Upfront

Reflections on 50 years of Development

FATMA ALLOO, PEGGY ANTROBUS, ROBERT J. BERG,LOUIS EMMERIJ, ARTURO ESCOBAR, GUSTAVO ESTEVA,JESSICA HORN, JOANNA KERR, SMITU KOTHARI,AFAF MAHFOUZ, STEPHEN F. MOSELEY, KHAWAR MUMTAZ,JUMA MWAPACHU, DUNCAN OKELLO, SHOBHA RAGHURAM,ANDREW E. RICE, WOLFGANG SACHS, NAFIS SADIK ANDJOS VAN GENNIP

In preparation for this special issue, theEditor asked a number of people of di-verse generations, viewpoints and loca-tions who have contributed in importantways to the Society for InternationalDevelopment and the journal Developmentover the years to respond to a series ofquestions:

1. How did they respond to the power ofideas as the ‘line’ for the journal issue,in particular, the constant message ofDevelopment about the importance ofhuman-focused development and the

need to explore alternatives to mainstream development?2. Which ideas or policies did they see SID or Development as the quarterly journal of

SID bring to the fore as cutting edge that led to real change.Which ideas need to bevoiced that are not yet heard or acted upon?

3. What are some of the tensions in the development discourse, such as the tensionsbetween North and South, between advocacy groups and policy groups, etc.? Whoare the keyactors in development today?What are the pressing issues in developmenttoday?

Wendy Harcourt, Editor Development

Development, 2007, 50(S1), (4–32)r 2007 Society for International Development 1011-6370/07

www.sidint.org/development

Development (2007) 50,(S1) 4–32. doi:10.1057/palgrave.development.1100394

Here are their responses:

Fatma AllooAssociate Editor of the journal Development,journalist and social movement activist,Tanzania

From the perspective of where I am based inZanzibar, an island off the coast of East Africa,and as an activist in civil society on the Continent,I feel development is one of the most abusedwords in my region. Our development ‘partners’who are in the development agencies claim tocome here to make things better. Yet when onereally analyses what is going on, one finds that itis the same slicing up of Africa that is happeningand that has happened since 1884. Back then itwas with gun and bible. Now it is with dollarsand euros.Civil society has been reduced to workshop

agendas and activism has been reduced to institu-tionalized movements. Development agenciesencourage young career-oriented ‘developers’ tocome to this part of the world for the ‘experience’and we are seeing again the strong emergenceof large expatriate communities doing ‘develop-ment’. ‘Experts’ are engaged from the North toworkwith the locals in order to bring development‘knowledge’ to our situations. Foundations areset up with local boards but when the localboard refuses to rubber stamp the programmesdesired by those who give the funding it is notrespected. We have experienced good structuresgoing down the drain with this new influx ofdevelopers from the developed countries who

spend four years dismantling what have beenmantled by their predecessors who believed ingenuine development.The power of ideas is to decolonize the develo-

pers minds both from the North and South. Sucha decolonization is crucial if we are serious aboutjustice. Civil society needs to engage in move-ments to build a viable course of justice and thetax payers in the North who are part of civil so-ciety need to be vigilant of how their moneys arebeing used to engage in what I can only call a sec-ond colonialismof the Continent.This colonialismis ruled by the euros and dollars that keep NGOsbusy in offices rather than in the communities,running workshops, writing proposals and re-ports and maintaining the required bureaucraticstructures.The human rights issues that have been impor-

tant in our part of the world have been gender is-sues, health, HIV/AIDS, education as well asdisability and minority rights. In Tanzania, theseissues have played a pivotal role at different histor-ical moments in the evolution of civil society.Whatis not so well recognized and heard about far lessare information policies and investigative journal-ism, both critical to the life of a healthy civil so-ciety. Citizens’ rights to information is a pressingissue still, even in this age of information technol-ogy (IT). For the majority of people in my partof the world, IT is far away from their lives andremains inaccessible.The pressing debate for me today remains

the issue of justice. But instead of justice, thereis a culture of silence and fear. We need to talkmore about this. The rule of law needs to beadhered to and the truth needs to be protectedespecially for those who choose to tell it. Theenergy of advocacy groups is being sapped by‘ngoism’. To hold meetings has become thenorm for social change. Grassroot initiativesare expected to become structured if they are tohave access to funds. Trainings are held in capa-city building. Local indigenous knowledge is nottaken into account. The approach is definedand run by ‘experts’, but how many communityleaders have become ‘experts’ from our part of theworld?

Reflections

5

The issue of justice remains, for communities,for the minorities, and for all the voices who aresilenced.

PeggyAntrobusFounding member and former generalcoordinator of Development AlternativeswithWomen for a New Era (DAWN),Barbados

SID and the journal Development have certainlyemphasized the importance of human-focused development, even in articles that arein line with ‘mainstream’ thinking. It has alsotried to emphasize the need to explorealternatives, but with less success, given its consti-tuency of largely mainstream thinkers andpractitioners.The concept of ‘development’ is so controversial,

especially in circles that see it as away of perpetu-ating the domination of the South by the North.We first have to ask: what kind of ‘development’.Today, ‘development’ as expressed through theworkof the IFIs and the aid agenda, is increasinglyassociated with global economic and social injus-tice.The frameworks of the IMF (structural adjust-ment), theWorld Bank (e.g. PRSPs), theWTO andthe UN (the MDGs) are all predicated on the conti-nuation of neo-liberalism; although different

words are used, they all amount to the same con-ditionalities that constrain countries to workwithin a policy framework that prevents them(if indeed they wished to) from working in the in-terest of their citizens.These conditionalities, the ‘retreat’ of the state

from the provisioning of basic needs, privatizationof public services, the exploitation of femalelabour as the basis of export-led growth, highlightthe extent to which economic production is at theexpense of social reproduction. In short, the con-ditionalities undermine the conditions necessaryfor social reproduction, placing the well being ofsociety at large at risk.The current focus on ‘poverty’ rings hollow

when one looks at the prescriptions, but most ofall because of the unwillingness of the interna-tional institutions and the leadership of the indus-trialized countries to acknowledge that theirpolicy frameworks have increased inequality andexacerbated poverty. The vision of broad-basedsocio-economic development that was seen as anintegral part of political independence hasvanished.What replaces it is a focus on market-led growth at the expense of human development,human rights, human security and environmen-tal sustainability.I don’t have a sense of the complete range of

ideas put forward by Development over theyears, but Development has undoubtedly been onthe cutting edge of the most important debatesand progressive ideas in this field. However, thebest ideas in the world are of no avail if the envir-onment in which they emerge is hostile to theknowledge generated through the journal. Theconsolidation of power and capital today is suchthat even the best proposals for change cannot betranslated into policies that can bring about socialjustice.The policies that are key to bringing about

change are those that emphasize the empower-ment of women as decision-makers in the interestof social justice; sustain and enhance the liveli-hoods of the poor; respect the rights of indigenouspeople to the benefits of own knowledge; respectdiversities of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality andfaith. These are precisely the ones that continueto be ignored.

Development 50(S1): Upfront

6

Development stakeholders are clearly Northand South, but also those who promote growth-oriented development and those marginalizedby it. The North^South stakeholder divide thenis complicated by a kind of development thatcreates new elites in the North and in theSouth and increases poverty in both spheres.The contradictions in the dominant paradigm

of development are now too glaring to be ignoredand tensions between advocacy groups and policygroups reflect the struggle between those whohold on to the dominant worldview and thosewho challenge it: the dichotomy between people-friendly and market-friendly policies is real. Inshort, there was a less tension when the contra-dictions were less evident.I would say that before the 1980s, certainly

in the 1970s, there were shared assumptionsabout the benefits of a development modelclosely linked to modernization. Post-colonialstates like those in the English-speaking Carib-bean played a major role in creating the infra-structure for a development model thatrecognized the need to prioritize human deve-lopment in any policy aimed at building theeconomy.The policies of the Washington Consensus re-

vealed the contradictions inherent in policies thaton the one hand promoted economic growth, andon the other placed it in jeopardy by underminingthe intellectual, physical and psychological capa-cities of the labour force. The very notion of aWashington ‘Consensus’, presupposing an opendialogue and agreement among stakeholderswhen there was none in fact, points to the kind ofarrogance and disrespect that bedevils interna-tional relations today.For me, the most pressing debate around devel-

opment today must be the one that challenges thedouble-speak, double-standards, hypocrisy andsheer dishonesty that passes for policy debateand dialogue. Unless the contradictions are chal-lenged, there can be no change that is meaningfulto the dispossessed.Development hasmade a critical contribution to

disseminating the range of ideas around develop-ment. In special issues on Grassroots Initiatives(GRIS), the Politics of Place, women, indigenous

people, alternative economics, the movement ofmovements, citizenship and sexual rights andreproductive rights it has challenged thedominant paradigm. However, something sharperis needed. Perhaps we need dialogues in thejournal that expose the fraudulence of the under-lying assumptions and the contradictions oftoday’s policy frameworks, including thepatriarchal and racist underpinnings of powerand privilege. I don’t know whether this wouldwork. It would certainly require enormous cour-age to confront the truly damaging effects of thecurrent policy frameworks. Moreover, if this effortwere linked to the mobilizations by feminists andothers around theWorld Social Forum, SID couldplay a unique role in advancing the search forglobal justice.

