Leave Third World Countries Alone
Why Development is Harmful.
In today’s society in the United States, the term development may sound like a good thing. After all, our country is considered developed when compared to other underdeveloped countries. To one, being developed may mean having access to clean water, quality foods, safe shelters, driving cars, having money to spend on things and much more that we experience and have in our developed nations.
When we think of development for third world countries, we think of helping the poor and needy. We feel like superheroes on the inside when we give them our help. So development to underdeveloped countries may sound like a good thing right? Well, think again. Development in Third World countries is very similar to colonialism. Instead of taking over directly, they take control indirectly. First world countries would try to implement developmental techniques such as growing cash crops in the third world country. However, most of the profit that is gain usually goes to the one in charge or to the first world “helper”. Most of the harvest is exported to other countries so the third world country loses resources through outsourcing.
Also the first world countries sells them GMO seeds that can’t produce more seeds to the farmers. Farmers are forced to pay more and gain less from their work. This leads to many suicides because farmers are in debt to these giant corporations. Development, like colonialism is exploitative and harmful to the third world countries. Similarly, their resources get taken away and they become even more poor. Before development they may seem poor and needy to some people but in reality they have better lives before the development happens.
Development doesn’t help but harms the economies of the third world. Like colonialism, there is a need for capitalist growth (Shiva). We all know that continuous exponential grow is harmful to the local people and nature. Constant development destroys the natural economy of that country because there is constant striping of land and resources. This stealing of resources forces women to work harder. They have to walk farther to get water and firewood. With less forest and natural areas, women loses forest produce and also medicinal plants so they also lose a source of sustenance and income.
Women and nature are exploited and excluded in development and only the hegemonic patriarchal system is benefited. Culture is also exploited and washed away by development. Traditional cultural practices such as growing different types of heirloom crops is replaced by growing cash crops that are water and nutrient intensive.
Throughout the third world, women, peasants, and tribes struggle to be free from development just as they struggled to be free of colonialism (Shiva). Development only serves economic growth and takes away resources from the poor and needy. Development serves big corporations that doesn’t care about the lives of those that they negatively affect. Development is to escape from underdevelopment but it is also mal-development.
On 20 January 1949, 2 billion people became underdeveloped (Estava). Before that, the people in third world countries don’t see themselves as underdeveloped or in need of help. They were just living normal lives and they were happy. Third world people oppose development projects that threaten indigenous and subsistence way of life (Adams).
There is an idea for the solution of development which is sustainable development. This phrase has many meanings and can be interpreted differently. One definition is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Adams). However, is sustainable development really going to help the third world or is it just another label for development?
I think that sustainable development may be trying to help the environment but at the same time it is still development. It will still be controlled by first world countries and I think that third world countries should just be left alone. First world countries should only intervened if third world countries actually need help.
“Persistent socioeconomic problems in Third World countries, despite decades of massive infusion of advanced technology from the industrial world, continue to elicit questions regarding the appropriateness of this technology in the Third World” (Akubue). This quotes states that even after decades of developmental interventions from the industrial world, there are still many persistent problems in the third world. In fact, development might have even made the problems worse.
“The concentration of wealth in the hands of the Third World ruling class, bureaucrats, and the elite-the hallmark of a growth-based development strategy-makes life a continuous struggle for a great mass of the people”(Akubue). Through development the country’s wealth trickles up to the already wealthy class and to foreign countries. The resources and money is taken away from the local people which leads to even more needless hunger and suffering.
I believe that first world countries should leave third world countries alone so they can develop or not develop on their own. We only view third world countries as poor because they have a different style of life but they may not necessarily need to change their way of life to match ours.
