Gender and Development
"The distinction between (biological) sex and gender (with social and cultural origin) was increasingly being put into operation to challenge the existing social norms and positioning of men and women. This led to the problematizing of gender relations and the ways in which they impact development policies themselves. This approach, known as GAD (gender and development) has been taken forward and applied to a range of development policies and practices" (p. 390).
I think the distinction is important because it does have a different emphasis. It has shifted from "Women in development" (WID) to "Gender and Development" (GAD). Feminists in the 1970s wanted to challenge whether the category of women created a barrier that excluded them from development processes and they wanted institutions to rethink gender in the bigger context of development. Feminists and gender advocates saw that it was wrong to integrate gender into development planning by contextual interpretation of women's needs" based on her biological sex. It was time to rethink things and see them in terms of social and cultural contexts.
It's important for women of the North and the South to team up together to "achieve quality and dignity in their domestic lives as well as safety and respect" (p. 387).
The book says that there is a link between women and nature, and the 'ecofeminist' idea values motherhood as a very spiritual and a very productive calling. This concept is called "Women, environment and development" (WED).
Basically, we need to restructure the way we perceive gender and women's issues. Instead of separating the roles of men and women, we need to see both roles in the context of development, to see their social, cultural and economic relations as working towards a better and equal world. This means that we cannot ignore the 'masculinity' of men and men's role in development as well. With this restructuring, policy interventions require a gender analysis. GAD is a broader approach to address inequality in which men AND women both are partners in development.
Summary:
WED- highlights relationship women have with environment as main users and managers of natural resources
WID- focuses on women
GAD- focuses on gender relations and resource activities
gender mainstreaming- analyzing gender in all aspects of development, not only in women or women's issues and the insistence that gender issues should be placed at the heart of all development policies and practices.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
media for 4/26
"Nigerian Oil"- National Geographic Magazine
The photo on the front page of Port Harcourt is quite a sad sight to see. The pretty blue sky is stained with black smoke above crowded huts next to gray water. Nigeria is the most populated country in Africa and oil has caused "Nigeria has become a dangerous country, addicted to oil money, with people increasingly willing to turn to corruption, sabotage, and murder to get a fix of the wealth. The cruelest twist is that half a century of oil extraction in the delta has failed to make the lives of the people better. Instead, they are poorer still, and hopeless."
In and of itself, oil is a good thing. It brings the prospect of growth and financial wealth for the nation. It will bring in revenue and jobs to work at the gas plants. Oil is a blessing but also a curse for the people of Nigeria. It is an indirect cause of numerous environmental problems. Oil spills, polluted groundwater, ruined cropland etc. The fisherman talked about the effects of constructing the gas plant. Pipelines are being built through farmland and swamps, barreling through the wetlands. Acid rain now pelts the metal rooftops. Builders tore down the forest which used to protect the towns from the east wind so now the rains and winds destroy the Nigerians' rooftops. This may seem like an irrelevant, seasonal problem but when people need money to rebuild their destroyed houses, it takes a toll on the whole household, economically, financially, socially. People cannot even catch fresh fish... relying on imported frozen fish.
Quote: "With all the oil money coming in, the state doesn't need taxes from people. Rather than being a resource for the state, the people are impediments. There is no incentive anymore for the government to build schools or hospitals....I can say this," Osuoka said firmly. "Nigeria was a much better place without oil." We can see this "natural resource curse" throughout the developing world. For some countries the natural resource has been diamonds. Whatever the case, the natural resource has tremendous potential to boost the economy but the country is left in a horrible economic state, barely able to provide for its own people. It is very paradoxical but happens because rulers have divided interests. In the case of Nigeria, like the said, the government has no incentive to build schools, hospitals or maintain a stable infrastructure. As long as money is coming in, basic social necessities are being ignored.
Quote: "The oil companies, led by five multinational firms—Royal Dutch Shell, Total, Italy's Agip, and ExxonMobil and Chevron from the U.S.—transformed a remote, nearly inaccessible wetland into industrial wilderness. The imprint: 4,500 miles (7,200 kilometers) of pipelines, 159 oil fields, and 275 flow stations, their gas flares visible day and night from miles away." The article talked about how the first discovery of oil was prior to Nigeria's independence in the 1960s. Now, multinational firms are still "attached" to Nigeria. Their pipelines are increasing Nigeria's dependence upon richer countries. In a way, it's a form of post-colonialism. Ironic, but true. Big companies still want to get a share of Nigeria's riches, and none of the profits are benefiting the people.
