viernes, 27 de enero de 2012

Social Capital, Good Governance, Civil Society and NGOs; an alternative path to Development

These
week´s readings bring us closer to the answer that probably most of us have
been waiting for since we began reading Theories
of Development by Peet and Hartwick. These authors, after more than 282
pages describing and criticizing neoliberal and alternatives paths to
development finally take the side of a specific position. That side is called social democratic development, “a revitalized […] state model [that] has shown it can produce growth with equity”, Peet and Hartwick (2009, p. 284). In order to get a better understand on this alternative theory,
the readings offer, in addition to the Part III of the textbook, several excerpts
that broadly describe the terms of social capital, good governance, civil
society and NGOs. These terms are necessary in order to get a better
understanding of what Peet and Hartwick call social democratic development. In
this review I will mainly focus on the excerpts from Companion to Development Studies, Desai and Potter (2002, pp.
132-135 and 516-538). At the end of the review I will return to Peet and Hartwick´s
ideas to provide a homogeneous and most generalize view of these week´s
readings.

The concept of social capital refers to the qualities that are inherent or can be
derived from people´s social relationship. Information, reputation and credit
are just few examples of this capital. Social capital takes into account how human
relationships affect the economic, social and political life of society. The
importance of social capital is that, since it can be considered as a resource
like money, land or even the market “it can be used to enhance one´s wealth and
status, to marginalize others, or both”, Desai and Potter (2002, p. 133). Social
capital can also be used for development professionals as a way of
incorporating their commitments and goals into different networks and
organizations. These organizations, as part of the civil society, play an
important role in improving livelihood conditions, the reduction of poverty and
the defense of human rights.
This last idea
links us to another important concept on the construction of the social
democratic development. That is civil
society. This term has a long history and its definition has evolved with
Roman, Lockean, Hegelian, Marxist and others. Since 1990s the term has been
popularized for several international organizations including the World Bank.
Civil society is defined as the third sector (the first two are the state and
the market). “Civil society is [also] defined as a collective noun: synonymous
with the voluntary sector, and with advocacy groups, non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), social movement agents, human rights organizations and
other actors explicitly involved in change work”, Desai and Potter (2002, p.
521). This definition exclude any actor involve in the market place and the
state, and also those groups interested in gaining political power (political
parties). One of the most important key of civil society is its role as an
entity that can limit, oppose and complement the role of the state. Furthermore
the universalization of human rights, global warming, terrorism, drug
trafficking and the idea that foreign actors, in a globalized word can act on
the transgression of rights in other countries, have increased the notion that
these kind of transborder activities “are no longer seen to belong to the
governments that govern the territory in which they take place”. This loss of
sovereignty of the state reaffirms the role of the civil society. Besides, this
leaking away of sovereignty and the
increase of implications of the civil society demonstrate that nowadays the
legitimacy of the state has become less certain.
After some
interesting approach to civil society, the book Companion to Development Studies offers us several essays regarding
the role and actions of NGOs and how these are an important part of the social democratic path to development. “The
term NGO refer to those autonomous, non-membership, relatively permanent or
institutionalized intermediary organizations, staffed by professionals or the
educate, which work with grass-roots organizations in a supportive capacity” Desai
and Potter (2002, p. 525). The humanitarian actions of NGOs nowadays include
poverty reduction, environmental sustainability, gender equality and democracy.
Since its creation, NGOs have evolved from being organizations which receive
blind founds and resources from North to South to a more systematic and
controlled concession of founds that include the “establishment of research
departments and policy units in Northern NGOs”. NGOs can provide assistance to different
sectors of the society. (1) They can help governments to have more effective and well-targeted social programs. (2) The
media generally trust the local knowledge and alternative perspective that they
offer. (3) The citizens have in NGOs an opportunity to express their voice and
challenge authority. (4) The parliamentarians can obtain policy guidance for
what people really want, and “as watchdogs in monitoring public programmes and
enhancing the accountability of officials”. In another words, NGOs have become
in our current time a key part in the construction of the civil society,
democracy, social capital and good governance.
The final concept
I will discuss is good governance. Good
governance is a democratic and decentralized way to conceive the
administration, accountability and the decision making of the government and
the state. Good governance implicate “restructuring state bureaucracies,
reforming legal systems, supporting democratic decentralization and creating
accountability-enhancing civil societies” Desai and Potter (2002, p. 516). It
is important to notice that good governance is not possible without civil
society and NGOs.
Assessments,
Critiques, Self-experience and Conclusions
Peet and Hartwick’s
ideas for the conclusion of their book really have gained my support. In fact,
I was not expecting [notice that the book does not have a chapter called
