SALAHUDDIN

A few days ago, someone proclaimed with much confidence and belief that the development sector is a fraud. I had never thought about the development sector that way before. Although I painstakingly scrutinize and question the many interventions that are carried out for the sake of ‘development’, I never thought that it could be a scam. However, the proclamation that unfolded before me forced me to rethink. What reason one could possibly have to defile such a noble cause we call ‘development’?

"They talk to me about progress, about 'achievements,' diseases cured, improved standards of living. I am talking about societies drained of their essence, cultures trampled underfoot, institutions undermined, lands confiscated, religions smashed, magnificent artistic creations destroyed, extraordinary possibilities wiped out. They throw facts at my head, statistics, mileages of roads, canals, and railroad tracks. […] I am talking about natural economies that have been disrupted – harmonious and viable economies adapted to the indigenous population – about food crops destroyed, malnutrition permanently introduced, agricultural development oriented solely toward the benefit of the metropolitan countries, about the looting of products, the looting of raw materials."

Having worked in the development sector for over four years, it is difficult for me to think that the sector is a fraud. However, my inclination to reason critically forces me to rethink the many failures of this sector and how the sector continues to perpetuate the shortcomings and consistently fails to deliver on the promises made to the poor and the underprivileged. Despite pouring billions of dollars into this sector, it seems to have made very limited progress in creating real and sustainable change for the benefit of the people it claims to serve. I have heard many stories and have seen many posters on how a certain intervention transformed the lives of individuals. However, it is easy to make a poster child and is very difficult to make real change that helps to resolve the systemic issues which plague our society. I have realized that the development discourse has lost its credibility, given the number and scale of failed interventions. The sector is teeming with misguided projects which consistently fail to deliver.

My research revealed that the whole idea of ‘development’ is under attack with many declaring it another form of colonialism because of the many strings that are often attached to the development initiatives. While there are still many proponents of development, others have declared development a failed project. After all, if development was a success then we would not have extraordinary levels of inequality and irreversible levels of environmental degradation in the world. On the other hand, if development was abandoned then we would not be making efforts to correct the course in human progress and thinking about ways to improve lives. I think the development sector is neither a failure nor a success. It is a struggle to understand the many issues and their root causes that keep us from attaining the fulfillment of human progress and the desirable human condition.

Here are some of the key reasons which I think help to explain why the development sector has largely failed to deliver on its promises and has led many people to conclude that it may be a fraud,

We are just too naïve, and possibly ignorant too

Many of the development sector initiatives are aimed at eradicating poverty and improving the lives of underprivileged and underserved communities. This is a noble cause. However, what do we know about the poor? How do we decide what the poor want and what will work best for them? In my experience, we know too little. We make broad assumptions that are remotely related to on-ground realities. We think our sophisticated knowledge and tools somehow give us the power to decide for the poor. We send poorly paid individuals to go out into the field and collect data points for us while we sit in the urban centers pondering over how we are going to justify asking for several million dollars in funding. We think we might have just stumbled upon the ultimate solution for ending poverty once and for all. So, we sell the idea behind a barrage of ludicrous assumptions that break down at the very first instance of implementation. The knowledge that is gathered is often insufficient and it gets worst when we only use data points that support our idea of how the poor should be helped. Our thinking is limited to a set of tangible ‘achievements’ or ‘outputs’ while completely disregarding the disruptions to the societal norms and the disintegration of social relations.

If we were to realize that we are naïve in our approach and that we need to work more closely with the communities we serve, we might just be able to design better interventions. But alas, we just do not want to be told that we may be ignorant.

Too much spending, too little impact

What happened to all that money? Some may argue that the money that goes into the development sector is not enough given the scale of the social problems that we face. This is true to a large extent. However, what is also true is that a lot of money goes to waste because of inefficiencies, poor solutions, and bureaucracy. A lot of money is wasted on experimenting with solutions that are likely to fail. The focus is often on executing as many projects as possible while making minimum efforts to measure the impact which can be costly and time-consuming. In cases where the impact is reported, there are huge question marks on the credibility and the entirety of the impact data. When it is way too easy and convenient to show spending then why bother with the meticulous and exhausting exercise of measuring impact?