The oil companies gave out cash to village chiefs or provided health clinics or water tanks to allow them to build a pipeline through their village. While this may seem like reasonable compensation to the oil companies, money doesn't solve everything. The article mentions how projects would be semi-completes and left useless, like incomplete schools, clinics without staff, water tanks without pumps. Providing cash will not put a bandage on the problems the villagers face. Oil is the cause of escalating violence from rebel groups in the area.
"Clinton Signs Oil Deal In Angola"- Reuters
USAID partners with Chevron (US) as a sign of reconciliation. She praises Angola for their rebuilding/peace efforts after 27 years of civil war and encourages them to schedule an upcoming presidential election because the president (in office for 30 years) She also encourages Angola to diversify its market to agriculture. She says the US is interested in investing in Angola's farming sector. This is all in the name of "development assistance" under the Obama Administration.
"America's New Frontier" -Al Jazeera
Question: Can Obama turn US-African relations in a new direction?
People don't know who is in the lead, the military or the state department. There needs to be a balance between diplomacy and defense. The global war on terrorism after the attacks of September 11th effected US relations with Africa, especially concerning oil. President Bush wanted to start getting oil from Africa. New interests in Africa. Competing for interests in natural resources with China.
Question: What role will Africom play and how did it came to be?
It was launched Oct. 2008 to establish "security, stability and cooperation" in Africa, support US policy and partner with US's military groups in Africa. Africa would be suspicious of Africom because of US's history... why would soldiers be involved? This is usually a case for diplomats and development workers. But according to the video it made sense in military terms, however people failed to ask Africa how they felt about it, of course. It seems like military imposition, building US military headquarters in Africa. Africa has a different view from the US, one of non-alignment, they don't want to work under any powers since it has colonial implications, so Africom's progress was downplayed. It's headquarters ended up being in Germany and the leaders in Washington D.C. Africom tried to play down the skepticism.
This Youtube video relates with Clinton's interest in Angola. Before watching this segment I was confused about the connection but after watching this, I understood better. US wants to increase its relations with Africa. Whether its through Africom (military) or USAID (developmental assistance), the US will try to increase its influence and partnership with the continent.
The photo on the front page of Port Harcourt is quite a sad sight to see. The pretty blue sky is stained with black smoke above crowded huts next to gray water. Nigeria is the most populated country in Africa and oil has caused "Nigeria has become a dangerous country, addicted to oil money, with people increasingly willing to turn to corruption, sabotage, and murder to get a fix of the wealth. The cruelest twist is that half a century of oil extraction in the delta has failed to make the lives of the people better. Instead, they are poorer still, and hopeless."
In and of itself, oil is a good thing. It brings the prospect of growth and financial wealth for the nation. It will bring in revenue and jobs to work at the gas plants. Oil is a blessing but also a curse for the people of Nigeria. It is an indirect cause of numerous environmental problems. Oil spills, polluted groundwater, ruined cropland etc. The fisherman talked about the effects of constructing the gas plant. Pipelines are being built through farmland and swamps, barreling through the wetlands. Acid rain now pelts the metal rooftops. Builders tore down the forest which used to protect the towns from the east wind so now the rains and winds destroy the Nigerians' rooftops. This may seem like an irrelevant, seasonal problem but when people need money to rebuild their destroyed houses, it takes a toll on the whole household, economically, financially, socially. People cannot even catch fresh fish... relying on imported frozen fish.
Quote: "With all the oil money coming in, the state doesn't need taxes from people. Rather than being a resource for the state, the people are impediments. There is no incentive anymore for the government to build schools or hospitals....I can say this," Osuoka said firmly. "Nigeria was a much better place without oil." We can see this "natural resource curse" throughout the developing world. For some countries the natural resource has been diamonds. Whatever the case, the natural resource has tremendous potential to boost the economy but the country is left in a horrible economic state, barely able to provide for its own people. It is very paradoxical but happens because rulers have divided interests. In the case of Nigeria, like the said, the government has no incentive to build schools, hospitals or maintain a stable infrastructure. As long as money is coming in, basic social necessities are being ignored.