Robert J. BergVice President SID International1985^1988,consultant and director of the UNAGraduateFellows Program,Washington, DC, USA

I was a college student in California when Ilearned of a new organization, the Society for In-ternational Development (SID). I joined and myfirst SID meeting was the 1959 SID conference.I found two values in SID that have generallyendured and which I have found almost unique

Reflections

7

in professional associations: the organization wasopen to anyone, even a lowly student like me; andanyone could participate, a formof intellectual de-mocracy that is actually rare. I say ‘generally’, asin travelling around my country and around theworld of SID chapters, I’ve seen that we have hadour lapses. But, by and large, we remain open tomembers and ideas, and that is a heritage to value.SID, just by organizing itself, contributed a big

idea. It was that there is a profession called ‘devel-opment’. Those of us in development, in essencesaid SID, need life-long learning to understandour evolving and complex field.We attempted for years to say that development

is a global phenomena, but we are still split be-tween those who say we are in a universe ofchange, and those who say that the world is intwo halves. I believe it is increasingly unhealthyto believe that development for one living in theNorth is something that occurs elsewhere, and itis increasingly meaningless to see the South as aunity of economic inferiority. We somehow havenot evolved intellectual complexity to match real-world complexity.For years, SID produced a newsletter that gave

us frequent updates on the news of our profession.Long ago that lapsed, which is too bad as no sub-stitute source truly tells us of our profession, its di-mensions, its qualitative changes, and the lifehistories of people in the profession. All this wehave to glean from the two-line bios of our jour-nal’s authors. The point is that we are not tendingto our profession: assessing training for develop-ment, and fostering next generations of develop-ment thinkers systematically.A huge coup for our Society was the1969 world

conference in New Delhi. By this time, I was mar-ried and we had a three-year^old child. The threeof us could only attend the conference because ofan amazingly cheap charter flight that SID ar-ranged. The conference started with at least2,000 people. But at the end, in a last session at-tended by no more than 200 of us, Dudley Seersannounced the start of bottom up planning, athought he had been kicking around with Mah-bub ul Haq. I brought back Dudley’s text to Wa-shington and practically sold it on street corners.And 4 years later, Jim Grant, I and a number of

others helped make bottom up planning the intel-lectual and legislative platform for the US foreignaid programme, a major coup, because at that timeUSAIDwas a dominant factor inaid. Mahbub soonwas directing the World Bank’s Policy PlanningDepartment bringing bottom up developmentthinking to that place, butwith less pervasive effect.In 1974, I attended the SID world conference in

Abidjan, surely the most lavish conference in ourhistory. But I headed to the back room where thegrace of our Executive Secretary, Andy Rice, al-lowed me to address the SID International Board.I proposed that SID have a plan to reinforce mem-bership in the South in order to diminish thegrowing dominance of the North in SID’s member-ship and work; and I proposed we have a way oftaking public positions as a Society, but withoutspeaking for our membership. The results: Twotask forces later SID created the North^SouthRoundtable to take positions, and SID moved itsheadquarters to Rome (I was hoping for Nairobi,Rio orNewDelhi) to be further South. Howwonder-ful that a simple member could make such propo-sals to a board made of quite distinguished people.By the 1980s Thatcher and Reagan were turn-

ing development back over into top down policies.SID reacted by stressing the grassroots and parti-cipation. Manyof us applauded the counter-stress,but we disagreed with the vehemence with whichthese positions were put forth. They had the effectof being less a stimulant to rich discussion than atake it or leave it dictum. A more open approachto discussionwould have been more effective.A cross-cutting source of major input to SID

was the influence of key multilateral officials suchas Mahbub ul Haq, Jim Grant, Richard Jolly, LouisEmmerij (and Barbara Wardywho influencedthe others). SID was chosen to be a prime way totry out and propagate ideas like human develop-ment. We would do well to re-establish strongerlinks with UN and other multilateral policy lea-ders, but find a better balance to actually debatewith them their key policy contributions.For many years, we have seen our journal to be

highly creative in a number of fields, particularlygender, health and a number of other humanissues. That is wonderful. But we as a Society havenot very well engaged some wider issues. Our field

Development 50(S1): Upfront

8

has become ever so much more complex, but wehave not reached out to the branches to be part ofus and to become regular parts of our discussions.At the same time, the core fields of the Society(planning and policy) have also become farmore decentralized in all kinds of local thinktanks and research centres, and seemingly theyalso are beyond our reach, alas. If we had grownwith our field, SID would be many times ourcurrent size. And we remain fearful about talkingwith policy people from the private sector,which denies us a lot of creativity and the abilityto influence the most powerful dynamic in today’sdevelopment.Now we face the first truly global crisis, caused

by climate change. From now on humanity willneed to manage the environment or be subject toeven more severe damage than if we remain help-less to change our economies and our lifestyles.For SID, that’s an opportunity, as we will need tre-mendously creative development solutions and alot of new thinking to get to those solutions. Ourwork is far from done.

Louis EmmerijSID International Governing Council Mem-ber, 1979^1985 and from 1988^1991, UnitedNational Intellectual History Project, TheNetherlands

The journalDevelopment, like the Society for Inter-national Development, particularly in its General

Conferences, has been a supermarket for alterna-tive ideas. It has kept the successive orthodoxieson their toes. SID and the journal have beenfrequently ahead of the curve. Hence, concreteinfluence was not immediate. But if you look overthe last 27 years and observe the changes thathave taken place in the orthodoxy of the 1980s, itis clear that the journal Development has playedits role in these changes. Obviously, it wants togo much further, but that is the task of the next50 years!I have been impressed with the journal Develop-

ment in its present format: choosing a theme andlet many authors say their piece in three pages.This allows both an in-depth analysis of the se-lected themes and a variety of different views,thereby avoiding dogmatism and still remainingconstantly on the look out for policies that benefitthe great majority of humankind.One cannot expect new or alternative ideas to

have an immediate impact. Turning points doseem to come abruptly from a blue sky, but let metell you that most of the time they have been longin the making. The monetarists were ridiculed fordecades and then ‘suddenly’ around 1980 theirmoment came. This was not a blessing, but it is anillustration of my point. I follow with care andsympathy the trend toward an integration of de-velopment, human rights and human security.Such an integration would mean real progress tomake development possible for everyone in allcountries; ‘Development as freedom’, to borrow aphrase from Amartya Sen.However, this still begs the question of the ne-

cessary changes to be introduced in economicand social development policies. I have come to be-lieve that a global concept of development validfor all regions and all cultures ^ which is the waywe are going ^must be reassessed. I thinkwemustgive more attention to the necessity to break downdevelopment nationally, locally and culturally. Inother words, there certainly must be common ele-ments in development theory and practice, butaround this common core there are many policiesthat must be adapted according to the cultureand habits of a region and its people.I have written something along those lines

that has recently been published (‘Turning

Reflections

9

Points in Development Thinking and Practice’, inGeorge Mavrotas and Anthony Shorrocks (eds.)Advancing Development: Core Themes in GlobalEconomics, Palgrave-MacMillan together withWIDER, 2007).The question of the journal Development and

SID giving priority to northern voices seemsrather silly to me. There are northern voices thatare more southern than southern voices and viceversa! Development and SID are supermarketswhere all ideas find a place, with the goods thatare beneficial to all humankind more visibly ex-posed than the others. I am happy that the num-ber of voices that are now audible in thedevelopment debate and have a real influence hasincreased over the last 50 years. The journalDevelopment in its present incarnation, as I see it,tries to introduce some order in the cacaphony ofthe many voices.

Arturo EscobarAssociate Editor of Development, KenanDistinguished Professor of Anthropology,author of Encountering Development: TheMaking and Unmaking of the Third World(1995), Colombia

I should start by saying that the question of ideasgoes of course both ways. Since the late 1980s,critics of mainstream development started to em-phasize the power of ideas (language, discourse,expert knowledge, labels, etc.) to create particulardevelopment understandings and, hence, modesof intervention. (There had been, of course, a fewrelated critiques earlier, by authors such as Illich,

Freire and Goulet.) But of course,Development tookthe challenge of responding to mainstream con-cepts (particularly, growth-focused discourses)with an alternative set of ideas. One thinks aboutDudley Seers’ early questioning of ‘the meaningof development’, but there were many enlightenedpieces over the years, including many voices fromthe South (e.g., Gustavo Esteva, Vandana Shiva,Orlando Fals Borda) and of course theNorth (SusanGeorge, Wolfgang Sachs, Richard Jolly) which invarious ways took on the challenge of both ‘un-packing’ the assumptions and perils of the see-mingly natural mainstream ideas and presentingnew ideas as credible and viable alternatives tothe former. One also thinks about the early andimportant effort of the Dag Hammarskj˛ld Foun-dation’s1975 project,What Now?, which launchedthe ‘Another development’ movement ^ ‘anotherdevelopment is possible’, wewould say today, para-phrasing the slogan of the World Social ForumProcess. I still believe the debate over ‘self-reliance’that came out of that debate is very relevant today,with the pertinent adaptations. It is indeed apowerful idea in human-focused development.A battle over ideas and over languages of devel-

opment, as we now know, is a battle over culturalunderstandings of social life, over worldviews,and, ultimately, over ways of constructing the so-cial and material worlds we inhabit. This is why Isee the development movement as a whole ^ in-cluding Development ^ as crucial in this regard; itis a space for conducting this struggle. Has it con-tributed to global economic and social justice?The record is of course quite mixed in this regard.Human-centered approaches at least have the po-tential to contribute to these goals much morethan the blueprints for growth and technologicaldevelopment. In the long run, as some recent eth-nographies of development projects have shown,what counts is the extent to which local peopleand organizations are able to appropriate develop-ment interventions to their own ends, often byre-locating them in constructive ways within theirlocal social and cultural terrains. Participatoryapproaches and human-centered approaches,again, are more likely to provide conditions suita-ble to the goal of local effective appropriations, beit because the experts are more likely to see

Development 50(S1): Upfront

10

that this is what is going on and to accept it as achallenge for themselves, or be it because thelocals find more auspicious spaces to insettheir knowledge and aims in the negotiations overthe projects. But one could say that there is alwaysthe need to apply more pressure on developmentdiscourses and institutions to see themselves ascontributing to cultural-political articulationswith popular groups, including project ‘benefici-aries’, from the perspective of how these groupssee it. It seems to me that this is a role Developmentcan continue to embrace and make even moreexplicit.There is no simple answer to the question of

how ideas get translated into effective policy, or,more theoretically, how discourses and en-trenched ‘political economies of truth’ ^ to useFoucault’s term ^ become transformed into otherknowledge-power constellations. I was recallingSeers’ 1964 article, ‘What are We Trying to Mea-sure?’. In this piece, Seers argued that to ascertaina country’s development, one ought to look not atthe growth of GNP, but at what has happened tothe levels of poverty, unemployment and inequal-ity; if these have decreased, then there has been adegree of development, and vice versa, regardlessof what has happened to GNP. Seers, of course,was interested in the problem of indicators allalong, but his call, together with ideas of the1970s and 1980s and pressure by social move-ments, contributed to fostering a panoply ofnew practices; from alternative indicators,human development and poverty reductionframeworks to the HDI (Human DevelopmentIndex), which, while by no means a radical depar-ture, did offer a corrective to the more self-servingrepresentations and measurements of the WorldBank and the IMF.With the World Social Forum, I believe the

development debate has the potential to enter intoa new phase. The journal has tackled this chal-lenge with special issues on the emergent move-ments and ideas connected with the cultural-political ferment of the last 6^8 years in particu-lar, linking this ferment with development issuesper se. To translate into policy the thrust of theprinciple that ‘another world(s) is possible’ ^ ‘aworld where many worlds can exist’, in the

