Who invented development? A straightforward answer to this seemingly strange question would be to point to the prevailing post-World War II world order and social-economic circumstances that demarcated rich countries and poor countries. The discourse of the world order in the post-world war II period switched from war to development. “The discourse of war was displaced onto the social domain and to a new geographical terrain. The third world left behind was the struggle against fascism in the rapid globalization of US domination as a world power. The war on poverty in the third world began to occupy a prominent place” Escobar (1995:21). This prevailing world order fuelled the crave for the attainment of the kind of advanced lifestyle obtainable in the west. All these, along with mankind’s quest for the better life constitute the drive that launched the concept of development as a means for the attainment of our deepest goal of a dignified human wellbeing.
The development discourse consists of various lexicons, ideas, theories, worldviews and languages associated with development. The lexicons and languages used in development discourse are the catch words with which the concept of development is identified with. The development discourse is shaped by the different worlds in which it has found itself in. “…..The international career of the term ‘development’ coupled with the notion of underdevelopment started as a public relation gimmick thrown in by a professional speech writer, President Harry. S. Truman”. Cornwall and Eade (2010:19). In his inaugural speech on 20th January 1949, Harry S. Truman launched the idea of development that will become a very much admirable and sought after goal in the intellectual world. Expressing in raw terms the darkest sides of human living conditions and wellbeing, he framed the concept and language of development as the balm to soothe the sore wounds caused by these harsh realities of human existence.
More than half of the people of the world are living in conditions approaching misery. Their food is inadequate. They are victims of disease. Their economic life is primitive and stagnant. Their poverty is a handicap and a threat to both them and to more prosperous areas. For the first time in history humanity possesses the knowledge and skill to relieve the suffering of these people….. The United States is preeminent among nations in the development of industrial and scientific technique……greater production is the key to prosperity and peace. And the key to greater production is a wider and more vigorous application of modern scientific and technical knowledge. Truman (1949:1).
That this misery of poor living conditions that has long been the dilemma of mankind has found a solution, as provided by the United States capitalist ideology and system helped carve out development. Development was therefore wholly embraced and since then the development edifice was constructed as the key to replicating the kind of economic features and lifestyles obtainable in advanced countries, specifically the US. This statement by Truman which subsequently gave birth to the Truman doctrine came right after the Second World War; a period when the search for peace and meaningful wellbeing for mankind was accelerated. Therefore, it was universally embraced by those in power.
“The Truman doctrine initiated a new era in the understanding and management of world affairs, particularly those concerning the less economically accomplished countries of the world” Escobar (1995:3). Harry S. Truman’s speech contained not just the American dream but the universal dream, the goal of all mankind and as such it was embraced by different nations across the globe including international organisations. But after dreaming, the world has woken up from its slumber to find a world of massive underdevelopment. Instead of the development dreamt about, the world is plagued with insecurities, inequalities, injustices, widening gap between rich and poor countries, famines, poverty, hunger and most of all the creation of the ‘third world’ to mention but a few.
Like every other phenomenon the Truman doctrine was soon engulfed in the prevailing politics of the period and development was eventually politicized. The consequence being that we began to work with the politics of development instead of development. In some circles, Truman’s doctrine was regarded as yet another capitalist propaganda meant to draw support from the least developed countries which were in the process of the radical quest for transformation, decolonization and economic development, to the principles and ideologies of the capitalist west. The realities of human life depicted in Truman’s speech, was a glaring truth characteristic of the underdeveloped parts of the world. The emphasis on economic development, the prevailing plights of mankind and moreover, the underdeveloped areas of the world which constitute the major themes in Truman’s speech are phrases which contributed to the invention of development and the creation of underdevelopment.
Therefore, some have described the concept of development as used in various circles of the development discourse today, as a product of a conspiracy. A term that was hijacked and framed to promote a political campaign and propaganda. “The development discourse inevitably contained a geo-political imagination that has shaped the meaning of development for more than four decades…. It is implicit in expressions such as first and third worlds, north and south, center and periphery” Escobar (1995:9). There are several factors that surrounded the birth of the development discourse, this were exemplified by the increased poverty, income diversity among st nations and countries and the prevailing colonial order.
The discourse of development was further fuelled by the decolonisation process as many states who obtained independence or who had goals of attaining independence, saw development as the next thing to fall back on to prove to their colonial masters that they can also sustain and provide for themselves or in order words, to prove how independent they can be, as it is an unspoken truth that political independence without economic independence is like an egg without a yoke. Hence development is the figurehead paradigm for the campaign for economic independence.
The development discourse is a product of the interplay between political forces and economic forces that arose during the post WW II period which characterised world affairs. Development was also seen as an instrument to obtain a spot in the topmost ladder of world power. The introduction of the development discourse has pioneered and brought about concepts like poverty, village, local, underdeveloped, illiteracy, famine, hunger, diseases, unemployment, underdevelopment etc. These words and lexicons in the development discourse make development matter. They constitute the engine of the development concept. They have in other words become more of the cultural or traditional language of development that if you do not include them, then you don’t speak the language of development. Accordingly, Peet and Hartwick (2009:1) state that the discourse of development, the system of statements made about development has the power to move people to affect and change us forever. Development can be used for many different political purposes including some and perhaps most that conflict with its essentially egalitarian ethic, a better life for all.
The economic gap between the west and other parts of the world which was glaring in the post-world war II era called for a more urgent approach. Post-world war II is commonly pointed out as the period of the intellectual history of development. Although development thinking can be traced down even to the ancient Greek philosophies, the post war world II era provided a profound rebirth, recreation and reinvention of development in its present socio-economic and scientific context. This was made possible with the resulting events and circumstances that prevailed in the post-World War II socio- economic order. It was not that these circumstances did not exist prior to the war, but with the end of the world wars and the system of the new world order which saw the once prosperous Europe becoming a shadow of itself, the realities of world poverty became even much more glaring. The resultant effect of the war also paved the way for the disintegration of colonial empires and this also constituted a factor for the development campaign.
The Marshall plan which was a brain child of the American political and economic ideology geared towards preventing communism was presented on the platform of development assistance. The framework as embedded in the Marshall plan carry within it ideas and concepts that contributed in framing ‘development’. “Consequently in 1947, the US secretary of state George Marshall presented before the US congress an impressive aid plan for the reconstruction of Europe, normally referred to as the Marshall plan”.Knuttson (2009:9). This ideology and policy of the US coming on the heels of Harry S. Truman’s speech was extended outside Europe to the rest of the world. The Marshall plan turned out to be very successful and as such it was to become a blueprint for future international development assistance. Development, wrapped and packaged with the ideologies, interests and principles of the US was presented on the platter of the Marshall plan. This concept of development was further extended to third world countries. Therefore, ideological and geopolitical interests also helped birth development.
“Development has become a ‘modern shibboleth’, an unavoidable password’ which comes to be used to convey the idea that tomorrow things will be better or that more is necessarily better” Cornwall and Eade (2010:2). Drawing the line between the success of development as a concept and its failures in improving the conditions of the poor is the major task when we trace the invention of development in the development discourse.
No comments:
Post a Comment