Rethinking development
1 like871 views
This document discusses the development model that has been widely accepted over the past six decades of promoting economic growth through industrialization and centralized high-cost technologies. While there has been significant economic growth, the benefits have not been equally distributed, leading to large inequalities both between and within countries. International agencies now agree that development without equity is unsustainable. However, efforts to reduce inequalities through improved market rules and increased aid have had limited success. A fundamental rethinking of the development model and choice of technologies may be needed to achieve more equitable and sustainable development.
Rethinking development
- 1. Rethinking Development – from Mirage to Reality by P.L. Dhar Professor, Mechanical Engineering Department & National Resource Centre for Value Education in Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology New Delhi. Introduction The fundamental tenet of the model of development that has been willy-nilly accepted throughout the world during last six decades, is to promote economic growth through industrialization based on centralized high cost, high energy consuming technologies – often termed as “high technologies” most of which have been developed in the Europe and the US. It is hoped that the wealth thus generated would get naturally distributed, almost uniformly, among all sections of the society by “trickle down effect” (‘through an invisible hand of providence’ first postulated by Adam Smith). The empirical evidence of last six decades shows that while there has been spectacular economic growth, the fruits of development have not been reaped equally by various segments of the society. The gap between the ‘rich’ and the ‘poor’ countries has increased to grotesque levels, e.g. the average per capita income of a Norwegian citizen in 2004 was $52,030 in contrast to about $100 for the citizens of many African countries1. The inequalities within the countries are equally alarming, especially in the “poor” countries. The following extracts from the latest human development report published by UNDP, HDR-20052 bring out this fact: 1
- 2. Country Share of Income of the Country Share of Income of the richest 10% to the richest poorest 10% poorest 10% Norway 6.1 Peru 6.9 Colombia 7.3 Brazil 68 United States 15.9 Central African Republic 69.2 China 18.4 Botswana 77.6 Malaysia 22.1 Sierra Leone 87.2 Argentina 39.1 Namibia 128.8 Chile the 57.8 India to 49.9 Germany 10% 40.6 If we take a global view, to quote HDR-2005 again: “The world’s richest 500 individuals have a combined income greater than that of the poorest 416 million. Beyond these extremes, the 2.5 billion people living on less than $2 a day – 40% of the world’s population – account for 5% of the global income. The richest 10%, almost all of whom are in the high- income countries, account for 54%.” No wonder, these stark inequalities have led to social turmoil throughout the world which manifests in myriad forms: increase in crimes like corruption, bribery, kidnapping for ransom, emergence of mafia dons in most metro cities who demand “protection” money from the rich people, extremist groups like naxalites in India who profess to “fight” against these inequalities, and various forms of “spontaneous” mob violence, like the recent riots in France. The reason for this turmoil is not difficult to find. This alarming inequity which has a cascading effect on the quality of education, nutrition, health care, life expectancy, number of children – gives rise to a perception, among the under-privileged, the “havenots”, of being systematically exploited by the “haves”. They therefore feel “justified” in getting their share by any means – fair or foul. An even more dangerous consequence of this perception is that large sections of youth, unable to find jobs due to increasing mechanization, become extremely vulnerable to the temptations and ‘brain washing’ of extremists and terrorist groups who have their own agenda of fueling hatred and taking ‘revenge’ against certain communities/nations. As a result we find today that, inspite of 2
- 3. enormous advances in science and technology and over six decades of systematic effort at “development”, peace and harmony eludes the human race. The rich and the prosperous nations/people live in a state of insecurity arising from the fear of crime and violence, while the poor, not sure of even meeting their basic needs like food, clothing, shelter and health care, live in a state of insecurity arising from deprivation. The whole saga of “development” can thus be crisply summarized as: “skewed economic growth and moral shrinkage”. Development and Equity All the international agencies for development like the UN, UNDP, World Bank, IMF etc. now agree that development without equity is both economically and socially unsustainable. This is reflected by the fact that latest annual reports of both the World Bank – the world development report 2006, and that of UNDP – the human development report 2005, have their focus on promoting equity1,2. This was