Zapatista formulation ^ is an even more difficulttask ^ perhaps not even how the task should beenvisioned. Another development is possible, forsure.What do we mean by this today? From the1975 What Now? project, the Dag Hammarskj˛ldFoundation launched last October (2006) the‘What Next’ forum. The forum is already infusedby the ideas of theWorld Social Forum and world-wide movements and, of course, by the mostheated debates of the day, such as global climatechange. Celebrating its 50th anniversary, Develop-ment is in an enviable position to contribute to leadthis process of re-visioning and reconnecting no-vel ideas with transformed practices. It should doso by building on what has been one of its mostdistinctive features: establishing conversationsbetween the academy, policy worlds and socialmovements and civil society more generally ^only that the balance among these three actors inthe economy of knowledge production hasshifted, from being weighted completely towardsthe first two to having to pay increasing attentionto the third one.The problem is not so much with whom we

are speaking in development but from whichperspective such voice speaks ^ after all, theremight be male feminists, white anti-racists,and so forth; more difficult and unlikely tohappen, but certainly not impossible! Cannorthern actors understand and really shareperspectives from the South? And of coursewe would have to disaggregate ‘the South’, tobegin with. But let us take the South as a cultur-al-epistemological (‘epistemic’, as some philoso-phers and some activists say) space wherecritical perspectives on the world are beingconstructed. These perspectives have to do, in afundamental way, with decolonizing the indivi-dual and collective imaginations from the domi-nant modern standards that emphasizeindividual, market, expert knowledge, so-calledrational action, consumption, separationbetween nature and culture, and so forth. Intheoretical terms, this means questioning theproject of liberal modernity at a deeper levelthan ever before. Another world is possiblealso means other than modernity understoodin this sense. It means bringing about not a

Reflections

11

universe (such as that dreamt of by development)but a pluriverse of social, cultural, economic andenvironmental configurations. This is the projectat its most radical as currently envisioned by somesocial movements, for instance, in Latin America.Can development be turned into a surface of en-gagement to move towards such a goal, while atthe same time bringing about improvements inpeople’s livelihoods?Thus it seems to me that while there are a

number of very pressing topics of debate todaywithin the space of development ^ for example,livelihoods, environmental changes, globalhealth, etc. ^ we need to confer a new dimensionto the decolonial question, that is, moving beyondthe paradigm of liberal modernity. This is whatthe idea of ‘postdevelopment’ might mean atpresent. Neo-liberal globalization, to be sure, isthe current attempt at deepening such paradigm;it is a massive project of reconstituting subjecti-vities along the axes of individual freedom, wes-tern-style democracy and market-based con-sumption. The South is been invited, or forced,into accepting this cultural-political at a moreprofound level than ever before. Hence the needto oppose it at the same cultural-political level,building on those projects of decoloniality thatcan be seen in various parts of the world. Thechallenge, as some people put it today in LatinAmerican contexts, is to foster ‘worlds and knowl-edges otherwise’.In his inaugural speech on 15 January 2007,

President of Ecuador Rafael Correa spokeabout the need for his country to embark upon a‘change of epoch’, not an ‘epoch of changes’. Onewould hope that ‘development’ ^ and certainlyDevelopment ^ will take on the challenge of tryingto understand what this means and how to contri-bute to it. Development will continue to be crucialto these decolonial projects, as means more thanas ends. Of course, there is a tremendous uneven-ness worldwide in this respect. Is China really fullyinto the project of conventional development? IsLatin America, on the contrary, attempting tomove into a significantly different direction? It istoo early to tell, of course, but we should remainat-tentive to these regional specificities and whatthey might mean for the world as awhole.

Gustavo EstevaIndependent writer, a grassroots activistand a deprofessionalized intellectual win-ner of Mexico’s National Prize of PoliticalEconomy, Mexico

The journal Development has taken seriously the ap-parent intentionof development: global justice.WhenTruman inaugurated the current development era,his main promise was to close the gap between the‘advanced countries’and theareas he calledunderde-veloped. He offered to share with themall theAmeri-can scientific and technological advances. Instead of‘old imperialism ^ exploitation for foreign profit ^ywe envisage a program of development based onthe concept of democratic fair dealing’, he said. Thesuccess of his political coinage of the word underde-velopment, which reformulated the very idea of de-velopment, should partially be attributed to thiscommitment. Thanks to development, Truman pro-mised, the gap between rich and poor countries willbe first reduced and finally eliminated. The levellingof modern society, eliminating the chasm betweenthe king and noblemen and the people, would hap-pen at the scale of the world. The old promise of theFrench revolutionwill be finally fulfilled.But the experiment miserably failed. In 1960,

the rich countries were 20 times richer than thepoor countries. In 1980, thanks to development,they were 46 times richer. The gap has beencontinually widening since then.We have now en-ough documentation. We know. Development isvery good business for the rich countries and verybad business for the poor countries. Development

Development 50(S1): Upfront

12

has clearly contributed to global economic andsocial injustice.The journal Development has courageously

looked for alternatives to mainstream develop-ment. But we nowknow: both mainstream and al-ternative development has failed in its explicitpurpose of bringing global justice. Rarely has thejournal explored alternatives to development andits timid incursion in that field has been quicklyabandoned. It was assumed, perhaps, that suchline of thinking and practice was suicidal for ajournal called Development and a society createdto promote it, whose constituency ^ the mainaudience of Development ^ is the community of de-velopers, people affiliated with the idea or thepractice of development.Fifty years of development allow us to see avery

peculiar phenomenon. Most of the great ideas ex-posed in the journal, which probably collected thebest in the field, had been transformed into policy,one way or the other, in some countries or others,time and again. And the policies had producedchanges. But these changes were not the changesexpected or the desired changes were obtained atan unbearable price, making them counterpro-ductive, that is, producing a negative balance. Allthe policies and strategies I have heard of in thelast 10 or 15 years ^ as a proposal or as a practice^ , now packaged as globalization, have the ap-pearance of deŁ jaØ vu. A new generation of policymakers is discovering the development wheel.What they proclaim as a radical novelty, a real in-novation, was tested time and again, in a thou-sand different forms, many years ago.In the same discourse in which Truman

launched development as the new emblem for theAmerican hegemonic power, after the SecondWorld War, he declared what later was called the‘cold war’. In the late 1980s, when such a warended with the victory of the United States, devel-opment was already a frayed flag. No one dared tocelebrate the next UN Development Decade. TheUS was forced to change the emblem and coinedglobalization as a substitute.What was promisedin the name of development is now promised in thename of the global project. This time, however,instead of universal fascination, the globalizers ^ asdevelopers are now called ^ get increasing rejection.

No matter how much documentationwe collectabout successful alternatives to development, ex-periments that are no longer marginal or confinedto dissident vanguards but circulate profuselyamong the social majorities, they are not heard orseen. The lenses of development prevent any oneusing them to see anything outside their semanticconstellation. This dramatic blindness is todayone of the main sources of social tension and poli-tical violence.The tension in SID between South and North

was as illusory as the division itself. There hasbeen a tension between the One ThirdWorld andthe Two Thirds World and these two worlds arenot concentrated geographically.The stakeholder groups that I can identify today

in the field of development are basically the samegroups I observed 50 years ago.The debates arounddevelopment includemore than in the past some is-sues, like the environmental consequences of de-velopment or ethnicity ^ the cultural implicationsof development. In my view, most of these debates,perhaps all, are missing what is happening at thegrassroots and in many social movements.More and more people are slowly moving

beyond the very idea of progress and its shape asdevelopment. As Wolfgang Sachs brilliantly ex-plained almost 20 years ago, the idea of progressis now ripe for museum. Evolutionism or SocialDarwinism is no longer accepted as a defined goalor path. It is increasingly difficult to believe thatthe coherence of the world can be achieved bypushing ahead along a common path, towardssome distant promised future.Or, asTeodor Shanin explained, we can no long-

er take for granted a unilinear evolution as ‘natur-al’, that is, as necessary. If we consider socialtransformations in their full richness, we need totake on board the possible multiplicity, multidirec-tionality and multi-quality of actual and potentialsocial paths.Around theworld, different groups of people are

following very different paths: Many people areenjoying what they consider their privileges withthe dominant system. They are ready to do what-ever is necessary to protect what they have, theirpossessions, their jobs, their wayof life. Some otherpeople are struggling to be incorporated ^ to

Reflections

13

receive full satisfaction for what theyconsider theirright to a piece of the cake. Still others are strug-gling for changes within the system ^ they see itsflaws, its contradictions. They are concerned aboutthe environment, social injustice, poverty, what-ever. They want to improve the system. Some peo-ple are trying to go back. Lost in the currentuncertainty, they look for a refuge in a reconstruc-tion of the past. Some people are just resisting whatthey see as a mortal swell. They are entrenched intheir old ways, trying to protect them from anychange. Some others are transforming their resis-tance into liberation ^ trying to create a new socialorder inwhich their ways can be respected.We thus see initiatives for or against ‘the system’,

called with different names: globalization, develop-ment, capitalism, etc.Wealso see initiatives goingbe-yond that system; they are neither for nor against,but following their own path. And all these differentinitiatives are often mixed and combined in the realworld. It is difficult to find movements or initiativesthat mayclaim‘purity’of intentions or practices.How to deal with such confusion? One of the

clues can be found in what is increasingly calledthe politics of No, movements and initiatives de-fined by a common No and manyYes’es, acknowl-edging and respecting the plurality of the world.Increasingly, in political actions to implement col-lective ventures for the common good, to say ‘No’may be the most complete and vigorous form ofself-affirmation. The unifying ‘No’, which ex-presses a shared opposition, always containsmany ‘Yes’ ^ radical affirmations of one’s ownbeing, of what one wants. By keeping such affir-mation at the level of the ‘No’, without condensingina‘Yes’themultiple affirmations of all those shar-ing an opposition, it becomes an affirmation ofthe plurality that defines the world as it is. It alsogives potential to the political strength of the re-jection and its capacity to protect the initiative ofthose affirming their own places, mutually sup-ported by the common‘No’. Development, in all itsforms, does not look compatible with this kind ofpolitics. Development implies one‘No’and one‘Yes’.Politicians and parties, as all sorts of developers,

assume that it is impossible or ineffective to con-centrate political actions in negative proposals.They continually look for affirmative projects,

expressing shared ideals of wide groups. Inevita-bly, they betray people’s real hopes, carpet baggingand give back to the people abstract promises thatcannot be fulfilled.The motives of those opposing a dam, a road, a

McDonalds or a development policy may be highlydiverse. It is usually impossible to reach consensusamong them about what they want, for them-selves or the society. They don’t lack alternativeproposals, but they accept their own diversity. Tosay no, with enough firmness and conviction,may be today the best form of saying yes.All this, which can be seen and smelled at the

grassroots and appears everywhere among the so-cial majorities, seems to be entirely absent in thedevelopment debate. It is usually disqualified as ir-relevant or thrown into the old bag of ‘resistanceto change’.More and more, we are coming back from the fu-

ture.Well established in the present, we are aban-doning all forms of expectations and rejecting thestandard definition of the present as an alwayspostponed future. We are reclaiming hope. Andhope, as Vaclav Havel once said, is not the convic-tion that something will happen but the convictionthat something makes sense, whatever happens.

