Is it still relevant to talk about development?
Opening speech, Felwine Sarr
Lisbon School of Economics and Management, March 2020
Envelopment.
Anthropology has shown that human societies are based on a founding narrative, a myth, which shapes a conception of the world and its organisation, establishes a particular hierarchy of values, often conceptualised by a social and linguistic code internalised by its members.
Modern societies, especially Western industrial society, need to legitimise their evolution and their hold on the future through a mythology that reflects their cosmologies and social ideologies.
From this perspective, economic discourse functions, in industrial society, as an ecomyth whose function is to maintain the industrial social order. It fuels representations of the universe and society, legitimises institutions, reinforces beliefs, shapes lifestyles and ways of thinking that enable reality to be ordered and organised in accordance with the message initially conveyed by this narrative. Well-being, progress, growth, equality: key concepts in Western cosmology
Development is one of the forms of expression of Western expansion in the world, through the dissemination of its myths and social teleologies. It has become one of the most powerful myths of our time. All societies rely on myths to justify their evolution and their appropriation of the future. After colonialism definitively discredited the idea of a civilising mission, development imposed itself as an unquestionable standard of progress within human societies, framing their evolution in an evolutionary perspective and thus denying the diversity of trajectories, as well as the ways in which they respond to the challenges they face.[1]
Development is therefore an attempt to universalise an enterprise that found its origin and highest degree of realisation in the Western world[2]. Above all, it is the expression of a thought that rationalised the world before it had the means to transform it. This rationalist, evolutionary vision of social dynamics was so successful that it was adopted de facto by almost all the newly decolonised nations. The primary aim of this vision was to position Western societies as benchmarks and to disqualify any other trajectory or form of social organisation. Moreover, by a kind of retroactive teleology, any society different from Euro-American societies was automatically considered underdeveloped. The conversion of the majority of nations to this Western-style passion for development was a masterpiece of the negation of difference.
The apparent objectivity of its evaluation criteria (GDP, individual income, level of industrialisation, etc.) has helped to propagate this undertaking to rationalise and standardise societies, based on the utopia of a deterministic and predictable world.[3] The 17th century in the West saw the birth of the idea of the possibility of infinite progress in the social and knowledge spheres.[4] Its corollary is that there is what might be called a natural history of humanity, and that the development of human societies, forms of wealth and knowledge, corresponds to a natural self-dynamic principle that has established the possibility of a narrative.[5]
By analogy, this social evolutionism is inspired by the theory of biological evolution. The possibility of unlimited progress of societies, reflected in the continuous growth of GDP, is a secular interpretation of the concept of infinity in the kingdom of heaven, as envisaged in Christian eschatology. Progress, reason, growth, order: these will be the key words in the epistemology of modern times in the West.
Etymologically speaking, “develop” is the opposite of “wind up” or “develop“. Development amounts to preparing the ground for growth, for an unwinding, a deployment. In reality, we are merely developing what already exists, latent in its potential. What has been proposed to Africans, Asians and Latin Americans is a “ready-to-wear” societal model. In order to organise their political, economic and social spheres, the nations of the South were asked to clothe their institutional forms in institutional fabrics, produced elsewhere, and whose current forms the original founders could not have imagined.
Instead of valuing the unique characteristics of each people, the imposition of a single model has become an injunction to “be like“, instead of being something elseor being more [being more],
The consequence of this injunction has been to reduce each singular culture. This substitution of a singular type of cultural and societal mode literally translated into an operation to encompass non-Western societies within Western societal forms
Instead of illuminating reality, this discourse on development has turned into ideology: a tangle of ideas that has ended up veiling reality. Of the two hundred developing countries since the 1960s, only two have moved from low-income to high-income status. And only thirteen have managed to achieve middle-income status. These few miracle nations are there to fuel the flame of belief, but in reality they represent the painful failure of the promise of prosperity made to nations that embarked on this path of development.
Certainly, it could be argued that nations have not applied this model correctly, and that is precisely where the problem lies. Development is supposed to be the result of a shift from la potentia to l’actus[6]. To use an analogy from biology[7], development is the process by which the embryo unfolds and during which the life form evolves towards its mature state. In this sense, development implies two things: the definition of a final stage towards which beings evolve, but also a potentia of latent elements to be realised.
