CHASING DEVELOPMENT: From Blueprint to Guideposts

Feliece Yeban

Myopia

Development has often been equated with economic development. This view has already
been proven myopic. It is useful to recall how the world was divided along the line of
capitalism on one hand and socialism on the other. The industrialization the Soviet
Union underwent under Stalin’s New Economic Program during the 1930s which centered
on the elimination of well-off peasants did not improve the nation’s collective life (Hermoso,
1994). We were witnesses to the disintegration of the USSR into smaller states in the late
1980s and early 1990s and to these new states’ abandoning of the socialist promise. Similarly,
the pursuit by the Philippines of a more capitalist oriented import-based, export oriented
development model has not resulted to substantive economic gains for the poor and
marginalized. A country may attain what is considered as economic prosperity but not
without attendant problems such as loosening of the social and moral fabric, discarding
certain civil and political rights for “political stability,” alienating the self from the spiritual
sphere of life, depleting the planetary resources, and controlling the intellectual and ethical
life of the public. Conversely, a society may opt to resist “development thrusts” in the name
of retaining integrity of one’s culture and protecting the same from the perceived
concomitant problems of “development”. Such societies will have to endure “trade offs” such
as but not limited to diseases and short life span. In this light, one cannot be faulted to declare
that there is no blueprint of development. Both capitalism and socialism failed.

The pursuit of “development models” has also given rise to diverse social movements. Some
have exploded into different factions brandishing their respective “truth claims” on the best
development model to pursue. Others have imploded to oblivion if not into sheer banditry
or mob. Some have re-invented themselves availing, with relative success, every political
space they can use to pursue their cause either through active resistance or creative
alternative making. The mutation of social movements and government as development
agents has further made development a disputed concept. To this day, we lack a synoptic
vision of development that could cultivate convergence of efforts of stakeholders.

Re-imagining

The government flaunts one development plan after another – Philippines 2000, Angat Pinoy,
Beat the Odds, to name a few. These are undoubtedly economistic development models.
The left on the other hand, is still debating whether to affirm or reject development agenda
conceptualized in the 1960s. The civil society sector has more varied development projects
either driven by funders or by their avowed commitment (Illo, et.al). The business sector is
re-inventing itself by claiming to be socially responsive more than ever. All these sectors
could claim a degree of success and will never run out of experiences of hope to share.
Whether one believes or suspects “success claims” of these sectors, all these point to the fact
that there is no blueprint for development, only guideposts. These are lessons learned
chasing development which are then translated into principles that underlie development
projects which have been proven to bring relative success.

Both the capitalist and socialist blueprints have been proven inadequate in bringing about
genuine, holistic, inclusive, and long lasting development. As development workers and
agents, a shift in the way we view development from outcome to process, from content to
praxis, and from blueprint to guidepost might be necessary. Below is a list of guideposts
from which development workers could derive ideas for their creative alternative making
endeavors. The list evolves as we continuously engage ourselves either individually or
collectively in development praxis.

Guidepost # 1 – A Game of Power

Development must be inclusive. Power is unequally distributed in society. As such

development programs are inevitably influenced by who holds power. The marginalized
sectors such as the women, children, peasants, urban poor, and the indigenous people must
be “privileged” to enable them to participate substantively in the development process. They
have equal stake in development as the business sector and other stakeholders. More often
than not, the marginalized are asked to sacrifice. The sacrifices that should be made in the
name of development must be consented to by the people who are asked to sacrifice. Any
development policy or program must be formulated and implemented with due
consideration of the “privileged” sectors identified. However, it cannot be pursued for them
but with them (Freire, 1970).

Guidepost # 2 – Valuing the 3 Ps

Development must be sustainable. There are balancing acts that are essential for
sustainability to be possible. The creation of personal and national wealth must be pursued
at all levels. Filipinos cannot remain to be satisfied simply as the world’s workers.
Entrepreneurial culture to serve both self and others must be strengthened. Individually,
collectively, and institutionally, we need to be the creators and protectors of our country’s
economic wealth and national wealth for the benefit of present and future generation.

Our pursuit of wealth creation should be tempered by due consideration of the equal valuing
of the three Ps - people, planet, and profit/productivity. Neither one of the three Ps should
be sacrificed nor pursued recklessly. For instance, at the individual level either as a
consumer or producer, one must be conscious of the more sustainable lifestyle and
entrepreneurial philosophy one will have to live by. Also, both the workers and entrepreneur
must get their fair share of the economic values produced. In the same vein, embracing a
more ecological consciousness does not mean “preserving” the environment to the point of
“non-use” at all. A “naturalistic view” of the environment may not successfully accommodate
burgeoning population and its needs. However, utilizing our natural resources beyond
sustainability is unacceptable as well.