Jessica HornContributor toDevelopment, feminist activistwith roots in Uganda and the US currentlyworks as a human rights funder in London

Development 50(S1): Upfront

14

Themethodologyand goal of global economic andsocial justice is to transform radically powerrelations, and to redistribute resources, voice andpossibility. The problem is that most mainstreamdevelopment institutions conceive (na|« vely or in-tentionally) of their work as somehow outside ofpower relations, and hence come nowhere nearto engaging with questions of social and econom-ic rights or equity. A case in point is much of thework done on ‘gender’ that tends to avoid funda-mental issues shaping gender power relations in-cluding sexuality and violence. The MillenniumDevelopment Goals, for example, lay out universaltargets for development ^ including gender equal-ity ^ yet fail to take seriously measures to end vio-lence against women as key factor in achievingeither. This is despite the documented evidencethat gender-based violence is a leading cause ofdeath among adult women, and has a negative im-pact on women and girls’ participation in societyand the economy.Key to change: Throughout the 1990s, activists

from the South and North collaborated to chal-lenge the technocractic, industry-driven focus ofgovernment and UN development discourse andto introduce concepts of human rights and justice.Women’s rights activists made a powerful contri-bution throughout the UN conferences of the1990s in shifting the focus of UN language fromstate-control of individuals to a focus on to ques-tions of choice and rights and ‘human-centered’development. This advocacy has been critical invalidating the absolute centrality of human rightsto development. For the mainstream it has at leastexposed the tip of the iceberg; however, navigatingwhat lies underneath requires immense politicalclarity.Still to be heard: There is of course a lot more

work to be done in transforming mainstreamdevelopment practice to feed genuinely into thestruggles and rights of marginalized commu-nities.This is tremendously hard to dowhen agen-das are set in the financial capitals of the world orindeed in the capital city of a country withoutmeaningful participation and leadership from af-fected communities. To say that is not to advocatefor a na|« ve embrace of all things ‘local’, but to re-cognize, as Wangaari Mathaai puts it, that ‘what

is done for the people without involving them can-not be sustained’.Stakeholders:When we talk about ‘stakeholders’

in development, we often think about the ‘poor’ofthe global South. Yet when we answer the ques-tion ^ ‘whobenefits from development?’ ^ we comeupwith a different range of stakeholders, and herethe role of private industry comes into view. Fromthe early days of Structural Adjustment Policies,Southern activists have been crying foul aboutthe impact of privatization of basic social servicesand the role of private industry in pushing tech-nological fixes and market-driven approaches tothe detriment of the poor. However, over the pasttwo decades, private industry has taken an in-creasingly prominent role as funder and policy-maker. The privatization of water is the latest in aseries of attempts at the commodification of basichuman needs. The trouble is that both private in-dustry and its corporate practices fall largely out-side of the accountability mechanisms of theinternational human rights system, and do nothave a formal accountability to the voting public.On the other side of the spectrum, a set of signif-

icant yet ‘invisible’stakeholders are Diaspora com-munities who are contributing to developmentfrom ‘below’.World Bank research shows that mi-grants sent home an estimated $225 billion in2005 ^most of whichwent into assisting in familyand community development.This was more thanall bilateral development assistance combined inthat year, and shows that Southern people are infact among the biggest investors in developmentand socio-economic change in the South. Donoragencies are intrigued by this and are looking atways to harness this economic power to theirown ends. I am interested in it as a phenomenonof autonomous development in which migrant in-dividuals and communities decide developmentpriorities for themselves.Pressing debates: For my generation, develop-

ment has firmly established itself as an industry.You can be trained at a university to work in thesector and you can make an increasingly comfor-table living as a development practitioner. As abusiness person, you can engage with the indus-try by providing technical products and market-ing services. In my view there is clearly a tension

Reflections

15

between the ‘industry’of development which peo-ple can participate in as a career choice ratherthanas anactivist imperative, and themass-basedsocial justice movements where participationis generally unpaid and inspired by the need todefend the rights of one’s community (howeverthat is conceived) and to change one’s materialconditions. The ‘industry’ is less accountable tothe local context, and yet can often wield greaterpower in terms of defining problems and solutionsand in raising funds.Secondly, the ability of the development policy

and practice really to deliver onwomen’s rights re-mains a pressing debate. Women worldwide stillearn on average less money than men, face physi-cal and sexual violence which is often treatedwith impunity, and are poorly represented in deci-sion-making at all levels, from the individual tothe global.We are talking about half of the poten-tial labour force of the world, half of the world’scitizens. So clearly, there can be no genuine ‘devel-opment’ without a transformation of genderpower relations.

Joanna KerrSID International Governing CouncilMember, feminist activist and writer,Canada

The power of ideas AND the power of debate anddissent: these are both central to the political pro-ject of making change happen. If therewas a quicktechnical fix to ending poverty or expanding hu-man rights we would have found it. If anything,

thewidening of the debate to explore silences, ten-sions and amplify marginalized voices onlyenriches our understanding of the complexityof social, political and economic transformation.And as to how development has contributedto economic and social justice worldwide, I amafraid I cannot separate development from the‘development racket’ ^ an industry that hasenabled if not contributed to widening gapsbetween the elite and marginalized. Whileindeed we can look to amazing achievements interms of eradication of polio, major infrastructureprojects or education outcomes, one cannot helpbut look at the failures of economic reforms, agri-cultural policies, or PRSPs with some dismay thathunger is on the rise, alongside conflict and cli-mate crisis.One of the many things that we need to

change about mainstream development, which isan implicit agenda of the journal, is to havemore recognize that ideas and policy cannotdo anything without people acting at the rightplace, right time and across movements, sectors,issues and regions. Take for example, genderequality. Most development organizations, be theyinternational NGOs, bilateral or multilateralagencies have adequate gender equality policiesin order to address discrimination and exclusionthroughout development work. Add to that, oneday staff ‘gender training’ sessions and mostmanagers would say their organizations andthe work that they do are ‘engendered’. Sadly,they are wrong. Research shows us again andagain that it takes policies, skills but mostlypolitical will to change organizational cultures,and plenty of gender equality specialists with bud-gets to ensure gender is addressed.Women’s move-ments need funding to sustain their role ofproviding accountability to governments and de-velopment agencies.Good policy is one thing, but surely we know by

now that knowledge, plus political action, plus fi-nancial resources are needed to bring aboutchange.In 2007, ‘development’ needs to recognize that

there are many new players working to addresspoverty, HIV/AIDS, global governance or humanrights ^ and these new players will bring new

Development 50(S1): Upfront

16

tensions. I’m referring to new philanthropy ^ theBill Gates, the Jeff Skolls, the OprahWinfreys, theRichard Bransons, film star do gooders Brad Pittand Angelina Jolie, and the many new founda-tions, either corporate or private that are comingonto the scene every week. They have a big stakein making a mark and building their legacy andusing a range of different tools and approachesthat not only circumvent public policy, but alsodwarf the significance of ODA.

Smitu KothariContributor to Development and SID pro-grammes since the mid-1980s, activist andresearcher, Director, Intercultural Resources,India

Development is dangerous precisely because it canbe used by anyone to justify almost any economic,social or cultural activity. Given the present con-figuration of political, economic and culturalpower in theworld, to avery large extent, it has be-come a tool to legitimize the dominant patterns ofeconomic development or it has been deployed toprovide safety nets to those victimized by thesedominant patterns.What have then been justifiedare superficial programmes and projects that donot seriously address the root causes of impover-ishment and disempowerment. Its use can onlynurture confusion. It is indeed unfortunate if un-derstandable that the UNand other agencies have

adopted it infusing it with values that reflect anadvancement of the public good.Most development is still top-down. Interventions

designed in state capitals or remote offices are soughtto be implemented with little or no recognition ofthe agency of those in whose name it is being done.In a situation of widespread disempowerment andeconomic distress, it is reprehensible that so much isjustified with so little understanding of the contextwithin which development is sought to be done.Surely, some humility must arise in the hearts andminds of those who do development around the factthat an overwhelming majority in whose name de-velopment is justified have little or no say in definingand shaping macro developmental policies and pro-grammes.To some extent the‘targets’, the‘recipients’,the ‘objects’, the ‘stakeholders’ do have a role in im-pacting on the micro, and there are a wide range ofactivities that are inspiring, but most remain loca-lized nurtured by dynamic individuals and groups.We are very far from global economic and social

justice precisely because we are not individuallyand collectively addressing the hard issues. Lookat Indiawhere I come from.How canwe celebrate our economic resurgence

when 25,000 farmers have been compelled tocommit suicide in the past eight years because ofeconomic distress caused by processes of econom-ic globalization and the present thrust of agricul-tural development? How can we only keeptouting a sustained 8 percent growth in a contextwhere a recent Government of India surveybacked by UNICEF states that India has a higherpercentage (46 percent) of malnourishedchildren than sub-saharan Africa (35 percent).The survey found that levels of anaemia inchildren and women had worsened compared toseven years ago ^ around 56 percent of womenand 79 percent of children below three years oldwere anaemic. Even a leading government consul-tant had to proclaim that this reality was ‘a matterof national priority and shame’ for the govern-ment, with less than1percent of the national bud-get going towards public health spending. This, ofcourse, does not capture the fact that many ofthe very policies of economic development arethemselves contributing to displacement andmarginalization.