also the main theme of the historic UN Millennium Summit in September 2000, where 189 countries adopted eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)3, of halving poverty (i.e. the proportion of people with income less than $1 a day) between 1990 and 2015, reducing child (under five) mortality by two thirds and maternal mortality ratio by three quarters between 1990 and 2015, and halting and reversing the spread of AIDS by 2015. In the five years that have passed since that solemn declaration, some progress has been made on fight against poverty, but as HDR – 2005 notes, “the overall report card on progress makes for depressing reading. Human development is faltering in some key areas, and already deep inequalities are widening”. The increase in social turmoil and the enormous increase in terrorism in last five years is an indirect reflection of this failure. Why are we not able to reduce inequalities and associated social problems in spite of all good intentions? What should be the strategies to achieve the MDGs? To be able to answer these important questions, let us first understand what the prominent international development agencies have to say on these issues. The World Bank concludes its latest report by making following suggestions for achieving greater global equity4: 3
- 4. “The rules that govern markets for labor, goods, ideas, capital and the use of natural resources need to become more equitable. Domestic action to build the endowments of the poor can be supported through aid, but not if aid is poorly spent, supports corrupt regimes, or undermines domestic accountability.” The inequity is thus attributed primarily to the historic and geographic disparities in natural endowments which have been exacerbated by inequitable functioning of the markets5. The former can be corrected by “aid” and the latter by ‘improving’ the rules governing various marketsmaking them “freer and fairer”. The inequity, in their view, is un-related to the basic model of development. The epilogue of the world development report makes it further clear6 “We do not propose, however, yet another new framework of development. Instead, recognizing the importance of equity (that is, equality of opportunity and the avoidance of extreme deprivation) implies the need to integrate and extend existing approaches”. UNDP takes a more comprehensive view of the various causes of inequity and stresses on improving not just over all economic growth, but also its distribution, so that the poor have a greater share in future growth. Presently, the increases in income due to economic growth tends to be distributed in accordance with the existing income shares. Thus, for every Rs.100 generated by growth in India the poorest 20% would receive only Rs.8.9 while the share of the richest 20% would be Rs.43.3. If the development policies can achieve pro-poor growth, thus (say) doubling the share of the poorest section of the society, the poorest 20% would share Rs.17.8 out of Rs.100 generated by growth, thus reducing inequity. HDR-2003 gives some suggestions on how to achieve it7: “growth is more likely to benefit poor people if it is broadly based rather than concentrated in a few sectors or regions, if it is labour intensive (as in agriculture or apparel) rather than capital intensive”. Clearly this demands a shift in the paradigm of development and the choice of technologies. Other measures suggested to reduce inequity are: improving the quantity and quality of international aid, removing unfair rules of trade favouring developed countries and comprehensive handling of violent conflicts. HDR talks of aid not only as enlightened self interest, but also as a “moral imperative” and recommends pro-poor growth policies on the basis of basic principles of fairness and social justice. An 4
- 5. important facet of development debate incorporated in HDR-2005 is that of violent conflicts which are both the cause and the consequence of inequity. It rightly emphasizes that8: “Investments in equitable development – in economic growth, job creation and human security in the broader sense – remain the key to preventing conflict.” The above brief exposition summarizes the views of most of the ‘mainstream’ and the ‘humanist’ economists on “development”. In spite of some notable additional features in the humanistic economists views, both focus their attention on the “symptoms” of the malaise plaguing the society today, viz. inequity, poverty and violence, and suggest measures to ameliorate these symptoms. The root causes of the “disease” are not sought. Thus it is not questioned why: Almost 15 years after the end of the cold war, the world seems to have become less safe? The rich countries continue to spend on an average 10 times more on military than on aid, the ratio for UK being 13.3 and for US 259 even though it is quite obvious that the greatest threat to their security is directly related to inequity, deprivation and hopelessness in a large segment of humanity. The countries, which show high up in the HDR ratings, have high rates of divorce, suicides, smoking and crime? US, Russia and China continue to produce and sell