Quote: "The oil companies, led by five multinational firms—Royal Dutch Shell, Total, Italy's Agip, and ExxonMobil and Chevron from the U.S.—transformed a remote, nearly inaccessible wetland into industrial wilderness. The imprint: 4,500 miles (7,200 kilometers) of pipelines, 159 oil fields, and 275 flow stations, their gas flares visible day and night from miles away." The article talked about how the first discovery of oil was prior to Nigeria's independence in the 1960s. Now, multinational firms are still "attached" to Nigeria. Their pipelines are increasing Nigeria's dependence upon richer countries. In a way, it's a form of post-colonialism. Ironic, but true. Big companies still want to get a share of Nigeria's riches, and none of the profits are benefiting the people.
The oil companies gave out cash to village chiefs or provided health clinics or water tanks to allow them to build a pipeline through their village. While this may seem like reasonable compensation to the oil companies, money doesn't solve everything. The article mentions how projects would be semi-completes and left useless, like incomplete schools, clinics without staff, water tanks without pumps. Providing cash will not put a bandage on the problems the villagers face. Oil is the cause of escalating violence from rebel groups in the area.
"Clinton Signs Oil Deal In Angola"- Reuters
USAID partners with Chevron (US) as a sign of reconciliation. She praises Angola for their rebuilding/peace efforts after 27 years of civil war and encourages them to schedule an upcoming presidential election because the president (in office for 30 years) She also encourages Angola to diversify its market to agriculture. She says the US is interested in investing in Angola's farming sector. This is all in the name of "development assistance" under the Obama Administration.
"America's New Frontier" -Al Jazeera
Question: Can Obama turn US-African relations in a new direction?
People don't know who is in the lead, the military or the state department. There needs to be a balance between diplomacy and defense. The global war on terrorism after the attacks of September 11th effected US relations with Africa, especially concerning oil. President Bush wanted to start getting oil from Africa. New interests in Africa. Competing for interests in natural resources with China.
Question: What role will Africom play and how did it came to be?
It was launched Oct. 2008 to establish "security, stability and cooperation" in Africa, support US policy and partner with US's military groups in Africa. Africa would be suspicious of Africom because of US's history... why would soldiers be involved? This is usually a case for diplomats and development workers. But according to the video it made sense in military terms, however people failed to ask Africa how they felt about it, of course. It seems like military imposition, building US military headquarters in Africa. Africa has a different view from the US, one of non-alignment, they don't want to work under any powers since it has colonial implications, so Africom's progress was downplayed. It's headquarters ended up being in Germany and the leaders in Washington D.C. Africom tried to play down the skepticism.
This Youtube video relates with Clinton's interest in Angola. Before watching this segment I was confused about the connection but after watching this, I understood better. US wants to increase its relations with Africa. Whether its through Africom (military) or USAID (developmental assistance), the US will try to increase its influence and partnership with the continent.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Ferguson Ch. 6, 7, 9
Ch. 6 "Livestock Development"
The Thaba-Tseka Project was to develop livestock. The project involved dividing eight controlled grazing blocks of 4,000 hectares each. Members of the association would be entitled to grazing privileges and their cattle that grazed on the the land would be healthier and heavier. Some benefits of these grazing blocks would be extension, research, seeding and fertilization (p.170).
The following were conditions to be part of the association:
keeping fewer but more quality animals
livestock was to be purebred
following recommended management practices
removing animals that did not qualify for the assoc.
Things started to go downhill when people (not in the association) cut the fence to let their livestock graze. When these cases were brought to court, it was ruled that the cattle association did not have the rights to the allocated grazing area. This was another problem of appropriation... the land did not belong to the people running the project. There were many other reasons why locals who qualified to be part of the association refused to join it. 1) locals did not want to say that the project was a bad idea, even though they all felt that way 2) it would be betrayal to their fellow friends if they joined because the land should be shared 3) locals were suspicious of the plan.
The project also wanted to control the movement of livestock and their grazing but the locals disagreed. It was feared that: "the government is trying to deprive us of our animals by forcing them into an area where they will be unable to find enough food, so they will die" (p. 177).
