Post Map
Is international development dead, a good career path, or even still important? Let’s find out…
Him: So what do you do?
Me: Well, I work in international development. I want to help make the lives of the poor better.
Him: What does that mean? What do you want to do? And you can’t keep jumping around; you need to decide on what you are going to do and focus on that. Also, I thought you were interested in farming?
Me: Everything I am doing is actually part of it, I am just choosing to be a generalist for now. It gives me more exposure and opportunities to understand the ways different sectors/parts of society interconnect, if at all.
Him: Professor! She has started again. I hear you. I am just trying to advise you. You are not getting any younger so you need to decide and commit.
Me: I hear you, I hear you.
For those familiar with that line of conversation, you probably know who this conversation was with. If not, take a wild guess…
First of all, can we agree that the term “international development” is loaded? It means a lot, but also nothing. On one hand, there’s the above conversation. On the other hand, I complain about my mother who genuinely believes I can save the world. In hindsight, I kind of set myself up for that confusion. What after all does it mean to work in international development? When pressed on this, my usual go-to was, “I want to help poor countries become rich”. Joker.
International development, what is it?
The idea behind international development is that through promoting economic growth, people could be made richer, as their more developed helpers. Literally, that’s that. It can be said in many different ways and with fancier words but that’s really the starting point.
I recently read a piece by Ros Eyben and I stumbled on a line I thought was quite insightful and helpful in understanding the nuances in this field. She wrote, also quoting Gillian Hart, “While development with a small ‘d’ connotes progress and growth, ‘Development’ with a capital ‘D’ refers to the fifty-year-old paradigm of planned interventions in ‘developing’ countries.” As such, in this post, we are speaking broadly about the big “D” development.
Doing development to achieve development is difficult, as I have come to learn. While not mutually exhaustive, nor comprehensively exhaustive (fancy English alert), here are 3 reasons why it can be quite the challenge:
1. Context matters
If there is one thing my fancy education taught me, international development is highly complex and very contextual. The answer to any and every question is “It depends”. And if there’s anyone here from Development Management, I know you get me. The frustration that followed this statement was real. I mean seriously. Imagine travelling that far. Actually getting a visa for the UK. Contesting with the twang. Trying to feel comfortable with a lot of these big-words-big-head-big-mouth folks(joke-ish). And then you walk into the classroom to collect your fees in knowledge, only to be told, “it depends, it really does.” If I should s…
But, in development, the more you learn, the more you start to understand that context is truly king. Hear me out, nothing is simple. If you ever get to the point where you think you have got the answer to save all poor countries, my dear friend, let me save you the future heartbreak and existential crises, you are most likely wrong.
Doing, building, and creating development, most importantly, involves multiple factors, a multitude of solutions, and a myriad of setbacks. Mainly because you are, or will be, dealing with a number of different players – entitled, disenfranchised, and indifferent, etc. That brings me to the next point.
2. The role of politics and power
If you’re looking to become a development agent, or “expert”, and think you can stay on the fringe, do A, achieve B and leave, newsflash, it’s not gonna happen. You may see some change but to create long-lasting effects that actually get to the core of issues, a lot more participation in domestic arenas will be required, fortunately, or unfortunately.
Development is messy – as messy as they come. Community, much less national, systems are built not just on the principles of supply, demand, and scarcity. They are also built and operate based on some key powers that determine who gets what, when they get it and how they get it. On the surface, they may be hard to identify. They operate like the witches we saw in Nigerian movies from back in the day – calculating, vicious, and highly self-interested. It’s next level.
An understanding of the role of power, relationships, history, and social dynamics is important to get anything done. So when you find yourself saying “I know these politicians are smart and they know the right things so why don’t they do it?” May I suggest that might be one of the reasons why?
How does change happen then?
For change to happen, one always needs buy-in from the commanding actors, or at least to alter the reward system in a manner that still benefits them because if the proposed change will threaten their power and resources, forget it – this is called using positive incentives. A lot of people stand to benefit from the status quo so it’s really not you per se, you’re just messing with their influence.
In all circumstances, there needs to be an understanding of these domestic power relations and what that means in terms of who you choose to work with, how you deliver on your project, and how you actually affect change. Technocratic stuff is helpful but doesn’t always move the needle, not as much anyway. Change comes from working with and altering the incentives for these groups of people (whom we often refer to as having vested interests) to toe the line. This requires patience, a lot of resources and time – most of which the nature of development “projects” do not always allow for.
What does that mean?
Until you are ready to engage with the nitty-gritty and incentivize(big word alert) that level of change, do not go. Yes, do not go. Do not bother because you will only make it worse. And that’s on that. Funny enough, this approach includes all you generous summer/winter/one-time donors, or volunteers. Whichever category you put yourself in to feel good about the 10 dollars, pounds, euros, or cedi notes you contributed to building that structure, you are part. Minus humanitarian assistance (i.e those for disasters and such), if you want to do better, you must ask deeper questions, demand rigorous answers, and follow up. Don’t feel bad, we’re all learning today. And that brings me to my last point.
3. The imperative to balance ideas and pragmatism
I was perusing other ideas as you do when you’re putting off actual responsibilities, and I came across an interesting comment on the F2P blog. It referenced a quote by Alex Steffen which goes “Optimism is a political act. Those who benefit from the status quo are perfectly happy for us to think nothing is going to get any better. In fact, these days, cynicism is obedience”. Read that again.