small arms which according to HDR are “the weapons of choice in today’s conflict… killing 5,00,000 people per year… with devastating consequences for human development”.10 While there is so much emphasis on conserving the rapidly depleting sources of energy, manufacturing operations are being increasingly broken into discrete parts, with components manufactured and assembled in networks that span many countries resulting in huge waste of energy in transportation. The super rich (richest 10% of world population) are not willing to shed off even 1.6% of their income which would suffice to lift 1 billion people living on less than $1 a day above this poverty threshold? Even though per capita income in rich countries has increased by $6070 since 1990s, the per capita aid has fallen by $1? While on one hand the rich nations talk of globalization to usher in prosperity in poor countries through “freer and fairer” trade practices, they have no hesitation in imposing * exorbitant tariffs on imports from poor nations* , or in artificially reducing the world market * For example, Vietnam pays $470 million in taxes on exports to the US worth $4.7 billion, while the UK pays roughly the same amount on exports worth $50 billion11 5
- 6. price of agricultural commodities by huge subsidies to their farmers as a result of which the farmer in poor countries suffer – unable to export their products (or even sell it in domestic markets) even though their actual production costs are lesser. ** ** What is the logic of spending $1 billion every year on aid for agriculture in poor countries, while spending $ 1 billion a day subsidizing agricultural over-production at home? While free flow of goods and capital are being vigorously advocated by developed nations, they have introduced massive barriers to labour mobility, even though numerous studies (and empirical evidence) show that greater migration would promote both equity and efficiency. It should be evident that unless the fundamental incongruities alluded to in the above questions are resolved, the inequity with all its ugly consequences, would continue to increase threatening the very existence of civil society. Development and the “Worldview” Einstein’s insight, “You can not solve a problem in the same mode of thinking that created it” gives a clue to the in-effectiveness of various attempts at reducing inequity, deprivation and disharmony in the society. All these interventions – aid from international agencies, soft loans, technology up-gradation – are based on the same materialistic paradigm, which equates happiness with sensory pleasures obtainable through material interactions. In this paradigm, development becomes synonymous with material advancement and GDP per capita, the single parameter of “development” of a nation. As has been discussed at length elsewhere13, increase in inequity and strife, dehumanization and ecological degradation are all “natural” outcomes of this worldview. In a society driven by materialistic worldview, the natural human urge of seeking happiness is translated into maximizing acquisitions. The ‘haves’ – by the very fact of their being ‘haves’ – are able to increase the quantum of ‘goods’ in their possession at a much faster rate than ‘have-nots’, and thus the gap between them – the inequity – widens continually. Social strife and unbridled consumerism are its unavoidable consequences. An unrestrained exploitation of natural resources becomes necessary to satisfy the everincreasing demand for ‘goods’ and services, resulting in resource depletion and environmental pollution. The materialistic worldview, with its excessive emphasis on ** For example, between 2002 and 2003 rice grown in the US at a cost of $415 a tonne was exported at $274 a tonne12! 6
- 7. cost benefit analysis in all decision making has also resulted in degeneration in all those endeavours and institutions – like art, poetry, literature, music, sports, education, politics, marriage and family life etc. – which distinguish human beings from rest of the species, since maximization of the monetary gains has become our over riding concern. No wonder all efforts at removing these ‘detrimental effects’ of modern development, without changing the underlying societal paradigm, have not borne fruit. We can also get some insight into the queries raised above, in the light of above brief exposition on the impact of prevailing materialistic worldview. It is evident that this paradigm engenders the values of aggressive competition, selfishness and greed, which are anti-thesis of the values of altruism, sharing, generosity, contentment and compassion. How can we expect rich nations, who, like all other nations, are in the grip of this materialistic world view to rise above “selfishness” and “sacrifice” their wealth and comforts for the sake of citizens of poor nations? All their policies, including that of giving aid, are bound to be primarily governed by the objective of ‘maximizing the wealth’ of their nation. Viewed in this light the answers to all the aforementioned questions become evident: Manufacturing is outsourced to various parts of the world to take advantage