I just figured out why people call me controversial, when I hold the same opinions as pretty much everyone else who works in international development. (I’ve written about this before; I am just the one who writes this all down.)
It’s because my views don’t match the media narrative about development – the metastory. And unless you’re done an unusually pragmatic course on international development, or actually worked in this field, the only story you have about international development is that one you learn from the media.
Nick Kristof is the most prominent example of the typical media narrative: whites in shining armor, helpless poor people in need of our charity, simple programs with immediate, long-term impact. Basically, international development is easy if you just care enough and are ready to spend some money. Good solutions are right around the corner!
Nobody who actually works in this field believes the metastory any more. But the media keep looking for that story, because it’s the one that the reporters all know. A few journalists – Glenna Gordon, Jina Moore, and Stephanie Strom come to mind – have been writing about development long enough that they know they field, too. They write different stories.
But the others, the ones working international affairs or disasters or whatever – they come looking for the same old story and they find it. (Penelope Trunk has a good take on this phenomenon.) I do a lot more media than ever gets published; no one ever wants my quotes because they don’t match the metastory.
Three of the topics no one wants my opinion on:
1. Innovation – to use a deeply American sports metaphor, focusing exclusively on innovation is like throwing a Hail Mary pass when we ought to just use our running game. [1] Spend too much time chasing innovation, and you run the risk of failing to support the boring programs that are proven to work.
2. Crowdsourcing – I think it’s just one more way of collecting data. And the problem with data has never been getting enough of it – the problem has always been getting the right data and then knowing how to use it. A new data collection method doesn’t solve the problem of what to do with it once collected.
3. The future of international development – It’s not mobile technology, social entrepreneurship, or heat stable vaccines. It’s partnership, where donors and recipients recognize that both gain from the process. It will mean businesses getting involved in development because they’ll benefit from it, and the slow erosion of exploitative fundraising efforts because the communities who benefit will help to design the campaigns. This isn’t going to happen overnight, but it is what the future will look like.
Those aren’t exactly radical, contrarian opinions. Everyone I work with would agree with me, as would almost every development professional I know. But they’re not the story.
[1] Random aside: I grew up watching American football with my dad. We lived in Syracuse but cheered for the Dallas Cowboys because it was the 80s, he was an immigrant, and the Cowboys were America’s team. By the time my brother hit elementary school, we discovered Central New Yorkers supported the Buffalo Bills and switched allegiances.
————
Twitter comment from @mngreenall: “Innovation” is a big bugbear for me in partic. One thing, don’t you think dev. actors also sell the metastory?
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Hapee de Groot, Public Health Reader and Matthew Greenall. Matthew Greenall said: RT @alanna_shaikh: New Blood and Milk post: the big story http://bloodandmilk.org/?p=1731 […]
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Kaushal Jhalla. Kaushal Jhalla said: RT @Michael_Keizer: The (meta)story of development. http://hmrl.es/gIOl5l /by @alanna_shaikh […]
Really enjoy dipping in and out of your blog, Alanna.
Part of the bigger problem of development is that anyone can “work” in it. If you want to be a doctor or a dentist, you need to study and show a degree of competence before you can practice. This isn’t the case in development, meaning anyone can start an NGO or become an expert without having actually done or learnt anything in the field.
This is something that comes up at almost all ICT4D conferences I attend, and something I suggested we needed to tackle at the recent ICTD2010 conference in London. I also write about it quite a bit, and tackled it head on here:
http://www.kiwanja.net/blog/2010/08/dissecting-m4d-back-to-basics/
Keep up the great work, and keep on questioning. Maybe we should all add to that a need to question the credentials of people writing – and working – in international development. How much they’ve worked in the field, how they position themselves, and so on. There are some dangerous people out there.
I’ve said this before: you can’t use the terms “international development” and “aid” interchangeably. What you are talking about is aid. And the irony is that the real big story about development is exactly that it is NOT all about aid, but about domestic elites establishing pro-growth rules.
