International development

Some thougths.....
The book I am reading at the moment, Despite Good Intentions, by Thomas Dichter, discuss and analyse paradox of international development. Does international development do a significance change to the better to the people it is supposed to help, or is it in reality just a prestige project, which only helps the developed world to good conscience and the development industry to make money and develop it self. A prestige project costing billions of dollars each year… money that might have been spend more wisely.
Dichter, who holds a Ph.D. in anthropology, begins the book with some thought and statistical information, which to some degree arguments international development could do a lot better. .
- More people lived of less than one dollar a day in 1998 than in 1996.
- The gap between rich and poor is widening year by year; in fact it has doubled since the 60’ies. (My comment: The reason for this could be the, that the rich is becoming richer, but not necessarily that the poor world is becoming poorer.)
- Half of the world population lives for less than 2 dollars a day.
(My comment: This is relative, money and value are relative, 2 dollars will probably buy you a chicken in India, but not in Norway, where you probably would pay at least three times the price. As well if a family has their own land and grow grains and vegetables and raise chickens and so on, are this inclusive in the “2 dollars”. And again money does not necessarily makes one happy or rich (only material), maybe people growing and raising their own food are more happy or rich, than lonely people driving BMW and eating sushi and being material rich. This leads to another discussion of definition of richness. Maybe it is only a spoiled guy from the rich north , who can claim you can be rich with out money. Maybe if I went hungry to bed I would change my opinion.)
Anyway Dichter discuss this as well. How do we define the “rich” developing world and the “poor” developed world? Different more qualitative variations from the money and BNP, is life expectancy, civil rights and death rate of children, human rights and so on.
(My comments: When I started to sponsor a child from Cape Verde, I did some thinking. It was a cold dark day in January and I was coming home late from work, drenched from the lashing rain, when I find a letter about my sponsor child. It said he lived in sunny and warm Cape Verde. Then I thought of happiness and maybe I would be a happier person, if I lived in a sunny and warm place all year round. Of course I would not have the same material richness as today, but happiness is in my definition some thing else than money. Maybe this is the rich kid speaking again.
The book is a good combination of empirical narratives, statistical facts and concerning theory.
Especially the discussion of how we should define the developing world and the developed world, reminds me of an experience from Malawi (which in some definitions is one of the fifth poorest countries) I did when I travelled Africa in 1997. Back in those days I was balled and needed urgently a shave of my head. My hair had grown a bit too long, to shave it my self. A local guy I spoke to, had a razor and I followed him to his house. Or mud hut is more accurate. The hut was divided in two by a bamboo mat. In one room was one mattress for his wife and him and another for his six children. No paintings. In the other room was two chairs and an old leather suitcase with all their belongings: Some photos, some school certs, a broken watch, a pocket knife and a rusty razor. While he shaved my head, I thought about my own apartment back in Copenhagen, where I single handed occupied 50 m2… at least the double of his hut….. and had all the most common necessities, as electric stove, fridge and freezer, shower, tv, stereo and pc. And I was only a “poor” soon to be student.
So much inequality in the world and so different we life, like two worlds far far apart.
Well, back to the book. Dichter concludes that we (hereby I mean everybody from rich to poor) have to think of development in other terms than now. First of all the developed world should decrease the funding of expensive projects in the developing world. Projects that are defined by the developed world’s standards. These projects are often more to do with prestige and bad conscience of the extreme inequality between the developed and the developing world. They are very costly and what they do best are actually preserving the development business. And how many good intentions to build wells, secure water supply and safe the poor and the world, have actually been accomplished and are still running well? More often they have been abandoned by the development organisations and failed because of misunderstandings between the locals, the local government and the development organisations and poor maintenance. If they have been accomplished at all; many of them left unfinished due to lack of costs and of the complexity of the local community.
Of course the developing world should still support and help in case of catastrophes like earth quakes, hurricanes and the like, where the life of people are in immediate danger. In these situations the help is imperative and are really saving a lot of lives.
It is the long running developing projects, which Dichter is questioning, a support which is transforming the developing world in to demanding passive receivers, with no initiative but to expect support.
It is up to the developing world to develop them selves, and not for the developed world to squeeze their standards and means of living upon them. This should be seen in the light of the fact, that the biggest transfer of money from the developed world to the developing world is done by them selves, understood as relatives, who have 1migrated to the developed world and are sending money directly back to their families. Money which they can distribute and spend as they think is most appropriate, and not what some academic in the international development industry in the developed world determines. Money, which uncut are beneficial to the ones it is intended for, where no bureaucratic organisation and corrupt regime takes is toll.
As Dichter points out, it seems the developing world has realised this, not it is time for the developed world and business to face the facts as well.