Development with a capital D

I've been reading "The Last Train to Zona Verde," a new Paul Theroux book about a former Peace Corps Volunteer traveling through southern/western Africa. It's a little condescending and his writing style is a bit weird sometimes, but he brings up some good points.

One of the ones which I found particularly salient has to do with foreign aid. Theroux discusses it in terms of monetary aid, but I think this issue can really be discussed more broadly – including aid in the form of money, personnel, advice, etc.

Africa as a whole is pretty much overwhelmed with foreign aid. Basically any organization of people with some kind of goodwill see that there is a lot of need in Africa, and think that their contributions can probably fix some of these things. It's a fair point, and I really think it's great that we have these people who want to contribute to those whoa re less fortunate.

But Theroux also brings up the counterargument, which is one we have heard from Peace Corps time and again (when it comes to money). If you give people everything, they don't learn how to do it themselves. Giving a man a fish, and such. You can imagine the argument. If we (and I mean "we" in the broadest sense – anyone from a somewhat more developed area who is trying to do something good) provide EVERYTHING in terms of aid, people and organizations here aren't self-sufficient. If we provide the expertise to set up businesses, governments, and other organizations. nobody knows how to go about it the next time around. If we give the money to build the schools and computer labs, there is less ownership, and the people truly value these things less.

Here's my question, though. To what extent does this argument reach? I can imagine an extension that goes, "If we provide the teachers for the schools, the locals don't learn how to teach, and the kids don't have local role models. They need these role models – teachers and otherwise – to see that they can really be successful in life." I think this argument has legitimacy, personally. However, it's also hard to say I don't have a legitimate role here. Peace Corps tries hard to make sure our efforts are "sustainable," which means I'm not just a teacher, but I should also be training the other teachers n skills so that they can continue on their own. I shouldn't be creating new programmes unless there is a local counterpart who will continue it when I leave.

The role of volunteers can definitely be debated. But I think that the question is more interesting when you dig down farther, because volunteers truly can make only a limited difference. What about foreign aid in the broader sense?

My village has gotten a TON of things from various investors and sponsors and … aid. I've thought about it broadly, but some of the local implications are still coming out. Here's an example: we are starting to plan the 50th anniversary celebration for my school, which will happen in about a year. In conjunction with this, we are discussing the future of the school. What is our vision, what do we need, etc? It's all really exciting. But when we discuss this "development" of the school, it usually comes down to money. Don't worry, they tell us. We can write grants and proposals and get the money from somewhere.

It's the same on a smaller scale. There isn't financial planning. When the kids go to sports competitions, the teachers end up contributing all of the money because these expenses aren't assumed by the institution. When the school runs out of paper, the principal has to buy it out of her paycheck. When the staff wants a microwave in the staff room, we all buy it. These are small things, but in my opinion, they are examples of how the school hasn't yet learned to PLAN. Income should be greater than expenses, but it hasn't happened yet.

Many of these things are cultural, sure. Namibia is a young country, development is still occurring, people are still getting used to the modern world of capitalism.

But still, you have to wonder. Would "development" happen faster or slower if we just left the village to itself? Is the aid a necessary component that is required to get things started, or are we simply delaying the process by which people and institutions will become self-sufficient?