of the low labour ‘cost’ in developing nations, which can easily absorb the increased transportation ‘cost’ and yet give much higher profits than possible by having manufacturing at one place – for only profits really matter and not conserving the fossil fuels; small arms (and so many other known harmful products, like cigarettes) are manufactured and sold since they yield huge profits, concern for health and security are only secondary; the agricultural aid of $1 billion per year to poor countries is basically a clever ‘investment’ which makes it difficult for a large number of countries to oppose even outrageous policies of rich nations like subsidizing agricultural production to the tune of $1 billion a day to push down international prices of agricultural commodities and thus enable rich countries to effectively ‘recover’ even greater amounts from poor nations forced to export their produce at much lower prices. This makes it evident that development with equity, peace and harmony, is not possible so long as the worldview remains materialistic. 7
- 8. Development and religion The limitations of this world view, which equates happiness with sensory pleasure, have been pointed out by seers, sages and thinkers of all traditions: the Buddha, Zoraster, Mahavira, Socrates, Jesus, Prophet Mohammed, Bahaiullah, Guru Nanak, Ramakrishna, Aurbindo, Gandhi, Krishnamurty and many others. The eternal Truths brought to light by these great men have unfortunately been seen as irrelevant to development discourse. The roots of this can be traced to the dissociation of ‘religion’ from the field of public activity after the European Renaissance. This is axiomatically assumed to be desirable ever since then. Thus has arisen a rather mistaken notion of secularism and most non-theocratic states talk about secular government, secular education, secular economics and secular development. While the adjective ‘secular’ was intended, certainly in India, to imply “to give equal respect to all religions”; it has actually taken its literal meaning in English language i.e. ‘concerned with affairs of this world, not spiritual or sacred’ # or in brief , “irreligious”. As a result the economists have hitherto persistently shunned any discussion on the role of religion in development. Thus both by statute and practice, various international development agencies like the World Bank, IMF etc have kept “religion” at a distance and focused their attention only on technical and economic issues in tune with the materialistic worldview. However, some signs of change in this thinking can be clearly seen in the horizon, prompted probably by the following twin realizations: the fundamental problems of inequity, poverty and deprivation can not be solved merely by increased economic growth, and the mounting evidence, based on well documented research in various parts of the world, that developmental activities undertaken by spiritual organizations generally show much better results than those done under the guidance of international development agencies, in spite of their more detailed scientific planning and assured financial outlays. The initiation of WFDD –world faiths development dialogue– in 1998, organization of a Millennium Summit of religious leaders at the United Nations as a prelude to the Millennium Summit of world (Political) leaders in September 2000, involvement of WFDD in World Bank’s WDR (World Development Report) 2000/2002 and its continuing engagement of leaders of various faiths in a wide ranging dialogue on # The Concise Oxford Dictionary 8
- 9. developmental issues, all point to the acceptance of a more holistic vision of development, roots of which can be traced to the core teaching of all great religions of the world. Development, in this worldview, is not confined to mere economic growth but encompasses all dimensions of human existence, viz. physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual. It has a clear cut goal: stated in positive terms as Enlightenment, liberation, selfrealization / Truth-realization / God realization or in negative terms as eradication of all dis-satisfaction, distress, dis-ease – generically termed as dukkha or suffering. Economic growth – which is the sole objective of ‘development’ in the materialistic worldview – is now seen as a means, one of the important aspects of ‘physical’ development, of ameliorating physical discomforts, and not an end in itself. It should therefore be achieved in a manner that doesn’t cause suffering – by impeding the intellectual, moral and spiritual development of mankind. If we focus on the operative part of this holistic vision of development, i.e. on what does one need to actually do to eradicate all suffering, we again find a common thread running through the core teaching of all great men : The roots of all suffering lie in mental defilements, which can be concisely abbreviated as CAD – the Clinging to pleasant, Aversion to unpleasant and Delusion, as a result of which we seek abiding happiness in wrong domains (like sensory pleasures which are intrinsically impermanent). Greater the intensity of these defilements – like