TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Non-democratic system and democracy for development.

Which brings development? In view of the above


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Nov 5 2012: As long as "development" comes out of laboratories and goes through government in the familiar paternalistic "top down" manner, there will be corruption, nepotism et al and at best, an appearance of democratization (with invisible coercion at the bottom as to "the right way" vote). There is much greater reason for hope when development is conceived at the bottom and facilitated transparently from the bottom up--seeking to go no higher than absolutely necessary when it comes to permissions and government involvement. Etc. You might want to read a book with a rather thorny title called "White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good" by William Easterly.
    I am not a devotee or anything--I think he just offers some reasonable counters to the well-meaning impulse to "fix" the world.

    I just happened to notice that the previous poster, Louise Nelson, starts off with a similar assertion. Success is tied to motivation. When anything comes in the form of cooperating with the overlord "or suffer the consequences". you'll get a crappy result. When the motivation comes FROM each person because they can see REASON and benefit, the difference is like night and day.
    • thumb
      Nov 6 2012: Paul Farmer is another scholar and activist who argues vehemently for a mindset that is not about creating aid dependency by continuously structuring aid as something given but rather to get people on the ground and in the country fully able to deal with the challenges that arise. People want to be able to do the work for themselves with help rather than having the work done for them.

      Paul Farmer's original organization is called, I believe, Partners in Health.
      • Nov 7 2012: I'm not familiar with his work. Thanks. It almost a no brainer as to who will "own it" and do the better job but there are traditions, and infrastructures of corruption that are very entrenched, My personal feeling is that micro finance could be the key if it is done the right way--creating not only funding to the the people reaching out for funding of projects that are close to but also taking away the disability which corruption depends on. Technology and unconventional uses of it don't need permissions and accomplish the surprise element--showing evidence before corruption influences even find out that they've been circumvented in ways they could not foresee.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.