Here is a quote from the book: "the 'introduction' of livestock markets was itself expected to dramatically transform the way in which people held stock. It was imagined that the provision of market outlets for livestock would make it possible for the first time for stock owners, previously isolated from the cash economy, to evaluate their animals in terms of monetary profit and loss" (p. 179). Therefore the project set up auctions was the planners were pleased but Ferguson argues that this was not an improvement because auctions were set up by the government even before the project started since the 1950s. The project's aim to "stimulate" a livestock economy was not credible.
I found this quote interesting: "The idea that livestock could be raised on commercial principles was appealing to women because it challenged the Mystique and promised to make 'men's animals' an asset that could be freely manipulated to maximize household income" (p. 187). I wonder if the outcome of the project would have been different if women were in charge of the cattle. I guess it depends on the target audience and the amount of support in order for a project to work successfully.
Questions:
1) Would the outcome of the project have been different if local women were the target audience?
2) Would it have made a difference if the planners of the project were women?
* * *
Ch. 7 "The Decentralization Debacle"
One problem with the project was planners did not realize the effect of politics from their project. From our textbook, we know that "development" is always generally tied to government, so the project's attempt to decentralize power apolitically is not possible. Page 194 says that "bureaucracy becomes the vehicle for the exercise of a particular kind of power." This idea is seen through the Thaba-Tseka project because it tried to decentralize administration in the local district by coordinating all the "development" activities at the district level instead of dealing with the bureaucrats. The project also tried to influence policies at the district level because it was a quicker way to get more funds.
* * *
Ch. 9 "The anti-politics machine"
Even though there the project was deemed a failure there were some things that were beneficial. The government of Lesotho had a stronger presence in the area, gov. services became available, a post office, police station and immigration control office was built. There were other services such as extension, seed supply and livestock marketing, health officials who monitored childcare and nutrition. Also a stronger military presence in the area due to better roads.
Ferguson describes "development" as a "machine for reinforcing and expanding the exercise of bureaucratic state power, which incidentally takes "poverty" as its point of entry- launching an intervention that may have no effect on poverty but does in fact have other concrete effects" (p. 255-256). He talks about how development has unintended effects and that is why many people are still attracted to development projects despite a running record of failures. Ferguson says that any development project forms a coherent whole, it is an anti-politics machine. I'm trying to better understand what he's staying here: that the "development apparatus suspends politics from even the most sensitive political operations" (p. 256).
Questions:
1) From the quote that development "suspends politics from sensitive political institutions, what does Ferguson mean by political operations? Does he mean it's the government's job to handle poverty/development?
2) What do you think attracted the Canadians in tackling the Thaba-Tseka project in the first place? Do you think they were attracted to the notion that development was an anti-politics machine?
Ferguson Ch. 2 & 5
Ch. 2 "The Constitution of the object of 'development'- Lesotho as a 'less developed country."
I like the opening of this chapter that basically debunks the World Bank's Report that Lesotho has "bleak economic prospects" and was "so ill-prepared" (WB1975). The following is a list on page 26 the proof that Lesotho was in fact already established- just not in the same way that is measured by the WB.
factors in Lesotho's economy identified in 1910:
money economy
market for Western commodities
plough agriculture
cash/subsistence crops, wool production
airports, roads, schools, churches, hospitals, labor migrant system
In 1910 the area Lesotho stands today is called "Basutoland." Ferguson makes it clear that the WB's description of Lesotho is very inaccurate. He says academic scholars would think it was crazy to say that the country was "untouched" by modern economic development."
Ferguson says: "Academic scholars of Lesotho, of all stripes, acknowledge this transformation [in 1910]. Suffice it to say that it is almost inconceivable that a serious scholar of Lesotho's history could say that Lesotho in 1966 was 'a traditional peasant, subsistence society...' (p.27)
This makes me think about all the guidelines of the WB and how dangerous it is to see things from only one side. If development projects were always based on inaccurate perceptions of developing countries, I would be very skeptical of how helpful they really are and I would not just take information as it is given. When analyzing the state of a country, it is important to look at the history, culture and not only measure progress in numbers. This whole chapter goes on to analyze the rest of the WB's plan titled " Lesotho: A Development Challenge." Ferguson goes on to discuss the preamble and each section of the plan like "the setting," "human resources," "trends in the economy," and "wages," "government operations," "employment" etc.
