Enshrined is the label ‘developed’. Positioned as the ultimate goal, economic growth is traditionally seen as the means to achieve this label. Yet this restrictive definition leads to classifications of ‘developed’ to depend on quantitative economic tools that disregard the costs of economic growth on stakeholders (Tavernaro-Haidarian, 2019).
‘Developed’ as a term itself implies a contrast of concepts: developed versus undeveloped, civilised versus uncivilised, and economic progress versus stagnation. Inequality is thereby created from the existing value judgements implicitly present within this central term. When assigning countries varying degrees of development as a manner of categorisation, positive or negative connotations accompany it as a result.
The Classical development view expands upon this implicit judgment through the modernisation theory, which calls for ‘poorer’ or ‘less developed’ countries to follow in the footsteps of the Global North (Baylis et al., 2019). Progress is thereby framed by the development agenda to be emulating the same structures and policies of Western ‘developed’ nations to achieve ‘good governance’ signalled by wealth and stability. But we cannot ignore the past origins of this current wealth.
Imperialism and the societal structures enforced by colonisation onto racially minoritised people have impacts that are still felt today. Bruhn’s (2010) research found that areas where large-scale exploitation of slaves occurred currently have approximately 30% lower GDP per capita due to the institutions— like banking systems— created by the colonial elite reinforcing political and socioeconomic inequalities in their favour. Previously imperial powers have set the current development agenda, yet their past actions have hindered the progress of former colonies, reinforcing inequalities.
These inequalities are also present in the mainstream narratives expressed within the field of development. Voices of national development experts are sidelined in favour of international development experts, regardless of their deeper understanding of local cultural contexts (Flint & Meyer zu Natrup, 2019). Kamruzzaman (2016) notes that ethnographies of aid, specifically the analysis of relations between the aid industry and the local population, needs to include a wider range of perspectives.
Expanding perspectives means expanding past neoliberalism— the promotion of free markets, capitalism, and lowered government influence. This means going beyond the views of neoliberal institutions composing the Washington Consensus, namely the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the Treasury of the United States. People who are personally affected by development policies need to be involved in the decision-making process in order to truly achieve progress.
Context— including sociocultural, political, and economic factors— is essential to the realm of development. Including more narratives within this field is a crucial step in reducing inequalities among stakeholders present within the decision-making process. It is when we go beyond quantitative economic tools and the mainstream that we are able to then reach a higher level of development: improvement in overall wellbeing while respecting marginalised groups.
Written by Hui Ying Chia
Bibliography:
Baylis, J., Smith, S., Owens, P. (2019). The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. 8th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Bruhn, M. (2010). World Bank Blogs: Did Yesterday’s Patterns of Colonial Exploitation Determine Today’s Patterns of Poverty?. Available at: https://blogs.worldbank.org/allaboutfinance/did-yesterday-s-patterns-of-colonial-exploitation-determine-today-s-patterns-of-poverty (Accessed: 21 April 2021)
Flint, A. & Meyer zu Natrup, C. (2019). ‘Aid and development by design: local solutions to local problems, Development in Practice’, Development in Practice, 29(2), pp. 208-19
Huang, Y. (2010). ‘Debating China’s Economic Growth: The Beijing Consensus or The Washington Consensus’, Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(2), pp. 31-47
Kamruzzaman, K. (2016). ‘Understanding the Role of National Development Experts in Development Ethnography’, Development Policy Review, 35(1), pp. 39-63
Park, J.H. (2002). ‘The East Asian Model of Economic Development and Developing Countries’, Journal of Developing Societies, 18(4), pp. 330-53
Tavernaro-Haidarian, L. (2019). ‘Decolonization and development: Reimagining key concepts in education’, Research in Education, 103(1), pp. 19-33