What works in international development?
‘What works in international development?’ is the kind of trick question you might get asked in a job interview! ‘Why is Africa poor?’. ‘How do you explain inequality?’. What works in international development?’.
Simon Maxwell writes that the question is a trick because it begs a host of others. What is ‘development’? For whom? Where? When? And what does ‘works’ mean? Over what time period? And at what cost?
One thing is certain. Achieving ‘development’ is not simply about adding up a series of technical interventions: high-yielding seeds, vaccines, Vitamin A capsules, solar panels, ARVs . . . These are the conjuror’s accessories, essential to the act. But the true magic lies in the bigger performance: the setting, the participation of the public, and the wider context that accompanies the presdigitation.
As with magic, so with development. In this case, however, there are five general lessons.
First, define ‘development’ in a holistic way, which recognises economic, social and environmental dimensions. The Sustainable Development Goals make this point with eloquence, emphasising that: poverty is not just about income, but also health, education, livelihood and rights; equity matters, leaving no-one behind; and climate, air quality, oceans and forests cannot be sacrificed on the altar of growth. A highly relevant literature in development studies is about the need to balance growth and human development. Invest too much in the former, and inequality may soar. Invest too much in the latter, and millions may be left with reasonable health and education, but without jobs. Is this perhaps the case in Africa today?
Second, take the long view. Political scientists who study the role of institutions in development routinely do this, taking a timespan of several centuries. For example, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 often appears in accounts of UK political and economic history, as marking a decisive step away from absolute monarchy; others refer back to the Black Death in the fourteenth century, when high mortality led to labour scarcity and weakened the power of capital over labour The rest of us need to remember that development is necessarily disruptive, with winners and losers whose ultimate welfare is difficult to predict. A recent example: solar panels used to power pumps for irrigation offer short term benefits to farmers, but may contribute to depletion of groundwater sources, with long term costs. As Chou en Lai famously said, when asked in 1972 about the impact of the French Revolution, ‘it is too early to say’.
Third, think global, not local. Because the world economy is increasingly integrated, and because so much of the economy is organised around global value chains, the impact of change in one part of the world may have an effect elsewhere. There are many examples in history. In 1895, India exported 187,000 tons of indigo, but in 1913 only 11,000. Why? Because German firms had developed a process to manufacture indigo and the price of the dye had halved. It follows that countries need to know what is happening elsewhere, and to think about their comparative and competitive advantage in a fast-changing world. More broadly, the welfare of individuals is partly shaped by global processes. For example, the current debate about globalisation, and the anger of those who consider themselves ‘left behind’ in developed countries, sometimes manifests itself in the view that growth and poverty reduction in China have somehow been at the expense of the West. Development should not be a zero sum game, and is not, but to some it may appear so.
Fourth, try to manage change. If development is multi-dimensional, disruptive, long term and global, and if there are inevitably winners as well as losers in the short-term, then Government policy has a key role to play. This is a long-standing theme, for example in relation to the social dimensions of structural adjustment, and one which has recently been highlighted in the wake of disenchantment with globalisation. Governments can adjust both the regulatory framework and the pattern of public expenditure to achieve social goals – for example, via incentives to introduce low-carbon technologies, or via labour market and social protection policies. Governments can also work together to create global institutions and rules which ensure fairness and transparency: multilateralism is a key ingredient in defining ‘what works?’.
Finally, look to the future not the past. Henry Ford apparently did not quite say ‘history is bunk’, but it is true that population growth, urbanisation, technical change, and, indeed, development itself, have greatly changed the context in which the question ‘what works?’ is asked. Thus, ‘solutions’ which might have been appropriate even a few years ago might not be so now. As just one example, the invention of low energy LED lighting consigned to history a suite of older technologies designed to improve low-cost lighting for rural households not connected to the grid. The challenge with respect to finding out what works is to hit a moving target.
These five principles can be applied to a range of current challenges – poverty reduction to be sure, but also more broadly. Abstracting from immediate preoccupations (unemployment, conflict, migration, environmental degradation, ageing societies . . .), the world has to deal with three closely-related longer-term issues. These are; first, governing globalisation in such way that it works for all, including those left behind in ‘forgotten communities’ in developed countries; second, achieving a smooth transition to a low-carbon economy; and third, managing technical change, especially automation, in such a way that the potential destruction of jobs does not create social chaos. These are closely-related because they all deal with the question of winners and losers, and because they all require active Government.
Perhaps this takes us a long way from making lists of project-level ideas. However, a great deal is at stake. The political challenge facing leaders is to chart a course between rampant neo-liberalism on the one hand, and, on the other, a populist narrative which circles the wagons and is resistant to change. The middle way is to create a vision of productive, healthy and socially equitable change which is achievable with the tools we have available.
