New Perspectives

A myriad of new perspectives and middle-range theories (as opposed to meta-theories) emerged in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. However important feminist, basic needs and ‘voices of the poor’ (bottom-up) approaches are to development, they do not in themselves constitute new development paradigms. Rather, they draw on one or a combination of meta-theories in the social sciences.

2.1.2.1 Human Development

There was a growing realisation that the ‘human’ dimension of development was being neglected at the expense of growth. The ILO summarised the position:

“[I]t has become increasingly evident, particularly from the experience of the developing countries, that rapid growth at the national level does not automatically reduce poverty or inequality or provide sufficient productive employment” (ILO, 1976:15).

Dissatisfaction with the pace and direction of economic growth, and with the severe problems of social inequity, increasing poverty and dualism in the economies of developing countries, led development planners to re-examine strategies emphasizing capital-intensive, export-oriented industrialisation (EOI). From the 1970s the ‘growth maximization and trickle down’ agenda was challenged on a number of fronts:

•

The inappropriateness of the GDP as the primary indicator of development (Seers, 1983);

Employment objective: various ILO missions (e.g. to Colombia, Kenya and Sri Lanka) led by Dudley Seers (1983) in the 1970s, stressed the need to look to the traditional, rural areas for expanded employment opportunities;

The importance of integrated rural development planning (World Bank, 1975;

USAID, 1974);

‘Redistribution with growth’ advocates (Chenery et al., 1974);

The ‘basic needs’ school (ILO, 1976; Streeten et al., 1981);

Amartya Sen’s (1999) ‘capabilities’ approach;

Human development approach (UNDP, 1990);

‘Voices of the poor’ school (Chambers, 1983).

A reappraisal of the mainstream development paradigm led to the emergence of a populist ‘voices of the poor’ school. It originated from a number of different sources which increasingly converged during the late 1970s (Watts, 1993). In essence it entailed a rejection of the classic, top-down, technocratic, and state-led model of technology transfer. There was a realisation that the previous models were not working and development should be promoted by alternative approaches. A strong case was made that knowledge about poverty should focus on the understandings of poor people and the concepts that they utilise. This approach has, in the main, been associated with the work (i.e. participatory rural appraisal and rapid rural appraisal) of Robert Chambers (1983, 1999). Chambers (1999) poses the question “Whose reality counts?” and advocates the position that much more emphasis must be given to the perspectives and understandings of poor people themselves in international development.

The ‘basic needs’ school, on the other hand, argued that the poor need access to a bundle of essential goods and services to overcome basic deficiencies in their standards of living and to satisfy their ‘basic human needs’ (ILO, 1976; Streeten et al., 1981). This strategy is concerned with meeting the needs of the poor as a legitimate goal per se, aside from its contribution to productivity; and it emphasises the restructuring of production so that the poor have greater access to basic goods and services despite their disadvantages in the market. Education, nutrition, health,

sanitation and employment for the poor were the central components of this approach, reflecting an acknowledgement that the benefits of development did not necessarily

‘trickle down’ to those who needed them most (Stewart, 1985; Streeten, 1984). The success of China and Cuba provided evidence that basic needs approaches could be effective in alleviating or eliminating absolute poverty. They provided less impressive evidence, however, that basic needs strategies could, alone, increase productivity or stimulate economic growth (Paine, 1976; Lee, 1977).

Building on Streeten’s (1984) basic human needs strategy, Sen (1999:76-85) argues that the goal of development is to expand people’s ‘capability’ to do things that they value. Sen (1985) puts forward a view of poverty which derives from the idea of failure to be able to take a full part in human society, but which sees this as a matter of lack of choice or capability rather than simply material living standards. Capability refers to a person’s or group’s freedom to promote or achieve valuable ‘functionings’.

Functioning relates to the achievement of a person, such as being literate, being nourished, etc. Capability, on the other hand, is the person’s ability to achieve valuable functioning (Sen, 1984:497). Sen (1992:42-46) states that the selection of capabilities on which to focus is a value judgment that is to be made explicitly and in many cases through a process of public debate. In these terms development means not just combating or ameliorating poverty, but restoring or enhancing basic human capabilities and freedoms. By redefining the space for assessing development in terms of capabilities, Sen critiques the conventional conceptualisation and measurement of development. In doing so the capability approach brings a theory of

‘value’ and ‘ethics’ for assessing human well-being and deprivation.

The focus on equity and on ‘basic needs’ inspired the UNDP (1990) to focus on human development and the creation of the Human Development Index (HDI), which combines life expectancy, adult literacy, health and education measures together with per capita GDP to calculate an overall index of development success. The objective of this was to put people at the centre of development, not incomes:

“[P]eople are the real wealth of a nation. The basic objective of development is to create an enabling environment for people to live long, healthy and creative lives…Human development is a process of enlarging people’s choices. The most critical ones are to lead a long and healthy life, to be

educated and to enjoy a decent standard of living. Additional choices include political freedom, guaranteed human rights and self-respect” (UNDP, 1990:1).

