15/10/2015

TheFragilityWithin|ForeignPolicy

The Fragility Within

As the problems that once divided the world into First, Second, and Third are held
more and more in common, is it time for the global development community to
overhaul its approach?
BY KRISTIN LORD

OCTOBER 1, 2015

International development, as we have conceived it over the last several decades, may not be dead, but
it is dying.

In past decades, it used to be common parlance to refer to parts of our planet as different worlds.
There was the First World, the mostly capitalist, mostly Western countries of the developed world;
there was the Second World, comprising mostly the industrialized communist nations; and there was
the Third World, a term still heard occasionally in reference to developing countries. These worlds
appeared, and in many ways were, analytically and culturally distinct. There were problems of
developed countries and problems of developing countries their problems and our problems. To
address these problems, the global development community needed people with completely separate
types of expertise and experience. Those of us working in the field talked, even much more recently,
about development experts parachuting into societies, as if they were landing in space capsules.
That time is ending. Increasingly, societies worldwide face their own versions of the same problems,
merely to different degrees. Developed and developing countries alike are struggling with disparities
between the haves and have-nots, job growth that cannot keep up with population growth and
technological change, and challenges of political, social, and economic inclusion. Today different
worlds are as likely to be separated by city blocks or subway stops as by portions of the globe. It may
be that the challenges of certain neighborhoods in Chicago or Paris are more similar to those in
Karachi and Rio de Janeiro than those only a few miles away.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/01/thefragilitywithininternationaldevelopment/?wp_login_redirect=0

1/7

15/10/2015

TheFragilityWithin|ForeignPolicy

This change is occurring for a largely positive reason. According to a July 2015 Pew Research Center
report on 111 countries, 783 million people were living on $10 to $20 per day in 2011, compared with 398
million in 2001 an increase that nearly doubled the worlds middle-income population in just one
decade. To be sure, too many people remain in poverty worldwide, and many of those who are now
middle income are on the lower end of that spectrum, but the progress is significant nonetheless.
As the worlds middle-income population rises, international development agencies are turning their
attention to fragile states an increasingly small number of societies wracked by lawlessness,
intense violence, and extreme poverty. The challenges of these states are both real and, as the current
global refugee crisis illustrates, immense. This focus on fragile states and the human suffering they
create is understandable. However, it risks diverting attention from another serious but less headlinegrabbing problem: the fragility that existswithinsocieties worldwide the pockets of politically,
socially, and economically marginalized groups that continue to fall further behind as others reap
growths rewards.
The Charlie Hebdo shooting was horrific, but over the long term, the story may be as much about the
alienation of Muslims living in Pariss outer suburbs as it is about the attack itself. Nigeria may have
been one of the worlds fastest-growing major economies last year and may have captured media
attention for the global success of its Nollywood films which accounted for almost 1.5 percent of
Nigerias economy but the challenge of economic, political, and social marginalization is intense
even beyond the countrys poorer and predominantly Muslim northern provinces. In the United
States, the media and public consciousness have long since moved on from the August 2014 riots in
Ferguson, Missouri, and the April 2015 state of emergency in Baltimore (Iran! Caitlyn Jenner! Trump!),
but the underlying economic and social conditions that produced those upheavals are still present
today.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/01/thefragilitywithininternationaldevelopment/?wp_login_redirect=0

2/7

15/10/2015

TheFragilityWithin|ForeignPolicy

The problems that arise from these pockets of fragility challenge citizens everywhere to find new ways
of thinking. How should we, as members of a global community, think about international
development when there are as many differences within countries, and even within cities, as across
them? How should the approach of developed countries change when developed countries themselves
are struggling with many of the same issues as the countries they are trying to help? This has always
been true to some extent, of course, but the gap between the type of problems experienced by
developed countries on the one hand and developing countries on the other is narrowing.
A first step is to knock down barriers between domestic organizations focused on issues of economic
and social justice and those focused on international development. Despite the fact that many of these
organizations increasingly focus on the same types of problems (job creation, substance abuse, access
to justice, social exclusion, and the like), there is a staggering lack of contact let alone learning
among them. The situation is only reinforced by funding streams, staffing, organizational networks,
and university curricula.
A second step is to focus more on peer-to-peer learning and partnerships across countries that are
grappling with similar challenges of social inclusion, job creation, and injustice. Learning from peers is
one of the most effective methods of enhancing the capabilities of those striving to advance social
development. However, peer-to-peer exchange currently represents only a tiny percentage of foreign
assistance budgets. Moreover, as emphasized by many in the development field (and reflected in a
searing report by longtime development researcher Thomas Dichter), a focus on training from the
sage on the stage over the guide by the side remains the go-to crutch of all too many international
development activities. Given that three out of every five people in the world are projected to be living
in cities by 2030, many of these peers will be in municipal governments rather than in the national
governments that are the traditional home of development agencies. Associations of cities, mayors,
and city managers may prove surprising but overlooked assets in this effort.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/01/thefragilitywithininternationaldevelopment/?wp_login_redirect=0

