Development Debates
Development is a catchy term. It’s thrown around in political arenas, among non-governmental organizations and in classrooms. The word is used with good intent, but its true meaning is unclear. Merriam Webster dictionary defines development as “the act or process of growing or causing something to grow or become larger or more advanced.”[1] Advancement is not equivalent across space and time, leaving those working to promote development in a difficult place. Fortunately, many theorists have attempted to discern the processes behind development.
Jeffery Sachs and Thomas Friedman were two of the most popular economic theorists of the late twentieth century. Both present a linear view of development. In Sach’s model, development is a ladder, and undeveloped locales only need a boost to the bottom rung (Sachs 2006) Sachs writes, “When countries get their foot on the ladder of development, they are generally able to continue the upward climb” (Sachs 2006). Unfortunately, this analogy falls flat in practice. The distance between rungs is too great, and the climb too steep. And as experience shows, simply boosting a country to the bottom run has not resulted in successful climbs up the ladder. This type of top-down approach is problematic because it lacks accountability. Without feedback or accountability, no amount of money can end in sustainable, grassroots change (Easterly 2005).
Thomas Friedman proposes an alternate, yet still unrealistic, conjecture that the world has already flattened, creating a (nearly) equal playing field for development (Friedman 2007). Like most other south Ugandan farmers, Josephine, my host mother, grew coffee. It was interspersed with other crops, and every few weeks, all of the workers would take one or two days to pick the ripe red beans. The coffee would be spread out in the back courtyard and on the main drive, and rotated twice daily by our housekeeper, Shakila. After the beans had dried to a black color, they were loaded into hemp sacks and shipped to Kampala for processing and sale. Because the beans were grown organically, in part because of a lack of access to non-organic methods, they could be sold for the equivalent of several thousand Ugandan shillings in an American coffee shop. But Josephine sees almost none of that money. Instead, the farmers around my village sell their coffee for pennies to a processing plant in Kampala. It’s the middle men who end up with the money. The resources of the periphery are exploited for the good of the metropolis (Frank 1966). Josephine and other rural landowners have the resources and are able to grow the coffee, but there are not benefiting as much as other groups.
In today’s world, development is not based solely on the efforts and actions of individual countries. Aid and interactions with other countries also play a large role. Money is flowing into Uganda via aid, but aid brings a host of problems including debt, inflation, decreased investment and increased risk of civil unrest (Moyo 2009). Furthermore, high rates of corruption prevent the money from having the maximum possible benefit. Political leaders have not been committed to reducing corruption because many fear the repercussions of anti-corruption actions (Tangri et al. 2006). Donors have also been reluctant to criticize Uganda as corrupt because they have touted the Ugandan government as one of the most successful in Africa (Tangri et al. 2006). Scandal would reflect poorly upon donors, too.
There is no single pathway to reach development, though many of the systematic struggles development scholars pointed out are surely unavoidable. My experience was singular. I have first-hand testimony of only one place, St. Jude. But, I interacted with many different types of efforts during my time in Uganda—and have had experiences domestically as well. After spending nine weeks attempting to help develop rural, poverty striken areas, I was left wondering the best mechanisms for development. Because development is so variable across time and space, I wish to narrow that consideration to food security in Uganda. Many agencies are working to improve the current situation, but what methods are best? Are NGOs the most effect tool? Does the government hold more promise? What about field schools? These questions must be analyzed before conscientious development efforts can take place.
[1] "Development." Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2013.
Jeffery Sachs and Thomas Friedman were two of the most popular economic theorists of the late twentieth century. Both present a linear view of development. In Sach’s model, development is a ladder, and undeveloped locales only need a boost to the bottom rung (Sachs 2006) Sachs writes, “When countries get their foot on the ladder of development, they are generally able to continue the upward climb” (Sachs 2006). Unfortunately, this analogy falls flat in practice. The distance between rungs is too great, and the climb too steep. And as experience shows, simply boosting a country to the bottom run has not resulted in successful climbs up the ladder. This type of top-down approach is problematic because it lacks accountability. Without feedback or accountability, no amount of money can end in sustainable, grassroots change (Easterly 2005).
Thomas Friedman proposes an alternate, yet still unrealistic, conjecture that the world has already flattened, creating a (nearly) equal playing field for development (Friedman 2007). Like most other south Ugandan farmers, Josephine, my host mother, grew coffee. It was interspersed with other crops, and every few weeks, all of the workers would take one or two days to pick the ripe red beans. The coffee would be spread out in the back courtyard and on the main drive, and rotated twice daily by our housekeeper, Shakila. After the beans had dried to a black color, they were loaded into hemp sacks and shipped to Kampala for processing and sale. Because the beans were grown organically, in part because of a lack of access to non-organic methods, they could be sold for the equivalent of several thousand Ugandan shillings in an American coffee shop. But Josephine sees almost none of that money. Instead, the farmers around my village sell their coffee for pennies to a processing plant in Kampala. It’s the middle men who end up with the money. The resources of the periphery are exploited for the good of the metropolis (Frank 1966). Josephine and other rural landowners have the resources and are able to grow the coffee, but there are not benefiting as much as other groups.
In today’s world, development is not based solely on the efforts and actions of individual countries. Aid and interactions with other countries also play a large role. Money is flowing into Uganda via aid, but aid brings a host of problems including debt, inflation, decreased investment and increased risk of civil unrest (Moyo 2009). Furthermore, high rates of corruption prevent the money from having the maximum possible benefit. Political leaders have not been committed to reducing corruption because many fear the repercussions of anti-corruption actions (Tangri et al. 2006). Donors have also been reluctant to criticize Uganda as corrupt because they have touted the Ugandan government as one of the most successful in Africa (Tangri et al. 2006). Scandal would reflect poorly upon donors, too.
There is no single pathway to reach development, though many of the systematic struggles development scholars pointed out are surely unavoidable. My experience was singular. I have first-hand testimony of only one place, St. Jude. But, I interacted with many different types of efforts during my time in Uganda—and have had experiences domestically as well. After spending nine weeks attempting to help develop rural, poverty striken areas, I was left wondering the best mechanisms for development. Because development is so variable across time and space, I wish to narrow that consideration to food security in Uganda. Many agencies are working to improve the current situation, but what methods are best? Are NGOs the most effect tool? Does the government hold more promise? What about field schools? These questions must be analyzed before conscientious development efforts can take place.
[1] "Development." Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2013.