Alanna, I feel ya. Guess I’m controversial, too 😛
Ken, a degree isn’t always necessary. Apprenticeship & guided experience can accomplish the same. I don’t have a degree in this area but have been working in it for 6 years. Am I doing a bad job of it? 😉
Lee, I’m w/you on the need to be clear about the differences between aid & development. I’ve blogged/Tweeted about it before, too.
P.S. I had nothing to do w/the development of my organization’s tagline…
Lee, you’re right. That was sloppy language on my part. I am going to leave it that way rather than editing, so your comment still makes sense, because it’s an important point.
what you say about innovation reminds me of a david rieff piece in the new republic recently (who knew?), about how our love of technocracy will not solve our problems. It was a great piece…
@James – I wasn’t referring to a degree. Just experience. Degrees might be a bonus and provide a good framing, but that’s all they do. And yes, I think you’re doing a pretty good job. 🙂
[…] narratives, simultaneously reinforces same narrative Posted on December 28, 2010 by Aid Blogs Alanna goes for the provocative: Nick Kristof is the most prominent example of the typical media narrative: […]
Thank you for complying so swiftly with the request Laura made yesterday by telling—or at least sketching—a story “from an aid standpoint.” I love the detail about you and your father living in Syracuse, yet cheering for the Dallas Cowboys.
@Alanna – great post.
@Lee – Alanna’s points in this post are equally relevant to both relief and development. And anyway, relief and development are parts of the same whole (“Aid”). No value in splitting them in this instance.
J – I couldn’t disagree more.
Transformative economic development has basically never been driven by aid. It has been driven by governments pursuing policies which are conducive to private sector investment.
Development aid is not the same thing as development.
Western governments could do more to assist the global poor through non-aid policies than through all of the aid in the world.
Lee –
“Transformative economic development has basically never been driven by aid.”
a) what’s the definition of “transformative economic development”?
b) what’s the definition of “aid”?
c) prove it.
I more or less agree with your last sentence.
[…] interesting post at Blood and Milk yesterday led a commenter to note that we shouldn’t use the terms “international […]
[…] aplomb. But Haiti seems to have silenced him. No more strident weighing in on CNN or CBS about how The Media tells a specific story of aid that is specifically inaccurate and misrepresentative. Hell, even Bono and Angelina use their […]
J – I’m with Lee on this one. I would define the difference more simply:
International Development = what we want to happen (mostly broad-based economic enrichment, but you can chuck in all your multi-dimensional stuff too)
Aid = a charity-based way to soothe our guilty consciences that kinda pretends to deliver International Development (and other important stuff too, like saving lives)
MJ
ps. Guilty consciences as in “veil of ignorance” luck of the draw, our countries partly got rich exploiting them in the past, and we still screw them with the intl trade rules. Not saying we should feel guilty, just that charity tends to work on that basis.
[…] that took my eye was the somewhat tangential debate that followed Alanna Shaikh’s otherwise great post on the disconnect between how aid actually works and how it is portrayed in the Western media. […]
Here’s my attempt at some definitions of aid, development and related terms to start. Not as witty as MJ’s though:
http://kmonadollaraday.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/definitions/
[…] has been lots of interesting discussion lately around the difference between aid and development on various blogs and on twitter which also helped […]
I completely agree with a previous comment that development aid is not the same thing as development. The problem is governments constantly search for new ways and innovations to provide development effectively in LDC’s, which we do need, but there are ways that have been effective in the past. But who do we use to monitor this aid to make sure that it is being used correctly? Another problem is we have all these products that could be used in LDC’s to help with their development such as certain pharmaceuticals but big companies have a stranglehold on this and prevent generic brands from being mass produced and being distributed at a price these countries can afford.
[…] Original post date: December 28th, 2010 Permalink: http://bloodandmilk.org/2010/12/28/the-story/ […]