Why isn't the whole world developed?

There is a question people often ask which is “Why isn’t the whole world developed?” In order to answer this question, it is first useful to understand what the hegemonic view of development is. The IMF and World Bank (WB) have promulgated an idea of what underdevelopment is. To these development institutions, underdevelopment means not having the economic infrastructure to generate growth. It is assumed that a non industrialized country has little GDP, and therefore, cannot provide for the material needs of its citizens. These countries are therefore considered poor. Assessing a country’s development based on its ability to generate a high GDP requires, then, that underdeveloped countries adopt market economies in order to provide materialistically. Equating development with materialism and modernization, and underdevelopment with a lack of, marks the beginning of the West’s quest to “develop” the underdeveloped world. And, at the forefront of this mission are development economists and INGOs.

While acknowledging that (extreme) poverty is a real phenomenon that cripples both social and economic development, this paper shows how the development framework of development economists, and the language and imagery used by International Non Government Organizations (INGOs) to convey the urgency of development, they both impact, in two but interconnected ways, our perception of non-Westerners (or the other): Development economists who see poverty as institutional failure have pinned poverty to internal malfunctions of underdeveloped countries. Though there is much validity in their institutional analysis, there are critical implications that affect our understanding of the non-Western political economies. INGOs, on the other spectrum, negatively portray underdeveloped countries in order to legitimize their “humanitarian” interventionist activities. While some of the work carried out by these transnational bodies has helped many, perpetuating negative views of the non-Westerner creates intolerance towards those living outside the parameter of market values and modernization. As a result, both development economists and INGOs, I claim, enable the globalization (or imperialism) of Western ideals. Thus, I argue that understanding the differences of non-Western cultures is imperative in order to break the cycle of Western domination… in order for development institutions and policy makers to cease assuming that communities unlike their own need to be developed by their own standards…in order for Westerners to stop assuming that we must all be developed.

The paper is organized into three sections. The first section reviews the implications of explaining poverty through the lens of institutional underdevelopment. I look at how this approach has stigmatized underdeveloped countries as sole proprietors of causes of poverty. The second section shows how INGOs have become purveyors of social transformation and how, through their efforts, they have created, propagated, and perpetuated negative perceptions of the non-Western world. The third section draws from Sen’s understanding of poverty to show the importance of being able recognize and acknowledge poverty—and not miss it when present—without muddling the difference between cultural differences and projection of Western standards (projecting ignorance). Finally, I conclude that because development economists and INGOs negatively portray underdeveloped countries, Western citizens have joined the crusade to “develop” the non-Western world. And as long as Western citizens are bred to have patronizing attitudes towards non-Western cultures, development (as in poverty alleviation) will masquerade the globalization of Western ideals (markets and values alike). To read full paper click here

How free are we?

I attended the event "Stand Up Take Action" organized by the Hunger Project. The event was promoting the urgency to hike up action to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. In deed it's not a bad idea to want to step and take action against poverty, but when poverty is given the face of Africans, Asians, and brown Latin Americans then one really has to start to ask this question: Is it poverty we are fighting, or INGOs that we are supporting? After having wrote my paper on this very topic four years ago, (click here to see paper) I myself started to wonder if I was being a bit too radical. And, when I returned to Sri Lanka and saw how bad the socio-economic situation was, I was all the more compelled to believe in the "rescuing" power of International Non Government Organizations (INGOs). However, I was drawn back to my initial senses after attending the "Stand Up Take Action" event: For these huge INGOs and for the MDG followers, the movement to end poverty is really not about ending poverty, and it became ever so clear by the blatantly racist decryption of who the poor are: Africans, Asians, and brown Latin Americans. If INGO are truly concerned about achieving the MDGs then they should take a better look at the state of poor people in this country. If INGOs are truly concerned about fostering good government practices, then they need to look at the sick system in this country that allows corporations including banks and insurance companies to exploit families, pulling many under the poverty line, or rendering people homeless--giving so much power to corporations is not a sign of good governance. I do feel blessed for the many things that this country offers., but at the same time, it's important to realize that half the things we have only create false ideas of freedom, equality and justice for all. We have been collectively conditioned to think that we live in the greatest nation of all times where freedom prevails. But that's not always true. While we may be able to chose what religion we want to follow--a freedom that exist in many other countries as well--our real freedom is limited by MONEY. Just like the caste system we criticize in India, here too we get pulled into a "caste" that determines the quality of our life. Money-making is open to everyone, yes, the great American Dream that has attracted immigrants from around the world. But the secret no one ever tells you about are the social inequalities, and the extra hurdles because of these inequalities, that one has to endure during the process of trying to make it big. As we are conditioned to think that we are living in freedom, we ignore how tenuous our freedom really is when you are not protected by an abundance of money: The mere fact that banks and insurance companies can legally charge you any interest rate or premium they wish, shows how unprotected we are and how vulnerable we are. Wealthy people don't feel the impact of this but working class families do, as they struggle to recover their debts that are further aggravated by exorbitantly high interest rates. During times of economic crisis when people are loosing their jobs how is possible, that collection agencies are allowed to take any measure they wish, to strap you on to a repayment plan? Why are health insurance companies, like Oxford, allowed to take a sweeping amount of $1000 from one single paycheck without regard of how that check needed to be allocated. Simple acts like this, if you are living from pay check to paycheck, can draw a family into debt crisis. Just because greedy and all powerful CEOs are allowed to conduct business as they wish, families can easily fall behind their rent, debt payment, utility bills etc. Just imagine what happens next. So, I ask, how free are we really if we are unprotected from avaricious banks, debt collectors and health insurance companies who are given the right to suck up every penny you have? How developed of a nation are we, and how freely are we living if my choices are constantly affected by my economic status? In addition, I recently learned that if I wanted the best early childcare program for my child because empirical evidence shows the significance of these first crucial years, it won't be made available to me for the simple reason that I wouldn't be able to afford it. In other words, my child's developmental growth isn't considered as a priority for the greater good of society--while it should be since we are all abiding to the social contract. But no, this country doesn't think like that. So, what does this tell us of a Nation if, in 2010, we are still selectively nurturing the intellectual growth of the upper middle class and ignoring the intellectual development needs of children born to poorer families? We criticize developing countries from excluding girls from education, but in this country we exclude the poor from the best services...including the best education. Instead, the working class has to send their children to mediocre childcare programs. Is this discrimination normal of government that is said to protect its people. Is this really good governance? Is this equality for all? Is this reflective of a developed social conscience if money is our only ticket to freedom and our only ticket to cross class barriers? It is not, and do not be fooled, good governance and its ultimate respect for human rights, as we to boast it to be when trying to change other governments. This nation, despite all the INGOs that are proselytizing a US model of development, is significantly lagging behind because just like the countries we criticize, our government is really not responsive to the people. It's responsive to green bills and the powerful elite. It is, therefore, time that we stop idealizing our freedom and comfort and criticizing the governments of third world countries for their lack of participatory democracy and poverty.