conclusion] that at the end they will finally take a clear position on how to
achieve development. However, I have to admit that the few examples they bring
to illustrate the democratic development alternative – Venezuela and Cuba –
really shocked me. These authors should remember that whenever the collective
is more important than each particular human being - in order to control the general
will - the state will ended up falling into repression and authoritarianism.
With this phrase I´m not saying anything new. The winner of Nobel Prize in Economics
Milton Friedman was among the first to analyze this relationship between Economic
and Political Freedom
.
If the neoliberalism
system have failed because the economic growth and the market have been considered
more relevant to development than the people itself, the Cuban and Venezuelan
socialism has failed because the collective and the state have took the
self-conscious of the citizens trying to develop what they think is the best
for them (this sounds like an argument we already heard in class). On one hand,
the low illiteracy of Cuban citizens, their good health system and the US
embargo are no enough argument to talk about a successful development. How can
that be development with Cuba´s clear violations
of human rights
? On the other hand, the economic
growth of Venezuela - and I have to admit, at least in the beginning of that
dictatorship, the distribution of the wealth among the poorest of that society was
unprecedented - is no the total part of the story. Corruption, the title of one
of the most dangerous
countries of Latin America, an economy failing deeper into recession,
the lack of freedom of speech and the support of international terrorist
groups such as Las FARC and ETA, are some examples that allow me to say that
Venezuela is the worst example to illustrate a social democratic alternative. In
fact, I expect that a third edition of Peet and Hartwick´s book will have a deeply
re-edition of page 284. This because Venezuelan´s case is a self-contradiction
of what these authors call social democratic development.
In
reference to the role of NGOs in the democratic construction of a better
society from my own experience, I will say that the work of NGOs is necessary
but their achievements, most of the time, are slowly as a drip of honey. In
2008, working for an NGO called Centro Montalvo, I was responsible for drafting
the final report of a research sponsored by Intermon Oxfam and the European
Union. The title of the research was Civil
Society´s incidence in the National Budget of the Dominican Republic 1995-2008. In short words the results of the
investigation showed that in 13 years of Dominican civil society´s incidence in
the national budget, the achievements were very few. The more relevant, as I
remember, was the 2007 campaign of Centro Montalvo advocating for an investment
of 4% of the GDP in education. Because
of the campaign, in that year the investment in education was increased from
1.5% to 1.7%. As Desay argues “there is a lack of reliable evidence on the
impact of NGO´s development projects and programmes”, Desai and Potter (2002, p.
529).
Another vision I
would like to bring comes from that report as well. In one of our meetings,
several members of the research team suggested to include in the theoretical
framework of the research the role of individual actors as direct
representatives of the civil society. Being in charge of the final draft I was
opposed to that idea. Mainly because individual actors most of the time are not
subscribed to any organization. In that time I thought that individual voices
do not represent the public opinion of a collective group. In other words, they
should not be called part of the civil society. Well, I was wrong. In May 2007 a
Spaniard priest called Christopher Hartley launched a documentary called The Price of Sugar. This
documentary denounced the complicity of the Dominican government and a private
company with the exploitation of Haitian workers. The film was banned in DR and
also provoked the expulsion of the priest from my country. The documentary
caused controversy at the international level, affecting the Dominican
Republic's image abroad. The film also caused that an UN committee visited DR
to address the allegations. Although the situation has not been solved, the
Dominican government was encouraged to include in the national budged more investment
for the regularization of Haitian workers. This example illustrate how individual
actors, members of the civil society, even not enrolled in a particular NGO can
also play a preponderant position in the construction of the good governance,
the defense of human rights and the construction of the social democratic
development.
Social democracy,
as an alternative to development could have its dangers if there is not an
authentic democracy. Which one? My understanding of democracy, most probably
bias for my studies in Spain, is the next one. Democracy is a system of values. It is not only about
elections and indirect representation of the power through the parliament and
the executive. Democracy also implicates the alternation and separation of
powers of the state, the universal respect of the rule of law, the existence of
a multiparty system and the protection of human rights. In accordance with this
definition, Venezuela – the luxury example brought by Peet and Hartwick – is
not a democracy. It is true that the path to good governance and democracy is
not easy, and there is not a single way to achieve it. In fact, I´m not that
blind to believe that democracy is a perfect system. Let´s remember that it was
within a democratic system that Hitler and Mussolini took power. Yet, within all
the possible criticism, democracy has given better results than any other
political system. In this way, the social democratic alternative should be
guided by a social compromise that includes the equal participation of the
civil society, the state, and every citizen that is compromised with the construction
of a better world. Mainly
because “democracy and human rights will prove elusive
without social justice and sustainable development”, UNDP (1998).

0 comentarios: