
of each nation and people and reinventing the ideals of genuine interdependence
based on social justice, cooperation and independence. People ingrained in a
particular ecological and social setting must invent their own concept of
development. This means development policy must identify, nurture and sustain
indigenous potential, means, resources, and institutions to express the diverse
needs of society. External resources and advice can only complement, not
substitute, this. Only then, the process of development can contain the options
for the poor and overcome their powerlessness. Exclusion of people from
technology, knowledge, and resources holds the government responsible for bad
governance. The notion of governability has become acute as unrestrained
globalization process has begun to engulf the social economy and shifted the
locus of economic power from family, society, community and nation to global
regimes, and consequently, fuelled the existential risks of ordinary people
toward their future and their children. The growing reality of the persistence
of the First, the Second, the Third and the Fourth Worlds in a majority of
nations is in itself a reflection of the erosion of good governance inducing
popular search for power and wealth beyond the boundaries of traditional
institutions.
Neither increased imports, nor
external dependence, not even accelerating economic growth has moved policies
to increased equity and sustainability. Increasing dependence of poorer nations
in the unjust international system has signaled the signs of deforms on the
lives and culture of the people by aggressive surge of bureaucratism, commercialism,
and organizational centralism. This is the compelling reason behind social
development discourse. This discourse, however, involves a number of
substantive questions: what are the obstacles to wealth creation that make the
people poor and powerless? How is human interest generated to fertilize
people’s strength for creativity? And, how consensus is formed among the
government, media, academia, donor community, and the civil society for
creating an enabling environment for social development?
The new poverty associated with
economic reforms and technological change must be properly addressed to prevent
the breaking of social cohesion and to open opportunities for a new vision of
social development through the measure of poverty alleviation, employment generation,
and decentralization of power for good governance and social integration. This
infers that the leitmotif of development must be rooted in the culture of
freedom and wider accountability, not paternalism of various actors concerned.
But, above all, the human factor alone can contribute to a cohesive and
adaptive society for it has proved so far to be a powerful engine for
accumulating social capital as well as raising people’s confidence in
partnership for collective action.
The cravings of human miseries
are the spirit of today’s techno-economic modernity that has lost touch with
the needs of ordinary people, failed to provide hope and sense of community in
a world of free market materialism.. What worries the development thinkers now
is not the intellectual tendency for disciplinary bias, display of arrogance,
or ignorance toward public interest, but a deepening conviction that something
is missing from modern life-the civic touch of society to human dignity. No
matter how complex technologically, politically and economically nations are,
if efforts to reconcile with social needs of majority go unmet, answers to the
questions of development remain just meaningless.
For the majority of people the
word ‘social’ is, therefore important. It reflects the simple recognition that
they find something to cling on to with the solace of hope even in appalling
conditions, a hope that ignites the meaning of development in the face of
people. The messages of the Earth Summit, World Social Summit, and world conferences
on population and development, human rights, indigenous people and women
consistently suggest that development is not only the growth of a few parts but
also the evolution of society as a whole. People are, therefore, subject of
change in this evolution process. The UN Conference on Human Settlement
(Habitat II) which convened in Istanbul
in June 1996 was the last UN global summit for the century to enforce these
ideals for a better national and world order.
The social orientation of state
and international institutions is important for continuous dialogue and
negotiated reform as this helps the developing countries reshape policies for
escaping from a low- income, low savings, and low investment trap and foster a
sense of accountability thereby ensuring long-term investment on the
infrastructure of development- education, roads, communication, hospitals,
social benefits, safety-nets for the poor, etc. To put it mildly, wealth
creation is essential to carry out civic obligations for the future generations
on which the vitality of political stability is constantly reshaped. In a
globalised environment, a pro-active statesman with a clear vision and moral
strength is central to encourage the creative potential of people in the
economic process of collective self-reliance, responsibility and initiative and
to discourage the growing frustration of people from their leaders and the
transformation of every social good into a marketable commodity.
Conclusion:
A better standard of living can
be best ensured by reshaping values and working together in the cost and
benefit of evolving national, regional and global processes. Failure to redress
them in the 20th century (the last century) means embracing the same problems
and envisioning almost similar possibilities for the 3rd millennium. For the
ordinary people embracing the same means there is nothing hopeful, noting new.
But, developing any point of view about the future is an ongoing process that
can be sustained by continuous debate like this one. The legislation of The
Copenhagen Alternative Declaration of civil society has come forth with a
different point of view proclaiming that liberal ideology of free market
espoused by official declaration cannot address the causes of poverty,
joblessness, and social disintegration. Does this mean that the 3rd millennium
will be a replication of the past? Or, a mere increment on the past? Or, a
combination of the past and future? The causation theory of development
indicates there will be additional causes of underdevelopment. Optimistic
predispositions alone cannot circumvent growth in the causes unless the entire
context of those causes is changed. This
article was penned by the author some seventeen years ago. We found it still
relevant and thus published: Chief Ed.
Courtesy:
Telegraphnepal.com
No comments:
Post a Comment