Reflections

17

If development was working, whyhas thewealthgap increased? In the US, in China and in India asin most countries around the world, this gap hastripled in the last four decades. If development wasworking, why do the richest 10 percent own 85percent of the world’s assets and the bottom 50percent own less than1percent? (Or, if you take in-come distribution, the top 40 percent receive 95percent of all income.) Again, what this does notcapture is that the consumption of the rich stripsthe planet of survival resources and devastates thelivelihoods of millions, dumps pollutants that arekilling life all over the planet and substantivelycon-tributes to global warming in the process threaten-ing the very survival not just of our species but ofcountless others. These are tough realities that thedevelopment community has to confront if it wantsto begin contributing to the process of creating amore secure and just world.The journal Development has provided a dy-

namic space in which to engage these questions,to highlight the conceptual debates that diverseactors engage with as they seek to make sense ofthese troubled waters.What has also been refresh-ing is that it has provided a remarkable space forthose engaged with the evolving mobilizations ofwomen in different parts of the world. To thatextent, the issues and voices of other historicallydiscriminated and marginalized peoples ^ theindigenous, the tribal, the minorities, the cultu-rally and socially victimized ^ need better repre-sentation. In numerous ways, while some of theiraspirations and struggles raise profoundly trou-bling issues, many are providing us with immen-sely creative ways of rethinking democracy andsustainability on the planet ^ narratives and vi-sions that the journal must give greater space to.The most central issues that we need to engage

with are political and economic power, culture/identity and ecology. Most development practiceeither turns a blind eye to prevalent power rela-tions (globally, nationally and within the commu-nity and family) or works to incrementally reformit. Clearly, without addressing how economic, so-cial and political power legitimize and perpetuatethemselves, of how they sustain inequality, devas-tate livelihoods and life and cause large-scaleenvironmental destruction, it will only be possible,

at best, to skim the surface. There is so much evi-dence now to corroborate this and to reveal howthese processes contribute to increasing economic,socialand culturalvulnerability inturncontributingto widespread social and political conflict.Withoutaddressing a fundamental fact that development it-self causes disempowerment, conflict and violence,most interventions will, at best, be superficial.Also, there continues to be a vast gap between

theories of socio-political change and the realitieson the ground; between the developments in inter-national law and the realization of those rightswhere people live and work; between the formalinstitutions of democracy and the deeper realiza-tion of democratic rights; between the commit-ments and pronouncements of our political anddevelopmental leaders and the achievement ofdignity and justice.The North^South dichotomyhas become largely

meaningless. As many of us have illuminated inour work over the past decade and a half, there is agrowing North in the South and a South in theNorth with the dominant mindsets and lifestylesof those in the global North and the victimization,the social and cultural exclusion and vulnerabilityin the global South looking increasingly similar.While I feel uncomfortable with the word stake-

holders, we are all actors in this process ^ thebankers, the development professionals, the tea-chers, the workers, the peasants, the forest dwell-ers and the political activists. Change is alreadyunder way. I can see it. I can feel it. In the tens ofthousands of efforts to take control of resources,institutions and systems of governance; in thestruggles of the discriminated and oppressed; inthe numerous challenges and resistance to preda-tory economic and political forces; in the resur-gence of progressive political forces in LatinAmerica and numerous other local spaces aroundthe world ^ all seeking to bring forth a saner, moresecure, humane, just and caring world.There is therefore a wider need in the commu-

nity that reads Development for fundamental in-trospection. The biggest change needs to comefrom those in power, those with privilege andwealth. As many have said before, the biggest pro-blem in the world today is not poverty but wealthand privilege.

Development 50(S1): Upfront

18

It is therefore not a question of incrementalhandouts, of sophisticated safety nets or of inclu-sive growth.Wisdom lies in fundamentally rethink-ing how to live on our fragile planet in ways thatenhance dignity, justice and environmental secur-ity. It lies in taking radical steps to alter our life-styles and our life ways to converge with that goal.

Afaf MahfouzVice President of SID International Govern-ing Council Member 1991 to 1994, feministand psychoanalyst Egypt/USA

I first joined SID in Egypt through my ProfessorIsmail-Sabri Abdalla. I found SID avery compellingintellectual forum with interesting ideas that as aPan Africanist and Arab I particularly welcomed.The exchange between first and thirdworlds I foundvery exciting, despite I must admit, the exclusivityof the Society, and I would add the ‘old boys club’at-mosphere. The dialogues, conferences and the jour-nal were dominated by brilliant intellectuals. Insome ways I felt just because SID was made up ofsome of the stars of the development world, it failedto go into depth to examine the roots and the causesof underdevelopment but it was nevertheless a veryprecious and important forum for me.I can candidly say it was difficult as an Arab

woman to enter into the decision-making arenasof SID. When we were rounding up support forIsmail-Sabri Abdalla for President, I rememberhav-ing to appeal to Jim Grant to ensure we had spaceduring the programme of meetings at the Balti-more Conference to caucus. I also recall during myfirst termof the SID International Governing Coun-

cil in a regional meeting in Nairobi how I and otherwomen members of the Governing Council werechided by the senior men of the Council for takingfirst row seats waiting for President Moi to addressour meeting. There was a lot of tension in SIDaround accepting third-world leaders, let alonethird-world women leaders.We kept our ground orrather our seats I am glad to say!Above all, it was ideas, with the journal as one

medium that SID gave the development commu-nity. It was incidentally also a network that gaveprofessional support and no doubt some plum jobswere decided on the basis of what some saw as theSID ‘old boys club’. But for me, the most valuablepart of mymembershipwith SIDhas been the ideas.For example the work by Richard Jolly, Mahbub ulHaq and Jim Grant which then UNICEF took up onstructural adjustment with a human face was pathbreaking. I recall Richard first presenting it at aSID Conference. I found that approach a turningpoint formyownwork, and I respect andappreciatehow SID was able to put forward such cutting edgeideas and take them through into policy.Another area that SID pioneered was women in

development. SIDwas the first network to promoteand integrate women into development. Intellec-tually, this idea since the 1970s has been pushedby SID and this has had important impacts on de-velopment practice.There have been some verydy-namic women leaders in SID, although I wouldnot say women are completely integrated into theleadership among SID programmes and work inthe South, particularly in Africa and Asia you seethe impact. The gender projects in SID have beenvery strong, southern based, and have workedhard to disseminate ideas from the bottom up.I think for SID there is always an uncomfortable

dynamic around the centre versus the local Chap-ters. But this is not so much about where theChapters are positioned but more about if chaptersare linked into political power. For example, SIDWa-shington membership is close to the real politicalpower inWashington, and the Chapter has thrivedthrough those professional connections and con-sulting jobs. SID was part of what I call the politicaltribe inWashington. Instead, SID in NewYork hasnot thrived as no one had time to make it work andno one was close to real political power.

Reflections

19

I think the journal has had a different trajectoryfrom other SID activities. It has managed to bringin a North^South dimension with southern andwomen’s voices leading the debate which for memakes it a more meaningful dialogue than otherSID programmes such as the very influential andhighly visible North^South Roundtable. I do thinkthe journal could improve with more case studieson the ground which could be presented as casesof success or failure of development. Possibly keypeople could be invited to comment on the casesand diagnose what worked and what did not, thatcould be a very helpful way to move the develop-ment debate forward, perhaps in the local^globalencounters section.Most of all I would recommend that the journal

and SID try to bring the intellectual leadership ofSID together with the on-the-ground networking ofactivists, to produce different levels of strategies thatcanmove SID and the development project forward.

Stephen F. MoseleyTreasurer of the SID International Govern-ing Council and President and CEO, Academyfor Educational Development, Washington,DC, USA

The Society for International Development’s 50thAnniversary marks a time for celebration in devel-opment.We are nowable to reflect on extraordinaryprogress in development made in the areas of socialchange ^ including educationand health especiallyfor children, young women and youth. In my 40

years devoted to these critical issues we can seedramatic changes in global adherence and commit-ment togoalswhichmost affect people and, in turn,the opportunity for the long-term economic andstable development of nations and communities.We know the landscape is not perfect, and the

challenges ahead are enormous in many countriesand for many particular populations. However,there is progress. From only 10 percent of girls en-rolled in schools during the 1950s and 1960s inmost developing countries, we now seemanycoun-tries with 50 percent or more graduation rates forgirls in urban and many rural areas. The continu-ing progress of children moving on to secondaryschool continues to be an opportunity for the nextgeneration to participate in economic growth andglobal participation. Extraordinary gains in mater-nal and child care in the early years have also en-hanced the lives of millions and built the base onwhich people can move forward in longer-termhealth developments leading to gains in educationand access to new possibilities. The future genera-tion, with educated mothers are far more likely tosucceed in terms of education, health, and will beable to adopt new technologies needed to enhancetheir societies and economies. The opportunity tobuild on the 25-year march towards excellence inhigher education around the world offers currentand future generations the ability to participate inan ever-changing global economy which requiresthe highest level of skills on a lifelong continuingeducation basis to which all can aspire.We are now in a new era where industry and

commerce recognize how critical investment is inworkforce development and in early, basic educa-tion. This will make possible long-term stability incountries which, in turn, encourages investmentfrom within and without the country. Ultimately,the return on investment in education becomesan investment that is applauded by both the publicand private sector.Our interconnected world though comes

with an important set of challenges particularlythe increase of global contagion from infectiousdisease.We must strive to ensure that what is ea-sily treatable in many societies is made availableto the least advantaged populations. HIV/AIDS,avian influenza and the growth of chronic dis-

Development 50(S1): Upfront

20

eases such as diabetes and obesity that stem fromchanging lifestyles all threaten the accomplish-ments we have made in basic life development.Education and health have been important

themes throughout SID’s 50-year history of holis-tic development. Human development, social in-teraction, gender equity and human rights resultfrom recognition of the type of multi-disciplinarycollaborative effort by all citizens of the globe.Members of SID from public and private organiza-tions; private, non-governmental organizationsand businesses; associations and governments; ci-ties and states and nations; and across disciplinesmake a critical network for continuingdevelopment.Looking only on a short-term basis at the

troubled areas in the world leads us to think thatthe collaborative investment in social change ona global scale to address and alleviate poverty isshort-lived or wasted. On the other hand, mostpeople when asked where investments should beplaced to ensure the future of their families, inevi-tably answer ‘education and health’. It is here thatwemust continue to invest in the‘soft side’of devel-opment to ensure the security of the globe. SID’sfirst 50 years must be seen as laying the founda-tion from which we can work together towardsan even more critical and focused capacity-build-ing in the years ahead.

Khawar MumtazVice President of SID International GoverningCouncil, Coordinator of Shirkat Gah, Pakistan

Themindless race for economic gains andmarketsand the emphasis on economic growth has beenat the expense of human development. SID hasthe distinction of championing the importanceof human faced development and the search foralternatives. The SID journal Development hasbeen SID’s primary vehicle for discussion and dis-course and putting forward ideas that have oftenbeen ahead of the times ranging from the notionof human-faced development, to South^South in-teractions, to the definition of sustainable liveli-hoods, to the politics of place, to name just a few.These ideas have informed policies, triggered thequestioning of the dominant development para-digm, and have brought the concept of social justiceas an integral element of economic development.There is always a gap between the introduction

of an idea, its inclusion in policy dialogue andultimately a change in policy. This is not necessa-rily a linear process but an idea when it becomesthe subject of active discussion leads to rethinkingand shift in policy, sometimes radical and atothers minimal. In my view, the adoption ofindices of human development index (HDI) tomonitor and assess development, the inclusion ofgender empowerment measures (GEM) as intrin-sic to gauge development, seeking perspectives ofthe deprived and the poor particularly women inpolicy and decision-making, among others havebeen key to bringing change. However, havingsaid that, we need to be aware of the power ofthe vested interest that resists such change.Among vested interests I include the IFIs, MNCsand their allies in the North and the South, whonot only resist but aggressively push the neo-liberalanti people agendas.I feel that a number of key initiatives and ideas

are co-opted and reduced to rhetoric, take for in-stance, poverty alleviation or women’s empower-ment. Unless the poor especially women aregenuinely involved in the solution, poverty willnot be reduced leave alone eradicated; structuraland systemic inequities at the root of unequalsocial relations have to be addressed to seriouslyremove poverty. The Millennium DevelopmentGoals (MDGs) are a prime example of such an ap-proach where human rights and social justice arejust not factored in, in fact ignored.

