Questioning the narrative around International Development and Why we do things the way we do – Part I

The concept underlying what international development is and stands to achieve is noble. It sounds nice and in fact, it’s praiseworthy. What it’s not, is clear. Questioning the narrative around International Development and why we do things the way we do is one way to address the mystery that comes with explaining international development to your parents, friends and let’s be honest, selves. It is through conversations such as these that we can confront our biases, acknowledge some basic truths, challenge preconceived notions, and explore different ways of thinking. That’s the hope at least.

There are many reasons why we need to ask ourselves some tough questions. After decades of doing development, the gains of international development have been few. Especially when one tries to find sustainable interventions outside of health and emergency humanitarian assistance. In a recent article, Stephen McCloskey outlines why this might be the case. He says that “The international development sector appears reluctant to leave the policy comfort zone of overseas development assistance and become more politically engaged with the structural causes of poverty”. Whether or not we actually desire this outcome is another question to contend with. But it does seem, from the few experiences that I have had, is that structural poverty is very political.

What does that do for understanding international development?

What that means is that international development organizations need to embrace a position of working with unity and purpose. The purpose? To create a more just and equal playing field. One that is built around, and takes into consideration, the local realities of social justice, green innovation, and well-funded public services. What we do not want is a sector littered with tone-deaf actors who refuse to read the room properly. We will be failing if our interventions and partnerships are detached from the realities of those on the front end. Simply because we did not acknowledge the deep fractions in their social order. Nor did we account for the role of a heavily regulated economic system embedded in all kinds of politicking.

If development, in all its complexity, is really about getting people to work together, how much of our effort should be dedicated to getting people to work together? Rather, what we find are top-down communication lines. Situations where decisions made in ivory towers include little input from ‘benefactors’. One that leads to a lack of robust feedback and accountability structures, and an unhealthy disdain for ‘the other’.

The problem with understanding development is threefold, for the purpose of this conversation. How we define it, the approach we often take, and the kind of people involved says a lot. In this post, I will address the first point only. Yes, this will truly be the Nigerian movie type: Part I, II & III. Sit tight.

Defining what we do, and what that means for how and why we do it the way we do it

On average, we do not have a clue what we’re talking about. The starting point is so different for all involved.

Everybody has their own definition or conceptualization of what it entails to do development. That is fine; it’s not really the problem. The concern, at least for me, is when the cover is compassion, but the objectives aren’t quite as compassionate.

Take aid, for instance. A lot of the key players that give money are driven by geopolitical reasons. We’ve seen this with the continuous flow of financial resources to countries like Uganda and Somalia, among others, despite the lack of value for money in improving lives. In most instances, humanitarian aid provides a lifeline, but development aid more broadly leaves little to be desired. The track record is far from stellar, unfortunately. Why they continue to give is telling of what is actually of interest. These donor-recipient types of relationships are not new, they go back to the Cold War and Marshall Plan days. The period that many believe advocated for the belief in aid.

A little bit of history

Europe experienced devastation from World War II. US-Russia relations started to grow fraught and eventually became a passive-aggressive fight. The U.S idea was to pump money to show that Western-type democratic and capitalist countries do better than the communist East model. The contrast between a flourishing West Germany with planes swooping in and out with food, money, and supplies, and the more stark and hungry-looking East Germany under communist-type leadership was a case in point.

There are many reasons why the Marshall Plan model worked there. There are many reasons why it did not give stellar results in Africa.  The fact that much of Europe needed reconstruction and not development from scratch may be one. The pre-existing institutional capacity and social capital may be another. Eventual defrosting of the Cold War tensions may very well be a third. It’s a number of factors and I am happy to do a post on it another day, not today.

Back to topic on defining what international development means to the players in this sector…

The point is that there is always a motif that goes beyond mere generosity and interest in helping people. Let’s take the stated mission of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) for instance.

“On behalf of the American people, we promote and demonstrate democratic values abroad, and advance a free, peaceful, and prosperous world. In support of America’s foreign policy … through partnerships and investments that save lives, reduce poverty, strengthen democratic governance, and help people emerge from humanitarian crises and progress beyond assistance”.

USAID mission statement

International Development is in their name but what is their goal? ‘On behalf of the American people’– fair. ‘To promote and demonstrate democratic values abroad’ – interesting. Such that they ‘advance a free, peaceful, and prosperous world’ – also interesting but ok. And ‘in support of America’s foreign policy’ – even more interesting but let’s just stop there for now. If one allows themselves a moment to sit with those words and think through what they mean in terms of the what, why, and how they do what to do, it starts to bring a bit more clarity around their actions and inactions. Consider humoring your soul and look up the foreign policy of the U.S.A., it will all start to fall into place a little better than before, hopefully. Feel free to tell me what you gathered and formed from this little exercise in the comments!

We know America is always up to something…but it’s not just them…

Let’s take a look at the Department for International Development (DFID).

“leads the UK’s work to end extreme poverty. We are tackling the global challenges of our time including poverty and disease, mass migration, insecurity, and conflict. Our work is building a safer, healthier, more prosperous world for people in developing countries and in the UK too.”

DfID’s mission

The U.K’s is more appetizing of sorts. I can vibe with it on some level. It sounds more generous and pro helping others with the caveat of doing things for its own interest of course. But that I have come to understand is standard practice. They cannot just take taxpayers’ money and not have their ‘best interests’ at heart. It’s just what it is. And there is no such thing as free money after all. If you think otherwise, you might still be sitting at the kids’ table.