This statement holds true for a lot of people, myself included. The more we learn and encounter the nuances of creating growth, better jobs, equality, etc, the more we come face to face with heightened doses of cynicism. Many of us have encountered disillusion practitioners who have given up and wrung themselves out and into the “big bad private sector”, or into academia. Others have stuck it out and the implications of this on their view of the world, their work, and their well-being range from healthy to super destructive. And sometimes for understandable reasons.
When we turn on the news or the news finds us through our overzealous friends, it can be exhausting because everything seems to bad. We don’t always know how to act, how to react, how to process, or how to change things. As such, it appears easier to turn to cynicism. The defeatist kind where we throw our hands in the air, shell out a couple of harsh words, lament and resign to “it will never change!” The defeatist cynicism that the problems that we face are just too much, too big, and too impossible to alter. It’s hard. But, to Alex’s point, that is where optimism comes in, or is needed.
On being optimistically pragmatic…
Caution, the idea of being more optimistic is not grounded in airy-fairy naivete. No, it’s a more grounded form. One that understands that people, even ourselves if we are truly honest, can sometimes be as self-interested, likely to err, self-motivated, and ignorant as the “leaders” we castigate. When we start to acknowledge these sensitivities, we are likely to be more open to understanding and embracing the challenges that lay ahead of us in trying to deliver development.
What we need is a realistic approach that acknowledges the challenge we need to solve, choose to assume a positive attitude, and thinking of practical ways to help make that change happen, bit by bit. It’s a beautiful dance of pragmatism and idealism. An intricate balance that sounds easier than it is to do, but worth it. To get to the point where you are able to do this is no easy task either. It’s an iterative process of intentionality, self-reflection, and commitment to being a better person. Rosalind Eyben writes fantastically on this.
But, cynicism doesn’t change anything and only makes things worse. As we speak, 690 million people live in extreme poverty, and as I write, 53, 400 people have fallen into poverty. Today, at 19:00 SAST. The world and those who were born into, or fall into, circumstances far dire than others can ever imagine cannot afford us giving up in the pursuit of better living for all – maybe most. That’s a huge burden but not worse than not having clean water to drink, food to eat or a place to live. I am not talking about changing the world in its entirety. I am talking about your little community, the people in your city, the people behind your house…
Well, that’s a lot? Yes, you’re right.
So, is international development dead? No, it is not. Is it important? Yes, it is. Is it a good career path? Yes, it is. But it all depends(yes I said it too). It depends on the attitude, models, and effort we choose to apply. That is where the value is. Your one-solution-fits-all approach will not work; your fly in today, fly out tomorrow will not work.
But, there is some truth in using a more piecemeal approach. One that allows more incremental learning: an iterative process of learning, implementing, assessing, relearning, and repeating. To create the change we want in the space of international development – big “D” or small “d” -, we need to be aware of the power dynamics, vested interests, our own perceptions, and the implications of all of that on those we claim to want to help. We cannot succeed if we don’t embrace each case with fresh eyes, the desire to custom-build solutions, pragmatism, humility, and optimism.
Optimism to imagine the future we want to see, what will be needed to change that, deciding to pursue that course, and making our commitment public, as Alex described. By so doing, we demonstrate our refusal to accept the attitude of cynical defeatism and choose to see action as possible, realistic, and achievable. He said, and I will leave on this note, “every time we explain how a better future might be built, we redraw the boundaries of the possible. We show that the realm of choice available to us is actually quite large, and even includes paths that might, for instance, harm the interests of the rich old guys [ or our fathers and uncles if I can come for y’all real quick]…but improve the prospects of pretty much everyone else.” Emphasis added by me of course.
So, what?
Tackling the deep-rooted and complex problems in international development, as we loosely call it, is no easy task but a necessary one. But if you’re like me, you understand the difficulty, the challenge that path entails and you love it anyway. It is what drives you, it is what you want to talk about, it is what makes you happy. If that is the case, that my friend is a path you need not deviate from. And the fun part? You certainly don’t have to be a “development expert” to do so. Just choose to be invested in doing it right.
As our African father, Madiba, famously said, “I approach every problem with optimism.” To you my friend, Spero optima.
Feel free to share your thoughts, insights, frustrations, and all in the comments or PM me via the here.
Check out the above post on the impostor syndrome here
Noelle Wonders
Latest posts by Noelle Wonders (see all)
- Deciphering Chaos: Provocative Insights from a day at Victoria Station - December 1, 2023
- Can social impact bonds improve employment? - January 11, 2023
- No, setting more grandiose goals won’t bring us development - December 3, 2022
[…] their dreams of success meet reality i.e. when the crisis hits. In an earlier post, I talked about the imperative to balance ideas and pragmatism. I think it’s a similar same paradigm at play here. The Struggle, Horowitz, teaches is part and […]
[…] their dreams of success meet reality i.e. when the crisis hits. In an earlier post, I talked about the imperative to balance ideas and pragmatism. I think it’s a similar same paradigm at play here. The Struggle, Horowitz, teaches is part and […]
Noelle. This is a fantastic piece and you raise a number of salient points. I think those institutions who have taken the lead doing Development, have largely failed to meet their mark over the last 50 years. I think there needs to be a refocus on communities as the organizing unit for development projects. Shared motivations, ideas at this level – with the right support – could yield better solutions and actually achieve some tangible development, I think.
And you are right. How can we start to do more of this is the question. Is it then becoming more active participants in subnational “politics” and development activities?
Great Insight
I love this because of how real it is.
Very interesting article Noelle. A shift to optimism about our development in the future is the only way we can accelerate change in developing countries. Its just so much easier to be a cynic when you either don’t know how to truly make an impact or if it’ll even make a difference. I’m ready to contribute though