All in it together?

One of my favorite videos (also a favorite of any Cornell professor who discusses any aspect of global health) is Hans Rosling’s “200 Countries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes.”  If you have not see it, the video displays a plot of lifespan v. income. Two hundred countries are then placed on this scatter plot in their positions in 1810, and subsequently followed each year until 2009.  What I like the most about this video is that all countries are displayed on the same graph, suggesting that all countries are experiencing the same external factors that affect their numbers on the graph. Although it is evident that some (‘developed,’ if you will) countries pull ahead quickly toward the high income/high lifespan side of the chart, all countries are continually on the move, and the video gives the sense that each country is intrinsically linked to the next. In particular, when the timer reaches the mid 1900’s, all countries shoot upwards toward the high income/high lifespan side of the chart, again suggesting a universal force acting upon all countries.

In the article, the ‘Development of Underdevelopment,’ Gunder Frank challenges our definition of an ‘underdeveloped’ country.  He comments that “it is generally held that economic development occurs in a succession of capitalist stages and that today’s underdeveloped countries are still in a stage, sometimes depicted as an original stage of history, through which the now-developed countries passed long ago.” However it does not make sense that today ‘underdeveloped countries’ are experiencing the early stages of developed nations, as these ‘underdeveloped countries’ have experienced the same capitalist market forces as the rest of the world. This can be visualized in Hans Rosling’s video – again I will draw your attention to the fact that the entire world moves together toward higher incomes and longer lifespans. Following this logic, if capitalism has been present in the development of these countries for the entirety of their lifespans, then ‘capital shortage’ is not causing the evident ‘underdevelopment.’ On the contrary, Gunder Frank actually argues that it is ‘capitalism itself’ which has caused the underdevelopment we see in the so called third world countries.

At the heart of capitalism has been the creation of ‘satellite’ countries which serve to export raw goods to larger ‘metropoles.’ An economy that relies on exportation of raw materials is unsustainable and will ultimately collapse; the very nature of their economic structure dooms ‘satellite’ countries to be ‘undeveloped’ and poor. This is because an export-dependent economy is “highly vulnerable to fluctuations in global supply and demand” and when demand decreases, the economy will fail (Kueker, 2007). For example, Ecuador is a satellite country to much of the developed world and its economy relies on the exportation of raw materials like crops (e.g, bananas) and oil. Unfortunately, this economic structure faced total collapse in 1999 and Ecuador had no choice but to dollarize its economy to maintain what little economic foothold it had on the national market (Kueker, 2007). Today, the economic situation in Ecuador is dire. Over 50% of the population is unemployed, and malnutrition rates are soaring (D’Amico, 2012). While Gunder Frank brings up an interesting point about the cause of un/underdevelopment, the reality of today is that poverty and malnutrition levels are high, whilst nutrition and employment levels are low in many parts of the world. The more important question now is what can be done to improve the livelihoods of individuals in these locales. In the past, many development agencies have tried to inject money and capitalist ideals into developing countries to pull them into health and prosperity. Gunder-Frank’s paper suggests that this tactic will not work, as capitalism is the cause of the underdevelopment…So what can be done?

Fergusen tackles this question, but does not give a satisfactory answer. He discusses the role of Western development agencies, and how these groups attempt to ‘develop’ third world countries. Fergusen reiterates many of Gunder Frank’s comments – he tells a story about the development of a community called Lesotho, and describes the realization of development agencies that “‘opening up’ the country and exposing it to the ‘cash economy’ [has] little impact, since Lesotho has not been isolated from the world economy for a very long time.” Because development agencies consistently and incorrectly assume that infusion of money and a capitalism-based system is what a developing country needs to improve its situation, these agencies consistently fail their missions to help. One interesting part of this paper was the discussion of the unintended side effects of these failed missions. In the example of the failed development of Lesotho, an unintended side effect was the creation of a main road connecting the community to the capital. This had huge consequences on the community (e.g., increased government presence). I could not help but to think about the Intag region when I was reading about the consequences of this road – if one single road could cause so many changes in Lesotho, it is hard to imagine the scale of the multitude of unintended consequences of a large open-pit mine that destroys clean water and enormous biodiversity in Intag.