greed, pride, arrogance, anger, ill will, aggressiveness, hatred – greater the degree of distress, and further away one is from peace, harmony and joy. Lesser the intensity of these defilements, purer is the mind, and more easily, frequently and consistently can we manifest the innate characteristic of pure mind, viz., loving kindness (towards all), compassion (towards those who are suffering), sympathetic joy (i.e. sharing the happiness of the joyous) and equanimity in all the vicissitudes of life. The message from these great seers – who could actually see through human suffering, discover its causes and suggest potent remedies – is clear. To eliminate all suffering – both at individual and societal level – primary emphasis should be on cleansing the minds of people of all dross, so that they become pure at heart , aphoristically put as ‘seeking the kingdom of God’, and then everything else – the material requirements of life – would follow naturally. 9
- 10. Changing the world view – Education in Human Values. While most people would agree with the above analysis, linking all human suffering to the prevailing materialistic world view, the next logical step of working towards change in this world view invokes mixed feelings. There are some – unfortunately in a minority today –who feel that this should be the prime objective of education; others feel that this is an activity best left to personal initiatives of people. While the former group suggests incorporation of a comprehensive programme of education in human values (EHV) in the formal education system, the latter feel that values should not and, in fact, can not be taught at all, for these are picked up from the environment in which people live. A detailed analysis of various apprehensions and objections about EHV14 reveals that it is indeed possible, and very much essential today, to initiate a programme of education in human values. Of course the traditional didactic approach of prescribing ethical and moral precepts is unacceptable in modern times. It needs to be replaced by a more rational approach which provokes the students to think independently and analyse their own ‘personal experiences’ of life in an objective scientific manner. They would thus be encouraged to derive their own conclusions about the impact of world views, and the concomitant values, on their day-to-day life. They can thus intellectually appreciate the importance of imbibing universal human values like loving kindness, truthfulness, honesty, compassion, and shunning hatred, ill will, anger, greed, acquisitiveness etc. This intellectual analysis needs to be reinforced by practical training in self-restraint, so that one can actually lead a life in tune with these values. This ‘practical training is very crucial, for as put nicely by one student during a discussion on value education, “What we need to be told is how to be honest, and not just why to be honest?” This entails inner psychological transformation so that the mind is actually cleansed of its baser instincts like greed, selfishness, aggressiveness, hatred, anger, deception etc. One of the most effective ways of doing this, personally experimented by the author, is that of cultivating mindfulness. This training, which traces its roots to ancient teachers like the Buddha, and whose reverberations can be seen in various traditions, is also reflected in the writing of modern thinkers like Alan Watts, J. Krishnamurti and 10
- 11. more recently Eckhart Tolle15. It basically involves non reactive observation of whatever is happening in our body-mind complex from moment to moment. Due to constant interaction of our five senses and the mind, with their corresponding objects (i.e. eyes interacting with visual objects, ears with sounds, and so on), our ‘impure’ minds tend to react with clinging or craving to pleasant sensations and thoughts, and aversion to unpleasant sensations and thoughts thus intensifying these “unhealthy” mental habits – the CAD. An objective observation of these thoughts and sensations – without letting them overpower us or provoke a reaction, in the light of understanding of their impermanent nature – initiates the process of change in our deep-rooted habit patterns, a cleansing of the mind, as it were. Though the training programmes of cultivation of mindfulness conducted by various organizations16 differ in details, these essential features – which are cryptically summarized as “learning to live in the present” – are common to all of them. The personal experiences of millions of practitioners of various shades of mindfulness based meditation, and many scientific studies17-18 have conclusively demonstrated the efficacy of this process in bringing about a deep reorganization of the psyche through attenuation in CAD, which enables more vivid manifestation of the qualities of ‘pure heart’ like compassion. The simple Truth pronounced by seers and sages of all traditions: compassion, not selfishness leads to real happiness and well-being of individuals and the society, then becomes self evident. Concluding Remarks The present model of development based essentially on a materialistic worldview, seeking to usher in an era of abundance through continual economic growth, is fundamentally flawed. Its whole emphasis is misplaced: trying to increase demand by pampering people’s cravings – “its only human to want more” – and making virtues out of ostentatious living, aggrandizement of wealth, pride and envy – “neighbour’s envy and owner’s pride” – are recipes for an ecological disaster and social turmoil, threats of which are looming in the horizon. This paradigm is inherently prone to increase aggressive competition and inequity – both of which, in the long run, make it socially and morally unsustainable. 11
