Development education: from conception to practice

Dr Dileni Gunewardena

How we conceive development shapes the type of development to which we give birth. Over the last 60 years the way development scholars have thought about development and its goals has evolved, though slowly.

In the 1950s, when many of the newly independent states were seeking to develop their economies,development was synonymous with economic growth. What mattered was the increase of GrossNational Product.

But soon it was evident that countries with large and growing populations, like India and China, could not be content with the growth of their GNP alone.

The more people there were to share the growing pie, the smaller each person’s piece would be, and extreme poverty would persist. Hence the rising concern with population control, so that per capita GNP could increase.

But it soon became clear that simply reducing the number of people who had to share the benefits of growth did not ensure that each person would actually receive an equal share in growth.

Rising inequality, especially in Latin America, led development thinkers to focus on how the benefits of growth could reach the masses. Thus, redistribution with growth became a goal to be desired.

The evolution of development goals

In the 1980s and 1990s, with the influence of economists such as Paul Streeten, poverty and basic needs became the focus of economic development.

Around this time, it also became clear that focusing on growth or poverty in income or monetary terms ignored the huge gains in standards of living that countries with low per capita income-like Sri Lanka -had made in terms of reducing infant and maternal mortality, increasing life expectancy and literacy.

Thus, were born a slew of indicators that attempted to capture the performance of countries in terms of dimensions of well- being that were not necessarily reflected in the levels of GNP. The physical quality of life (PQLI) index was one of the earliest such indicators, but it was the Human Development Index (HDI) with its threefold focus on the dimensions of income, education and health that became and remains the standard means to measure well-being.

The underlying conceptual framework for the Human Development Index came from Nobel laureate Amartya Sen’s work on capabilities which moved the emphasis from people have to what people can do or be. In this work, capabilities are construed in terms of substantive freedoms people have reason to value, and poverty is understood as capability deprivation-or lack of freedom.

Sustainable Development

It was the Bruntland Commission Report of 1987 that helped to bring the needs of the future generation into the conceptualization of development with their famous definition of sustainable development: “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

From thinking to doing

There seems to be little wrong with how development is now conceived-it is not just for the few, but for all, not just about “having” but about “being” and “doing”. It is not just for the present generation but for future generations. Unfortunately, while these concepts are very clear in the minds of those who think about development, they are not as obvious in how in how development is done. This is partly because while development concepts and paradigms are conceived of and discussed by academics, development is “done” by a broad range of actors, planners, policy makers, professionals in various fields, and even individuals, families, and enterprises, just going about their daily business of living. And the link between these two groups of people is tenuous.

The MDGs in practice

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), adopted by world leaders in the year 2000, and set to be achieved by 2015, were seen as a way of operationalizing these concepts by providing concrete, numerical benchmarks to help address the many dimensions of extreme poverty. And yet, in the words of those who have worked closely on these issues, there are glaring shortcomings in the way the challenges involving the MDGs are analyzed and addressed in practice.

“The MDGs require a holistic approach, drawing on the core insights of many fields, such as agronomy, ecology, hydrology, engineering, public health, economics, politics, and management. They require conceptual understanding as well as hardheaded implementation skills. And perhaps most importantly, they require the ability to work in global networks and local teams across many professions and cultures, since the skills and knowledge required for success range far beyond a single discipline or profession, much less an individual practitioner. “

—2008 Report of the International Commission on Education for Sustainable Development Practice

International Commission on Education for Sustainable Development Practice

In 2007, a group of 20 eminent scholars and practitioners was convened with the understanding that professionals working in the field of sustainable development-whether in intergovernmental organizations, developing-country ministries, developed-country aid agencies, non-governmental organizations or academic institutions-are not sufficiently prepared to surmount the challenges that they confront. As part of its mandate, this group, the International Commission on Education for Sustainable Development Practice, examined the current state of sustainable development training and practice with consultations across Africa, East Asia, Europe, Latin America, North America and South Asia.

They concluded that a new type of “generalist” practitioner was needed: “who understands the complex interactions among fields and is able to coordinate and implement effectively among the insights offered by subject-specific specialists. A new cadre of such generalists would fulfil a range of roles in government (such as ministers of planning and finance), non-governmental organizations (such as regional directors and program managers), the United Nations (resident coordinators, country directors and regional directors), bilateral and multilateral financial institutions and aid organizations, grant-giving foundations and corporations, and private sector companies working in the context of developing countries.

While PhDs and other advanced specialists will continue to provide significant contributions within distinct fields of knowledge, generalists are needed to navigate across the intellectual and institutional silos of specialized disciplines to develop integrated policy solutions that are scientifically, politically and contextually grounded.

They also concluded that there were gaps in existing graduate degree programmes that had the label “development”, but focused only on the social sciences or environmental sciences with few opportunities for systematic cross-disciplinary education or management training, or for practical skills and experience through internships.

Global Network of Master’s Degrees in Development Practice (MDP)

To remedy this, the commission recommended the establishment of a global network of Master’s degree programmes in development practice-with a curriculum spanning the Health, Natural, Engineering, Social and Management Sciences, with a focus on practical learning, through projects, exercises and case studies, and a global learning resources including shared curricula, global courses and communication portals for students and faculty, web-based collaborative activities, academic exchanges and mentorship programmes.

Thus was born the MDP-Master’s degree in Development Practice-Global Network of 24 programmes in 16 countries across the world. Five such programmes were established in Asia-in China, India, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and in Sri Lanka, at the Peradeniya University.

Will a new graduate degree change how development is done? Only time will tell. But it is a positive move toward strengthening the link from conception to birth and growth.

(The writer is a senior economics lecturer at the Peradeniya University)