I flew out to Boston on Thursday afternoon in anxious anticipation for a conference on my exact policy interest, international development. What does that even really mean? That's part of what I've been exploring at LBJ and what I was hoping to better understand from some of the best minds in the field. I don't want to get into the details of each panel or speaker (including: Oby Ezekwesili, Aruna Roy, Dani Rodrik, Martin Wolf, Jose Ugaz, and more). I'd rather focus on some of the broader questions and currents of conversation I found most intriguing.
It seems that one way to group all the different perspectives in international development together is a willingness to improve people's lives, be that through medicine, economic opportunity, access to the political process, or a myriad of other sources. There is a recognition, appreciation, and empathy for those who have not benefited from (and, quite often, suffered from) astounding economic growth across the globe. While it is true that general human development indicators (life expectancy, access to education, malnutrition, etc.) have improved for the "average" global citizen, it is clear that there are still huge portions of our global population that suffer immensely.
Abhijit Banerjee, Director and Founder of Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)spoke about how macro growth we see in countries like China masks the micro level initiatives and policies that allowed for increased GDP and international trade. As someone interested in more micro level policy implementation, his argument resonated with me. I find that broad scale changes in institutions and policies are important, but, ultimately, what matters most is how they are implemented. The growth we see, he argued, is not just about "neoliberalism", but a result of socio-historically situated policy initiatives that maximized resources that were inefficiently managed (including human capital and natural resources). If we do not recognize the nuances of development, we risk attempting to implement policies that will raise GDP and increase shares of international trade and finance without thinking of the consequences. Democracy and neoliberalism, both heralded across the globe as necessary for sustainable growth, are not just simple concepts. Each should be disaggregated into the specific policy implications they imply. Democracy, for example, can mean equal voting access, ability to challenge policies through institutionalized bureaucratic means, checks and balances amongst different branches of government, access to seats in the legislature, established electoral processes, and more. What if a country does not meet each specific element of democracy? Do they not count as being democratic? Since the U.S. didn't allow women to vote until 1920, was it not a democracy before then? While the term "democracy" is universally accepted and understood as a unified concept, once we look deeper we come to question its simplicity. This brings me to my next point. Once we start questioning the simplicity of certain institutions, we should ask ourselves why they look different across countries.
The U.S. democracy is arguably quite different from Argentinian democracy. Why? Given their differences, can we really say they are both democracies? Each can be set up and implemented in radically different ways, affecting the individuals in the society in which they exist. The same goes for neoliberal policies (which include policies like: opening up the domestic market, reducing state interventions, liberalizing the current account, privatization, etc.). There is not a magic solution to solving the problem of global poverty and just because neoliberal policies have brought many people out of poverty incredibly quickly, there are many questions that arise, like who benefits, how resources and access to opportunities are distributed across and within countries, and how sustainable these models of growth really are.
I could keep writing, but I just want to leave you with this for now. It is crucial that we (policy makers and those interested in addressing global poverty) do not attempt a "one size fits all" approach to development. While that in theory seems obvious, when confronted with the complexities and tragedies of poverty, it is easy to fall back on "solutions" and methods that are simplistically appealing. In an era where formerly third world countries are showing impressive growth statistics, we should not mistake broader international trends as the cause of that growth. We need to look deeper into why China, South Africa, Brazil, and Turkey grew in a socio-historic lens in order to get a more accurate sense of what led them to macro level growth. By placing a higher value on micro level processes and policies, we can come up with more concrete and useful approaches to direct the future of development.
No comments:
Post a Comment