If you made it to Part III of why we do things the way we do in international development, you a real G. If this is the first post you are stumbling on, hello and welcome! To get a better sense of where this conversation is coming from, please read Part I and Part II first. I promise it’s a good sequel. Basically, we are questioning the narrative around why we do things the way we do in international development. Ok, let’s get into it.
Post Map
WHAT THEN CHIRPY BIRD? I present “Part III on why we do things the way we do in international development”
The concept of development appears ‘complicated’ not because it is hard to do but simply because it is embedded in power relationships. To be able to make it a sector that delivers on alleviating poverty, creating opportunities, and empowering people, a lot has to change.
We need to to change our lenses.
And this requires questioning the who, what, where, and why of how we do things – or have been doing things. Where does ‘authority’ lie? Where does ‘expertise’ come from? How should we engage with ‘best practices’? These are questions that practitioners, donors, and academics need to be asking.
Let’s be clear, there is nothing wrong with wanting to do good or wanting to help others. On the other hand, the message I hope you start to understand is that having a heart for the less privileged is not enough. Given the past ills, injustices, and failures to deliver better and sustainable standards of living, we need to go back to the drawing board. This requires iterating through more collaborative ways of helping each other. In other words, a pluralistic (big word alert!) approach to doing development that elevates partnership and mutual respect.
Over the past three weeks, we have talked about several major issues that plague the field and underlie why we do things the way we do in international development. The fact is that we do know how to fix the problems. However, what has become rather clear is that we simply do not do them.
WHY NOT?
We lack courage, and leadership requires courage. In other words, doing them would run up against the interests of powerful people – many of whom sustain the economic systems by which the world operates.
The result is the subpar system we operate in today. A system with a lot of systemic injustices and intentional alienation of voices within and beyond the practice.
To fix the problem, we cannot rely on the same structures and standards that created these injustices and failures in the first place, for instance. In the same vein, just as we always prescribe ‘sweeping reforms’ for countries looking to achieve growth, etc., the system needs sweeping away, and a new order created.
WHAT MIGHT THAT LOOK LIKE?
Sorry, I do not have the ‘silver bullet’. More than anything else, it really does depend on what issue we are addressing. Yes, I pulled the classic ‘it depends’.
What we can say generally speaking is that we need an order that evaluates aid projects, for instance, based on how effective they have been. An order that sees locals as equals in knowledge production, and as problem solvers. Likewise, one that abolishes the racists and pompous undertones of relationships between the ‘rich West’ and the ‘poor South’. We need, therefore, an entire overhaul of the system and our approach to business as usual. Finding these answers is why this blog exists. And in subsequent conversations, we will address them.
WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE ON WHY WE DO THINGS THE WAY WE DO?
International development must embrace the role of the enabler and facilitator. But, this does not mean nonchalance or simply doling out free money. Rather, it’s a position that creates guardrails with people most knowledgeable about what needs to be done; creates systems and measures of accountability; and monitors execution more than money transfers. I believe its Albert Einstein that said
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”
As we easily place blame on others, there is just enough to be carried by us in the developing world, in the same vein.
“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times, shame on both of us.”
Stephen King, On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft
This brings us to the end of Part III of why we do things the way we do in international development. As I mentioned at the start of this series of conversations, as we start to have these conversations, it will get uncomfortable. But, in this discomfort, we must not back down until the powers that be have no option but to change the way things are done. And where we interrogate, we must find courage. The courage to engage with, and confront, biases that exist at the organizational/institutional level until things change.
At the end of the day, we need to change why we do things the way we do in international development and I hope Parts I, II, and III provide some useful insights. The most important of these falls on us all. We ALL need to do better by demanding better.
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
[…] especially when you consider what is generally considered as ‘best practice’. You can read that here. I have also addressed instances where it is useful, such as with my ex-gratia […]
I agree with this wholeheartedly. As much as development is to our advantage, it is important that we take accountability for the fact that development doesn’t work just as much as we criticise the system that is failing us. It is the definition of insanity. In terms of practical solutions, it may be weird to say but I think the resurgence of public-private partnership may be the solution for African nations, ESPECIALLY in light of the post-covid economic forecasts that the world is looking at. Supply chain models have changed significantly and in order for the African continent to survive… Read more »
Hello!!! You are talking! For real though, where are the exit plans?! Anywhere? No? No. On PPPs, those are an option and will be a great one to be fair, if done properly. I think the difficulty has been that the public side doesn’t always hold their end of the stick. They frustrate, neglect or simply drag their bureaucratic weight into the equation reducing the outcomes. We really need to have a competitive civil servant space where the best and brightest go into gov – like Singapore- and where progress is based on meritocracy for one. That sure would help.… Read more »