Indian Development in the shadow of the 2014 Elections

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/what-development-for-whom/article5979241.ece

Currently in India there is a heated election for prime minister.  On one hand is the BJP's candidate Narendra Modi the Chief Minister of Gujarat and on the other is the Congress Party's Candidate Rahul Gandhi.  The Congress party that has been in power for more time has come to be seen as incompetent, corrupt, weak and focused on vote bank politics.  The BJP has come to be seen as less corrupt and far more competent but also more polarizing especially amongst minorities particularly Muslims.  A central topic in this debate is development particularly because of Modi's  track record of economic growth in Gujrat.  However, in this article the author points out how the debate on development lacks depth.  He lists various aspects that have not been included in the debate like participation of local groups, inclusive policies and how development is viewed.  The author claims because of this election cycles highly polarizing campaigns the divisions in India's societies along caste, gender and religion  are coming to head.  And all these divisions in society will translate to ultimately failed development policy because how can there be inclusive policies and enhanced participation of marginalized groups when people in these highly segmented groups see the government through such strongly held and divisive opinions.  This article is so relevant to me because of the political and cultural climate into which I will enter when I go to Mumbai for my PE.  It has also reminded me to take into consideration how inclusive and participatory my own PE is when approaching people along these divisions.

Reflection On My Favourite Pair Toms

    "One for one" is the motto used by the retail company Toms to promote its shoes. It is the idea that a pair of shoes will be given to an impoverished child with every purchase, and part of the profit made from eyewear purchases will also be used to save or restore the eyesight of people in developing countries. This is one type of an emerging business model that includes charity as a method for profit and marketing. I am sure most GPP students are familiar with this idea. Currently, Toms gives shoes to more than 60 countries. The location chosen is driven by the needs of its Giving Partners. Toms works closely with them to add new communities and countries where shoes will have the greatest impact. I am not particularly against this effort and model that Toms initiates; as a matter of fact, Toms’ shoes are my favourite kinds for daily wear. The shoes are simple, comfortable and stylish, and I have already bought two pairs for myself. According to Toms’ notion of “one for one”, this means that I have directly given two pairs of shoes to those in need in another part of the world. Am I, and should I be, proud of myself because I have given a pair of shoes to a child to protect his/her feet from cuts, infections and diseases? That child can also go to school since shoes are often required for school attendance in many countries. Still, honestly, I am not gratified of this purchase simply because it does not holistically capture the need of a sacrifice of the privileged to help people who are marginalized. Though it is impossible to quantify, one can argue that people are buying the shoes for themselves more than the purpose of buying it for others. It is just another form of individualism where there is always something in it for "me". The idea behind “one for one” is basically manifesting the concept of “exchange value” over “use value,” but in doing so, the idea of “exchange value” is blurred because the result seems to be a win-win situation, and the concept of “use value” is highlighted in terms of the impact it will bring with every purchase.  I am really ambivalent towards this model of the win-win situation. It seems empowering and hopeful since both group are winners (the consumers get their pairs of shoes and know that they did something good with their purchases) and the children who receive the shoes are also winners (though one can argue there are just compensated losers masked as winners). However, this new emerging do-good emerging market is simply not enough and harmful as critiques may argue. It is also interesting to know that “TOMS” is derived from “Shoes for TOMorrow” and its signature design comes from Argentine traditional Alpargata (Espadrilles), which can trace its origin as peasant footwear. I find this reflection critical and needs to be discussed or at least acknowledged.

Here is a video from Toms' "One Day Without Shoes" campaign as part of its one for one movement:

In relation to Duraipah et. al “Degrees of Participation”, where does this movement situates itself? Anyone of you who participated willing to share your reflection on this campaign?

Practice Experience and Participation

Recently, I began my first day at my practice experience with the Ethiopian Community and Cultural Center. I knew I would be meeting with the volunteer coordinator and expected a run down of what my responsibilities would be through the span of my work there. If the time came to share my own original ideas that the Ethiopian Community and Cultural Center (ECCC) should take on, I had already prepared a list of ideas I would like to see implemented. The list highlighted a number of action plans that would serve a sector of the population that tend to be overlooked as a result of their financial limitations.  Such programs that target the refugees, elderly, and youth segments could serve to fulfill their needs in terms of support.