A further balancing act is necessary among the three sectors of wealth production namely,
business, state, and social sectors. The dynamic participation of the social sector in wealth
creation is the natural shield from the tendency of business to monopolize and manipulate
wealth creation. The role of the state in this balancing act is vital and cannot be abandoned.
The issue is not about how to make the state either strong or weak but effective and
responsive. A vibrant social sector, an effective governance, and a tempered business sector
is a better alternative to the onslaught of economistic and materialistic model of development
and to the havoc wrought by globalization’s unbridled capitalism.

Guidepost # 3 – Parameters

Development must be people-centric. The human rights framework is crucial in three

ways. It has achieved international normative standard, it is holistic in its view of the human
person as object of development, and it provides a more “inert” conceptualization of
development that can be readily measured in terms of acts of commission and omission by
the “duty bearer” and degree of enjoyment and deprivation of the “rights holder”. Whether
we use as measures human development index, gender development index, quality of life,
gross national happiness, World Bank’s indicators of sustainable development, all these are
informed by human rights promotion, protection, fulfillment, and respect. The human rights
framework has the advantage of a built in enforcement mechanism.

Guidepost # 4 – Interface, integration, and interconnectedness

Development requires a micro-macro link and agency-structure connection.

Development is both a personal and collective enterprise and an individual and structural
project. This means that it happens at different layers of society, and it manifests itself
invariably at these different arenas. The macro layer as represented by the institutional
agents of development such as the government must be able to articulate a development
agenda that also correspond to the people’s pursuit of a good and meaningful life. Likewise,
the people should be able to acquire a “sociological imagination” to enable them to locate
within the structures opportunities to get their agenda (the public interest) institutionalized.
It is the dynamic interface of the subjective (individual, collective) and objective (structure)
that will “broker” development.

Guidepost # 5 – Negotiation

Development is a process. The process will determine its content. To bring about
development, stakeholders must “own” the process of development (Bautista)t. Nobody can
be a free rider, nor can we allow the state and other development agents to be the sole
decision makers. We should all be part of the communicative action. The challenge is how
to expand the space for dialogue and milieu for engagement. This requires a process
characterized by consultation, participation, partnership, transparency, and synergy
(Baviera, et.al). Development workers do have a critical role in weaving silos of communities
and individuals into a knot of mutual understanding and negotiated conception and practice
of development. This process of engagement will determine the content of development. By
shifting emphasis from content to the process of development, we are generating energies
that move people to engage in creative activities that facilitate flow and momentum for
development. We then stand to benefit from synthesis and not just from analysis of current
development efforts. We can extend our discourse from the lack of development (a critical
stance) to an inventory of what worked (an appreciative stance). It is process that will bridge
theory and practice and vice versa. This new posturing of stressing process over content
opens up traffic for creative alternative making towards a synoptic vision of development.

A Praxis –

Development is both a mindset, a “heart set”, and a “work set”. As such it requires a set of
knowledge, values, and skills that cultivate appropriate thinking, valuing, and doing
development. To engage in this project requires a deconstruction, reconstruction, and
construction of knowledge, values, and practices at the personal, interpersonal, communal,
societal, and global levels. Concretely, this ranges from simple acts such as continuing self-
examination; advocating reforms in education, legal, and governance systems; and
embracing new business philosophy; appropriate science and technology, and simpler but
more meaningful lifestyles; to the more complicated initiatives in social forestry,
agronomics, transpersonal psychology, complexity studies, biopsychology, biocracy, and
other emerging fields that blur the boundaries dividing the social sciences, natural sciences
and the humanities. Kalaw (1997) argues for the “construction of a Science of Development that
can provide normative and functional integration of economics, ecology, (self), and society and the
development of management technologies that look at ecosystems, cultures, ethnicities, community,
and evolution as units of analysis and management”.

Let me end this paper with a personal note that I approach my work as a development worker
with humility that I may be wrong. However, there is so much work to be done that I have
to take a leap of faith that I can contribute something to the development project of my
generation. It is reflexivity that allows me to learn from my own and others’ experiences. My
reflections range from understanding my inner self to comprehending and applying the
science and theory part of development as practiced by people from diverse fields. This way,
I am both consumer and producer (and distributor) of development knowledge and practice.