How can ‘development’ – the very idea of human progress – be reformulated to better incorporate the political dimension? This report argues that the international community must fundamentally change the way it understands and promotes development, particularly in fragile contexts. It asserts that the MDGs are inadequate measures of development, representing a confused paradigm. It proposes instead a generic vision of human progress based on key characteristics of a ‘developed society’. How to achieve this vision should be defined at local level. To lead, promote, harness and catalyse change processes in fragile contexts, international agencies need to work within the power dynamics of the political economy while promoting changes to it. In order to do this, they need to clarify their purpose and realign their organisational arrangements, staffing and incentives.
The MDGs represent an overly-narrow view of change. They are misused in a way which confuses the ends with the means, they are highly unrealistic, and they are set at a global level when development happens much more locally. They even act as perverse incentives, obstructing the development process.
The prevailing development discourse tends to pull analysis, policy and action away from the political, institutional and societal towards the technical. This is partly because technical issues are simpler and less contentious, and also because the idea of ‘development’ has become confused.
Instead, the concept of development could be based on a generic vision of human progress. This could comprise six key characteristics:
- Equal access to political voice, and the legitimate and accountable use of power
- Equal participation in a vibrant and sustainable economy
- Equal access to justice, and equality before the law
- Freedom from insecurity
- The ability of people to maintain their mental and physical well-being, to have aspirations and make progress towards them
- The self-reinforcing presence of institutions and values that support and enable equitable progress and peace.
How to achieve such a vision needs to be defined locally, not globally, and should be informed by the lessons of history. Historically, societies have made substantial progress by:
- Opening up access to political and economic opportunities, and developing a dynamic civil society
- Establishing states accountable to and with a strong sense of membership by the people, and which adopt ‘developmental’ goals and policies.
- Establishing, gradually extending, and eventually universalising the rule of law
- Evolving from personal to impersonal forms of participation in the economy, politics and civil society – such as from ‘big man’ political leadership to the idea of ‘political office’
- Achieving sustained and shared economic growth
- Developing a culture which supports the exercise of initiative and encourages creativity
- Transferring control of organised violence from the hands of powerful individuals or factions, to the accountable state
- Adopting increasingly democratic or representative and broadly accountable forms of government.
These changes have come about through a combination of circumstances, leadership, negotiation, effective relationships, and when incentives for those in power were aligned with the direction of change. To promote, harness and catalyse processes that produce comparable changes in fragile contexts, agencies need to work with the grain, to change the grain – to work within the power dynamics of the political economy, while promoting changes to it.
However, international development agencies are not set up to deal with the politics of aid. They are designing new aid concepts and policies, but unless they fundamentally reassess their mission and role, systemic inertia may make them unable to adapt sufficiently to adopt their ideas. It is therefore important to:
- Reframe development discourse to help create a better understanding of what constitutes development, and how change happens. This will require good leadership from within the sector, from politicians and in the media.
- Create a new development narrative to replace the MDGs, based on a global vision for change. This needs to recognise development as a local, endogenous process and the role of international agencies as to promote, catalyse and nudge change, based on a sophisticated understanding of the political economy.
- Make international development institutions more fit for purpose. This means clarifying a ‘vision-based’ purpose and changing organisational arrangements, staffing, and incentives accordingly.