Because injecting money directly into the system cannot improve developing nations (and has, in fact, many unintended side effects), Ferguson concludes his paper by saying that what Americans should do is “[combat] imperialist policies.”  I find this conclusion neither satisfying nor very helpful. While perhaps yes, Americans could benefits from a less ethnocentric point of view, it still does not get us any closer to an active solution for real time problems. How does Ferguson think we should act? His conclusion provides us with more of a mindset than an approach to start taking action. I think that solutions we touched upon last week regarding CBR and community based design are more valid solutions. The best ‘developments’ are ones that are designed with community members, and developers should not go in with a project in mind until they have spoken to stakeholders on the ground. Already this is what we are doing for our projects in Intag – for the coffee project we have met with Jose Cueva and heard what he wants from us; from these conversations, our project aims have been redirected. A remaining question that I have, however, is whether CBR in individual communities is the best solution to tackle national development. If, for example, the entire country of Ecuador requires economic and health improvement, is there a better approach that can be undertaken on a more national scale? Fixing problems community-by-community seems to be a very tedious process. Perhaps a political change may be more time efficient.

(Hmm I am opting out of part II of this weeks blog post questions… I have no experience with international development to draw upon, nor any solid knowledge base about it to make an intellectual sounding argument here. Sorry!)

From Aladdin to the Bronx

‘Axes of privilege,’ ‘power relations,’ American ethnocentrism and discrimination are all concepts that have been discussed in the classroom in some form or another since grade school. My first memory of discussing these topics is from the 6^th grade. We watched the Disney movie Aladdin in English class; it was one of my favorites at the time, and I thought it was a fun movie day…that is, until our teacher pointed out the extreme racism in the movie. Do you notice how Aladdin and Jasmine have much whiter features than the ‘bad guys?’ What do you learn about Arabic culture in this film? She could have gone any number of ways with the discussion, although I suppose she was somewhat limited by the mental capacity of our 11-year-old brains. Nevertheless, the point was well made that the film is ripe with prejudices, and noble savages Aladdin and Jasmine are no longer my favorite Disney heros.

Continuing through high school and college, discussion of these topics became more direct and focused. Last semester I took a ‘Preparatory for Urban Fieldwork’ course, aimed at readying fourteen students (myself included) for a summer experience working with various nonprofits and underprivileged populations in NYC. The first third of the course focused on refining reflection skills, the next honed in on particular social justice issues in the city, and the final third highlighted concepts related to community based research, power relations, and cultural humility. To be completely honest, for much of this final portion of the class I found myself rolling my eyes at the assigned readings. ‘I already know this stuff,’ I kept thinking. And I really did! I knew what the literature said, and these readings were boringly repetitive. But despite my familiarity with what is written about cultural humility, I was not prepared for the stark power differentials I experienced this past summer. I do not think anyone could really have been prepared for it – I could have done a hundred more readings, and I still would have been surprised with how I was received by those I tried to help; I still would have been surprised at how, for the first time in my life, I felt embarrassed at how privileged I was to go to Cornell.

Before bringing her students out into the field, Camacho (2004) wonders the best way to teach students to recognize the multiple dimensions of power relations, axes of privilege, and their own role in this cultural tension. Judging from my experience, readings are only good to plant these concepts in students’ heads, but it is only from true hands on exposure that a deeper understanding can be reached. Because her course incorporated one-on-one work with Mexican migrants, the Tijuana experience brought a deeper understanding to Camacho’s students. She discusses that her students had three main themes in their reflections: 1) seeing one’s self as the ‘other,’ and reassessing their identities, 2) feelings of foreigness, and 3) critically examining dimensions of privilege (Camacho, 2004). Each of these feelings are not something that can be learned from the pages of a book, but only from in-person interactions and conversations.

Although service-learning programs, such as my summer program in NYC or Camacho’s Tijuana experience, bring a deeper understanding to students about cultural dynamics, do these programs also benefit the community in which they take place? This is an uncomfortable question that Illich (1968) raises, and it is evident that he thinks the answer is ‘no.’ Despite American’s best intentions, when they go into other countries to provide aid they are unwanted, Illich argues, and they do not know how to communicate with or help those in need. One of the most striking parts of his speech was when he argued that Americans get positive feedback because they communicate with the wrong people in third world countries; there is no way for them to hear what the average person thinks, because they are not talking to the average person.  Rather, communication is limited to individuals who sit well above the median economic status, skewing perceptions of how Americans are being received.

