an invitation

There is a lot happening in the world and in this country. most times my deepest sigh is, oh life! (translated: Lord have mercy) I recently went to a seminar sponsored by the university on "xenophobia in South Africa, why now?" but the question really is, 'why at all?' yet the news reports tell of violence in every corner of the world. Sitting in the lush gardens on the hill of academia, there is so many things I/ we wrestle with. What is our response? How do we make policy effective and relevant? What is development anyway? In all this I recently returned to the first paper I wrote here. I would like to post it here to invite you into my life and some of the things that I am learning and the questions I am wrestling with. Let me know what you think.

Think Piece 1
Comparative Development Problems and Policies

Backward. To use this as both an identifying and descriptor term is problematic. It provides all things necessary for successful self-fulfilling prophesy, which in this case results in nothing positive. This term, in addition to other pejorative terms such as the third world, implies an inherent disability, disadvantage, or inability to get it right. It implies that which is completely different and perhaps even unsalvageable. It is inherently ethnocentric. When determining a developmental theory to put into practice, it is a wonder that historically there was any attempt to extract anything good out of these ‘backward’ countries. How can one begin on this platform and realistically expect any good or proper outcome?
In the post WWII era Paul Rosenstein-Rodan wrote on the developmental theory for backward countries and the necessary conditions for growth therein. As one of the earliest contributors, Rosenstein-Rodan had much influence on the theorists who followed who would try to explain backwardness and solutions for escaping this condition. Or perhaps it is more accurate to state that he simply recorded most accurately the ethnocentric sentiments of the developed world at the time, bringing to light the negative feelings and so-called inherent inabilities of the backward countries. This notion might be affirmed as the majority in the first world understood that “through economic dominance and political control, the industrial countries actively tried to graft their own ‘modern’ and development-promoting cultures on to the backward societies.” Therefore, if the ‘forward’ and correct thinking countries projected policies and lifestyles onto the ‘backward’ countries, perhaps they would become like them or more appropriately, turn from their ‘backward’ ways to ‘the forward’ way.
What remains puzzling to me is why in 1997 when John Martinussen’s book Society, States and Market was published, or even now, 11 years later in 2008 we continue to focus on the ‘backwardness’ of countries in the developing world and thus continues to encourage the self-fulfilling prophecy of poor performance and growth. It is evident now that the self-image and policies implemented in the ‘backward’ countries reflect to a large degree the image and policies that has been given to them throughout the history of development. In this I question our ability to be critical thinkers if we continue to let the labels of history guide our conversations, academic works and policies. Are we struggling enough with how to label people and countries? Do we realize the affect these labels have on self-image and self-understanding of ourselves individually, nationally and corporally? Why have we not come to a place of respect and acceptance of others that would enable us to overcome our self-centeredness or ethnocentrism?
Perhaps out of the reading selections Gunnar Myrdal can help us most here as he “strongly believed that a certain degree of economic and social equality and equity was a precondition for sustained growth. He rejected the widespread conception that there is a contradiction between the objectives of economic growth and those of promoting social equality.” Social equity must be found in all spheres of society, including the way in which we view and label ourselves and the other. I agree alongside Myrdal in his rejection of the notion that economic growth and social equality cannot go hand in hand. This is especially the case if the goal is sustainable growth and development. In order to achieve this equity must be a factor at all levels of participation for all people. And this means that we must use new terms and names to identify people and people groups that invite full participation.
Unfortunately promotion of social equality has often been bypassed in the name of high sustained growth or toward W.W. Rostrow’s “époque of high mass consumption.” Theories have been created to address the problems of underdevelopment that “analyze ‘barriers to modernization’ and ‘resistance to change.” Yet what this really translates to is theories addressing the ‘backward’ countries’ resistance to assimilation to the dominant, ‘forward’ countries and the sustaining of growth, which by no means equates sustainable growth.
As much as one might have hoped that solutions would be found in the modernization paradigm, Magnus Blomstrom and Bjorn Hettne write, “the disciplines that now began to participate in the theoretical discussion repeated the early mistakes of development economics…it was difficult to break the ethnocentric perspective and to change culturally determined premisses.” I argue that we never arrived here. But we must continue to make progress in this direction. In order to do so, it has to be a collective process. For all of us to move forward, we must critically examine the language that is used and critique the language of our common history. Only then will growth and participation at all levels for all people be sustainable.