Reflections

21

I put myself in the advocacy camp. Policy, I findlags behind often coming too late and with too lit-tle to offer. From the perspective of my own coun-try (and possibly other developing ones) policy isoften externally motivated e.g. theWorld Bank orIMF and others, or, increasingly by local propertydevelopers, contractors and related mafias. Therecan hardly be any popular ownership of such poli-cies. The pressing debates in my view are aroundvalues of social justice, democratic spaces, humanand women’s rights; around armament, war andpeace; around notions of the power of technologyand market; unsustainable model of developmentand the interface between what is seen as ‘mod-ern’ development (mega projects: big dams, megacities, wider roads) and rapidly degrading environ-ment.

Juma MwapachuSID International Governing Council Mem-ber, Secretary General of the East AfricanCommunity,Tanzania

Without doubt, the SID Journal Development hasthroughout its history been at the forefront in pla-cing human security at the heart of the develop-ment agenda and process. Development has hadan important contribution in debunking theconventional wisdom about the centrality ofGDP-linked growth to attacking poverty. It haspowerfully advanced an alternative theory ofmeasuring development based on a demonstrableimprovement in the quality of life of the poor.First, Development was probably a leading con-

tributor to the birth of the ‘UN Human Develop-ment Report’, a major coup in advancing a new

theory of development at the global level. In turn,through the GRIS debate in the 1980s, Develop-mentwas able to promote the concept of participa-tory development in the third world, an ideathat has come to crystallize into what is nowwidely described as ownership of the developmentprocess.Ideas postulated and interrogated in Develop-

ment, crucially catalysed a global debate aboutNorth^South economic relations and issuesand the inequities they grossly manifested,resulting, I believe, in the historic and monumen-tal Reports of the Brandt and South Commissionas well as the more recent ILO Report: A FairGlobalization.One area of change which Development has

played a signal role is on gender relations and, inparticular, advancing the centrality of liberationand empowerment of women in the developmentand decision-making processes at global, regionaland local levels.The wide world has seen dramaticand effective policies adopted in this area. Inmanydeveloping countries, women have emerged asthe strategic agents of change at policy-makinglevels.An area that continues to be a debilitating chal-

lenge is the skewed and inequitable global govern-ance architecture. The intensification ofglobalization has heightened this inequity, regret-tably with little prospect for serious action to ad-dress the challenge. UN Reports that have focusedon thisweakness have not beengiven the due atten-tion deserved. Another area where there has beenlittle action on is the entrenching and deepeningpoverty that engulfs the poor world. Really andtruly, the rich world has been more polemical andrhetorical in its commitments to provide assistance.The stark paradox is that individual andprivate sec-tor Foundations in rich countries have becomemore engaged in this area than governments.The so-called tension in SID between the North

and South at the level of ideas formation and ar-ticulation could be misplaced. I believe on thecontrary that there has been a significant com-monality and shared perceptions in and ap-proaches to development issues between theNorth and South social scientists contributingideas in Development. The voice of the South

Development 50(S1): Upfront

22

has enjoyed a high profile and platform.The short-coming has been that the voice has largely endedbeing in the wilderness for the same reasons thathave seen the failure of numerous robust and posi-tive recommendations put forward by Reportssuch as Mwalimu Nyerere’s South Commission.Who are the key stakeholders in development

today? I would say, first, the progressive global ci-vil society that has aligned itself with the quest ofthe poor world to foster and champion a moreequitable global economic system with a globali-zation that is underpinned by rules of fairness.Second is the women empowerment groups thatsee the centrality of women in improving the waydevelopment is charted out and managed, espe-cially in the developing world.As for the pressing debates around development

today, one can discern the following:

� Global Governance in the era of entrenchedglobalization.

� Challenges in achieving the MDGs.� How to make poverty a history.� Moving beyond terrorism to addressing issuesof broader human security.

I believe that Development, probably more thanany other journal, has provided a broad and liber-al platform for different and contrasting ideas ondevelopment to contend. The voice of the South inparticular has been offered a unique space to beheard and, to that extent, Development has beenthe foremost journal for the rich world to accessthe intellectual and activist stirrings taking placein the poor world.

Duncan OkelloDirector of East Africa Regional Office, Kenya

The idea that equates development or progresswith economic growth was a very narrow one. Itforgot a fundamental reality: that development,however defined, should be about people. It is posi-tive that this narrow viewof measuring and label-ling the progress of humanity was sufficientlychallenged. The Human Development Index andthe UNDP Human Development Report have beenremarkable in constantly conveying the fact thatthere is life beyond the figures. That however eso-teric statistics may be, the more compelling thingto look at are the human faces behind thosefigures.But, it would be na|« ve to think that the message

has sunk in. In a number of countries, we stillhave policy makers and leaders who, by virtue oftheir training, ideological bent or, pure sadism,still find it difficult to appreciate this fact. This isparticularly true in Africa where, after years ofeconomic stagnation, the pursuit and demonstra-tion of economic growth, however small, has be-come so urgent and necessary that everythingelse is subordinated to it. The growth imperativehas become too consuming that, even in in-stances where innovation and experimentationwould create new spaces formore people to contri-bute to and share in this growth, remarkable resis-tance and caution is exhibited. Such is theblinding power of this pursuit that few have no-ticed that the last 10^15 years, which have wit-nessed considerable macro-economic stability, isalso the period where the levels of poverty haverisen markedly. For a majority of these people,their lives before and after liberalization and theattainment of macro-economic stability remainsthe same.In Africa, the preoccupation with the growth

model created an illogical intellectual dependencythat beggars belief. It thus became fashionable to‘structurally adjust’, and cut down on socialspending, even when it was clear that decliningper capita incomes in the1980s, had effectively de-nied the population the ability to operate in themarket. The policy and intellectual leadershipcheered on as poverty spiralled out of control andit was not until the World Bank shifted focus tothis new problem through PRSPs that a rethinkwas considered necessary.

Reflections

23

Growth is important but it can be shared ^ bothin its creation and its rewards. That is the develop-ment discourse that the world needs to have. It isthe development choice that we need to make.One of the areas in which SID leaders made a sig-nificant contribution to development is the Hu-man Development Index. The incubation of thisgreat idea in the SID NSRT ^ of finding alternativeways of measuring development ^ has been a criti-cal contribution. And the journal has been a goodstock exchange of thoughts and ideas, some wayahead of their times.I think that working on policy change is one of

the most difficult things to do. Policychangework-ers are in the most difficult of careers for a numberof reasons. First, governments, which are the mostdominant group in policy processes, are alwaysconservative. Second, policy change advocatesare usually considered ‘outsiders’ and their man-dates, and, sometimes, political intentions, routi-nely questioned. Third, they do not always haveconclusive evidence on their diagnostics or pre-scriptions on emergent issues but are driven bythe power of ideas and allure of logic.In this context, for policy work to succeed it

needs to work on many fronts: the intellectual(where evidence and fact is assembled); the politi-cal (where public and political pressure is broughtto bear); and the bureaucratic (which seeks to in-crease government uptake of proposals). I thinkthat over the years one of the issues that has im-pacted strongly on policy is gender, and Develop-ment has played a considerable role in furtheringthe frontier of this debate. And the relative successof the gender agenda has to do with the fact thatit has pitched tent in all the three sites mentionedabove even though in Africa, it is still most looseat the bureaucratic level. It is also the one thatneeds to be heard a lot more because of its multi-plier effect on development. The importance andcase for the ‘gender variable’ in development hasbeen made convincingly; it is yet to be heard suffi-ciently.Africa is rapidly urbanizing; its demographic

profile is increasingly young; it is unequal; someof its economies are shifting away from agricul-ture and manufacturing to services. The journalneeds to train its focus on these development chal-

lenges. The dialogue between democracy and de-velopment needs to be sustained for, whereassome countries have reached a ‘third wave of de-mocratization’ (in the form of successful peacefulelections and power transitions), the developmentoutcomes have not kept a corresponding pace.How to close the gap between development anddemocracy is the next frontier of public policy dis-course and political activity.Whereas the northern bias is discernible,

sometimes in the choice of themes, I thinkthat the journal has made considerable effortto bring southern voices to its pages, particularlyfrom Asian and Latin American countries.Yes, the African presence is still thin but it isencouraging that some change is happening.The Issues on ‘Surviving Uncertainty’, ‘Conflictsover Natural Resources’,‘Sexual and ReproductiveHealth’, for example, addressed issues that wereand still are germane to Africa’s development.And if the contours of debate and discussionin the journal continue tomove in these directions^ plus ^ I can see a larger audience for the journalin Africa both in terms of contributions andreadership.The tension between advocacy and policy

groups is natural. And letting that tension playout in the journal may be part of its beauty. But aspolicy work deepens, it may be necessary to takean editorial decision on whether there needs tobe a deliberate bias towards policy. This is becauseincreasingly, as the policy dialogue space opensup in Africa in particular, the demand for evi-dence is rising as a basis for legitimizing advocacywork. The strategy must therefore shift from thatof mobilization of ‘troops’, to mobilization of‘ideas’.One of the biggest debates about development

today is indeed one of legitimacy. The civilsociety in Africa is facing a ‘crisis of relevance’.First, the ‘third wave of democratization’ hasintroduced ‘reformist’ governments that haveappropriated the civil society language. Second,there is the question of representation. Becauseof the nature of the struggle to expand democraticspace in Africa, grassroots organizations,social movements, and trade unions ^ the naturalcivil society organizations ^ found themselves

Development 50(S1): Upfront

24

without the skills, network, resources and organi-zational capacity to mount the fight. NGOs camein handy but, now that considerable space hasbeen created, and these organizations have thefreedom to openly organize, NGOs are increasinglybeing seen as having overstayed their welcome.These organizations are going to be the next front-line stakeholders in development in Africa.

