Week 5

This week, one thing that really struck me was the idea that conflict can actually positively influence a country's development. I had only ever thought about it in terms of negatively impacting development through creating poverty-ridden war zones and displacing citizens. However, while these are definitely undesirable consequences, sometimes in the case of revolutions and civil wars, violence is unfortunately necessary to effect social change and/or replace a harmful regime. Violent conflict is not the only way to instill these advancements, but depending on the political and social situation of a country, they can be the fastest or most effective. I think that it is important for development professionals to see the whole picture and what is being fought for, rather than just trying to bring peace without considering what the consequences might be for the country's development in ending a conflict too soon.

Additionally, prior to this week, I had never heard of peace curriculum. I was very impressed at the ability that instituting these programs in schools can have in teaching both students and educators how to have more positive and effective interactions with each other. It seems like this kind of curriculum could be useful anywhere, regardless of whether or not there has recently been conflict. However, I can definitely see where it would be most immediately helpful in places that have just come out of (or are still involved in) violent struggles, particularly those that are driven by strife between races or ethnic groups. This is a very effective way to reach a number of people at once in an effort to end discrimination and create more productive ways of solving problems.

Week 4

The juxtaposition between remittances being a necessary form of aid for less developed countries and helping in things like health and education, but also potentially being a cause for continued underdevelopment through brain drain and inequalities, is something that has been on my mind a lot this week. I appreciated learning about the potential for NGOs to create pathways for community development in conjunction with regular remittances - it seems like a way to work within the reality that people are probably not going to stop sending personal remittances to their friends and family (and shouldn't have to), but capitalizing on their willingness to do so by also creating opportunities for them to help their community or country as a whole. I also like the idea of it going through NGOs, as government aid has more potential for corruption (not that NGOs are not susceptible, though perhaps less so). Learning about innovations like this are not only inspiring as a future development professional, but they are helping me to think outside the box for solutions. Creating alterations to structures that are already in place instead of trying to revamp whole systems seems more sustainable to me, and is something that I hope to participate in in the future.

I was also really struck this week by the potential for refugees to be a positive force for host countries' economies. It has always bothered me to think of crises like the one in Syria as merely a burden for receiving countries, because despite the economic and social strain that might come from hosting refugees, in my opinion, the value of human life is worth it. This is not to say that the logistics and consequences do not need to be considered, but I do think that safer countries - and especially more developed ones - have a responsibility to provide emergency assistance in this way. That being said, the outcome for Uganda in hosting refugees proves that even helping as a form of humanitarian assistance is not the best for everyone, but allowing total inclusion could be. The idea that the host country could not just survive, but actually benefit from accepting refugees is, in my opinion, a game-changer. This mindset is what I hope to bring with me as a development professional.

Week 3

One concept that stuck out to me this week was the balance that needs to be struck between meeting short term needs of the poor and putting systems and policies in place that protect the environment long term. This is particularly true of the rural poor, where agricultural practices are doing serious damage to the environment, but are seen as necessary to have a viable food supply. I've also been thinking about the question of whether or not its fair to put this burden of environmental protection on developing countries who are also struggling with becoming economically stable (or to what degree they should have responsibility in it). It was good to read about one program that is creatively addressing this issue, but a lot more will have to happen in order to prevent further permanent damage to the environment without enhancing food insecurity or other issues for the poor.

I mentioned this in one of my post replies, but something else that I have been thinking about a lot this week (and in the program in general) is the degree to which developed countries are responsible for supporting/helping developing countries (or at least not hurting them) and at what point policies that are designed for economic/political advancement of one country are unethical to another. I'm sure this will come up quite a bit more as the program continues, but I appreciate the themes that we've been exploring over the last few weeks where these dynamics are highlighted.

Week 2

The biggest thing that I have been ruminating on from the material this week is what a bad idea it is to try to force democracy on another country. From the problems that have been created for the US in our relationship with nearly two whole continents worth of countries (Latin America) from trying to push the ideology, to the complications of attempting to force a one-size-fits-all model onto a country like Iraq that has too many barriers to US-style democracy, this strategy does not generally work well without the desire and participation from the people. Otherwise, it is a violation of state sovereignty to force it upon them - not very much different from colonialism. Additionally, if the change is not instigated or wanted by the state itself, there exists the possibility of going back to authoritarianism, or worse yet, a failed state. Avoiding a repeat of colonialism should be a top priority for development professionals.

The second theme that I have been thinking on is related to the previous concept, but has more to do with freedom of expression and human rights that are (or should be) inherent to democracy and how to fight for/protect them as a development professional. For true democratic consolidation to happen, there also has to be a popular desire for equality, which seems to be difficult for countries with elites who have enjoyed the benefits of power and income disparity for centuries. The example of India resonated with me the most, since the disparity is also rooted in religion - which is also a freedom that is imperative to democracy. What do you do when two freedoms are at odds with each other? These are very tricky waters to navigate, and I have been thinking about how to protect two seemingly-opposing rights/freedoms as a development professional. I don't have any conclusions on this yet.

Week 1

One topic that resonated strongly with me this week was the need to focus on the poor instead of poverty. While I have seen heavy economic inequalities and their effects, particularly since moving to Mexico, I have still always thought of economic development in broad terms. Even working for a microfinance organization that targets development of individuals and communities, I still found this week that my perception of "real" (wide-scale) poverty alleviation involved macroeconomic policy, such as industrialization and trade policy. While those are important, they by no means guarantee that the poor will gain from it, instead of the rich absorbing all of the benefits. This understanding will definitely serve me in my practice of international development, as bringing people and communities - not entire countries - out of poverty is an important shift in focus.

Another was the TRIPS and ISDS policies associated with the TPP. The implications of the policies themselves are disturbing, but the reason that the topic stood out to me was the need to thoroughly analyze all sides of international policies, particularly power dynamics. At first glance, intellectual property rights protected by international law (as opposed of just one country's legal system) seem like a great idea - the notion of helping weaker countries guard their technology and to not allow it to be stolen seems valuable. However, as we learned, the actual effects of policies like this do more harm to developing nations, and more importantly, to poor individuals, than they protect them. This will be useful to my international development practice as I will now be more aware of power dynamics that are at play between economically strong countries and their weaker counterparts and manipulation that can take place through these policies.