I like to think that much has changed in the 45 years since this speech, and that now the opinions of the underprivileged are taken into consideration more so than when Illich raised his concerns. I do not actually know if this is true, but stories of community based research and direct contact with folks are more commonplace today. Nonetheless, Illich’s comments are still relevant because even after communicating with underprivileged individuals, there is still the challenge of helping these individuals once a problem has been identified. The ‘solution’ must be feasible given the cultural and economic etc. boundaries of the community, which are difficult, if not impossible for Americans to navigate. It is not that the Americans and underprivileged community members are so different that they cannot hope to even communicate (because I think they can!), but there are some almost innate cultural assumptions that cannot be learned in just a few months/years that will make successful project implementation by the Americans extremely difficult. For this reason, I think Illich (1968) did have a point when he argued it would be easier for Americans to undertake projects in the US. This is because the underlying cultural assumptions will more similar between server and served.  My personal mindset has actually always been to focus on domestic issues first, and then to tackle international problems; there are so many problems here in the US that require attention, and a stronger healthier US can be that much more useful for these other areas once these problems are addressed.

Helping the underprivileged in the US is also not without its challenges. I want to conclude this post with a memory from this summer: One day I was in the South Bronx at a WIC center. The South Bronx has the highest prevalence of diabetes and obesity in all of NYC, and poverty and crime rates are at an all time high. Standing in the WIC center in front of about twenty mothers and their children, my boss and I spontaneously gave a 20-minute nutrition education talk and urged the women to stop by the farmer’s market down the street to buy some vegetables. At the end of the talk, we asked for questions/comments. One woman raised her hand. ‘This isn’t helpful,’ she said. ‘You want to help us, that is great. We want your help. You want to teach us about healthy food, we want to eat healthy food. But we cannot afford this. Your farmers market? We cannot afford that. If you want to help us, tell your farmers to sell their produce cheaper, because this, this is not helpful. You are making me feel worse about what I cannot afford.’ This is one of my most potent memories from this summer, because it paralleled Illich’s depressing point of view that we cannot relate to underprivileged individuals, even in the US. But I think these experiences are important, because we can learn from them, and try not to make the same mistake again. For example, after this encounter at the WIC center, although I could not change food prices, I did familiarize myself with the prices at the local food store. The farmers market prices were actually cheaper, and the food is better quality too. This information I was able to bring to the table next time the cost of food was brought up. My ability to communicate and relate with underprivileged individuals steadily increased throughout the summer, and often times due to minor setbacks and learning experiences like the one detailed above.

Intag Community – A Force for Good?

Last semester I read a book called “Forces for Good: The Six Practices of High-Impact Nonprofits.” As implied by the title, the authors, Crutchfield and Grant (2012), set out to identify the key qualities/practices that set high-impact nonprofits apart from their peers. They identified 12 organizations that have created “real social change…in just a few decades.” These are the “Google or eBay” of the nonprofit world, and were identified via peer surveys, field-expert interviews, and case studies (Crutchfield & Grant, 2012). From their research, Crutchfield and Grant identified six common lessons that almost all of the nonprofit organizations employed. These lessons allowed the organizations to excel, grow, and continue to experience success. The lessons are listed, as follows:

1. Advocate and serve.
2. Make markets work.
3. Inspire evangelists.
4. Nurture nonprofit networks.
5. Master the art of adaptation.
6. Share leadership.

Although Crutchfield and Grant’s work centered around nonprofit organizations, I think their findings hold true for any group of people striving to create impact; the two authors more or less constructed a recipe for social change. My largest critique of their findings is that they did not highlight the power of the local community, and the importance of local knowledge. The success in the Intag region can be assessed in terms of these six lessons, and it is clear that most of these lessons have been met with fervor. Moreover, the integration of the local community at each step of the fight against mining has enhanced the power of the forefront organizations in Intag.