On "sectors," Ferguson comments that all the sectors have no unity. He says they make no sense unless we see them NOT as a description of an economy, but as a list of things which might potentially be "developed" (p. 49). This would mean that agriculture, mining, water resources, manufacturing industries, tourism, public services, education and banking do not work in unity to make the nation function at its potential. I can see how Ferguson describes the sectors in disarray and how the development agency of the World Bank has a chance to interceded and help out.
I found it humorous that Ferguson (p. 55) compares hasty classifications of LDCs to the following:
(1) all banks have money
(2) every river has two banks; therefore
(3) all rivers have money
the development version is:
(1) poor countries are "less developed"
(2) less developed countries (LDC) are those which have not yet been fully brought into the modern economy; therefore
(3) poor countries are those which have not yet been fully brought into the modern economy
In conclusion to chapter 2, LDCs differ everywhere. The classification of Lesotho as a LDC shapes the way policies are formed and assistance programs are enacted within the country.
Ch. 5 "The Bovine Mystique"
This chapter studies the power, property and livestock in rural Lesotho and takes a closer look at the Thaba-Tseka Project. Cattle is important to people in Lesotho. They highly prize their cattle for religious, social and symbolic reasons. The Westerners saw people keeping their livestock as "backward"- why keep skinny cattle if you can sell them on the market and make some money for yourself?
The puzzling thing to "westerners" Ferguson calls "the Bovine Mystique." Even in times of drought, the Basutos refused to sell their livestock and if they sold for a high market price. People took such pride in their livestock that they would rather die. But it's not that the Basutos were ignorant. They understood the concept entirely. The bottom line was that livestock is not a commodity in Lesotho. Ferguson states that the Bovine Mystique is "the result of the fact that "livestock" is constituted as a special domain of property by cultural rules, the most important of which establishes a "one-way barrier" between the domains of money as livestock" (p. 147).
I think this concept was so surprising to westerners because we would sell our cattle if that meant saving our lives. But to the people of Lesotho, cattle was not people property that could be sold off so simply. This fact would have set an alarm off in my head that the cattle development projects was on slippery slopes. Since a Canadian agency drew up the plans for this, they may not have anticipated the HUGE failure that was to come, because they didn't understand the relationship between the people and their cattle.
I like the opening of this chapter that basically debunks the World Bank's Report that Lesotho has "bleak economic prospects" and was "so ill-prepared" (WB1975). The following is a list on page 26 the proof that Lesotho was in fact already established- just not in the same way that is measured by the WB.
factors in Lesotho's economy identified in 1910:
money economy
market for Western commodities
plough agriculture
cash/subsistence crops, wool production
airports, roads, schools, churches, hospitals, labor migrant system
In 1910 the area Lesotho stands today is called "Basutoland." Ferguson makes it clear that the WB's description of Lesotho is very inaccurate. He says academic scholars would think it was crazy to say that the country was "untouched" by modern economic development."
Ferguson says: "Academic scholars of Lesotho, of all stripes, acknowledge this transformation [in 1910]. Suffice it to say that it is almost inconceivable that a serious scholar of Lesotho's history could say that Lesotho in 1966 was 'a traditional peasant, subsistence society...' (p.27)
This makes me think about all the guidelines of the WB and how dangerous it is to see things from only one side. If development projects were always based on inaccurate perceptions of developing countries, I would be very skeptical of how helpful they really are and I would not just take information as it is given. When analyzing the state of a country, it is important to look at the history, culture and not only measure progress in numbers. This whole chapter goes on to analyze the rest of the WB's plan titled " Lesotho: A Development Challenge." Ferguson goes on to discuss the preamble and each section of the plan like "the setting," "human resources," "trends in the economy," and "wages," "government operations," "employment" etc.
On "sectors," Ferguson comments that all the sectors have no unity. He says they make no sense unless we see them NOT as a description of an economy, but as a list of things which might potentially be "developed" (p. 49). This would mean that agriculture, mining, water resources, manufacturing industries, tourism, public services, education and banking do not work in unity to make the nation function at its potential. I can see how Ferguson describes the sectors in disarray and how the development agency of the World Bank has a chance to interceded and help out.