Shobha RaghuramMember of journal advisory committee, wri-ter, feminist activist, international senioradvisor, Knowledge for Development Pro-gramme, HIVOS, India

I consider Development to be one of the most im-portant platforms to bring public attention to aset of ideas that are pluralistic, diverse and yet si-milar for one reason ^ that they echo the desireand the passion for ideas to permeate the socialchanges that are occurring constantly on a globalscale, at the national and at the local level. Thepower of well thought out actions and interven-tions far outstrip the reactive nature of actionsthat have become common place for solution ^seeking when we are confronted with social pro-blems. The journal provides that mediating spacefor dialogue to precede action and for reason toguide and permeate social action and political in-terventions.In terms of the need for reflexive development

practice, there is no doubt that the search forgrowth with equality, what is referred to increas-ingly as inclusive growth, the simultaneoussearch for freedom from want as well as thewill for happiness continue to be persistent andpronounced especially in the way citizens from

different country realities come together in com-mon searches to satisfy differing wants.It is a tragedy of human efforts that, despite an

enormous investment of social capital on the crea-tion of equitable conditions of existence, we con-tinue to be involved in developing cognitive toolsfor understanding distress. A considerable bodyof work has been built up on poverty studies andon the politics of everyday resistance. However,the struggle for change has not been commensu-rate with the theoretical understanding that isavailable. In terms of real social change, it is inade-quate to say that the true worth of our collectiveunderstanding will be that, in the last instance, ittoo must transform and renegotiate the history ofsubmission and extraction. The issues of powerthat regulate social life are becoming more diffi-cult to discern, especially when viewed frombelow. The challenge for the journal is to under-stand the limits of theory in social change andyet maximize its potential by constantly relatingit to the processes of social change.The contribution of development alternatives

has been to challenge and question why main-stream development did not sufficiently under-stand the possibilities for real, incrementalchanges in the lives of those rendered invisible bythe powerful configurations of lending institu-tions, governments, and other power blocs whichaccelerate or decelerate oppression at will. It iscrucial today that the struggle being waged byhighly dedicated efforts all over the world will notbe fragmented and internally eroded by the re-mote processes being unleashed on them. If peo-ple are to resist the dystopia of the real world, thedefinitions of civil society and the multiparty con-nectivity need to be underscored. They must in-clude the dispossessed, often left out of theprocesses of political and social decision-making,except when regarded as vote-banks. Political de-centralization is the only response to globaliza-tion which today widens its scope despite anincreasingly narrow social base. Social move-ments in their political practice are also ‘globaliz-ing’, building up linkages, and altering thecharacter of public-interest institutions, so thatthe latter not only represent mass movements butalso unite organically with the culture of that re-

Reflections

25

sistance. Contemporary writers such as ArturoEscobar, and Ashis Nandy have rightly perceivedthese ‘as strategies to contain the western econo-myas a systemof production, power and significa-tion’, and that this social mobilization is in thelast instance the construction of collective identi-ties. The world both before and after modern na-tion state Independence has been the site of someof themost rich and diverse social movements thathave shaped the critical dimensions of living, plur-alistic democracies as well as the site of highly cri-tical theoretical work.Several issues of the journal have dwelt on the

present crises of governance in civil society, wheremajor portions of the economy are being handedover to markets and corporate alliances, andwhere private interests override local democraticaspirations. The growing malaise in governmentscause severe strains on productive cooperation be-tween them and the voluntary sector, includingmass-based people’s organizations in the concep-tion and execution of poverty-alleviation pro-grammes. On what terms institutions in civilsociety may be asked to integrate their efforts withthe state, which is itself in the process of integra-tion with global transnational interests (on termsclearly not set by the people themselves), makesthe issue of long-term political change a painfullyprotracted one. In this context, a major issue Iwould see as pending and unresolved is the failureover the years to secure a minimum socialeconomic justice agenda for those left to the un-derside of development being divested of politicaland social value as an issue in itself. It is conveni-ently perceived as a failure of both ideology andthe public delivery institutions of the earlier re-gime. The response has been to dismantle further(often by neglect) the systems of public social sec-tor delivery. In the haste to get onwith the problemof ‘making the reforms work’the state and civil so-ciety have undergone revisions in perceptionsand functions. I argue that the construction ofthe ‘third zone’ vis-a vis the voluntary sector asthe site of social transformatory obligations is aquestionable premise fostering the growing ma-laise of an ineffective state. The real issue of theendemic problems that have faced the polity parti-cularly in terms of a soft state need greater atten-

tion in debates on the role of the civil society,state and markets.That we have the prevalence of twin injustices in

21st century India ^ farmers suicides and a highrate of female foeticide and infanticide is a tellingevidence of how food security to small producersis inconsequential when export-led growth pat-terns determine the pattern of development in fra-gile rural economies and how development isbeing imagined for large numbers of citizens as re-quiring the eliminationof girl children.We urgentlyneed a politics of human aspirations as opposed toa politics of the market; that we must actively dis-courage corrupt states by orienting social institu-tions to empower and not enervate their subjects;that we support communities to create the condi-tions and terms of their existence; and lastly thatwe must adhere to the maxim ‘to give up locally isto give up globally’. (By ‘local’ I include ‘national’.)Markets have shown little inclination for invest-ment in environment security, for workers’ protec-tion, or for sharing with government the costs ofR&D and in investments in education. However, fo-cus on successful future partnerships is requiredto solve problems that go well beyond the tradi-tional market-state-civil society responsibilities.Long ago Rajni Kothari in his extensive political

critique of our times, rejected the ideological faithin the country’s future of ‘getting integrated intothe global economic and technological market aswell as a global militarist and strategic market-place’. He went on to say that in and through allthis, the growth of a grotesque mindset has oc-curred that is willing to treat millions of poor peo-ple, the ethnic minorities and other socialperipheries (like women and ‘surplus’children) ashistorically redundant and presently dispensable.He referred to both national and international re-gimes. I would not at all call the journal as repre-sentative of ‘northern’aspirations. If we continuein this vein to approach the world of ideas and so-cial action we will never be able to solve jointlywhat are chronically connected problems. Istrongly believe that emotional and intellectualcommitments are necessary for the politics ofeveryday life to be governed bya continued defenceof public good, of wider social accountability, andof morality, with conviction in a convergence of

Development 50(S1): Upfront

26

concern and a convergence of the acts that flowfrom it.The negations of the present times are offsetby the thousands of community-level examples insocial mobilization and resistance and the experi-mental construction of alternatives all over theworld, from decentralized water management sys-tems to provisions of locally available indigenous-knowledge-driven health-care services. In fact attimes such as these, when the losses are getting in-creasingly hard to bear, and people must struggleagainst those who try to bend their backs and beg-gar their neighbours the writing of the politics ofsocial change is not without a recognition of theneed for united understandings and actions.I do not like the term ‘stakeholder’ ^ I would

prefer the terms of participants/social actors/constituencies which is located in the unevennessof development and does not assume that thereis a level playing field. In development todayI would argue that the main players of nationstate, the global multilaterals, the traditionaldevelopment actors who include the philanthro-pic organizations, the international NGOs, thelocal voluntary organizations, the traditionaltrade unions, minority organizations, peasantorganizations, social movements, the tradeand commerce platforms, large corporations,the social movements particularly the women’smovement would all be equal major players indetermining the course of global, national andlocal development. The substantive content ofcontributing and being responsible in commonhuman development endeavours is no longeran agenda for the traditional agencies. Massiveinvestments ^ both financial and of ideas arerequired to renew and bring back to publicattention the nature of the world as it standstoday and the kind of societies we have built.The diversion of serious commitment to super-ficial interventions has been a tragedy. Let usnot further perpetuate fissured, incompleteand chronically troubled social patterns ofcommunication, of cooperation and of survival.We need to understand the wealth and the ex-

traordinary possibilities that humanity and thededicated efforts of millions of people have madeavailable to the world at large. In recognizing thiswe will be able to double and triple the contribu-

tions to development and realize that the morethe walls we build, the more we remain divided.The journal Development should focus on the pos-sibilities of equitable social change and reveal thewealth of human endeavours in development ^this is inclusive of not onlycritical writing but alsoof alternatives that lend themselves to replication,investments for further development and opensimultaneously the windows of our own minds.Divisive actions reflect divisive patterns of socialcognition and social relationships. It would behighly unfortunate for us to accept this divisivenature of development. The serious problems ofgrowing economic, social and political vulnerabil-ities of millions of global citizens will remain ascentres of enquiry and action ^ but their contextsare rapidly changing. Can the journal capturethose changes, the differences and the conver-gences so that every individual who holds thejournal in his or her hands can relate to the issuesand leave the journal with a desire for reason andaction in their own lives? Let us illuminate thegoodness of rich experiences. We need those re-minders, those voices and those practices. Thereis no blue print for responsible and committed en-gagement ^ we need to chart that. The imagina-tion of development is the reality of being humanand believing in the collective good.

Andrew E. RiceFounder of SID, member of SID Interna-tional Governing Council, USA

Reflections

27

If by ‘development’one means the organized effortto improve living standards and create more oppor-tunities for individuals, then clearly developmenthas contributed, albeit very unevenly, to global eco-nomic and social justice. Improvements in income,education and health for many millions of people,including notably women, over the past half cen-tury have overcome long-standing barriers ^ suchas poverty, isolation, ignorance and ill health ^ torealizing the potential in every human being.One specific result of development has been the

remarkable growth of civil society which, in a fewdecades, aided by the dramatic advances in IT,has become a major and very constructive playerin the development process. By and large, NGOs,the organized expression of civil society, are astrong voice for global economic and social justice.SID has always considered development as a

multi-disciplinary process, incorporating eco-nomic, social and political advancement. Overthe years, this multi-faceted approach to develop-ment has become an increasingly accepted com-ponent of development policy-making. Anotherpolicy component, now widely recognized in the-ory if not always in practice, is the importance ofparticipation in the planning and achievement ofdevelopment goals by those benefiting most di-rectly from them.Both of these characteristics of successful devel-

opment contribute to a third policy approach,now more and more embraced, ^ namely, the con-cept of partnership between public (both govern-mental and inter-governmental) and private(such as socially responsible business and founda-tions) development actors. The great potential ofsuch partnerships is as yet only partially realized,but the significant steps that have already been ta-ken in the field of health suggest the future possi-bilities in other fields.Everybodyhas a stake in development today, not

in the sense that everybody directly participatesin it or directly benefits from it but because we allbenefit from its success, through the emergenceof a more stable, just and prosperous world.But the path of development is not an easy one.

Development is a slow process and, despite itslong-term beneficial outcome, there are oftenshort-term or parochial goals that claim greater

priority in national and international policies.Moreover, the world is still a violent place, produ-cing constant challenges to the basic securitywith-out which development cannot take place.Development is also deeply affected by the condi-tions of world trade. Policymakers must constantlybalance the competing demands on resources. Formore than 50 years,‘North’and‘South’have had dif-fering views as to where this balance should lie,and this difference is likely to continue.It may be that growing awareness of common

threats to the wellbeing of all humankind ^ suchas global warming ^ may bring about greater con-sensus on policy priorities. Fortunately, today de-velopment is increasingly recognized as one ofthe fundamental building blocks ^ together withpeace and human rights ^ of a better world. If thisunderstanding becomes widely accepted, thendevelopment’s future is promising.

