Something on development- Why, oh why development?

Why, oh why development?

Introduction.

A major obstacle when it comes to evaluating the success of development lie in it’s dual nature, in most cases there are both benefits and costs involved and ignoring either one causes problems (Barlett&Brown: 1992; Gardner&Lewis: 1996).

Conservatism of cultural relativism, in a development context.

By assuming that all cultural practices and ideas are good, relativists run the risk of denying help to those who might actually want it. It is easy to fail to take into account the society’s own view of their environment by assuming that they are content with their current situation (Barret: 2002; Eriksen: 1995).

Barret’s and Browns lists of benefits and costs of agricultural development.

In this article Barret&Brown outline both the positive and negative effects in three specific instances. The first refers to agricultural intensification in Costa Rica. Positive points mentioned include; increased productivity on every plot, tobacco being profitable earning as much as three times more per acre than their usual produce, more disposable income, that leads to more investment in livestock and lifestyle as well as eating better.
Negative effects include; a larger workload, longer work hours, more capital is needed per acre, increased problems with insects and plant diseases, greater risk and increased stress levels due to the increased risks involved (Barlett&Brown 1992:179-181).

Some of these effects are shared by the shepherds of Sardinia, but here the negative effects are compounded by the fact that farmers primarily from the Barbagia highlands resisted the transition and are now envied by the industrialised majority. The discontent felt by the ‘modern method’ shepherds when faced with longer hours and narrower profit margins are intensified when their lives are contrasted with those of ‘traditional’ shepherds. These traditional shepherds are envied because they are viewed as independent as well as producing a superior product (Barlett&Brown 1992: 181).

When the discussion turns to agricultural development in the rural United States on the other hand, the authors take a dim view. The only perceived benefit from industrialization seems to be that the farmers that do manage to survive now own larger quantities of land. This glimmer of hope is soon tarnished when compared to the multitude of negative connections listed. These include; lower prices for produce, expensive fertilizers and chemicals needed require more capital, rising cost of living and the decline in the overall number of farmers. Add to this the disillusion faced by farmers that have lost their farms due to competition and the dim view seems rather justified (Barlett&Brown 1992: 181).

Does development always improve people’s lives?

Development is not a one size fits all option that you can simply lay over a society’s current way of life and expect to walk away with marvellous results (Eriksen: 1995; Gardner&Lewis: 1996). There have been documented cases where failure to take the cultures own view into account has let to jumbled attempts to help people that never wanted it in the firs place (Eriksen: 1996). A clear example of this would be Eriksen’s discussion of a development project in Ecuador. An attempt was made to improve the production of guinea-pigs, but failing to take into account the symbolic aspect of these guinea pigs along with the burden these new techniques placed on the women, led to a dismal failure.

What are the alternatives?

The idealistic notion that everything inside a foreign culture is good and that we would be better of effectively ignoring them completely doesn’t work either (Barrett: 2002). There is always some form of interaction between cultures that leads to a certain degree of assimilation (Barlett&Brown: 1992). By exposing the farmers to trade, they are also exposed to materialism and refusing to help them survive this unknown landscape would do more harm than good. The role of anthropologists in development is not simply to look down on the companies making mistake and standing on a podium criticizing them from above, but rather to assist developers by offering insight to a culture’s practices and way of life (Eriksen: 1995). Such a contribution should lead to less failed attempts and improve the margin of success with successful ones (Eriksen: 1995; Gardner&Lewis: 1996).



Defining quality of life relativistically.

When an anthropologist becomes too concerned with defining a society and it’s quality of life relativistically, there is a risk of romanticising the culture to such an extent that even culturally harmful practices become glorified (Barrett: 2002). The obsession with being fair can swing in the opposite direction by assuming that all members of a society are satisfied with their current quality of life, regardless of the actual truth (Barret: 2002; Eriksen:1995).

Conclusion.

Development in itself is neither good nor evil, it offers the potential to improve the lives of people, but also carries a certain cost that needs to be paid (Eriksen: 18995; Gardner& Lewis: 1996). At the end of the day though, the onus still rests on the countries that are to be ‘developed’ to decide if the rewards are great enough to justify the price that will have to be paid (Gardner&Lewis: 1996). No matter how good the intentions of the developers, failing to take social structures and participation on the part of the ‘developing’ into account cannot be successful (Eriksen: 1995).


References.

Barlett, P.J. & Brown, P.F. 1992 ‘Agricultural Development and the Quality of Life’ in Podolefsky and Brown (eds) Applying Anthropology New York: McGraw Hill

Barret, S. R. 2002 Anthropology: A student’s guide to theory and method University of Toronto Press Incorporated: Canada pp.157-158

Eriksen, T.H. 1995 Small places, Large Issues London: Pluto Press pp. 243-245

Gardener, K. & Lewis, D. 1996 Anthropology, Development and the Post Modern Challenge London: Pluto Press pp. 93-102