Insights from Chatterjee, Servaes & Mrinal
What enriched my background in the roots of development interventions was Chatterjee’s discussion on the historical background of Development Communication.
One of the most thought provoking lines from the readings is taken from Servaes’ discussion of Development and Social Change.
“The idea of development, if not the word, is as old as the expansion of Europe, and, interestingly enough, in all the interpretations it has been given, there has been present some notion of duty. What has changed has been the answer to the question to whom the duty is owned” (Mair 1984: 1).
The illustration of a post-World War II global society, with “many poor countries left by colonial overseers” (Chatterjee, 2010) and the rise of the war’s victors to power who believed that the development of these states was a duty bestowed upon them really gave depth to my own understanding of the events that followed the war.
What is even more interesting here is not only is ‘development’ a very western concept, but ‘communication for development’ was born out of a desire to fuel this school of thought.
Millions of dollars were cashed out by multilateral organizations to not only implement development interventions in developing countries but also to intentionally sway “the hearts and minds of the people” to believe in the premise and promise of development.
Chatterjee cites the World Bank in discussing strategic communication as a main component in development projects that "... strives for behavior change, not information dissemination, education or awareness-raising" (Chatterjee, 2010).
He digs deeper into the discussion on behavior change by explaining the factors that affect people's psyche, "... it is necessary to understand why people do what they do and understand the barriers to change or adopting new practices." (Chatterjee, 2010).
In a sense, developed nations invest in the mental conditioning of developing countries to adopt their policies, strategies and measures to aspire to their notion of development, mirror their practices in order to achieve what has been marketed to them as modernity and progress.
History tells us however, that developing countries almost always never get what they are promised.
Take the Washington Consensus, which brought us the neoliberal policies of structural adjustment programs and austerity measures that have drastically impacted the lives of developing countries today.
Applying this market-oriented approach in the Philippines, led to the rise of slumification and the emergence of the OFW diaspora. Due to the state’s prioritization on growth rather than on the creation of job opportunities and welfare, OFW’s are encouraged to go abroad to search for work in the competitive labor market. Their remittances then contribute to economic growth.
Welfare services are defined as services that provide help with people's living conditions and financial problems. Because of neoliberal reforms, states had to privatize welfare services due to cost savings, improved quality of services, need for skilled staff, flexibility, and political support. When services become privatized, lesser people have access to resources since they are priced higher and thus made less available to people who do not have enough financial capital to afford these resources.
Today, it is estimated that there are 10 million OFWs across the globe. As Antonio Tujan puts it, the Philippine State engages in nothing more than “legal human trafficking.”
An interesting aspect of development communication is the way it accompanies the changes in development approaches prevalent in society.
As the authors of the readings made abundantly clear, the shift of today’s development landscape has moved to a more participatory approach
which recognizes the inherent value that developing countries and its communities have in defining their own development.
Today, immense human, environmental, financial and technological resources are funneled into the study and empowerment of grassroots organizations and initiatives in developing countries.
This has given rise to a new dimension of understanding that developing countries have on the systemic issues that persist in their societies and the way by which they can actively engage and empower local communities.
Ultimately the duty of development is no longer an obligation that developed countries have over its peripheries, but a choice that developing countries have actively taken to empower their constituents to live lives they have reason to value.