The Ethiopian Community and Cultural Center (ECCC) in Oakland was founded with the purpose of assisting the growing population of Ethiopians resettling in the Bay area as refugees. The underlying basis for the output of services of the ECCC is clear in their mission statement to “coordinate educational and social services that empower and support Ethiopian immigrants and refugees to become self-sufficient.” Thus far the center is more known in the Ethiopian community for the Ethiopian New Year’s Celebration that they host, elder services, refugee case management, housing assistance services, and translation and interpretation services. The ECCC also hosts a number of outreach events that span from protest to toy drives. Located on Telegraph Avenue the apex of Ethiopian restaurants

Upon meeting with the volunteer director, conversation flowed many of my ideas were well received and our hopes for the organization were similar. The question of how to implement our goals for future success was the question of how to implement these goals into a formidable action place takes into consideration the issue of participation. “Have Participatory Approaches Increased Capabilities?” discussed the elements of the Capability Approach that has evolved the agents of development to include participation from people. Cernia defined participation as “ empowering people to mobilize their own capacities, be social actors, rather than passive subjects, manage the resources, make decisions and control the activities that affect their lives.” This growing transition to the bottom up approach would be more fruitful to the implementation of many programs now in place. One of the programs that the ECCC is further developing immigrant/refugee training that is limited to computer and language skills training at this point.

While learning English and computer skills training are going to serve measures in an acculturation process, there are many effective options that branch away from these two efforts. In the case of expanding immigrant/ refugee resources need to come from “effective involvement of people in their own development requires a clear understanding of the requirements for effective participation, and the limitations of this process.” (Duraiappah. 2) The ECCC could decide to launch programs related to employment training, but there needs to be an incorporation of both opinions and stated needs of the immigrant/ refugee community. By definition the bottom up approach uses the target community to formulate the most effective program plan in order to effectively create a participatory development process. This format of participation is important in this case since it allows the ECCC to become “good facilitators and catalysts of development that assist and stimulate community-based initiatives and realize their own ideals.” (Duraiappah. 26) With the utilization of techniques found in the participatory development process the ECCC is bound to implement more programs with the greater support and participation from the target immigrant/ refugee group.

                                       

Technological solutions in the world of aid

This semester I've felt the presence of technology and the drive to solve problems with technological solutions stronger than ever. We often use the phrase "There's an app for that!" as a joke, but to be really honest, it really does feel like that sometimes. Especially after taking my mobile health technology class this semester, I feel that the options are pretty much are limitless when trying to design an innovative solution with technology for underserved communities, both locally and globally. As a 20-something going to school in the Bay Area, with the hub of technological innovation in my backyard, I get extremely excited when I hear about the latest app or mobile health solution that rolls out. So you can imagine how thrilled I was when my group for our class project decided to work on a sexual health SMS text service for local youth. But when pitching our idea in class in a small group discussion, Professor Talwalker brought up the very important question of how participatory these innovations can be. 

Technology has permeated markets everywhere. From 2010 to 2011 alone, there was an increase in mobile-cellular subscriptions by 600 million users, with most of these in developing-country markets (http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-d/opb/ind/D-IND-ICTOI-2012-SUM-PDF-E.pdf). And as of 2012, 85% of US adults were reported to own a cell phone (http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Mobile-Health/Key-Findings.aspx). And that's just looking at mobile phones. Internet, tablets and other forms of technology are also being utilized. And the development projects they are being incorporated in range from health, emergency and disaster relief, community organizing, education and so much more. 

It's not that difficult to see the pull of using technological solutions. Interventionists can quite literally put aid in the hands of beneficiary communities anywhere or connect people to resources or people that they otherwise would not have access to. Disaster struck areas can be 'crowd-mapped' (www.crowdmap.com) to map out areas in crisis where resources are needed or even available to make the relief efforts more efficient and coordinated. Health screenings can be automatically administered through IVR (interactive voice response) where women are called and asked questions through an automatic voice service and women respond back by pressing keys on their phone (http://instedd.org/baby-monitor/). Cool, right? 

But what about the drawbacks to information giving and resource connecting through these means? They can be extremely impersonal and there are accompanying issues of ownership, ethics and, of course, participation. Technology use hasn't permeated global markets enough for these solutions to be introduced and implemented at a grassroots level. They're made by coders and developers of privilege and power. They make assumptions about technology use, uptake and learning curves. They even can pose a risk to the people that use them (i.e. putting these products in the hands of poorer communities can put users' safety at risk; widening existing disparities). 

There are design methods nowadays that have been formalized and are very thorough. Human-centered design (HCD) and participatory design processes are popular strategies that help innovators come up with solutions by listening to and learning from the communities in need. HCD helps balance the need, as voiced by the beneficiary community, feasibility and viability. Participatory design actively involves stakeholders in the development process. (Basically, HCD: designing FOR users and participatory design: designing WITH users.) 

But is that enough? 

Thinking about this issue took me back to our discussion of the Munro and Butt piece on 'rendering technical' in which we talked about interventions being too practical and generalized, often ignoring the nuances of the beneficiary community. All development projects and interventions as we have been discussing have recommendations and guidelines to make them more participatory and culturally sensitive, because as we all know by now, this is a never-ending struggle. With time, technology use will be even more prevalent and these issues I have discussed could be a thing of the past. But for the time being, are there extra measures we can take to make these more participatory?