Take a moment to think about it: why do you think that poor people are poor? It's not an easy question, but if you think about it, it is probably the most important indicator of how you treat the poor.
Well, as promised, here's part two of my paper. To keep you from the pain of having to go read the whole first part of the paper, basically what I'm suggesting is that development is the process of recognizing the dignity of all people on this earth.
When we think about things this way, the focus is changed. No longer can we say, "my, what good people we are" when we feed the hungry. Rather, it is our duty, our responsibility to provide what is necesary for others to live as humans. Benevolence without justice will always lead to oppression. We must not be content with a giving that tries in no way to change the injustice around us. If we really recognize the dignity that people have just because they're people, our love ought to go a whole lot further than painting a church or providing a meal once in a while.
Next week I will be living in the rural pueblo of Los Charcos in Olancho. I'm looking forward to embracing my farming heritage in a setting quite different from Holland.
This next part of the paper is trying to talk about why things are the way they are, or why there is poverty and inequality in the world. (Unlike one of my friends suggested, I did not conclude that it's just that some areas of the world are lazier than others.)
Applying this definition of development to the present day world, it’s clear to see the stark reality of underdevelopment. As the 1999 Human Development report states, 1.3 billion people, nearly a quarter of the world population, live on less than one dollar a day.[15] As of 2006, nearly the same amount of the world, 1.2 billion, was without access to clean drinking water, and 2.6 billion people lacked sanitation.[16] On an international level, in 44 of the 141 countries of the world, over 40% of the population lives below the nationally defined poverty level,[17] and according to the World Health Organization, this poverty is responsible for 50,000 deaths per day.[18] Such poverty is a clear indicator of the lack of development at present, and more importantly, the need to work to bring development to these oppressed.
In the last 40 years, numerous theories have developed trying to explain the lack of development in a large part of the world, as well as prescribe ways to bring change. Most of these theories have managed to recognize parts of the problem, and have gathered support as people have recognized and resonated with the problems defined by the theories. Unfortunately, recognizing the problem does not constitute creating the solution, and the reality is that the development theories put into practice thus far have failed to bring significant and complete change. In fact, newer developmental theories in large part attempt to explain the current problem in terms of the shortcomings of previous development work.[19],[20] If significant development is to occur, the problem of underdevelopment needs to be understood in full, both at the roots of its original causes as well as in the present and what needs to be done.
In his book Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond writes, “the striking differences between the long-term histories of peoples of the different continents have been due not to innate differences in the peoples themselves but to differences in their environments.[21] This statement comes after giving a thorough analysis of the global appearance of farming and husbandry, and how these means of food production, although arising by chance in different areas of the globe, allowed for the marked development of some regions of the globe while others remained largely undeveloped.[22] He demonstrates how this agricultural development allowed for further immune resistance and development of technologies; advances that widened even further the gap between the “haves and have-nots.”[23] Contrary to social Darwinist thought, which Diamond openly disputed and refuted, Diamond’s geographical theory of development recognizes that regional differences are capable in large part of explaining the unequal historical development that has occurred across the globe.
This geographical theory of development has received praise for it’s thoroughness and scientific approach, and considering this legitimacy, it provides an important implication for understanding development. Geographical theory recognizes the historical reality that if human action were removed from development, either positive or negative, history shows us that some areas of the world naturally would favor more development than others, giving rise to inequality. As Jeffrey Sachs puts it, “An appropriate starting point for the international community would be to set actual developmental goals for [geographically unfavorable] regions rather than ‘make do’ with whatever economic results emerge.”[24] Development becomes more than an issue of simply ridding a country of the human forces and practices that are hindrances; measures must be taken to compensate for the natural disadvantages of an area.
That being said, it would be foolish to assume that human action has had no affect on world development. Unfortunately, a look at world history over the last two centuries shows the inequality fostered by geographical advantage presented the opportunity for the developed West to overpower and exploit the weaker areas of the globe.[25] The rise of colonialism during the 17th centuries and the ensuing imperialism at the close of the 19th century installed capitalist systems throughout the world, and these systems served primarily to pursue the economic interests of the imperial powers. Given the fallen nature of humanity, it is understandable that human greed would set up such exploitation, and that this exploitation would continue past the colonial period as the West continued to hold the majority of the world power. As Andre Gunder Frank concluded at the end of his case studies of Latin America, “present underdevelopment of Latin America is the result of its centuries-long participation in the process of world capitalist development.”[26]
Colonial and imperialist history supports the explanations for underdevelopment given by dependency theorists. However, given the interconnectedness of the current global situation, the same theorists’ claim that “in order for development to occur [ties with the capitalist world] should logically be severed”[27] does not hold viability as a solution. Let me provide one example. In a world where the majority of medical and scientific research occurs in these same capitalist, developed countries,[28] the severance of such ties would not only set back the scientific advancement of a country, it would unavoidably result in the loss of development as the right to complete and modern healthcare diminishes under the new severance. The unhealthy relationship that exists between the developed and the underdeveloped world cannot simply be abandoned; it must be healed and repaired, integrating justice where exploitation has ruled and turning dependency to mutualism.
