Introduction to International Development Ch 12: H. Veltmeyer, ‘Civil Society and Development’, pp. 217-231.
Outline:
Civil society can be understood in three forms, with three different tradition having different association and conception of civil society
– The liberal tradition: Concerned with political development, this tradition sought to establish a form of political governance; views civic constitution as an integral part of a political society. Believes that through these concept, can counter the unresponsive state of exploitation and human rights abuse
– The second tradition of sociological view: Concerned with politics but views civil society as being able to be mobilise as a confrontation and opposition towards change.
– The third tradition of international development and co-operation: Views civil society as an array of organisations, and stakeholder in economic development; Civil society as a participatory and empowering agent of development and social change.
Civil society is a development agent that alleviate poverty and create social change
Views NGOs as a object of democratic and participatory development in progressive social change; but also debated as an agent of economic and social development from international organisations and world bank.
I found this chapter to be interesting, the three different views toward civil society has different concept but the same aim; The liberal tradition is concerned with political development, the second tradition of sociological view has suggested civil society as being mobilise and confront social change whereas the third tradition of international development and co-operation sees civil society as a participatory and empowering agent of development and social change. But all of those have the same understanding that civil society is a part of change; it cannot be denied in my opinion because society will always be there to challenge the notion that would change their way of life and it’s just a matter of the correct approach to create social change. However i think it is correct that NGOs provide a positive influence in a democratic and participatory development in progressive social change, Pearce (1993) Argues that NGOs can act as something that helps and support poor and marginalised people. This shows that NGO’s can help and alleviate the burden of poor and marginalised people. However Pearce (1993) also argues that without accountability they distance themselves from the poor and social structure. In all, it think NGOs are a good helping hand in development however sometimes without accountability; it is hard to create a solid base because it somehow shows responsibility without authority which may pose a problem.
Reference:
Pearce, J 1993, NGOs and Social Change: Agents or Facilitators? Development in Practice, 3(3), 222-227. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/stable/4029270 Introduction to International Development Chapter 4: Post-Development and Alternatives to Development, pp. 68-85.
Outline:
Post development is understood as a critique that suggest more alternative methods to development.
Post development believe that Eurocentric development is bad. arguing that eurocentrism leads to a subjective, set of knowledge and blue print of a western standardisation form of development; it would affect traditions and the growth of the community with its own identity
Post-development points out the dangers of Western hegemony
> Subjective (Power and knowledge)
> Hegemonic
> Standardisation
> Conforming the community
Solutions of post development:
Grass root and participatory: This means raising the low level of participation, asking community to be more involved like participatory development rather than just leaving it to international aid and programs
The idea that post development suggest towards a more alternative methods to development is something that i agree on. Modernity that takes place in different civilisations will create different results which is diverse from their starting point, rather than looking at a singular view of modernity; talking about other alternative methods would be better (Taylor, 1999 as cited by Seth, 2016). If developing countries are being modernise through subjective views and integration of another culture, i believe would diminish the traditions and growth of the community with its own identity. I found the solutions towards post development shows a better alternative towards the issue, i like the grass root and participatory solution it encouragers participation; asking community to be more involved would surely benefit the development of a community with its own identity.
Reference List:
Seth, S 2016, Is Thinking with ‘Modernity’ Eurocentric?. Cultural Sociology, [online] 10(3), pp.pp. 385 – 398. Available at: http://journals.sagepub.com.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/doi/abs/10.1177/1749975516637203#articleCitationDownloadContainer [Accessed 12 Sep. 2017]. Introduction to International Development, Brown, S. Chapter 8, 'National Development Agencies and Bilateral Aid', pp. 143-158.
Outline:
Providers of development assistance are called donors; or lenders if the aid is a loan. Donors provide about 65-70% of aid to developing country(This is known as bilateral aid; government to government system)
Foreign aid is also known as ODA (official development assistance, this classification however are much more limited because not everything can be categorise as ODA (ODA means government funding) NGOs or aid from individuals are not categorise as ODA
Donor motives: Help less fortunate abroad, but donor has adopted a more governmental approach nowadays; integrating foreign aid with foreign policy objectives
Donor reasons ranges from humanitarian concern, self-interest, commercial interest and diplomatic interest
Tied aid: Donors economy should benefit from the aid it provides; nowadays are being phased out
It’s hard to measure the performance of bilateral aid agencies, they are development which has different factors and strengths
Multilateral institution provides aid in high rate of loans which led to a high rate if debt in many countries
Aid has two arguable controversies: Should aid target economical growth or a direct approach to poverty reduction and the classification of what countries should receive aid
The numbers 65-70% of donor aid to developing country can be seen as a substantial amount, however it was argued that it is relatively small to scale of generosity; i found this to be interesting due to the fact that it shows the most generous donors in foreign aid is also the least substantial in generous relative terms. I also found it interesting that Multilateral institution provides aid in high rate of loans which led to a high rate if debt in many countries; this shows that some institutions that are doing this with reasons of self-interest which i found to be eye opening. Glennie and Sumner (2016) Argues that the effectiveness of aids is based on what it is focused on; if aids are focused on aid effectiveness for growth (Development aid) for sectors such as economical growth, it is much more beneficial than non-developmental aid. This shows that the controversies surrounding whether aid should target economical growth or a direct approach to poverty reduction is based on what the aid is focused on; i believe that a more focused approach to a certain sector rather than none is more beneficial in outcomes.
Reference list:
Glennie J., Sumner A 2016, Conclusion. In: Aid, Growth and Poverty. Palgrave Macmillan, London, Retrieved from https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/10.1057/978-1-137-57272-1_5 Introduction to International Development Chapter 21: R. Maclure, R. Sabbah and D. Lavan, ‘Education and Development: The Perennial Contradictions of Policy Discourse’, pp. 399-412.
Outline:
Education relationship with international development has two different views
Utilitarian view: Education is an investment for economic growth because of its stability and its ability to foster the student to become a more productive citizen.
Alternative Transformative view: Political and economical arrangement has a tendency to choose who has power and wealth to determine who is poor and discriminated, this view sees education as a way to combat this; through educating the citizens and raising their social awareness towards the social injustice which enables them to challenge the structure of inequality and poverty.
This views are different however they have been infused in the world of development; however this type of relationship between the two views with policies establish by the involvement from government and international organisation has sometimes led to a depoliticise and subservient ideals and perspective of education.
I thinks its quite interesting that education relationship with international development has two different views, the utilitarian view which sees education as an investment towards the citizens to become more productive by educating them and arming them with the necessary skills for economic growth. Whereas the alternative transformative view sees education as a way to combat this; through educating the citizens and raising their social awareness towards the social injustice which enables them to challenge the structure of inequality and poverty. Bloom and Rosovsky (2001) argues that general education would benefit developing countries because education focus on the whole individual development rather than a specific skill set, creating a foundation for individuals to advance in a later specialised area of studies. I think that the argument shows education as a beneficial area when it comes to development and if its connected towards the two views, we can see the contradiction between those two, and that we cannot choose one view because both raises an interesting notion that education is the basis of social change and structure; and that this view will always be contested and argued which i believe would shed light on newer approach and understanding towards education and development.
Reference:
D, Bloom & H, Rosovsky 2001, Higher education and international development. Current Science, 81(3), 252-256. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/stable/24106324