I found it humorous that Ferguson (p. 55) compares hasty classifications of LDCs to the following:
(1) all banks have money
(2) every river has two banks; therefore
(3) all rivers have money
the development version is:
(1) poor countries are "less developed"
(2) less developed countries (LDC) are those which have not yet been fully brought into the modern economy; therefore
(3) poor countries are those which have not yet been fully brought into the modern economy
In conclusion to chapter 2, LDCs differ everywhere. The classification of Lesotho as a LDC shapes the way policies are formed and assistance programs are enacted within the country.
Ch. 5 "The Bovine Mystique"
This chapter studies the power, property and livestock in rural Lesotho and takes a closer look at the Thaba-Tseka Project. Cattle is important to people in Lesotho. They highly prize their cattle for religious, social and symbolic reasons. The Westerners saw people keeping their livestock as "backward"- why keep skinny cattle if you can sell them on the market and make some money for yourself?
The puzzling thing to "westerners" Ferguson calls "the Bovine Mystique." Even in times of drought, the Basutos refused to sell their livestock and if they sold for a high market price. People took such pride in their livestock that they would rather die. But it's not that the Basutos were ignorant. They understood the concept entirely. The bottom line was that livestock is not a commodity in Lesotho. Ferguson states that the Bovine Mystique is "the result of the fact that "livestock" is constituted as a special domain of property by cultural rules, the most important of which establishes a "one-way barrier" between the domains of money as livestock" (p. 147).
I think this concept was so surprising to westerners because we would sell our cattle if that meant saving our lives. But to the people of Lesotho, cattle was not people property that could be sold off so simply. This fact would have set an alarm off in my head that the cattle development projects was on slippery slopes. Since a Canadian agency drew up the plans for this, they may not have anticipated the HUGE failure that was to come, because they didn't understand the relationship between the people and their cattle.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Ch. 13 Journal
"Half a Century of Development"
"Has the idea of development ever been useful?" (p. 308)
Amartya Sen, Nobel Peace Prize winner says yes, but only in the context that development should be about the enrichment of human lives. I agree with her. Development enables countries to boost their economy, increase human rights, women empowerment, improve education, public health, government infrastructure and the like. Overall, development is a good thing. When a country is developing, it is working towards improving whatever state its in and progressively working towards change. I think the recent theory of development has gotten very jumbled, complicated and theoretical when it is simply a matter of economics, and liberty from colonialism. This is generally the "western" view. Yes, there are many oppositions that development is bad, but only when politics are corrupt, or there are mixed motives, or, when development styles are imposed on countries. Development works when it happens to meet the specific needs of a country. Development should be tailored to each individual country because there is no "one-size-fits-all" plan.
The concept of development is a good thing because it gets people thinking about how their country fits into the global state of affairs, and it gets people thinking about history. Development is meant to be an equalizer and we can draw from historic examples of when people have made mistakes. History in the context of development gives people a guideline for identifying progress and recognizes disparities. Also, when the economy improves, so do the peoples' livelihoods. The more money is flowing into the country, the more capable the ruling powers have to invest in their people and their land. The problem arises concerning the "usefulness" of development when the money doesn't always go where it was planned to go. Or, rather there is no plan at all for development and money just trickles into the hands of the elite few. That is when negative things happen as a result of misuse and abuse of power, but development itself is not to blame.
After 50 years of development, there has been so much research conducted, case studies and literature on development. Globalization has been happening for so long but with the increase in info technology, communication and media sources, conversations about development has sky-rocketed. It has come a long way since the 1950s.
1940s: Marshall Plan
1944 Bretton Woods:
Conference of 44 nations, established the IMF, World Bank, UN, GATT/WHO.
1950s-60s: golden years
1970s: debt-driven expansion
1980s: development in reverse
neoliberalsim, LLDCs (lesser developed countries) grew in number
1990s: the end of development?
Development was 'declining' in the 1990s due to many changes. The collapse of the Soviet Union, the neoliberalization policies, the collapse of South-East Asian countries, the fall-back of conservative politics, change in policies through international organizations, compression of space and time through globalization, time as a commodity
vocab:
terms of trade= pricing of commodities sold compared to the pricing of commodities bought (p. 294)
Import Substitution Inducstrialization (ISI)= setting up domestic industries that originally come from imports, attract foreign investors to set up facilities in national boundaries
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Ch. 9 Journal
Agencies of Development
This chaptered talked about the role of the state, it's agency (actions and capacity to influence events) and structure (pattern and framework) in the context of development.