Wolfgang SachsFormer editor of Development, writer andecologist,Wuppertal Institute, Germany

I was always impressed how much the journalDevelopment was able to make out of a zero name.Because ‘development’ means just about every-thing, from pulling up skyscrapers to putting in la-trines, from drilling for oil to drilling for water, isa concept of monumental emptiness. Therefore, itis easily used as a projection screen for contradic-tory perspectives. On the one hand, there are theGNP champions who identify development witheconomic growth per capita, undisturbed by thefact that growth often mines natural and socialcapital for producing more money capital. On theother hand, there are the champions of justice

Development 50(S1): Upfront

28

who identify development with more rights andresources for the poor and powerless, hoping forless profit-driven, more sustainable societies. Put-ting both perspectives into one conceptual shellis a sure recipe for confusion.It is a testimony to the power of ideas that an

empty concept has towered over the discussionsof half a century. It became even enshrined bythe United Nations as the ‘right to development’.What keeps it going? Though ‘development’ doesnot connote anything, it denotes a great deal. It isan emotional vector rather than a cognitive term.It denotes improvement, advancement, progress;it means something vaguely positive. For this rea-son, it is difficult to say ‘no’ to development; whowants to be against something positive?The slippery nature of the concept of develop-

ment has emasculated the idea of sustainability,which ultimately is the art of living gracefullywithin the limits of nature. It has been the latestvictim of the development creed. By linking‘sustainable’ to ‘development’ the idea has beenstripped of any clear meaning. Indeed, adding aqualifier to a conceptual shell can only result inconfusion. By adding ‘sustainable’ to‘development’the idea of limits was once again devoured by theidea of open-ended growth. This has had enor-mous consequences for the concept of sustainabil-ity. For if growth is taken as a natural imperative,all efforts become focused on reforming themeansof growth, that is technologies, forms of organiza-tion, incentive structures, while the ends ofgrowth, that is those levels of comfort, choice andconsumption reached by the most advancedcountry, are taken for granted. In such a schemeof things, awareness of nature’s carrying capacitywas bound to fall into oblivion. As a consequence,the development discourse has become largely un-fit for dealing with the central challenge of thetwenty-first century.I think the conventional distinction between

North and South is in any case misleading.‘North’and ‘South’ are nothing else than ‘zombie cate-gories’, that is concepts clumsily survive in every-day speech despite the fact that they do not reflectpolitical realities. The collective ‘South’comprisesthe most heterogenous situations, ranging fromthe financial capital Singapore or the oil-rich

Saudi-Arabia to the poverty-strickenMali.The sameis true for the North, though to a lesser degree.‘North’and ‘South’are mainly diplomatic artefacts.The journal, it seems to me, was aware that the

conventional North^South distinction rather ob-scures things. It obscures the fact that the dividingline in today’s world is not primarily running be-tween Northern and Southern societies, but rightacross all of these societies. The North^South di-vide, instead of separating nations, cuts througheach society, albeit in different configurations. Itseparates the global consumer class on the oneside, from the social majority outside the globalcircuits, on the other. In terms of resource con-sumption, the overall size of the consumer classequals roughly those 20 percent of the world po-pulation, which has direct access to an automo-bile. Transnational corporations largely cater tothis class, just as they provide its symbolic meansof expression, such as films, fashion, music, andbrand names. But entire categories of people inthe North, like the unemployed, the elderly andthe competitively weak along with entire regionsin the South find themselves excluded from thecircuits of the world economy. In all countries, aninvisible border separates the fast from the slow,the connected from the unconnected, the richfrom the poor. There is a global North as there is aglobal South. This reality disappears in the con-ventional terms of ‘North’and ‘South’.

Nafis SadikPresident of SID 1991 to 1994, UN SpecialAdvisor on HIV/AIDS South Asia, Pakistan

Reflections

29

Development policy has certainly shifted focusfrom economic growth to a focus on investing inpeople, health and education. However in the ac-tual practice there is much that has been missedout, particularly poor women.There is muchmoreto do on the ground. There is always a lot of rheto-ric but the whole issue is how to do it in reality. Inparticular, the US situation has led to a deteriora-tion of policies around reproductive rights andhealth.SID has been a source of rich ideas and has

played a strong intellectual role particularly inthe NSRT, which was a hub of new ideas and lea-dership within the Society and the UN. And Ithink the gender programmes of SID and the ap-proach of the journal have been innovative andimportant. But since the 1990s SID has played afar less vibrant role. SID should regain its role asa leading stakeholder in the process of develop-ment. SID should continue to provide leadershipon the North^South dialogue and certainly onthe gender issue. The journal and SID need to en-sure that key ideas are discussed and challenged,and return SID to its cutting edge level of earlieryears.I am very concerned that change happens at

country level, that is where poor women in parti-cular can be reached.We need to find a better bal-ance between global programme initiatives andcountries’own development agendas. If we can at-tune overall aid architecture to the vast globalchanges and country realities and backed by in-creased predictable long-term funding, reform ofthe current fragmented, top-down approach toglobal programmes will follow. If we can achievegreater complimentarity of global programmeswith country-based programmes, we will be farcloser to our joint efforts to eradicate globalpoverty.As I have written in a paper on ‘The Changing

Aid Architecture: Can Global Initiatives EradicatePoverty?’ with Uma Lele and Adele Simmons, do-nor agencies have agreed on the need to harmo-nize their priorities, strategies and aid-givingprocedures among themselves and to align themwith recipient countries’ declared priorities, stra-tegies and procedures. Achieving this integrationis a challenge. For example, all donors who sup-

port HIV/AIDS programmes have in principleadopted the highly necessary ‘Three Ones’ princi-ple advocated by UNAIDS:‘one action programme,one national authority, and one monitoring andevaluation system’. But there is a confusion of dif-ferent HIV/AIDS programmes that call for quitedifferent institutional arrangements. For exampletheWorld Bank, and the US President’s EmergencyProgram for AIDS Relief each use different pro-curement and disbursement procedures and sup-port different drug regimes. This does not ensurethat resources are used effectively and reach thepeople they are supposed to reach.Under the umbrella of the Millennium Develop-

ment Goals, we need to work on a global strategythat provides a road map on how to move fromthe current unplanned growth of numerous glo-bal initiatives and organizations to a focused effortto achieve the Goals. Such a global strategywould be both inter-sectoral and sector-specificin support of achieving specific MDGs. The sectorstrategies would need to be flexible enough to ac-commodate bottom-up country-specific strate-gies, given the great diversity of developingcountries.

Jos van GennipVice President of SID International, Presidentof SID Europe Programme,The Netherlands

The Society for International Development bringstogether people who are open minded and whoare looking to create a better world. SID members

Development 50(S1): Upfront

30

are, in short, open to the power of ideas. At thecore, there is a dynamic tension between thosewho engage with goodwill in the spirit of solidar-ity and those who work to elaborate thoughtfuland effective policy responses to the dilemmas weface today. SID’s role has been to bridge the gap be-tween these different contributions to develop-ment. The aim has been to confront and combineand thereby build cooperation among: (1) thoseengaged at the level of solidarity and goodwill intheir work with communities on the ground, (2)those engaged in the academic and scientific com-munity reflecting on development, (3) those withvision and innovation with new ideas based ontheir knowledge and insights gained in theirwork, (4) those policy-makers who are trying tomake theprocess of development happen inpractice.SID has played an important role in building

bridges and translating across these four ap-proaches; combining solidarity and idealism andpolicy-making and political realities. It is very im-portant that SID continues to strengthen a com-plex and necessary dialogue between theacademic world and policy world as well as thoseengaged in development in the spirit of solidarity.There have been some important approaches

where SIDhas helpedmake a difference. For exam-ple, SID has led a debate on global human security,as it has evolved from the 1980s to the present,and I hope it will continue to do so. SID and alsothe journal Development has engaged us in an ex-ploration of the links between security and devel-opment. The issue of security and politicalconflict is emerging as critical for development,particularly as we view the realities of faultystates. The BrettonWoods institutions and the de-velopment bureaucracy in general, made a majormistake in thinking that development equals goodgovernance. In reality, in the post-colonial worldwe see there is very little good governance. In Afri-ca, seven in ten states suffer from bad governanceand corruption and almost inevitable conflict.How can one develop in this context of deep injus-tice? A just global development must look at howto ensure that the poor, particularly those of themajority in rural societies really do benefit fromstate programmes and policies that ensure devel-opment not conflict.

Another area where I think SID has donesome leading and important work is on gender,most recently with the work on gender and securitythat takes the debate on gender and developmentfurther to understand the gendered nature ofconflict.Sustainable livelihoods (SL) has perhaps been

one of the most innovative and important ap-proaches in SID; one that we need to continue towork on to make it become more visible and moreviable in the policy world. SL allows for a contex-tual approach to development. Neither the social-ism of Marxism nor the neo-liberalism of freemarket ideology take into account the realities ofthe many paths to development.The context of de-velopment, the culture, society, religion and his-tory cannot be forgotten without huge damage tosocieties and peoples. SL has such a contextual ap-proach based on close connection to communitiesand how their culture, religion, social andhistorical context shape their economic lives. Theproblem is that SL tends to fall into romanticismbut it is still valuable as a basic approach to enablepeople to develop autonomously and authenti-cally. We might all have a yearning to return tothe village of our youth or to our forebearers. Inthe Netherlands, as well as in India or other placesin the South, we have these romantic ideals of rur-al life, although I am not so sure it was so ideal inreality. I fully agree we cannot by ride rough shodover local situations and realities.We cannot dragpeople into modernization without huge damage.But we need to find a balance and equilibrium inour approach.I think it is important to continue the SLwork in

SID but to broaden the context we need to deepenthe research and engage with the political reali-ties for good and for bad. The SID work in EastAfrica in the scenarios programme is very impor-tant in this regard, it goes beyond a romanticismwith the past and the tradition and is lookingsquarely at social justice issues in order to tackleeconomic and governance concerns within thecontext of the authentic development of people atall levels of society.Of course, a North^South divide continues to

exist but the world map of poverty has changeddramatically after 1989 when the term Third

Reflections

31

World no longer made any geopolitical sense.I would like to point out that the journal andsome of the SID programmes can be too quickto be overly critical of development. I agreetherehave beenwrong pathways taken in develop-ment, but we cannot dismiss developmentwholesale. It is too simple, and too rhetorical tosay global development only has led to more in-equalities with huge numbers of poor and smallnumbers of extremely rich. Certainly there areextremes of poverty but development, tradeand structural reforms have helped bring 1.5billion people beyond the poverty line. We needto build on the capabilities for people to develop,

not accentuate divides. Nor are we just talkingabout solidarity. Globalization impacts on allour lives.We all have to face the result of environ-mental damage; we have known that since theUNCED Conference in Rio in 1992. Our localproblems, in the North and South, will not besolved without changes at the global level.Migration is another global issue that engagesall of us, along with security, which is far morethan the North preoccupation with global terror-ism. The collective challenge, one that SID andthe journal Development will help us confront inthe future is how to end injustice, inequality andinsecurities for all of us.

Development 50(S1): Upfront

32