Opinion: We need to stop telling the global south what to do

Last week, former diplomats called for a new, modernized Department for International Affairs, citing the elitist, dated nature of the current Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, no more clearly demonstrated than in its colonial artwork inside and out. This must start with an overhaul of the “we know best” attitude that governments in the so-called global north too often display toward the global south, along with a recognition that simple north-south divisions fail more than ever to grasp global development’s complex politics. Earlier this month, this attitude and a failure to understand the full contexts of complex issues came to the fore as Germany found itself at risk of receiving 20,000 elephants from Botswana. London’s Hyde Park has similarly been threatened with a “gift” of 10,000 elephants to roam its gardens. The humor is serious in this gesture from an African government toward countries whose legislation for stricter limits on importing trophies from hunting animals betrays a fundamental mismatch between European good intentions and the practical realities of those living on the front lines of conservation. British and German politicians have not had to live alongside one-third of the world’s elephant population, destroying their crops, damaging their property, and killing their neighbors. Nor have they had to grapple with the practical realities that carefully managed hunting can help fund and engage communities to protect wildlife, and have failed to humble themselves to listen to those that do. After 10 years as director of the Institute of Development Studies, I have witnessed many failed interventions and unintended consequences, often arising from outdated attitudes and misunderstanding of local contexts and priorities. The assumption that “doing development” means transferring aid, know-how, and values from the global north to the global south remains pervasive, along with convictions that progress for the latter means catching-up, top-down planning, and economic growth at all costs. Countries like the United Kingdom and Germany and the international institutions they dominate can still find themselves acting out this colonially derived development charade, along with its elitist mindset. The result is often wasted effort at best, and damage at worst. For example, agricultural projects such as many of those supported through the Alliance for a Green Revolution for Africa in African drylands offer farmers “improved” seeds to boost their crop sales but may undermine their ecologically attuned food and livelihood strategies. During COVID-19 we witnessed such problems play out in real time. Global north-dominated institutions imposed one-size-fits-all measures including restrictions on movements of people and the shutdown of local economies and schools that were ill-suited to the epidemiological and social conditions in many African and Asian countries, proving ineffective and damaging. Effective development must overcome that outdated thinking and reach for more humble and reflective attitudes, acknowledging power relations past and present. This means listening to, and taking seriously, the perspectives and priorities that emerge from people in marginalized settings. It means putting economic growth in its place; sometimes a means to other things people value — health, livelihoods, happiness — and sometimes a contributor to inequalities and environmental problems. “If development, ultimately, is ‘good change,’ then we also need to constantly ask how ‘good’ is defined and who gets to define it.” --— Above all, effective development requires abandoning a catching up mindset, recognising that poverty, ill-health, climate impacts, and more reflect deep, longstanding inequalities and forms of exploitation in which the so-called global south should be calling the global north to account, not following it. At the same time, poverty and hunger in the U.K. and the COVID-19 and climate impacts felt here, remind us that development is not something “done” to the south by the north. The challenges tackled by global development are relevant to everyone everywhere, making these hard geographical distinctions seem outdated too. Acknowledging the shortfalls in U.K. governance and management of social, economic, health, and environmental matters also encourages the kind of humility needed to forge equitable partnerships with other countries. Fortunately, attitudes are changing, at least in some quarters. Equitable partnership examples are multiplying, such as in recent global research and action programs on issues such as health and child labor, funded by U.K. donors and co-designed and delivered with organizations in low- and middle-income countries. There is already a wealth of expertise around how best to support communities in development pathways that suit their contexts and priorities, and growing appreciation, built on much longer histories of participatory action research and Indigenous struggle, that such pathways can and must be defined by people themselves. Examples abound, from local groups in Latin America protecting land and securing food through agro-ecology and connecting up to form global networks, to residents in low-income settlements in India combining livelihoods with waste processing, supported by local NGOs. If development, ultimately, is “good change,” then we also need to constantly ask how “good” is defined and who gets to define it — and this is about power. Many colleagues and partners have long recognized this, and as I leave IDS I want to encourage them to go on challenging the current structures and power relations. This means integrating diverse knowledge, especially from people and places that have been traditionally kept away from global decision-making systems. It means articulating locally contextualized ways of thinking, being, acting, and imagining, and opening up spaces for debate. Development can no longer be about anyone telling anyone else what to do, for in our complex and uncertain world, development is not about quick commands and fixes. Through a greater understanding of how effective development can be fostered lies our best hope for more sustainable and equitable futures for all. Dig into Roots of Change, a series examining the push toward locally led development. This is an editorially independent piece produced as part of our Roots of Change series. Click here to learn more.