"In the South, political parties are political outputs, as instruments of the government. They frequently are created and used by political leaders to help legitimize their regimes, as well as to provide the distribution of patronage, a coalition of powerful political interests sufficient to sustain the government can be secured" (194).
Reaction: It is important to notice that political parties have their own agenda and are self-serving, using development initiatives to gain popularity. Many times political parties will not follow through with their promises.
Role of bureaucracies:
-frame or suggest policy outcomes, power & control
'Developmental state' sees development in terms of achieving economic growth, generally through state promotion of industrialization (196).
Reaction: This was a big trend in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Countries were trying to build capital, finances and be competitive in the world market. ODA's, official development assistance, refers to grants or soft loans provided by OECD to promote development. ODA is controlled by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC). Money is a tool used to spur development, and success is measured in terms of money.
The UN system has 6 principal organs:
-Trusteeship Council
-International Court of Justice
-Secretariat
-General Assembly
-Security Council
-Economic and Social Council
Some specialized agencies include UNDP, UNHCR, UNICEF, WFP, FAO, WHO. The IMF and World Bank are products of the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944. These are under control of rich countries because the President of the bank is always a US citizen and the director of the Fund is always Western European. This shows the imbalance of power within development agencies and reflects the division of the North and the South. The WB and IMF are further separated from the UN agencies because they provide a majority of the funding for development, serving the interests of the powerful. The poor countries are not the ones who have opinions on what is best for their country. The IMF and World Bank lack accountability to the rest of the UN. The World Bank shifted from poverty alleviation and lending money to finance projects to free-market strategies (206).
Conditionaality: giving loans or grants subject on conditions, popular in structural adjustment programs.
The NGO sector has grown considerably and provided lots of assistance since the 1980s. ODA is given through NGOs but this sector is not adequate in transform lives on the large scale because they lack capacity, support and funding. Some states ignore social issues and leave them up to NGOs or development agencies to handle, however true poverty reduction requires institutional changes provided as a right rather than goodwill (216).
Sunday, April 4, 2010
China Blues
This documentary was very disturbing yet eye-opening and insightful. It made me think twice about where my clothes come from. I can't imagine working for 17 hours and not having time the freedom to go to the bathroom when I need to, not getting paid overtime. These factory workers are so young. What stuck out to me was when "Little Jasmine" wanted to write a letter and put it in the jeans pocket for the person who wears the clothes. In a way, this documentary was her letter and outlet to the world showing people her working conditions.
The workers get paid so little, and their boss is not really nice. I would think since he came from a peasant farming background that he would understand, but his own success has made him blind to the downward cycle of inequality he is running at his company. However, I don't think there is too much he can do because he is at the mercy of international client's laws and their demands for lower prices. The film portrays him as a prideful man, and I'm sure the owner has to be strict in order for things to get done. I wonder how in the world they got cameras in the factory to capture all the footage we saw when the workers refused to go back to work, and them shouting at each other shortly after lunch.
It was humorous how a Walmart attack just had to be included. The filmmakers are very clear in their stance towards big multi-national companies. Anyways, the living conditions were extremely strict and unfair. It felt like a labor camp. They had tiny bunks, and there was no cafeteria... they went back to their rooms to eat. The owners try to cut costs in every way and they dock from your pay when you are late. Workers fall asleep at work because they are so tired when big orders come in. They had to fight to get paid in time, the owner kept stating they have no money and no means to pay them, like the owners were the ones who are the victim. I know that the owner understands very well the concept of predator/victim. He displays big banners on the walls to restructure their thinking, like "If you don't work today you’ll be looking for hard work tomorrow.”
The workers must have envisioned a glamorous and hopeful lifestyle in the city before arriving from the farmlands. Jasmine missed her family and the freedoms of childhood and the open wheat fields. She was only 17 but some of the workers were as young as 14. I think these young girls/boys are forced into maturity, taking care of themselves and their families much earlier than the youth in developed nations. This film gave me something to think about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)