The idea of “development” can still conjure up romantic visions among some about helping to improve the lives of people in the “third world” through sheer goodwill. Yet, we hold on to the term and defend it.
We also hold on to the Millennium Development Goals like a drunk uncle: worthy and charming, but occasionally inappropriate, which, as a family, we hastily brush under the carpet and hope nobody notices.
But does language matter?
I think it does. George Lakoff, who advised US president Barack Obama in the run-up to his initial election, wrote a book entitled – “Don’t Think of an Elephant”. It describes how important language is to the way people engage and where policy can lead based on the language used to describe it.
His most notable example is the use of “tax relief” – a term which implies that tax is something we need relief from, rather than investment in common services. Some reports also acknowledged public disengagement with “development”.
Development, as a term ,is no longer appropriate – unless one is a property developer, an IT developer or a fundraiser.
Many developing countries are not necessarily poor, though they may have large numbers of poor people. They may have a wealth of resources, either in the form of mineral, agricultural or human capital, but suffer from policies that have been imposed on them, or poorly implemented.
Describing a country as developing leads to the use of simplistic primary indicators by which we measure success and, in turn, simplistic solutions. We know that per capita income and gross domestic product (GDP) are almost useless indicators of poverty reduction.
They fail to measure income inequality or provision of universal public services. Such indicators also assume that boosting income is the only way to reduce poverty.
The first MDG – to halve the proportion of people living on less than 1.25 dollars per day – is a case in point. The achievement of this indicator may not prevent a loss of livelihood or an inability to live with dignity. It could just as easily lead to more marketised solutions to providing healthcare, water or education, meaning that earning 1.25 dollars a day can still leave people in abject poverty.
Employment may not be the solution for everyone. A poor farmer does not need development in the form of a job as a labourer in return for his land. Instead, he needs availability of seeds, mitigation from climate change and services for his children. Similarly, a woman working the same land needs land titles.
We have shied away from being bolder about what many in development know to be the real solutions: stronger rights and accountable governments. The recent global backlash against campaigning and rights-based organisations has only further served to send some back to the comfort zone of traditional development. It inevitably means they shy away from campaigning and solidarity-based activity.
So if not development, then, what?
Some organisations have begun to use “Pro-poor” in its place, but this makes it sound as though we’re in favour of poverty. Anti-poverty is not a very tidy phrase, but it sums things up to a point.
However, just being “anti” something does not say what you stand for. Unfortunately, the opposite of “anti-poor” would be “pro-wealth’, which would not suffice either.
Some have adopted the phrase “the global south” instead of “developing countries”. However, this fails to recognise that some countries in Eastern Europe may be poorer than southern countries. It also ignores the poverty in specific regions of southern countries – not every part of India, Ethiopia, Brazil or Indonesia can be classed as poor.
Within most countries, north or south, poor people might have more in common with the poor in other countries, rather than their own. While there might be cases of extreme poverty in more southern countries, the concept of a “global south” creates an unnecessary conflict that masks a different reality.
Words such as “power” and “wellbeing” are important, and avoid the misgivings associated with development. Clearly we are not a “power” sector – that is for the energy industry. And “wellbeing” would lead to most of the public seeing us as an adjunct to the healthcare sector.
Perhaps we do not need a word for our sector at all. Many who work in areas focusing on global poverty should call themselves just that; global poverty NGOs; for organisations that focus more on rights, call yourself a rights-based NGO.
No matter what word we use as a replacement, it is important we move away from using the term “development”. It may be getting in the way of not only achieving support for our work, but of finding and implementing the solutions that we so desperately need.
Leave a Reply