Bringing development in the midst of a history of natural and human driven inequality is a daunting task. In the past (and present), people have treated the need for development as a benevolent endeavor, giving funds and resources to alleviate the unfortunate situation that so much of the world faces. Charity drives in Minnesota ship boatloads of used clothes while American farmers send agricultural surplus to sub-Saharan Africa. Calvin students gather up their loose change in a plastic orange fish in order to “teach a man to fish.” If we are to believe that development truly is the recognition of the rights and dignity of all humanity, these acts of charity fall horribly short of development. As Nick Wolterstorff noticed as he viewed the charitable activity of Afrikaners toward the native Africans in the midst of apartheid, “benevolence without justice inevitably leads to oppression.”[29] True development necessitates that justice is done, and that human rights and dignity are recognized. When this happens, “development work is no longer just a service, a gift, an aid; it is a duty.”[30]
Given the foundation of natural inequality understood by geographical theory as well as the dependency and exploitation created by the developed West, this duty needs to be approached carefully. Development takes a decided effort to work for the rights of individuals, and will not come about as a secondary effect of any institutional growth; whether economic, governmental, or societal. Democratization theory provides a sound framework from which to fulfill this duty. Recognizing the potential for exploitation both in powerful government and powerful economics, this theory asserts that the responsibility belongs to us, as fellow members of a global society, to demand the realization of human rights and dignity. As Uvin writes, development in this way can come through “social movements using human rights as a tool to focus on reform in the international political economy.”[31]
All workers deserve to make a living wage, and it is our responsibility to demand that businesses are held to this standard. This demand must go beyond a mere market force deeming it economically favorable to supply products made on a just wage, human rights must make their way into international law. A 10-year old Ecuadoran child should not be exposed weekly to toxic pesticides while harvesting bananas for American school lunches, nor should a young mother watch her baby die as she sits in an overcrowded hospital waiting room. If we truly believed that these things were true, we could bring the realization of each one of these rights. According to the UNDP, in 1997, it would have cost about $30 billion per year to supply every single person in the world with basic education, health and nutrition, reproductive health and family planning, water, and sanitation.[32] It is time that the dialogue encouraged by Democratization theory begins, and that we decide what needs to change to recognize these rights.
[15] Human Development Report. 2009. http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2009/
[16] Human Development Report. 2006. http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2006/
[17] http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_pop_bel_pov_lin-economy-population-below-poverty-line
[18] World Health Organization. 1999 Report. http://www.who.int/whr/1999/en/whr99_annex_en.pdf
[19] Marglin, Stephen. Devlelopment as Poison: Rethinking the Western Model of Modernity. Annual Editions. Developing World. 2005-2006.
[20] Uvin, Peter. Human Rights and Development. Kumarian Press, 2004.
[21] Diamond, Jared. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. W. W. Norton & Company Ltd. 1999. p. 405
[22] Ibid. p. 83-176
[23] Ibid. p. 193-295
[24] Sachs, Jeffrey. Institutions Matter, but Not for Everything. P. 13
[25] During the rise of European colonialism, a popular explanation for European success came in the British ditty, “Whatever happens, we have got, the Gatling gun (one of the first machine guns), and they have not.” (Hillaire Belloc)
[26] Gunder Frank, Andre. The Development of Underdevelopment. p. 115
[27] Ibid. p. 111
[28] The National Institute of Health alone had a research budget of over $30.5 billion last year, more than double Honduras’ complete GDP of $14.3 billion. (www.nih.gov/about/budget.htm)
[29] Wolterstorff, Nicholass. Public Seminar. Tegucigalpa, Honduras. March 22, 2010.
[30] Peter Uvin p. 179. Recognizing development as a duty does not necessitate the abandonment of generosity, nor is generosity a unimportant virtue; rather, in line with Wolterstorff’s teaching, once justice is established we have the opportunity (and calling) to truly be generous. It is our duty to feed the starving, it is generousity to throw a banquet.
[31] Uvin, Peter. Human Rights in the Practice of Development. p. 198
[32] Ibid. p. 200
No comments:
Post a Comment