Before launching into a brief discussion of the six practices, first and foremost the key ingredient to a successful social movement/organization is unification behind a central cause. It is evident from the readings of this week that the economic state of Ecuador is dire. According to Linda D’Amico, 94.9% of the population lacks basic necessities due to an underemployment rate surpassing 50%. Due to the nature of its economy, the only sure-fire ways to increase money supply in Ecuador are to increase exports or borrow money (Kuecker, 2007). Copper is an extremely valuable product to export, and it so happens that Intag rests upon an enormous amount of copper (Kuecker, 2007). On the pro-mining side, economically, it makes a lot of sense to mine this metal, and increase national income.  Moreover, the mining process would require jobs and improve the unemployment rate.  However, on the anti-mining side, the open-pit mining process is extremely invasive and will destroy livelihoods for generations to come. An environmental impact study for a mining project in the Intag region predicted “widespread destruction,” “extensive deforestation,” pollution of rivers and displacement of over 100 families (Kuecker, 2007). Experts debate economic growth for countries like Ecuador in the Journal of International Affairs, and discuss the benefits of some mining, while aiming to increase revenue elsewhere simultaneously.  In Intag however, residents are not interested in any mining. Community members have decided that the consequences are intolerable, and have unified to stop the mining process and identify a new idea/s for economic development.

Once a cause has been identified, the six lessons come into play, leading a group of individuals to success. The first is advocate and serve. What this lesson speaks to is the power of working both on the political scheme as well as on the ground. The leaders of the movement in Intag have certainly been making a splash on the political front. DECOIN (Defensa y Conservación Ecológica de Intag, a local NGO in the Intag region) is a wonderful example of a key player partaking in both political and ground level work. For example, in 1999, DECOIN sued the World Bank for improper conduct in their development study in Ecuador. The appeal was ruled in favor of DECOIN (Kuecker, 2007). At the same time, however, DECOIN has also engaged in a lot of direct community outreach and education.

The next lesson, make markets work, is of particular importance to the Intag region. In Crutchfield and Grant’s book, they use this section to discuss the importance of partnering with for-profit businesses and other money-making entities to create impact. The situation in Intag is no different, however the stakes regarding money are even higher because poverty rates are so high. In order to make markets work, Inteños have identified valuable economic areas in their communities which can be developed further to increase exports and thereby improve the economic state of the country. Three of these areas have been identified for this class, including shade-grown coffee, handicrafts, and community-oriented conservation.

Third is inspire evangelists. Early on, anti-miners spread information to get everyone on the same page. Still today, the spread of information is crucial to keeping support. The circulation of the local newspaper Periôdico INTAG is one of the key ways that leaders have been able to keep community members informed (D’Amico, 2012). Interestingly, attack on evangelists has been a key strategy for industries interested in mining, who have been seeding lies about local leaders and attempting to sway people to see mining as positive for the region (Kuecker, 2007).

The fourth and sixth lessons, nurture nonprofit networks, and share leadership I see as joint lessons. The best ideas occur in environments of collaboration, and efficiency increases when workload can be shared. In Intag, Carlos Zorilla, Mayor Tituaña, Giovanni Paz, and others can all be identified as key leaders working in collaboration to oppose copper mining. Working together, they have been able to achieve success.

Finally, lesson number five is achieve the art of adaptation. This is the hardest lesson, and also the only one that it seems Intag is still struggling to meet. Crutchfield and Grant (2012) discuss the power of adaptation in an organization in terms of the ability to change economic and leadership strategies at the last second. The organizations identified in their book all survived the economic crises of the past decade, and not only survived it but actually grew, due to their adaptive capacity. Although Intag has achieved the other 5 lessons, it appears to me that it has not yet mastered the art of adaptation. In recent years, the price of copper has gone up, making the metal all the more desirable (Kuecker, 2007). It is no longer clear if the alternative modes of development currently being cultivated in Intag will be strong enough to fight off capitalism and keep miners away. The community requires a more adaptive strategy so that it can change with the fluctuating economy, and continue its fight.

Crutchfield and Grant (2012) conclude their book, claiming “greatness is about working with and through others, as counterintuitive as that might seem. It’s about leveraging every sector of society to become a force for good.” I think Intag is doing just this, and if they can enhance the degree of innovation in their fight they can continue to stave off mining for a long time to come.