Provocative and scary

A very provocative presentation at CEPA’s 38^th Open Forum entitled “Urban Poverty in the US and in Sri Lanka: how different is it?” was made by Professor Lakshman Yapa at CEPA yesterday evening. He argued that economic development, especially economic development of the capitalist kind, the dominant model running the global economy today, cannot and will not eradicate poverty in the US or elsewhere. This he argues is because economic development is itself one of the drivers that perpetuates poverty.

The trouble with this is that we’ve all known this for sometime and some of us (and I mean the big players in development) are finally beginning to accept it, openly. Which is why the World Bank is making a greater emphasis on social protection and safety nets – the things one needs to do to relieve the deprivation of those who do not share the spoils of economic growth. Which is why ‘big’ philanthropy, of the scale of Gates and Buffet, are making headlines. We’ve made more money than we or our children are ever going to need, so we need to give some of it away. It is also embedded in the core of some CSR.

The Sri Lankan experience supports the argument, as Neranjana Gunetilleke, the second speaker at the Open Forum pointed out. Much as the US has not been able to eradicate poverty, neither has the Western Province in Sri Lanka, or Colombo District, where more people are poor (measured in terms of consumption poverty) than in Moneragala! This despite that over half the contribution to Sri Lanka’s GDP is located in the Western Province. She argued that Sri Lanka has a history of public policy that has used equitable access to services as the base for reducing inequality and alleviating poverty. Therefore the underserved settlements (slums in common parlance) are defined as such not by income criteria, but by their access to education and health facilities and power, water and sanitation services. Someone (an economist) agreed, and applauded the fact that governments are now recognizing that economic growth is necessary to service this level of public responsibility.

My concern with Yapa’s solution is that it proposes a buy out of the system and local solutions - the creation of local economies (where the creators of jobs are not corporations but local service providers), a focus on health (rather than income), an emphasis on family, the household and community service, and pressure on individuals like you and me to change perceptions, attitudes. These are great ideas but they give me a sense of déjà vu – is this not something we tried before? Wasn’t this the basis of Gandhi’s Swaraj? of Dr A T Ariyaratne’s Sarvodaya? of Ela Bhatt’s SEWA? of Nyerere’s Ujaama? Not to say that these were/are not successful (even if we, as Neranjana pointed out, do not always have the tools to measure their success) and that their lessons should not be learned and replicated all over the world, north (as Yapa is doing) and south.

Is it really cynical to wonder whether bottom up can change the world? Can the scent of a thousand flowers blooming wipe out the stench of inequitable 'development'? Can these local initiatives by themselves change the dominant discourse?

It is clear though that the dominant discourse needs to be challenged. It is clear that the capitalist model with whatever tinkering it might be subject to, is not going to deliver a more equitable world. Alternative paradigms need to be proposed. In the Philanthropy conference I attended last week an Islamic model of economic development was presented as a more equitable alternative. And as Neranjana pointed out, and Asoka Abeygunewardene also suggests from a different perspective in Tuesday’s Daily Mirror, Sri Lankans can use their experience to look at what this might be.

The scary thing is, it is OUR call.