In terms of the UNDP’s approach, human development concerns widening human choices, while incomes are merely a means, not an end in themselves. Further, there are many paths to human development success including: poverty-reducing growth, equitable distribution of income and well-targeted social expenditures.

As a result of the failure of the World Bank’s structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) and the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) stabilisation policies, UNICEF called for ‘Adjustment with a Human Face’ (Cornia, Jolly & Stewart, 1987). The UNICEF study: (i) draws on 10 country case studies and UNICEF experience to illustrate the severity of the debt crisis and point to ways to avoid or alleviate the ill-effects of economic adjustment on vulnerable groups; and (ii) addresses, as its main issue, the question of how economic growth translates, or fails to translate, into human development (Cornia, Jolly & Stewart, 1987). The UNICEF study underscores that policies to protect the vulnerable can and must become part of national planning even when the economy is in difficulties. The strategy of

‘Adjustment with a Human Face’ combines the promotion of economic growth, protection of the vulnerable and macro-economic adjustment.

An important caveat to this section is that populist rhetoric can be useful for repackaging development styles by verbally addressing fundamental structural issues of inequality and power, but in practice by pursuing ‘business as usual’. Re-labelling projects, ‘putting old wine in new bottles’, and using its appealing vocabulary allow new claims to be made upon funds and justify the exercise of control in old ways.

2.1.2.2 Gender and Development

Feminism and gender studies have helped to reinvigorate the sociology of development in the late 20^th century with the still burgeoning literature on Women in Development (WID), Women and Development (WAD) and Gender and Development (GAD) (Mies, 1994; Tinker, 1990). Placing gender at the centre of theorisation, feminist development theories have reoriented development discourse and practice. These theories have been crucial in exposing the ‘invisibility of women’

in earlier theories of development and the uneven impact of development processes on men and women, as well as on sectors of the population differentiated by class, race and ethnicity. They have also broken new theoretical ground with exploration into a changing sexual division of labour and into the mechanisms through which production and reproduction are linked in such ways that they produce not only gender inequality but also unequal development and international asymmetries (Fernandez-Kelly, 1994).

2.1.2.3 Institutional Theories of Development

In the 1990s institutional theories of development were beginning to emerge based on the ‘new institutional economics’ and the ‘new political economy’ (Bates, 1988;

North, 1990). The emerging institutional theory of development does not constitute a break with the dominant neo-liberal paradigm, but is rather an enrichment of it. This theoretical work largely embraces the essential tenet of rational choice theory, which postulates that social behaviour (and hence outcomes) may be explained by the interplay of individuals pursuing their own best interests and ‘preferences’ on the basis of rational choices and available information. The central idea of the new institutionalism is that what makes for an efficient economy is a set of institutions that permits individuals to benefit personally from doing what will also serve the material interests of society as a whole (Leys, 1996). In simplified terms, the institutional approach to development attempts to ascertain how institutional arrangements and their modification may constrain or enhance the economic behaviour of agents and hence impede or contribute to development processes (Nabli & Nugent, 1989).

However, to the extent that institutions are products of cultures and alleged national characters, the approach has brought us back full circle to the focus of classical modernisation theory (Biggart & Guillen, 1999).

Leys points to a major flaw in the explanatory power of the institutional approach:

“[W]e cannot explain in terms of the ‘paradigm’ how any particular set of institutions that existed in the past or exist today in a given country came into existence” (Leys, 1996:37).

Despite this shortcoming, the World Bank’s (1991, 1994) World Development Report for 1991 and 1994, for example, relied extensively on the theories of North (1990) and Bates (1988) in their discussion on infrastructure and legal structures. Further,

the recent emphasis of the international development agencies on ‘good governance’

clearly reflects the influence of institutional thinking.

2.1.2.4 Sustainable Development

Increasing concern about the inappropriate and ineffective use of natural resources in developing countries and the declining quality of the physical environment also led to the search for new approaches to development during the late 1970s and early 1980s.

The conceptual origins of sustainable development can be traced back to an early 1970s environmental discourse about ‘the age of scarcity’ and ‘the limits to growth’

(Meadows et al., 1972; Ward & Dubos, 1972; Hirsch, 1977), when the impact of Rachel Carson’s (1962) landmark study of environmental problems in the US prompted new research agendas and the establishment of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The quest for an alternative, ecologically sustainable and socially just development trajectory for the South led to radical formulations such as ‘grassroots development’ (Illich, 1969); ‘pro-peasant development’ (Das, 1979); ‘eco-development’ (Glaeser, 1984); ‘people-centred development’ (Korten & Klauss, 1984); ‘participatory development’ (Cohen &

Uphoff, 1980; Chambers, 1983, 1992); and so forth. While these early sustainable development models varied, they shared a number of common features:

•

•

•

•

•

A Gandhian¹⁸ emphasis on equity, basic needs, self-reliance and local control over the use of local resources;

A general preference for small-scale enterprises, emphasising community and village-based designs;

Shared values of solidarity with future generations, social justice and ecological balance;

An affinity for ‘appropriate’ or ‘intermediate’ technologies, designed with local inputs and know-how; and

A propensity for political decentralisation and political openness to enable popular participation and to incorporate local knowledge and traditions of stewardship.