DFID’s mission can be taken at face value. But if you have any semblance of British history and maneuvering, you will know not to sleep on them. Be guided.

The organization also has had (is having?) its fair share of a leadership crisis. It has only changed its leader five times in the past three years. As a friend said, “It almost seems like they do not know what they are doing or can’t decide on what to do with themselves”. As an organization with a heavy mission like they carry, stability and sustainability are key, especially as priorities are known to change with leadership. Feel free to tell me your take on this. Today, I am behaving myself, please.

Ok, why do their words matter?

Evidence on the development sector often shows that the aid infrastructure for instance is organized to benefit development partners. Especially when you consider that for every $1 of aid rich countries give to poor countries, they receive $7-10 dollars back. Back through debt repayment, profits, trade, etc. Each year, the net transfer of wealth that moves from poor to rich countries is an estimated $200 billion. Maliha Chishti in a TEDx talk shoved that down my throat, and it did not go down easily.

Her estimation seemed rather moderate compared to another by Jason Hickels. He estimates that ‘for every $1 of aid that developing countries receive, they lose $24 in net outflows’. What this shows us about understanding the world of international development is that the takers actually seem like the true givers. To be fair, much of this is illicit money flows across borders. But then, what does that say about the lack of stronger regulation around money movements by the beneficiaries – ‘global North’? Surely if we really cared and know what the problem is, we would nip it in the bud. But doing so comes up against major corporations and global players and who has the courage for that one?

Acknowledging the danger of a single story in the quest to understand how international development works

Now, I will not act like the blame is one-sided because African countries also play a part in the mess. The experiences of Asian countries like Japan and South Korea in the 1950-60s is as insightful. As insightful as it is instructive for using aid “well” for instance. Their industrialization paths appear to be largely a product of Cold War shenanigans. A time when aid was used politically, and unabashedly so. Aid could have been used badly. But their governments seemed to choose to want to use aid to their advantage. Hence the modern-day success we see with places like South Korea, Vietnam, Singapore, and Japan. These places were not without issues, I mean there was the Korean War, Vietnam War, atomic bombings, etc. But overall, they took advantage of a sour period, learnt, translated, and adapted real fast.

Sidebar again

In South Korea, for instance, tensions developed between domestic interests and that of Americans. South Korea wanted to rebuild new factories and heavy industries financed through foreign aid. America was not in favor due to the likely inflationary impact of such heavy investments. The goal was for South Korea to gain self-sufficiency as fast as possible. And yet, South Korea persisted knowing the bigger Communist play would keep America on their side.

Contrary to America’s recommendation, General Park when he took over in 1961, believed otherwise. He believed that if he succeeded with the plan to revamp the economy through industries, it would give him respectability and legitimacy at home, and greater autonomy from the United States (in whom he had become disappointed since taking power). Washington was obviously pro-democratic transition and not a fan of coup plotters, apparently.

For many in Asia, the geopolitical events and state of global affairs played a huge role in their development narrative. More important though is that they seized the opportunity in a time of crisis. They knew what to do, how to do it, and the right time to do it. And pursued the living daylight out of it. Maybe a little exaggeration but you get the point.

We cannot really say the same for some of us on this side of the world, in Africa in particular. So yes, we played a part in this mess outside of foreign forces interfering. Short term thinking, selfish interests, seemingly insurmountable ethical rivalries, and general pettiness. The list goes on but Africa’s past leaders are not entirely innocent in this conversation.

Why are we questioning the narrative again?

The point I am trying to make, which I hope you get, is not that everybody came to the party with their agenda. It is that everybody has an agenda.

The presumed goodness of ‘saving the poor ones’ is not all that defines interaction in international development. To understand the modus operandi of key players requires some acknowledgment of what they believe and hope to impart. This helps to understand why they spend, on what, and for whom. And of course, what that means for you and your organization that may be receiving funding from these development organizations.

So before you get big mad about what the major development institutions are doing and why, and especially why your manager just won’t take on the idea from the field manager that says x,y and z, might work better, it’s probably because it’s not in alignment with their guiding principles. Top management that drives the vehicle you are sitting in is not about doing too much. They stick to their knitting mainly because they have the money. And obviously seem to know better, their countries are the developed ones after all. Right? Collective sigh.

What do we do with this?

As we start to have these conversations, I hope it makes them comfortable thoughts, realizations, and realities to sit with. And as we interrogate these further, we gain courage. The courage to engage with, and confront, these biases at the organizational/institutional level.

And where the interests of key players in the international development sector do not align with the goals with those truly passionate about, people can start to think more creatively about how to use their talent and resources to actually make change happen. As we see these flaws, we must also pay attention to ourselves. How these self-interested motives can be replicated in us as individuals. Embracing an attitude of self-reflection should be key to individuals and organizations. Read more about this in a previous post.

The desire to want to alleviate poverty and help make the lives of people in our communities better is laudable. It deserves every bit of genuine compassion and the resources to do just that. But it requires us to have more than a heart to do good. We must also have a mind to do good, and apply it vigorously.

We need to find better ways to do better.

The following two tabs change content below.

• Bio
• Latest Posts

Noelle Wonders

Marie-Noelle is the creator and curator of Noelle Wonders - a blog created to pose questions, exchange ideas, explore power asymmetries, and humanize topics around growth and development.

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