However, as is rightly espoused as the theme of the Global Poverty Minor at UC Berkeley (which I am currently a part of), field experiences at the beginning of development practitioner’s career is vitally important as an intellectual exercise. I came away from Chirag knowing that the benefit I received from the field experience via what it taught me about nuances of development practice far exceeded any sort of marginal benefit I was able to provide for the local people. I would argue that this is not exploitive, but necessary: a development practitioner has no credibility without ground level field experience. I firmly believe that providing students the opportunity to spend time actually doing fieldwork is the most valuable element of the Global Poverty Minor. I would make one caveat: such field experiences should be undertaken in non-emergency situations. For instance, going to Haiti right now just for the sake of learning would be a burden to NGOs who need to stay focused on the mission of assisting Haitians.

Perhaps a good starting point would be to discuss the overarching concept of international development. There is no clear definition for the concept, leading to a vast breadth of interpretations – some more appropriate than others. Perhaps the most common understanding of development is one of improving the quality of human life. It is the idea that we are not passive observers of our existence, but rather activists who can consciously shape the world for the better. In theory, it sounds pretty beautiful, but underlying these noble pursuits lie certain disturbing and dubious assumptions.

The most potentially pernicious of these assumptions is the idea that the Global North can actually shape and improve the lives of others (in international development, “others’ most often refers to the poor in developing countries). How is the concept of international development not just another form of neocolonialist domination? Is there actually a space for the socio-economically privileged to come to improve the lives of those with less? Headlines from CNN after the earthquake in Haiti read “Saving Haiti,” but what does it mean to “save” Haiti? Does Haiti even want to be “saved”?  And what gives us the audacity to believe that we hold the keys to another society’s social upliftment? Moreover, can we engage in development in meaningful ways that do not exacerbate the kind of dominating power relations between the Global North and South that have been the hallmark of the 70s’ and 80s’ public policies? Or, is it better to allow the indigenous populations to organically come up with solutions to their own social problems?

In my limited exposure to the field, it seems that there is a space for international development, but we must be careful in the ways that we engage the practice. More generally, I feel there are two important questions worth considering when approaching any development initiative.

1. What can we (as the West) provide that developing countries cannot provide for themselves?
2. Is the development initiative something the intended beneficiaries actually want enacted?

A number of well intentioned but misguided development projects could be avoided if we just consider these two questions. For instance, a number of Americans are wanting to rush over to Haiti after the earthquake to work as laborers, extra hands to help with reconstruction. As eloquently explained by Ms. Schimmelpfenning, local Haitians are just as capable (perhaps more so) of acting as such laborers. The idea that Westerners must rush to lend a helping hand because locals are for whatever reason incapable of doing so themselves is inaccurate. Plus, such labor could potentially also potentially act as a revenue-making source. The larger story here is that such labor is work that indigenous peoples can do for themselves, so there is no need in Westerners to fill a gap that does not exist.

In regards to the second point about how development initiatives should be desired by the intended beneficiaries, Ms. Shaikh’s most recent posting captures this idea pretty well. Too often it seems the primary stakeholders are not consulted about their opinions on development initiatives. Most recently, there is the case of the peepoo bags, which are meant to be odorless and hygienic ways for people without access to proper sanitation to dispose of waste. Once again, Ms. Schimmelpfenning nailed the problem with this particular style of initiative in that there has not been enough discussion about whether such an initiative would actually be socially and culturally acceptable means of improving sanitation. The invention itself may be highly effective, but is this something that the people actually want? Is this something that will actually be used?

Moreover, it seems that there is a space for us to engage with international development, but it’s critically important to analyze in what ways we are engaging. A final disclaimer: As I have mentioned often, my development experience is limited and welcome any questions or comments (or critiques from real development experts highlighting some particularly contradictory/wrong element in my logic).

This post seems to be running long and I worry that people’s attention has worn thin, so I will leave it here. Will discuss more development philosophy next time!