Guide to the future of development: Bring the politics back in
How large is the primacy of politics for development?
The wealth of the richest 1 per cent of the world’s population roughly equals that of everyone else (the 99 per cent). Such facts on income inequality were brought into focus in the last weeks of January 2014 when more than 2,500 global leaders and 1,500 businesses set out on the journey to Davos, Switzerland. The annual meeting of World Economic Forum where the reshaping of the world was at stake — again. The theme? The future of Society, Politics and Business. Clearly, having so many respected and powerful individuals in one place should bring prosperity in a few year’s time. Politicians and businesses seem to cooperate, but addressing global threats without a multidisciplinary approach and without the power of society will not create a brighter future. Change the mindset.
Global leaders of World Economic Forum were claiming the obvious by stating that the world’s agenda is not designed for the challenges and collective action problems of today. It seems such elites were drawing the same conclusions for more than 20 years. Notwithstanding this, in a real world, people refrain from spending $40,000 on a helicopter trip to Davos. In a real life, I was already doing my Masters in Public Administration at University of Birmingham. The Development Politics module took my international colleagues and me on a journey of learning. Determining development with respect to different countries is often reflected through quality of life and various factors of wealth. Politics is often associated with governing the societies. We, as students, were challenged with a question; a question; a question which at first might not have appeared directly related to the poor-rich ration, but which did indeed trigger my curiosity about economics and politics. The question is: How important is the primacy of the politics for development?
Birmingham’s students, acting as an instant international assembly (we are around 30 in the group, from almost every continent), were challenged by the complexity of the term development and were faced with imperceptible connections between development and the politics throughout the past. In the second half of the 20th century, it was common to consider economic indicators in measuring development and several approaches to poverty reduction were defined. Modernisation theory, dependency theory and neoliberalism put development in relation to international aid injections, changes in economy, market-state relations and poverty. Local context was complex and often excluded. Surprisingly, it seems that different factors were taken into account in relation to development; excluding some factors in favor of others, trying to create ’one-size-fits-all’ approach. Showing poor development results, there was a desperate need of change to development approach.
Starting from the 90’s, the usage of the term ‘governance’ was raised as a need to understand the relationships between formal institutions, legislature, community and development. In the last 15 years ‘good governance’ took the lead, and international donors recognised the need for understanding local aspects.
We, the students, agreed that perception of development in India, Thailand, Croatia or Africa is different, but we also stated that development is poor without economics of the institution of the government.
Interdisciplinarity was evident, and a political approach in individual stories was notable. Knowing the process of politics is an important part of successful development — external experience cannot reflect intergovernmental structures and relations. Politics is back in focus, yet, I found interesting the discussions of how politics clearly has always been a part of development, but understood within different disciplines, such as economics. Institutions and aid they provided were shaped by politics. Politics of donor countries influenced development of the undeveloped country. Nowadays, in the age of the informatization, when literature is a click away, interdisciplinarity seems common and politics clearly has a profound impact on development. However, having economists as authors of numerous development studies triggered my curiosity: Aren’t the political scientists the ones that understand states and processes? Isn’t the intersection obvious?
Dr. Adrian Leftwich (1940–2013) introduced the increasingly popular political settlements approach to development. Economy works with numbers and reports. It is measurable. It seems more exact, thus easier to predict. Money input is believed to show instant results, and so the focus was put on financial and technical issues. Politics can be structured, but the term refers to fluid relations between citizens. It is about leaders and community. It is about people, cooperation and decisions. Setting rules. Power. Trust. As such, it has many variables, especially when it comes to organising the state. Having that in mind, it seems that development depends on something more more than just money inputs; it depends on a variety of guidelines, relations and influences. It depends on managing people. Politics is a part of development. As Dr. Leftwich once wrote:
Readers [will] think about politics as an activity that is far wider, much richer and certainly more interesting and important than its usual identification with governments and public affairs.
Reflecting on discussions it seems that politics and development come together. Encouraging enough, primacy of politics opens up more questions. Having politics put in context with poverty reduction and development sure makes this journey an excellent point for further studies. Politics, as a tool that deals with relationship between governments and society, clearly influences development.
Thus, away from Forums, without suits and cocktails, expensive hotels and prepared speeches, we — the students — exchanging our real life experiences, discussed politics and its relation to development and underdevelopment, in favor of ideology and ideas; rather than in terms of technocratic approach. We indeed found that interdisciplinarity of both development and politics is immanent, as both terms should rely on citizen-government interactions. Furthermore, the world is clearly neglecting the role of politics, those beneficial relations that nourish state development. Sadly, it seems that the world is not prepared for the collective challenges of tomorrow as world leaders mostly talk about challenges but with little or no action. It seems that the biggest challenge is actually changing the mindset and existing approach to the world’s problems. Closing the existing mental models. Both world leaders and international development students are aware of such daring. However, whilst one group has a chance to embrace change immediately, the other group will have to work its way to creating world-changing opportunities.
Disclaimer: The views expressed here are solely those of the author in his private capacity and do not in any way represent the views of the Government of the Republic of Croatia or any other entity.
References
Carothers, T., and De Gramont, D. (2013) Development aid confronts politics: The almost revolution.
Hickey, S. (2008) The return of politics in development studies I getting lost within the poverty agenda?. Progress in Development Studies, 8(4), 349-358.
Leftwich, A. (2005) Politics in command: Development studies and the rediscovery of social science. New Political Economy, 10(4), 573-607.
Willis, K (2011) Theories and practices of development.
