Every morning we who work in the development and humanitarian fields wait to see which of the four horsemen of the apocalypse will be foremost in the headlines. From conflicts in Gaza and Syria, to the horrors of Ebola and the destabilising effects of South Sudan’s internal conflict.
Beyond humanitarian emergencies we are also grappling with the big development questions of our time: will we attain our goal of eliminating extreme poverty? Can we reverse growing inequality? Is gender parity attainable? Can we get consensus on action against climate change?
Our work is one of extremes, and of people living in those extremes. To find a way through the quagmire we need to consult the data and past experience, to cast off failed approaches and come up with new, innovative ideas. So why is one of the most common phrases I hear in development “I agree”?
Take for example the role of mobile technology, which despite some calls for caution is still viewed by many influencers as a panacea to the world’s ills. Or the agreement among major development institutions that our core focus should be the elimination of extreme poverty by 2030. The message we are sending the world is that the development community agrees on the big issues and have the tools in place, or at least the funding mechanisms, to meet these challenges.
But consensus is the death of innovation and creates a staleness within an industry. It is hard to believe that the hundreds of thousands of people working at every level within the development community agree with one another on the big questions, never mind the solutions. Indeed, listen to any private conversation between seasoned professionals and you will find animated disagreement. So, publically, why does consensus exist?
Above all else, it seems to be a defence mechanism against outside attacks. publicised volleys have been launched in recent years by Dambisa Moyo, Bill Easterly, Angus Deaton and David Roodman, and others who challenge the efficacy of global development. Rather the considering each criticism in turn, the PR machine goes into overdrive trying to either shut up or shut out the objectors.
The 2014 letter of the Gates Foundation was the best publicised response to these arguments, focusing on our successes in reducing extreme poverty. But if we look closely at what has been said by the critics, these attacks are rarely levied against development as a whole but rather focus on specific features such as government aid, debt relief and microcredit. Still, because of our public relations agenda to “sell” development to the public and policymaker, we have little tolerance for criticism and have a tendency to see any critique as a moral rejection.
In addition, presenting a unified front seems to be about of buttressing our finances. The global recession saw aid budgets slashed by policymakers who were responding to publics who would prefer to see international affairs budgets cut before their own entitlements. Two major development agencies, Canada’s Cida and Australia’s AusAid, have been absorbed into their respective foreign offices, an alarming sign of the reduction of importance given to development assistance.
In light of these threats, it has seemed wiser to many for us to get our arguments aligned. But research suggests that this does little to convince the naysayers and we should instead focus our communications efforts on those who already believe.
As I write this, the Middle East is engulfed in violent chaos that threatens the lives and security of millions. There are more displaced people now than in any time in history. Three West African countries are being brutalised by an epidemic nobody imagined a year ago; climate chaos is displacing whole populations. There is an absolute need for governance, conflict mitigation, food security and the humanitarian assistance that global development organisations – whether international or local to their country of origin - are not just able to provide better but are committed to doing so.
Our mission is so vital that we need to stop at nothing to achieve it. But dodging criticism and singing from the same hymn sheet without thinking about the lyrics is not the way. Instead, each perceived attack should be rebutted on its own virtues and flaws or, better still, absorbed into our own discussions as we evolve into a better community. Closing ranks and watering down our grand arguments so we are pleasing to all will only lead to complacency.
From the Live Aid driven response to the famine in Ethiopia in the 1980s to microfinance leading to over-indebtedness, we have previously rightly criticised flawed development approaches, so we should apply the same critical eye to our current efforts. Vigorous and open debate is the way forward.
David Humphries is director of global communications at Global Communities. Follow @GlobalHumph on Twitter.
Read more stories like this:
- Rethinking scale in international development
- Juma on Piketty’s Capital: can Africa avoid the trap of unequal growth
- Shifting sands: the changing landscape for international NGOs
- Advertisement feature: The Isis and Ebola crises: improving the international response
Join our community of development professionals and humanitarians. Follow @GuardianGDP on Twitter.
