We live in a world where a significant proportion of the world’s population does not yet have enough food to eat, lacks decent healthcare and education, or even access to a running toilet. The need to address such basic deprivations is evident. Yet the means by which these problems should be addressed is not without contention.
The notion of achieving ‘development’ has gained increasing recognition to help make the world a better place for the have-nots. The practice of ‘development’ is backed by an ideology which is promoted by a plethora of entities ranging from community-based groups to national and international NGOs, specialised government agencies, and by bilateral and multilateral aid agencies. Yet, despite decades of development efforts promising to bring material affluence to decolonised countries in Africa, South America and Asia, the results produced by development efforts remain lacklustre.
While paying lip service to the need for participatory development and empowerment of marginalised communities, many development interventions remain hierarchic. As there are a lot of different entities which work in the development sector, it would be unfair to lump together dedicated non-governmental organisations with so-called development ‘consultants’ who offer their services to large donor agencies at exorbitant rates. Unfortunately, when it comes to setting up broader development strategies and policies, the influence of such high-powered experts is disproportionate, and arguably the most problematic.
The development sector has increasingly become saturated by development consultancies, which are given the responsibility of funneling donor funding to poorer countries. These consultancies are run more like corporations than by people committed to the sector due to ideological or altruistic reasons. International development experts working as consultants often charge a $1,000 or more per day, as they trot the globe, going from one poor country to another, advising them how to improve the lot of their poor masses.
Armed with unflinching beliefs in their academic credentials, and economic ideologies, international development experts often lack knowledge of local conditions or about the different communities where their proposed development interventions are meant to be introduced. Many development policies and projects are thus based on imperfect and incomplete understanding of specific locational circumstances.
The adverse impacts of faulty development policies and practices formulated by so-called development experts cannot be underestimated. A lot of development aid is in the form of loans instead of grants. Poor countries need to pay back loans they borrow from agencies like the IMF and the World Bank, whether development projects based on these loans accomplish their goals or not.
Development is rightly criticised for its obsession with economic rationality and increasingly unflinching faith in market fundamentals. Using the profit driven private sector to provide essential social services cannot achieve lofty goals such as providing healthcare for all or securing universal education.
The invisible hand of market mechanisms can be used to increase competition, if the private sector is adequately regulated and made resistant to political pressures. Yet there is often a convergence of interests between local elites and proponents of the market mechanism, such as the IMF and World Bank. Local elites in poorer countries often tend to be the largest beneficiaries of lop-sided market based economic reform policies pushed by international loan conditionalities.
Despite the rhetoric of market mechanisms creating a ‘level playing field’ which rewards competition, ingenuity and efficiency, the benefits of market-based development programs are more readily captured by those at the top. This problem of elite capture afflicts the market mechanism in the same way that top-down economic policies of the past failed to trickle benefits down to the masses trapped at the lower rungs of the socio-economic pyramid. Resultantly, using market-based policies to alleviate poverty often produce economic growth accompanied by massive inequalities rather than ensuring development for all.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 30th, 2020.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