International Development: Shaping the mosaic
Developing development: The institutional building of a concept
By Fonju Ndemesah
Commissions, treaties, charters, conferences and resolutions have appeared and disappeared in the field of international development to communicate and shape the idea of development. The United Nations since its creation in 1945 has put into practice more than 500 international conventions (Anne Marie Sacquet, 2002). As Chemillier-Gendreau (quoted in C.Coquery & al, 1998) puts it, “the influx of juridical discourse on development (and it weaknesses) were accompanied by a considerable increase of institutions in charge of development.
The Chapter on the United Nations mentions on it preamble that member states will take into consideration international institutions to foster the economic and social progress of mankind.
From the 4th of December 1948, a resolution of the UN General Assembly focused on the economic development of underdeveloped countries. From 1949 the Technical Assistance Programme took the lion shares in the budget of the organization. This same year will witness the birth of three new elements:
Blaming the victims
It will be quite impossible to cite all the various steps taken to legalize the vision of development that propped from Truman’s speech. With a look on some key conferences and ideologies, we am going to see how the discourse on and about development continued to adapt to its time. This section will also portray the various steps that have characterized the development discourse in international institutions. From the vision of “development in as economic growth and modernization that characterized the early post war period to the 70s when a large part of South American, African and Eastern European countries found themselves covered with debts from private and public international financial institutions. Trapped in the development business, many countries had to obey the conditions of the World Bank (WB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which obliged these countries to accept what became known as Structural Adjustment Plans (SAP)". As A.M Gentili (2002) puts it, the purpose of the SAP was “intended to diminish state intervention in public affairs to promote the liberalization of the economy and by so doing, also liberating the political arena. This had to be done by implementing a principle of a liberal economy: “meno stato più mercato” (Less state, more market).
This policy of less state and more market is what will underpin debate on development spearheaded by the SAP. Around mid 80s, with the obvious failures produced by the SAP, in most international institution the debate shifted to the idea of “development with a human face”, that is, development that will not only focus on economic growth, but will look at the needs of the poor and vulnerable. This movement brought what was known as the basic need strategy; development should aim at satisfying the basic needs of the individual such as, feeding, accommodation, dressing, and portable water etc.
With the fall of the Berlin wall and the end of the cold war, most many international development bodies started remodelling their vision on development. The basic need strategy has not produced the desired objective; the number of poor people has increase. It has, for some scholars such as Sach, Escobar, Rahnema,andEsteva produced the opposite of what was desired; poverty increased in many places instead of decreasing. More to that, the gap between the rich nations and the poor widened. For these scholars, the development propaganda by international institutions such as the WB, IMF, rather than being the cure, was the cause of poverty and “backwardness” in “third world countries (Frank, A .G, 1967).
Pushed by the criticism produced by the flaws of the SAP, around 1989, the WB saw the crisis in developing countries as a problem of “governmentality”. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, the new conditions given to developing countries to have “development aid” from international bodies were an opening to political pluralism and parliamentary governments. Despite the fact that many scholars have pointed the doubtful nature of transition to democracy in many third world countries (Marc le pape & Claudine Vidal: 2002, Mbembe, A : 2002, Gentili, A.M: 2002, 2005, Bayart, J.F : 2006), the development discourse during this period focused on “governance”.
Nowadays, the discourse has moved a step ahead. While re-appropriating the ideas of development as “meno stato, più mercato”, international cooperation Institutions continue to base their aid transfer on the request for good governance and “participation”. The later together with the idea of empowerment and sustainability are key concepts characterizing today’s vision of development. The core of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers is the idea of participation, which will empower Third World people and government. The description of what is considered as empowerment and participation by many bilateral and multilateral institutions still remains very fuzzy.
From the above “chameleon” vision portrayed by international institutions to formulate, normalize and reformulate the concept development, one think comes out very clearly from the whole discourse - developing countries are always blamed for the failures in the design and implementation of many developments projects. They were first blamed for their “backwardness”, which blocked their way to “civilization, growth and finally modernization”. Then they were accused of having very weak and autocratic governments; they were thus had to open their system to political pluralism, which will enhance “good governance”.
Regretfully, after most Third World countries adapted their political systems to the vision of democracy of the leaders, with head of states lasting for more than 25 years in power after wrecking elections, and ignoring the “silent majority”, cooperation did not come to an end. Development institutions tried to blame the lack of participation and empowerment in these countries. The title of William Ryan’s, “Blaming the Victim” (1976) seem to be the only fix point in the in the institutional moulding of the concept development in an environment full of mutations and continuous transformations.
