Is Development the Answer?

First of all, forgive me for I may get a bit fired up here. At church yesterday we read Ephesians 6:1-9 and discussed the ways in which it has been used to condone slavery throughout history, then talked about the ways in which slavery still goes on today. This lead me to do some researching this morning, and I have found some organizations that seem to be doing some pretty meaningful work in terms of fighting modern day slavery (notforsalecampaign.org). Thus, the nature of my post very much has to do with the exploration I have been doing in this vein. The assumption that I bring to the post ties the word “development” to organizations such as these (not simply dealing with slavery, but with the overall betterment of humanity.) This correlation may be natural, it may be artificial, but it will undergird the intensity that may come across here.

Onto the actual question, “Is Development the Answer?” If we choose to define development as Myers does “improving the human condition,” then I see the answer to this question as “absolutely, unequivocally it is.” My belief is that if we choose to answer this question in any other way, it can lead to some unfortunate consequences. By this I simply mean that we as Western Americans living in inexplicable comparative luxury cannot be content to look at the vast inequity that exists in the world we inhabit and choose any other response. By the same token, I certainly appreciate my classmates’ discussion on the ways in which development has been done in awful, life-robbing, ways that do little to nothing in the way of improving the human condition.

We have spoken in depth about how the issues around of the idea that “we” of socio-economic privilege must go and help “them” who do not share our socio-economic condition. As we have discussed, this line of thinking is extremely problematic, however, we cannot look at the ways in which development has been done poorly and allow ourselves to come the conclusion that this truth invalidates the overall necessity for holistic, transformational development. My fear is that if we allow ourselves to look at the missteps of the past it will permit us to sit in complacency in the present.  I can hear this line of thought becoming pervasive in a society “All we are doing by contributing to development organizations is creating dependency, therefore I choose not to get involved.” It becomes imperative that we hold on to the notion of development, as defined above, as a necessary yoke of thought and action for those of us living in privilege. Even if the causes of inequity can often be attributed to developers who go before us, we cannot now walk away from a problem we’ve often created and deemphasize the need for development.

I realize that the word “development” in and of itself brings forth understandable negative connotations of which we would hope to avoid. I understand my classmates’ aversion to development as it has been done in the past, but we cannot let this taint our idea of the necessity of improved development practices in the future. Later on in the development Chapter, Myers goes on to discuss Jeffery Sachs book, The End of Poverty, in which he “argued that there are nations – representing one-sixth of humanity- that are locked in a poverty trap created by disease, geographical isolation, and a limiting environment. These countries cannot escape from this trip without outside help; they simply do not have the resources or capability.” Now, we may disagree on the ways in which that “outside help” may manifest itself, but I do not believe we can say that this disagreement renders development avoidable.

I too, have much trouble with the ways “development” has been done. As I always seem to do at some point, to speak to James’s point of “the bloodbath of World War 1 and the atom bomb of World War 2” in the name of development is a misnomer that cannot be understated. Seeing these atrocities done in the name of development simply pushes me further towards a desire to reclaim the term in a more loving capacity. I fear that if we allow ourselves to push away from the idea of development as opposed to trying to draw near and reclaim the term we risk an abandonment that leaves one-sixth of humanity in dire straights and in need of someone to give a damn. Perhaps in my embrace of the narrow definition given by Myers of “improving the human condition” I am missing some of the large holes and problems that come alongside development. However, I prefer to air on the side of seeking to save the term in the hope of searching for compassion towards the human lives that are calling out for somebody to do something.