International (anti-)development sector

A relative of mine, affiliated with the international corporate sector, recently asked me about the nature of my work in the ‘development’ sector. “It all sounds quite fancy, even productive — but I’ve never quite understood what you folks actually do. Care to elaborate?” The question caught me by surprise. Having worked with big multilateral donor agencies and international financial institutions (IFIs), I could not explain to him what exactly transpired within this domain, why it was particularly important, and whether its overarching structure even made any rational sense.

My response in the moment was broad and academic. I explained that markets do not always work, and there need to be forces that check their perversions and step in to correct them when needed. Domestically, this is achieved by governments — assuming they are functional. On the global scale, a series of intergovernmental bodies take charge of ensuring economic stability, fostering people-to-people exchange, and battling collective threats such as inequality and climate change. This is known as the ‘international development sector’ — and it is geared around promoting the UN’s SGDs — 17 in total. “I work with various agencies in this space; my colleagues and I function as implementing partners for projects in sectors such as healthcare, education, housing, social protection, and so on.” My relative had a blank look on his face. “Fair enough,” he retorted. I knew he wasn’t convinced. Deep down, neither was I.

Over the years, I have witnessed firsthand how resources are appropriated by upper management of ‘implementing partner’ organisations, who tend to capture the bulk of project budgets — leaving crumbs for intended end consumers. These mostly constitute NGOs, community welfare associations, think tanks, academic institutions, management consultancies, civil society groups, and government agencies at large — which in the name of ‘technical assistance’ will ensure that their presidents, executive directors, heads of department, etc are the primary beneficiaries of all initiatives. I have seen how state capacity has gradually eroded as a result of these engagements, with key responsibilities being outsourced to opportunistic private sector players incentive for whom is not to resolve the issue(s) at hand but to drag their feet and ceaselessly point out parallel problems during the course of their assignments in the quest for subsequent contractual agreements. I have seen my friends that were once quite politically charged and deeply interested in pursuing structural reform, social justice, and economic equity, slowly losing all these convictions and replacing them with ‘personal goals’ that have to do with rapid wealth accumulation. They cannot be faulted for this either, as these are all well-meaning and intelligent individuals that are stuck between a rock and a hard place: career/financial security vis-à-vis employment with foreign-funded agencies or a life of toil and danger being outspoken in a politically oppressive environment. The choice is hardly a straightforward one; and most are ultimately compelled to opt for the former due to familial and communal pressures.

One of the consequences of this has been a capture of the research/knowledge production arena that is increasingly skewed towards mindlessly pushing the agendas of the highest (foreign) bidder rather than generating careful, nuanced, and context-specific analyses of the socioeconomic and political ills plaguing countries like Pakistan. These are hardly value neutral players. The strategic orientations of IFIs, for instance, are dictated by countries that have a majority shareholding within them: i.e. the Western bloc. The primary objectives, which they use the ‘international development sector’ to peddle, are: a) governments that will adhere to their geopolitical interests, and b) continued access to cheap labour within ‘recipient’ countries. The entirety of the neoliberal programme of privatise-liberalise-deregulate can be seen in that vein, as the ultimate function of such policies is to produce a weak institutional ecosystem populated by opportunists and a free hand for multinational corporations to set up shop in countries of the Global South and employ armies of precarious workers to maximise output at the lowest possible costs. It should be no surprise, therefore, that all big IFIs have continued to work with countries with dictators and/or installed stooges at the helm: they are least concerned about things like democratic rights or personal autonomy. It is also why there has hardly been a peep from them on the ongoing Gaza genocide.

This is all not to mention the cultural attitudes of hotshots in the sector, who are fundamentally elitist in their lifestyles — indulging in lavish parties, traveling around for ‘conferences’ with other glitterati, playing golf and fine dining in exclusive clubs, etc. They are segregationist in their attitudes as well. Indeed, most live in private housing societies that are shielded away from the squalor, misery, and exploitation that ordinary citizens are exposed to on a daily. There is a certain sanctimoniousness in their tone when they talk about their occupations, which they insist are helping the world become a better place. Admiration is what they crave above all, and miss no opportunity to signal their intellectual superiority. Unhinged from historical, political, and socioeconomic realities, these swindlers achieve this by hiding behind flashy technical-sounding lingo and colorful presentation slides that overwhelm their peers before any substantive discussions have a chance to take hold. It is alleged that this is ‘pragmatism’ — working within the system and playing the long game. Middle and lower staff are brainwashed into thinking that they too will one day reap the rewards as they are kept confined to basic salaries with no direct stakes in project budgets. They also love the watches, fragrances, designer suits, luxury vehicles, and other luxury items — a pathological consumerism aped from the West and used to engage in vacuous status games with one another while almost half the population struggles with disease and malnutrition. This is a key part of career advancement within an industry that functions purely on symbols and appearances rather than any genuine reform measures — and that is all these opportunists are concerned about.

To expect anything from these shallow careerists that — to borrow from Frantz Fanon — function as conveyor belts for global capitalism is a grave error. The corporate sector is at least honest about its goals. The ‘development’ community, on the other hand, acts as an ally to the working classes while pushing policies antithetical to their interests. Local problems necessitate localised solutions.