Commissions, treaties, charters, conferences and resolutions have appeared and disappeared in the field of international development to communicate and shape the idea of development. The United Nations since its creation in 1945 has put into practice more than 500 international conventions (Anne Marie Sacquet, 2002). As Chemillier-Gendreau (quoted in C.Coquery & al, 1998) puts it, “the influx of juridical discourse on development (and it weaknesses) were accompanied by a considerable increase of institutions in charge of development.
The Chapter on the United Nations mentions on it preamble that member states will take into consideration international institutions to foster the economic and social progress of mankind.
From the 4th of December 1948, a resolution of the UN General Assembly focused on the economic development of underdeveloped countries. From 1949 the Technical Assistance Programme took the lion shares in the budget of the organization. This same year will witness the birth of three new elements:
- Inter institutional cooperation, which is cooperation between the UN and specialized bodies
- Voluntary contribution to foster development
- Putting at the disposal of developing countries experts from developed countries (C.Coquery & al:1988)
Blaming the victims
It will be quite impossible to cite all the various steps taken to legalize the vision of development that propped from Truman’s speech. With a look on some key conferences and ideologies, we am going to see how the discourse on and about development continued to adapt to its time. This section will also portray the various steps that have characterized the development discourse in international institutions. From the vision of “development in as economic growth and modernization that characterized the early post war period to the 70s when a large part of South American, African and Eastern European countries found themselves covered with debts from private and public international financial institutions. Trapped in the development business, many countries had to obey the conditions of the World Bank (WB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which obliged these countries to accept what became known as Structural Adjustment Plans (SAP)". As A.M Gentili (2002) puts it, the purpose of the SAP was “intended to diminish state intervention in public affairs to promote the liberalization of the economy and by so doing, also liberating the political arena. This had to be done by implementing a principle of a liberal economy: “meno stato più mercato” (Less state, more market).
This policy of less state and more market is what will underpin debate on development spearheaded by the SAP. Around mid 80s, with the obvious failures produced by the SAP, in most international institution the debate shifted to the idea of “development with a human face”, that is, development that will not only focus on economic growth, but will look at the needs of the poor and vulnerable. This movement brought what was known as the basic need strategy; development should aim at satisfying the basic needs of the individual such as, feeding, accommodation, dressing, and portable water etc.
With the fall of the Berlin wall and the end of the cold war, most many international development bodies started remodelling their vision on development. The basic need strategy has not produced the desired objective; the number of poor people has increase. It has, for some scholars such as Sach, Escobar, Rahnema,andEsteva produced the opposite of what was desired; poverty increased in many places instead of decreasing. More to that, the gap between the rich nations and the poor widened. For these scholars, the development propaganda by international institutions such as the WB, IMF, rather than being the cure, was the cause of poverty and “backwardness” in “third world countries (Frank, A .G, 1967).
Pushed by the criticism produced by the flaws of the SAP, around 1989, the WB saw the crisis in developing countries as a problem of “governmentality”. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, the new conditions given to developing countries to have “development aid” from international bodies were an opening to political pluralism and parliamentary governments. Despite the fact that many scholars have pointed the doubtful nature of transition to democracy in many third world countries (Marc le pape & Claudine Vidal: 2002, Mbembe, A : 2002, Gentili, A.M: 2002, 2005, Bayart, J.F : 2006), the development discourse during this period focused on “governance”.
Nowadays, the discourse has moved a step ahead. While re-appropriating the ideas of development as “meno stato, più mercato”, international cooperation Institutions continue to base their aid transfer on the request for good governance and “participation”. The later together with the idea of empowerment and sustainability are key concepts characterizing today’s vision of development. The core of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers is the idea of participation, which will empower Third World people and government. The description of what is considered as empowerment and participation by many bilateral and multilateral institutions still remains very fuzzy.
From the above “chameleon” vision portrayed by international institutions to formulate, normalize and reformulate the concept development, one think comes out very clearly from the whole discourse - developing countries are always blamed for the failures in the design and implementation of many developments projects. They were first blamed for their “backwardness”, which blocked their way to “civilization, growth and finally modernization”. Then they were accused of having very weak and autocratic governments; they were thus had to open their system to political pluralism, which will enhance “good governance”.
Regretfully, after most Third World countries adapted their political systems to the vision of democracy of the leaders, with head of states lasting for more than 25 years in power after wrecking elections, and ignoring the “silent majority”, cooperation did not come to an end. Development institutions tried to blame the lack of participation and empowerment in these countries. The title of William Ryan’s, “Blaming the Victim” (1976) seem to be the only fix point in the in the institutional moulding of the concept development in an environment full of mutations and continuous transformations.