For many development organizations, executing a certain number of projects is more useful to build their credibility in the market. These organizations run a portfolio of projects without putting much thinking into WHY they are running those projects in the first place. Most people who work for these organizations are too occupied with mundane and operational activities and do not have a clue about the outcomes and the goals that they are working towards.

We knowingly fund and work on solutions we know will fail. While I think that some social enterprises hold the promise of innovative solutions to social problems, they are often on the peripheries of the development sector. A lot of money goes into these social enterprises which have too little to show for the money. Besides, the development sector has become a contested space with multiple organizations competing for the next big grant funding. Therefore, they do not lose much time in generating exciting ideas and painting them with strokes of their brilliance by demonstrating how their intervention will ‘transform’ the lives of the underserved segments. And of course, they do not forget to underline how their initiative will ‘empower’ women.

Another issue is the exorbitant amount of overheads and salaries in the development sector, especially at the senior level. Travel, accommodation, and office space take up a huge amount of the funding. It is common to see development sector personnel staying at expensive hotels and traveling business class much like their private sector counterparts. Another issue is the use of gas-guzzling vehicles that are common in the development sector. Can we do away with some of these expenses and embrace modesty? Of course, we can.

Some development initiatives exacerbate social inequality

It may sound counterintuitive, but many development interventions end up undermining social institutions and etiolate social relations. We would be too naïve to assume that all development initiatives lead to positive development for all. They fail to address deep-rooted power imbalances and gender inequalities while only dealing with on-surface issues. Before embarking on any developmental initiative, we must ask ourselves who is going to get affected by the interventions and how can we minimize and mitigate the unintended impacts? Some communities may be more receptive to development interventions while others may feel left out. Local traditions, culture, and religious beliefs play a key part in how development interventions are perceived and accepted. Finding the right balance between accommodating the social dynamics and achieving the development goals is a difficult task. It requires us to first understand the local environment and recognize how the intervention will affect social relations and power imbalances.

Development is very selective. In fact, you will not see much development taking place in areas that need development. This phenomenon is clearly played out in urban centers where all the development takes place in the richer parts, while the poor are pushed to neglected and filthy corners.

The way we measure development is problematic

Often, I am too frustrated by how development is measured. While I am a big proponent of data-driven interventions, I do not think it is sensible to try to measure everything in quantifiable terms. However, I do think it is helpful to use a set of qualitative as well as quantitative indicators that can help us get a more holistic picture of what is going on under the hood. Often we see many development organizations presenting numbers in big and bold fonts just to emphasize their supposed impact. Questioning the authenticity of those numbers and understanding the underlying variables and assumptions is crucial in explaining what exactly those numbers represent. Too many organizations are putting up big numbers and claim to have positively impacted thousands of individuals. While there might be some truth to those numbers, they do not provide an objective and holistic picture and are far from ground realities.

I also think that the targets that we have set for helping the poor are not ambitious enough. For example, in this day and age, categorizing someone who lives on a little more than $2 a day as not poor is baffling. Not to mention that this indicator completely ignores the health condition and educational attainment of individuals.

The focus may be on quick fixes

Another key problem is that many development initiatives tend to mislead the donors by proposing quick fixes or by forcing a particular angle into the project design. For example, if you can prove that your project will somehow impact women, even if in a parallel universe, then good for you! Tokenism is prevalent where interventions give a false sense of inclusion. Since many entities are looking for quick funding and they usually do not have much time to cook up a proposal, they end up proposing quick fixes which do not sustain in the long run. This is not entirely a problem at the receiving end since donors are also in a rush to push the money out. It feels good to put it up on their websites and publish content that they invested 10 million dollars to help farmers in rural Pakistan.

I have discussed some of the flaws of the development sector above. The development sector has failed on many fronts. I do not think that abandoning the whole development enterprise will benefit anyone. However, a serious rethinking of development is past due. As development sector practitioners, we must not lose sight of who we are serving and what our end goal is. Getting lost in the details and the processes will only serve to make us lose sight of the very people we are supposed to help. People must be at the center of our interventions, and we must design our initiatives in active consultation with the communities that will be impacted. We must set more ambitious goals for the poor and the marginalized and must work towards creating a more equitable world where the poor can have the freedom to steer the direction of their lives.