But do we, as a society, truly realise ourselves through modes of imitation and extroversion? Through the injunction to adopt social structures, mentalities, meanings and values that are not the fruit of the realisation of our own potentialities? The answer is obviously no.
Thus, the project proposed to Africans consisted in reproducing a prefabricated model of society in which their local culture had no place, or was often simply viewed in an entirely negative light[8]. Western development is not simply an economic project, but above all a cultural project stemming from a particular universe. One of the consequences of this transposition of the Western myth of progress was a destructuring of the fundamental personality of African social groups, networks of solidarity and systems of meaning that already existed, but above all, this myth led to the confinement of populations in a system of values that was not their own.
The concept of development has failed to take account of the dynamics currently at work on the African continent, nor has it been able to grasp the profound changes taking place there. By setting the pace of African societies within a teleology with universal pretensions, development and the categories associated with it – hegemonic in their claim to qualify and describe the social dynamics at play – have completely denied the creativity inherent in these societies, as well as their capacity to produce metaphors for their possible futures. These concepts have come up against the cultural, social, political and economic complexity of African societies, because, fundamentally, they have borrowed their frame of reference from other mythological universes.
On the one hand, by projecting onto African societies the ultimate objectives of a Western vision of social adventure, and on the other, by seeking to permeate all social practices, this eco-mythical current ended up imposing itself hegemonically.
There is therefore an urgent need for most African countries to develop a political, economic and social project derived from their own social culture and inspired by their mythological universe. This is where the question of the dialectic and the particular in the economic and social field arises.
The desire to meet the basic needs of a social group, through a project, is a universal obligation common to all societies. The concrete ways of achieving this, the definition and hierarchy of needs, and the establishment of a scale of values, are themselves multiple, varied and specific to each human group.
We must conduct a philosophical, moral and political critique of the ideology of development. Development is a form that history has brought into being to meet the needs of Western societies. This Western reason reflects nothing other than a specific moment in history and, as such, only one dimension of thought.
More generally, what we are talking about is the vital need to free ourselves from the domination of mechanical reason and no longer obey the multiple injunctions of the dominant economic order (the order of development, emergence, economism, uninterrupted growth, mass consumption). The global economic crisis we are currently experiencing, with its various manifestations, highlights the limits of this order.
We are facing a crisis of a material and technical civilisation that has lost its sense of priorities. We must, collectively, free ourselves from our dependence on the rational and mechanical model that has dominated the world and reaffirm (as Descartes did) that Man must be the master and owner of nature
[1] In the aftermath of World War II, U.S. President Harry Truman was one of the first to propose providing aid to economically underdeveloped countries, i.e. countries that were lagging behind the United States in economic development.
[2] Jean-Marie Domenach, “Crise du développement, crise de la rationalité”, in Le Mythe du développement, edited by Candido Mendès (Paris: Seuil, 1977).
[3] This resulted from the thinking of the Enlightenment philosophers and scientific positivism that marked eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Europe.
[4] This idea was put forward by Descartes, Leibniz and Pascal during the controversy between the thinkers of Antiquity and the Moderns.
[5] Gilbert Rist, Le Développement : histoire d’une croyance occidentale, (Paris: Presses de Sciences Po, coll. “Monde et sociétés”, 2013, 2007).
[6] Cornélius Castoriadis, “Développement et rationalité”, in “Crise du développement, crise de la rationalité”, in Mendès, Le Mythe du développement.
[7] The problem with using the analogy with biology, however, lies in the desire to transpose processes specific to the organic order of the living to socio-historical realities.
[8] Axelle Kabou, in *Et si l’Afrique refusait le développement* (Paris: L’Harmattan, 1991), explains the slow development of the African continent by the inability of African cultures to adapt to progress.
The crisis of the neoliberal economy
The context of a neoliberal economy in crisis. This crisis is not so much related to episodes of financial crises (1929, 1982, 1987, 2008). It has to do with the fact that the economic order is not fulfilling its fundamental mission: to help increase the well-being of the majority of human beings. Symptoms of this crisis: the inability of most human beings in the world to satisfy their basic needs in dignity, within this system.
Globalisation of trade: privatisation of benefits and mutualisation of costs and risks. Anthropocene and climate change, the urgency of the ecological question.