18 Pertaining to, or characteristic of Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948), Indian political leader and social reformer.

The UN World Commission on Environment and Development (UNWCED), chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland (1987), in its report Our Common Future, offered the following definition of sustainable development:

“Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland, 1987:1).

The Brundtland (1987) report gave unprecedented prominence to the principle of sustainability. The next major event was the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) (or Earth Summit) held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21 (Sitarz, 1993), the international blueprint for sustainable development. Unlike the Earth Summit, the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), which took place in Johannesburg between 26 August and 4 September 2002, was never intended to develop new conventions or to renegotiate Agenda 21. Rather, the WSSD was given the mandate of implementing existing promises and commitments, such as those made in Rio and in the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (OECD, 2001). Emanating from the Millennium Declaration, the MDGs bind countries to do more in the fight against inadequate incomes, widespread hunger, gender inequality, environmental deterioration and lack of education, health care and clean water. They also include actions to reduce debt and increase aid, trade and technology transfers to poor countries (UNDP, 2003:Chapter 1). The Plan of Implementation (WSSD Secretariat, 2002a) and the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development (WSSD Secretariat, 2002b) was negotiated and adopted by the intergovernmental committee. These documents, together, are intended to frame the ‘official’ approach to sustainable development in the foreseeable future. The Plan of Implementation was designed specifically to generate a set of targets, timetables and concrete action plans that would make sustainable development happen.

The absence of new commitments and innovative thinking, particularly on global environmental issues and how they threaten development in all countries, is probably the most significant weakness of the Plan of Implementation. What the Plan of Implementation could have been and what it actually became were often significantly affected by the alteration of a few simple words. Each word and phrase change gradually shifted the Plan from a promising document outlining commitments and

obligations to one filled with voluntary options and choices, and may actually have

‘watered down’ principles affirmed in the Rio declaration. Despite a call for examination of the relationship between trade, environment and development, the WSSD failed to signal how development co-operation and expanding international trade could be directed to serve the goals of sustainable development. The inability of governments to agree on: (i) reform of the existing global environmental governance system; (ii) effective institutional mechanisms and effective means of implementation; and (iii) how to ensure effective financing of sustainable development, makes meaningful accountability on these issues unlikely.

Where Brundtland (1987) was vague, Agenda 21 (Sitarz, 1993), the WSSD Plan of Implementation (WSSD Secretariat, 2002a) and the World Development Report 2003 (World Bank, 2003) discarded discourses of scarcity and limits¹⁹, and emphasised that: (i) the best way to end poverty is to promote economic growth; (ii) in order to promote poverty alleviation, free trade should be the engine of renewed economic growth; and (iii) technological innovations, investment in research and development (R&D) and technology transfer offer the best hope for liberation from the constraints of a finite biosphere. Hence, ‘sustainable development’ has become conflated with

‘sustained economic growth’. Thus, growth maximisation and environmental preservation can be mutually enhancing. In other words, neo-liberalism is not inimical to sustainable development. It is not surprising, therefore, that several observers have raised the concern that the sustainable development discourse has been captured by the grand universalising project of neo-liberal globalisation, and in practice is just as undermining of distributive equity, social justice and poor people’s rights and livelihoods as the mainstream modernisation development agenda (Korten, 1995; Campbell, 1993; Brecher & Costello, 1994; Karliner, 1997). This is clearly reflected in the following two quotations:

“Modernism, and its more recent manifestation as development, have betrayed progress…while a few have attained material abundance, resource depletion and environmental degradation now endanger many and threaten the hopes of all to come…Modernism betrayed progress by leading us into, preventing us from seeing, and keeping us from addressing interwoven environmental, organizational, and cultural problems” (Norgaard, 1994:2).

19 Thereby, averting the question of Northern over-consumption.

“[L]ocal experiences of western development in many localities of the third world have been closely associated with the dissolution of indigenous cultural, political, and economic systems; with increased inequalities in life chances between genders and among classes…and with deterioration in, and removal of access to, the biophysical environment” (Porter & Sheppard, 1998:2).

It would seem that most official agendas envisage little fundamental change, focusing on promoting more efficient resource and energy evaluation and use, recycling and reduced pollution broadly within existing parameters rather than on radical changes to lifestyles and economic systems. At the extreme, sustainable development has become a convenient slogan to signal political correctness without the corresponding commitment to change. The dominant modernist ethos, and its contemporary incarnation as neo-liberalism, is still for the most part promoting an agenda of economic efficiency, articulated largely through privatisation and liberalisation programmes.