3/7

15/10/2015

TheFragilityWithin|ForeignPolicy

A third step is to focus international development more on human development and less on
infrastructure like dams and roads that will increasingly be financed by the private sector or countries
focused on advancing economic interests rather than a development agenda. As articulated in the 2014
Human Development Report published by the U.N. Development Programme, a focus on human
development emphasizes the need to reduce disparities and build social cohesion, particularly
through actions by both governments and civil society that reduce social violence and entrenched
discrimination.
A fourth step is to focus on overcoming the economic, ethnic, racial, gender, geographic, and digital
divides that drive marginalization. Doing so will require a much broader range of actors than
traditional international development engages. These include private-sector employers, universities,
technology companies, civil society organizations, and municipal and provincial governments.
Increasingly, the role of foreign governments and other outsiders seeking to advance international
development will be to use their investments as a catalyzing force to spur participation in ad hoc
coalitions formed to address particular challenges. It will also require a renewed focus on civil society,
which will be difficult given global crises and competing priorities. As a recent article by the
independent international development publication Devex underscored, U.S. funding for democracy,
rights, and governance programs has declined 38 percent since 2009. While some of that reduction can
be attributed to funding adjustments for Iraq and Afghanistan, about 20 percent of the cutback has
simply moved to other priorities at a time when budgeting for development is a zero-sum game.
A fifth and forward-looking step is to focus on youth. As FHI 360 CEO Patrick Fine and I pointed out in
an earlier Foreign Policy article, international development spending tends to focus on young children
rather than the worlds 1.2 billion youth ages 15 to 24, 87 percent of whom live in developing countries.
However, youth who lack economic opportunities and feel socially and politically marginalized are
both a threat to the future of societies across developing and developed countries and an undertapped
resource and opportunity. They, more than any other social group, are the determinants of fragility
or resilience.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/01/thefragilitywithininternationaldevelopment/?wp_login_redirect=0

4/7

15/10/2015

TheFragilityWithin|ForeignPolicy

Most importantly, countries like the United States can redouble their efforts to address their own inner
fragility unemployment, social marginalization, and injustice. This is the right thing to do for their
own citizens, their own economies, and their own consciences. In the United States, it will also allow
the country to lead by example and live up to the most positive visions of America as a city on a hill
and the most positive interpretations of American exceptionalism.
The biggest change that must occur is a change of mindset. This new mindset will require boldness of
vision and action coupled with a new emphasis on humility, a renewed spirit of partnership, and a new
willingness to learn as well as teach. The potential is to learn effective global strategies and develop
collaborative new ways to address common problems together. This potential offers natural leadership
roles for the United States a nation that is among the most naturally self-critical, the most wellstructured for self-correction and improvement, and the most ideologically suited for a focus on
opportunity, inclusion, and human potential. The risk of not addressing the fragility within is nations
continuing to decay internally, in similar ways, apart. The risk is allowing the seeds of the next crises
to take root.
Image credit: Andrew Burton/Getty Images

YOU MAY LIKE

SPONSORED LINKSBY TABOOLA

MEET THE DISRUPTORS CHANGING THE FINANCE INDUSTRY

CNBC

HOW RENEWABLE ENERGY IS CHANGING GERMANY'S LANDSCAPE

FINANCIAL TIMES

ALTMANN EXPELLED FROM LABOUR PARTY

PROFESSIONAL PENSIONS

THAT'S HOW YOU FIND SUPER CHEAP FLIGHTS!

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/01/thefragilitywithininternationaldevelopment/?wp_login_redirect=0

5/7

15/10/2015

TheFragilityWithin|ForeignPolicy

SAVE70

MORE FROM FOREIGN POLICY

BY TABOOLA

IS TURKEY RENAMING ISTANBUL CONSTANTINOPLE?

WHAT RUSSIA COULD LOOK LIKE IN 2035, IF PUTIN GETS HIS WISH

HOW MANY WARS IS THE U.S. FIGHTING RIGHT NOW?

THE REAL RED LINE IN THE MIDDLE EAST

GIVE BIBI THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE

CHINAS 3,000-ACRE AIRCRAFT CARRIERS COULD CHANGE THE BALANCE OF POWER IN THE
PACIFIC

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/01/thefragilitywithininternationaldevelopment/?wp_login_redirect=0

6/7

15/10/2015

TheFragilityWithin|ForeignPolicy

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/01/thefragilitywithininternationaldevelopment/?wp_login_redirect=0

7/7