Development or Development of Democracy?

By Joshua Jackson

The term development is usually associated with some sort of economic growth that raises per capita GDP. However, this narrow notion of development as a monetary measure is surely not the best way to approach problems in poorer nations. Granted, economic growth generally has a beneficial effect on societal conditions as a whole, but this viewpoint excludes cultural values that are often more important to the populous than increased international investment or other globalizing initiatives.

Obviously, countries considered to be underdeveloped are in no situation to rectify their problems by themselves. Problems arise because, like it or not, countries that provide aid are looking in their own self-interest before the interests of the receiving nation. Although one can justify such actions because both countries will potentially benefit, the receiving country is imposed with values that they do not necessarily share, especially those regarding political ideologies.

Regardless of whether a development program focuses direct regional intervention, or more globalized solutions, the majority of funding comes from a limited number of economically secure nations that embody similar forms of governance, and share a common goal of a globalized economy. Therefore, while these aid organizations work under the guise of “development”, really, they are merely there to further the interests of the already developed nations.

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) (http://www.adb.org) is one of the predominant development organizations dedicated to thwarting poverty in the Asia Pacific region. The ADB is owned and operated by 59 member countries, all of which are located in the Asia Pacific region. While the focus of the ADB is to make loans to needy countries, their scope extends far beyond simple money lending ; they provide structure for redevelopment of beneficiary nations.

The ADB has grown into such a large institution that their lending decisions can no longer be based on a most-needed basis, and are now based on economic feasibility, rather than genuine need. Seeing that ADB provides loans, and not aid, they must ensure that they only lend to countries that are likely to repay, as well as provide interest for the services. Also, the ADB is heavily involved with creating government policy that will further the economic interests of that nation. How can an autonomous money lending institution help create policy without looking out for their own interests? Although they might attempt to be objective, it is truly impossible when a country like Japan provides a sizeable share of their funding.

While not directly involved with funding of development initiatives, the Society for International Development (SID) (http://www.sidint.org) is another organization which is dedicated to the eradication of global poverty, social injustice, and environmental degradation. The SID is unlike many other development organizations because rather than focusing on specific societal problems, they see themselves as a vehicle for specific organizations within underdeveloped countries to connect with the global community. They focus on providing information to grassroots organizations that would otherwise be impossible to obtain, as well as strengthening civil society to connect regional organizations with globalized partners.

While it seems that this organization would be especially unbiased, especially seeing as they label themselves a “holistic, multidisciplinary and multi-sectorial approach to development and social change”, they too are at the hands of the developed world. If you visit their donors page (http://www.sidint.org/about/donors.htm), you will see that the majority of their funding comes from governmental organizations from the first world, or global aid organizations that are typically associated to be puppets of United States policy. Though not without their merits, such donors make it impossible for truly autonomous aid, without bias.

While some organizations attempt to work independently from their donors, others, such as the Bulgarian-American Enterprise Fund (BAEF) (http://www.baefinvest.com) are directly involved with foreign government. The BAEF is a US corporation that was set up by the United States senate in order to help with the reconstruction of post-Soviet Bulgaria. Obviously, their intentions are not the success of Bulgarian economics, but rather to ensure the success of democracy in a former communist nation as well as in the surrounding countries.

Seeing that the BAEF is essentially an American Government initiative, it carries much sway with the Bulgarian government. While other aid organizations are present in Bulgaria, none carry the same influence, or have provided the same growth results are the BAEF. This success has many repercussions in the Soviet region. The American influence is undeniably positive for the economy, therefore, neighboring nations are willing to accept American aid/investment, even at the cost of their own autonomy. While American influence can be seen as good, many values that are historically “soviet” must be given up for this American-style democracy.

The ADB, SID, and BAEF are all examples of organizations funded by the most developed nations. While the ADB and SID are examples of expansive development organizations, and the BAEF is based on developing a single economy, all three organizations are deeply rooted with democratic principles, and mainly help countries with a democratic agenda. In my opinion, this democratic-centric aid is good for countries that prefer such ideologies, but puts those with different beliefs are less lucky. It is unfortunate that organizations demand a certain political regime to be in place to provide development help, especially seeing that those most in need to help likely care little about the political situation in their country.