A crisis that is basically a crisis of meaning, a crisis of purpose. Technical orders have taken over.
A crisis rooted in a mechanistic cosmology and a utilitarian vision, stemming from nineteenth-century European epistemology (order, progress, rationality).
The global economy breeds inequality
The global economy is a system structured around the capture (through trade) and redistribution of value added. The global economy is based on unequal trade, unequal distribution of value, technological innovation and unfair competition between markets and producers in different parts of the world. Some subsidise their producers, erect trade barriers and gain easy access to each other’s markets. Reality: a monopoly economy, characterised by asymmetries and domination over entire segments of the global economy.
Economic inequalities between developed and developing countries have worsened. For most of the latter, the dominant long-term trend has been neither economic catch-up nor the generalisation of the Western way of life, but rather social polarisation accompanied by significant environmental degradation.
This applies even to China and India, despite the spectacular progress they have both made since then (Milanovic 2012: 100-103). The case of China, the world’s biggest polluter in absolute terms, but far behind Western countries in relative terms,
Any attempt to generalise the Western way of life risks accelerating the collapse. It is estimated that global electricity and car production would have to increase 14-fold if every Chinese person were to reach the same level of consumption as the average American (Goldstein and Lemoine 2013: 94).
Air pollution is also estimated to be responsible for 1.6 million premature deaths each year in China (Stanway 2017).
In the countries of the South, economic inequalities appear to have increased and, where they have decreased, as is the case in Brazil, they remain at very high levels.
There has also been a widening of income and wealth inequalities within developed countries, where over the past four decades real wages for the vast majority of workers have more or less stagnated, despite rising labour productivity.
This has led to greater income concentration and a downward trend in labour’s share of national income (Piketty 2014). The advent of “financial capitalism” has thus meant that it is no longer only in the periphery that growing masses are excluded from the fruits of capital accumulation and technical progress. This trend inherent in capitalism no longer spares the countries of the Centre. And it is accompanied by increased pressure on non-renewable resources. In other words, for a growing proportion of citizens in rich countries, economic development has also become a myth.
Solutions?
Work towards fairer rules for sharing added value (WTO, Economic and Trade Partnership Agreement). This is a first avenue: working for a better distribution of wealth and greater global economic justice.
In the same vein, we could also contribute, through various mechanisms, to financing eco-responsible economic and social development in the countries of the South.
Second possibility. Oppose high-frequency cultures to a global economic system that connects worlds. Thus allowing a multiplicity of economies (of relationships to the economic)
Distinguishing economics as a discipline from economic practices
Economics, as a discipline, is an efficiency-oriented system aimed at the optimal allocation of resources. Its formal definitions are the subject of debate, which is of considerable importance in the field of epistemology, but which we will not go into here. Economics, as an academic discipline, is recent. It was preceded by economic practices and by reflection on economic issues, which is an anthropological constant in human societies.
Anthropology teaches us that any human group evolving in a given geographical space, subject to constraints linked to resources and needs, sets up an economy determined by this primary environment and its characteristics. The economy is therefore a response adapted to the context. It is not natural. It is a social fact
There are economies of the gift (exchanges take many forms), of abundance and of subsistence (hunting, fishing and gathering). (Marshall Sahlins, The Golden Age, The Age of Plenty – Economies of Symbolic Goods)
Every economic process is embedded in a socio-cultural context. Economic action is closely linked to collective and individual decision-making (choice between several options).
How to ensure well-being (prosperity) for all
Greater fairness within the system, to build on several economic models and allow them to co-exist. Opposing a low-frequency culture to a plurality of high-frequency cultures.
It does, however, seem urgent to reflect on the need to reinvent the dominant global economy
The challenge is to avoid confusion between different areas. It is a question of restoring the economy to its rightful place and enabling it to fulfil its original functions: contributing to the satisfaction of individual needs and the well-being of the greatest number.
Reflection on post-capitalism: the current system is unsustainable, its ecological footprint is large and it does not meet the needs of the greatest number
Significant ecological footprint. Discharge of substances into the natural environment in quantities greater than the environment can assimilate. Its metabolism leads to negative externalities. Threat to the biological conditions necessary for human life. Real risk to the conditions for the reproduction of life. Scientific reports.