- 12. There is a need to rethink about the whole concept of development, which should promote economic, social, moral and spiritual well-being of all the people. Economic development is only a ‘means’ to provide for the material needs of the society but the real development implies ushering abiding happiness, peace and harmony in the society. The key factor in achieving these is that the people imbibe the fundamental human values by attenuating the triune mental defilements, viz. CAD. All the disparities we see today among the nations, and within each nation, and the ecological disaster staring the mankind, are only due to the excessive greed and lack of compassion in the rich, not due to lack of economic growth. The paradox of starvation deaths and farmer’s suicides existing side-by-side with food rotting outside FCI godowns in our country – which once used to believe in the concept of ‘vasudhaiva kutumbhakam’ (the whole earth is my family) – is a telling example of disastrous consequences of lack of compassion, intrinsic to materialistic world view. If the rich are driven by compassion for their underprivileged brethren and joyously share their wealth with them, can there be any strife or deprivation in that society, any need for corruption, violence, crime? This is not a mere idealistic utopia, but something achievable within a decade or two. A multipronged strategy is needed for this purpose. The most important constituent of this strategy is to integrate education in human values within formal curriculum at all levels. There is a need to develop suitable EHV packages which should include, besides class room discussions based on empirical verifiable facts of life, practical training on value inculcation through service, meditation, exposure to social reality etc. Such programs should be bereft of all sectarian trappings and hidden agendas like proselytization and use universally acceptable methods like mindfulness based self observation. Simultaneously we need to create supportive environment to “sustain” these values. In most developing nations, strengthening the democratic institutions up to the grass roots level in myriad ways, holds the key to this supportive environment. The changes introduced in our constitution slowly, over the last decade, e.g. Panchayati Raj act, Right to information act etc., if further reinforced by introducing the right to recall elected representatives, and creating the provision for referendum on critical issues, can go a long way in creating such an environment. 12
- 13. Even a modest success in infusion of fundamental human values, especially among the rich, would automatically result in “transfer of attention” of the “haves” to the “have-nots”, not out of fear or disdain, but motivated by compassion. The font of good will so released would naturally result in release of resources, and creation of new policies (like pro-poor growth) and technologies (decentralized, eco-friendly, labour intensive) that would usher equitable growth, eliminate derivation and promote peace and harmony in the society i.e. Real Development, in contrast to the mirage of development we see today. References 1. World Development Report(WDR)-2006 Equity and Development, p292-3, The World Bank and the Oxford University Press, New Delhi. 2. Human Development Report (HDR)-2005, International cooperation at a crossroads: Aid, trade and security in an unequal world, p270-273, published for the UNDP by the Oxford University Press, New Delhi. 3. Human Development Report, (HDR)-2003, Millennium Development Goals: A compact among nations to end human poverty, p 1-3, published for the UNDP by the Oxford University Press, New Delhi 4. WDR-2006, p 233 5. WDR-2006, p 206-7 6. WDR-2006, p 226 7. HDR-2003, p 5 8. HDR-2005, p 179 9. HDR-2005, p 594 10. HDR-2005, p 173 11. HDR-2005, p 127 12. HDR-2005, p 132 13. P.L. Dhar and R.R. Gaur(1992), ‘Science and Humanism’-towards a unified world view’, p160, Commonwealth Publishers, Delhi 13
- 14. 14. P.L. Dhar (2000): How can values be Taught? Journal of value Education, Inaugural Issue, p59-69 15. E. Tolle (2001): The power of Now, Yogi Impressions, Mumbai. 16. See, for example, www.dhamma.org, www.dharma.org, www.insight mediation.org. 17. Kishore Chandiramani, SK Verma, and P.L. Dhar (1995): Psychological effects of Vipassana on Tihar Jail inmates, Vipassana Research Institute, Igatpuri 18. J.M.G. Williams, J.D. Teasdale, Z.V. Segal and J. Kabat-Zinn, (2005) Mindfulness and the Transformation of Emotion, Guilford, New York. 14