Chambers on Participation

Absolutism in the Song Dynasty, leading to a critical lack of decentralized creative destruction and absolutist control, perpetuating macro-scale decline...the summation of the last chapter of Why Nations Fail. While absolutely fascinating for a student of development theory, and certainly encompassing the rigor and depth of extraordinary insight, there is something fundamental lacking in this tome, as well as in so many others: the people. Where are the stories of the lives of the people, the poor, the disenfranchised, those affected by these macro-scale struggles? We only hear the stories of the rulers, of the kings, of the absolutist leaders and of the pioneers; what about the lives of those held in sway, those struggling to survive, failing to survive?
I come back often to the words of Robert Chambers, to ground the theory in reality; it can be difficult to incorporate the incredible depths of knowledge, the specializations, with the situations that simple people survive in every day, untouched by this maddening institution that is developmental academia. And most lives in the developing world will continue to never be touched by our PHD's, our scholarly articles, our governance projects and our World Bank partnership deals; the creme is skimmed off of the top, and all those below will never even know of its sweet existence.
What of the lives of the "others?"

I comes back to the words of Chambers (1995: "Whose Reality Counts?")

One may speculate on what topics the poor and powerless would commission papers if they could convene conferences and summits: perhaps on greed, hypocrisy and exploitation. But the poor are powerless and cannot and do not convene summits; and those papers are rarely written. It is not surprising: we do not like to examine ourselves. To salve our consciences we rationalize. Neo-liberalism paints greed as inadvertent altruism. The objects of development are, anyway, the poor, not us. It is they who are the problem, not us. We are the solution. So we hold the spotlight to them (from a safe distance). The poor have no spotlight to hold to us.

But poverty and deprivation are functions of polarization, of power and powerlessness. Any practical analysis has to examine the whole system: - “us”, the powerful as well as “them” the powerless. Since we have more power to act, it is hard to evade the imperative to turn the spotlight round and look at ourselves. ..

Our views of the realities of the poor, and of what should be done, are constructed mainly from a distance, and can be seen to be constructed mainly for our convenience. We embody those views in the words and concepts which we use.

Why Nations Fail on Sachs

Having spent a good deal of time in the last few years following the work of Jeffrey Sachs, and his theoretical arguments that poor geography is the chief determining factor for poverty (and, inversely, if we tackle the geographic limitations, such as disease and land productivity burdens, we can eradicate poverty), it has been interesting to see his research dismantled by the duo, Acemoglu and Robinson, in Why Nations Fail:

" Tropical diseases obviously cause much suffering and high rates of infant mortality in Africa, but they are not the reason that Africa is poor. Disease is largely a consequence of poverty and of governments being unable to undertake the public health measures necessary to eradicate them."
Certainly a valid point, yet, the authors do not fully address the issue of poverty traps, a central theory in Sachs' work. And although I do agree with Acemoglu and Robinson on this point (something about Singapore being malaria-free while remaining in the tropics raised an initial red flag in my mind), they do not address the practical steps that need to be taken to address the current state of affairs in many of these nations. If nations are stuck in cycles of poverty and disease and incapacity in handling public health measures, how do we create the inclusive economic and political structures needed to then address the institutional change necessary for country-wide shifts? 

Why Nations Fail

I am currently reading the excellent new book, "Why Nations Fail," by Acemoglu and Robinson. First introduced to this trio earlier in the year with their colonial/settler theories on development (extractive colonies vs. inclusive colonies as being the key predeterminant for future economic success), this book has been impressing at every step with its clarity and purpose....

A comment, on their views on failing educational systems:
"The low education level of poor countries is caused by economic institutions that fail to create incentives for parents to educate their children, and by political institutions that fail to induce the government to build, finance, and support schools and the wishes of parents and children." 

While I agree that inclusive economic institutions are vital to a nation's (and individuals) prosperity, schooling incentives can often be decoupled from the reality of the immediate economic climate, or better yet, inverse to the broader economic climate; desperation or struggle  in one's current situation will lead to an increased hope in the power of education as a "savior" for the next generation, a though and wish echoed constantly in the developing world.
The "incentives" for schooling, thus, often fall under the familial desire for the next generation to prosper, and an often misguided hope in the individual economic rewards that can be reaped by sending children to school (see: Poor Economics). Thus, I would argue, the above proposition regarding economic institutions (though I agree with the political institutions necessity) is much too broad and general to render valid, in the area of education, as proposed.

A Moment of Hope, Dashed.

"Robert Mugabe battling for his life in a Singaporean hospital..." The news wires rang out yesterday morning here in London, the second bout of hopeful (for the citizens of Southern Africa) news to come out of the region in a week (the first being the demise of the Malawian Autocrat, President Bingu wa Mutharika). 


I do not celebrate the demise of other human beings, (being a humanist), but when individual's actions have enormously devastating repercussions for other human beings, and when these individuals become entrenched into power through their own subversion of institutions, then often, death is the only release. 
What we witnessed in Malawi this week was political institutions, in the wake of the death of the President, wobbling and shaking, but not crumbling; an ultimate test for political stability and openness in a desperately poor nation. However, in a nation such as Zimbabwe, equally ransacked economically and politically, this ransacking has been so much more complete in nature, that the hopes of a legal transition, a constitutional transition after the death of Mugabe seems extremely unlikely. Just as in Malawi, where the President's brother was set to step in, unconstitutionally, in the power vacuum, it seems predetermined that Mugabe's feared security chief will be the next in line to hold the reins of power in Zimbabwe. Thus, if legitimate political transition is to be seen as almost impossible in the political climate of Zimbabwe, what is the other option? I would argue, in this case, rebellion, awakening, a Zimbabwean Spring, is the only answer, the only hope. 
As Mugabe walked off the gleaming white private jet back into a nation that he has ruled as a vampire for the last 30 years, a breathe of hope vanished. When will it return?