In The death of international development, Hickel tackles the failure of international aid. This critique is built on the lack of tangible results that has been observed in the last decades despite the promises made by NGOs’ and some UN’s campaigns like End World Hunger and Make Poverty History. [Hickel, 2015] The article is constructed on hyperbolised concepts to magnify the author’s critique on development aid as it’s been brought upon. The total absence of references results as a lack of transparency. However, it is aimed for a general hard-left socialist audience which explains its success. Despite this inaccuracy, the strong critique on development that Hickel promotes, relies on the valid idea that the failure of development is ultimately rooted in its conception. Development aid as it is practiced, is a thorough western concept, based on the presumption that any sorts of diversity are negative and sees global homogeneity as the ultimate goal and resolution of all problems. Hickel’s depiction of development and international aid see consumerism and capitalism, pillars of our society, as the primary cause of this crisis.
To have a better grasp of international development, it is crucial to underline the theories that characterise our history. In academic literature there seem to be two main trends: those who think the North-South divide is natural and necessary, and those who believe in international aid towards a global equity. Dependency theories engage in a strong critique of capitalism and present a refreshing stake on the North-South divide, showing the dominance of the North on the Global South. [Willis, 2005] Theorists like Frank, talk about the development of underdevelopment [Willis, 2005], a theory focused on the idea that development cannot be global as there can only be growth through exploitation. This dynamic has not changed since the 16th century and sees the same central industrialised countries growing and those classified as peripheral a lot worse off. [Willis, 2005] Frank argues that in South America, countries are not better off than they were in colonial times and despite being caught up with the global system they will always suffer from this marginalisation stigma unless capitalism is overthrown. [Willis, 2005] Rodney applies these theories to Africa. His studies depict the European process, not far from colonialism, that led to the heavy impoverishment and continuous crisis of African countries throughout the 19th century. [Willis, 2005] In his article, Hickel adopts the Socialist approach to development which sees a liberal revolution as the end of the cycle of marginalisation and exploitation that characterises our society.
A different side of development aid is shown in “Stop Trying to Save the World” Michael Hobbes. Hobbes insists aid has actually an impact on developing countries and that its failure is rooted in our expectations of aid. Development is imagined as a new idea to erase poverty, a quick fix that happens through donation and eventually fails when charities lose interest. [ Hobbes, 2014] However, what needs to be accepted is that development is a slow process and each country needs different aid on smaller scales to ensure efficiency and accuracy. The “overhaul” [Hickel, 2015] needs to tackle our view of international aid as just a “fad diet’. [Hobbes, 2014] Development takes time and happens on a much smaller scale than expected. The deworming pills aid project did not fail. [Hobbes, 2014] It enhanced the quality of life and led to an increase in salary. The billion given by rich countries to international aid need to be seen as divided per the amount of population it tackles. As per Hobbes’ article, in 2013 the total amount to development aid was of 134 billion dollars, which accounts to 112 dollars a year per country. That couldn’t possibly solve poverty issues. Nonetheless, development has happened. The last part of this century has witnessed a huge explosion in prosperity in the most undeveloped countries, such as Korea, China and Mexico. The development economist and Vice President of the Centre of Global Development Owen Barder sees a statistical correlation between foreign aid and poor economic performance where aid is a consequence, not a cause. [Barder,2014] In his article “Is aid a waste of money?” Barder argues how aid is unpredictable and how it can succeed as well as fail in different instances. Contrarily to Hickel’s statement, Barder believes that there isn’t certain proof of the negative effects of aid, but there is for the benefits, saving the life of millions of people as well as improving their quality of life.
Aid is often described as leaving people no better off than they were before as it very rarely brings what the people need. Easterly blames the inefficiency on bureaucracy. In his book, “The White Man’s Burden” he depicts the growth industry in Tanzania mostly going into bureaucracy. This is because for the money given there is an outstanding number of bureaucratic reports taken. This results in very little funds actually going to the recipient. Easterly explains this as a consequence of the poor have no influence on those who investigate what sectors could benefit from aid. Western donors give money to be put towards what they think will make these countries develop which is usually not the case. Hickel’s articles focuses on the need for a different approach to poverty, that doesn’t consider the beneficiary’s position within the global class system. The suggestion made in this article, as a possible solution, is, in fact, to adopt a different approach in terms of justice and to do so, to focus on systems, not symptoms. This would allow for a country’s need to be taken into full consideration and its own problematics to be analysed and tackled. In this sense, in terms of international development there is no need for western countries to un-develop. Despite the catastrophic truths depicted in Hickel’s persuasive argument, it ultimately is what Ross Coggins described in his poem “The Development Set’, a satirical denunciation of those activists who partake in the lifestyle of the society they blame in their works.