According to the Global Footprint Network, as of 29 July 2019, humanity is living on credit. It has used up all the resources that the Earth is capable of producing in a year. To keep feeding, moving and heating ourselves until the end of 2019, we have overexploited ecosystems and their capacity to regenerate. This date by which we exceed the Earth’s capacity has been reached more and more rapidly in recent decades.
In 1961, a quarter of the planet’s resources had not been consumed by the end of the year. From 1970 onwards, we started living on credit on the planet’s resources.
We live in an economy that increases entropy. An economy of decline or poor growth
Why can’t the countries of the South replicate the development trajectory of the West? Another reason, no less important, has to do with the fact that, from the beginnings of capitalism to the present day, the economic development of the West has been based on the appropriation of the biocapacity of the countries of the South. The conquest of the Americas was one of the major ecocides of the modern era (Sale 2006: 81-82). Today, it would take 2.8 planets if everyone on Earth had the same ecological footprint as the average resident of the European Union. The EU accounts for just 7% of the world’s population, but uses 20% of the planet’s biocapacity (WWF 2019). The “ecological imperialism” of rich countries, which translates into an “unequal ecological exchange”, consists of keeping poorer countries in a situation where they cannot afford to rationally exploit their resources for their own internal consumption (Patnaik and Patnaik 2017) and making them bear the ecological costs of capitalist expansion (Givens et al. 2019; Foster and Holleman 2014).
This trend has been accentuated in the neoliberal era, marked by the “financialisation” of capitalism (Frame, 2016).
All this also leads us to question the philosophical nature-culture dichotomy (Descola) and the instrumental relationship to nature, seen as a resource. Relational ontologies. (Arturo Escobar)
This also implies that,
– Rethinking evaluation categories: GDP and added value do not take into account all production costs (environmental, social, etc.). We need to assess the social mission of companies. To what extent has economic activity strengthened people’s ability and freedom to do and be what they value (Sen’s capabilities approach)? Evaluation of well-being in the broad sense.
– Rethinking the categories of the economy: the example of work. Example of Africa: 4 billion inhabitants in 2100, the majority of them young people. It is difficult to envisage salaried work as we conceive it today. Rethink the distribution of income between labour and capital. Rethink remuneration (work is remunerated). Rethink the universal income (co-heir to the cognitive and cultural heritage of humanity). Individuals produce value outside the market and positive externalities / The place of the intangible. Experience in Denmark
– Imagining new forms of work and cooperation (alternative communities, fablabs, coworking spaces, innovation hubs, etc.). The idea is to give meaning back to work by freeing ourselves from the constraints imposed by the market, profitability and property rights.
– Rethinking the mechanisms of the economy: cooperation versus competition (game theory)
– Expanding the spaces of the non-market economy: public goods, common goods (Elinor Ostrom: fishing ports, co-ownership…)
– Reflect on the transition to a post-capitalist horizon based on existing alternatives, on concrete and real utopias, here and now. Rather than imposing change through reforms from the top of the capitalist system or through revolution, the idea is to erode capitalism by building emancipatory alternatives in the interstices and cracks of capitalist economies.
– Reflection on post-capitalism must be accompanied by an analysis of the power relations that determine the conditions of possibility of this new world.
– Symbiotic economy (Delaunay) -, green economy (purple)
Conclusion: A real and concrete utopia: post-capitalism.
Utopia is a philosophical concept linked to the notion of another place, of an a-topos. A concrete utopia allows us to discern, in reality, the realistic anticipation of what is possible (Bloch). Discern in reality the spaces of the possible and put them into practice. Utopia is a never-ending quest for a just and good political order (Miguel Abensour). Utopian conversion
Accept the tension between utopia and reality. This is not about reviving the political projects of the totalitarian utopias that led to the tragedies of the twentieth century.
Utopia’s contribution lies in the plasticity of the world, seeing history as a space of potentialities; it is about the conditions of possibility of a new world.
I want to stress the importance of the imaginary in the process of creating reality. Cornelius Castoriadis has shown that societies are first established in their imaginary spaces. These play a fundamental role in shaping possible futures.
Utopian thought explores the relationship between what is and what might have been.
This allows conventional wisdom to be challenged, while grounding social transformation in reflection and action;