Many scientists, development professionals, and global activists have been applying what we learned from the decades of aid and development. But, there remains a significant tension against the economic global institutions that continue to be so woven within the global capitalist system.

For example, many continue to learn from the downfalls of the Green Revolution. They acknowledge that such an exclusive focus on technology to address the complex intersections of poverty, farming, food, and management of natural resources is problematic. However, many of these methods continue today. During the 2021 United Nations Food Systems Summit a powerful counter mobilization effort was led by farmers and scientists, as well as civil society groups allied with Indigenous communities and small-scale food producers across the world. They voiced their concerns that leaders were framing our problems of food systems with such a focus on biotechnological interventions (Montenegro 2021). Let’s look at some perspectives and movements that have emerged from those lessons, as well as  some movements arising from these tensions.

4.5.1 The Social Construction of Development

A good way to start examining the perspectives that are shifting in relation to foreign aid and development is to examine the assumptions and meanings we make. For generations, general knowledge in the US has been that our overall well being is rated among the top industrialized nations. We’ve believed with certainty that we live a healthier and enjoyable existence than those of countries less prosperous than us. But, when we look closer, to what extent is this really true?

The US also has very high income and wealth inequalities. According to research conducted by the Pew Trust in 2019, public opinions of the economy are mixed. Those who report that the US is in excellent or good economic condition are – by majority – of the upper-income and middle-income classes. Most of the people polled say the economy is only fair or poor. Their research also reveals some key experiences:

Two-thirds of lower-income adults (65%) say they worry almost daily about paying their bills, compared with about one-third of middle-income Americans (35%) and a small share of upper-income Americans (14%). The cost of healthcare is also a worry that weighs on the minds of many Americans, particularly those in the lower-income tier.

More than half of lower-income adults (55%) say they frequently worry about the cost of health care for themselves and their families; fewer middle-income (37%) and upper-income Americans (18%) share this worry.” (Igielnik and Parker 2019).

Indeed, 11.6 percent, or nearly 38 million people in the US live below the poverty line (Creamer et al 2022). In 2020, the United States ranked 68th in the world in life expectancy, sitting in the bottom rankings among the most high-income countries (Roser et al. 2019 with table updates). Finally, while the US leads spending on health care around the world, 28.9 million Americans were uninsured in 2019 (Tolbert and Orgera 2020).

The Social Progress Imperative is a global nonprofit that provides data on the social and environmental health of societies – within and between countries. Their 2022 report shows that despite the US scoring near the top for many economic indicators, its wealth and high levels of income do not translate into advancing levels of social development:

Since 2011, the United States has been declining in 6 of the 12 components,
including Personal Rights …where it’s ranked 46 th in the world and 33rd in
Inclusiveness …The steepest declines happened in the past 5 years. We also see
stagnation in Nutrition and Basic Medical Care, Health and Wellness and a
decline in Access to Basic Knowledge …(Green, Harmacek et al. 2022:1).

It seems that in the U.S. we have lived with the notion that our lives are healthier and more enjoyable than in other countries, but in many ways this is not true. What does this mean for global inequality, aid, and development?

The book of essays, The Development Dictionary critically examined ideologies related to development by looking at the social construction of terminology applied to the industry. For example, Majid Rahnema writes that our general notion of poverty was created as a result of our societies becoming monetized and our global economy becoming based on export and import. After monetization, “.. the poor were defined as lacking what the rich could have in terms of money and possessions.” (Sachs, 2019, p175). This is important, Rahnema adds, because it frames the poor exclusively with a lens of lacking or deficit. He poses some important questions:

…(W)hen poor is defined as lacking a number of things necessary to life, the questions could be asked: What is necessary and for whom? And who is qualified to define all that?

…Everyone may think of themselves as poor when it is the television set in the mud hut which defines the necessities of life, often in terms of the wildest and fanciest consumers appearing on the screen (p175).

The social construction of poverty (what it means to be poor), and its opposite: wellbeing (what it means to be well), have been more globally defined by rich countries like the US. And that definition weighs heavily on whether or not a county’s citizens have money and possessions.

The U.S. holds a general understanding of itself as more healthy than other nations, it follows that we will see poverty and wellbeing in other countries based on our own values and systems. It will be more difficult for us to see where we are impoverished and lacking in wellbeing. The powerful influence of this social construction is even more evident when we see that in many ways our health and wellbeing rankings are not what we think they are.

4.5.2 The Dominance of Development

A related critical perspective that is in the fore can be linked back to concepts we introduced in Chapter 3. There’s a growing recognition that the dominant ideology of development is based on the idea of exporting ideals of Western society to poorer countries. That is, the poverty reducing strategies of the larger and more powerful agencies such as the World Bank and USAID are about exporting the practical, economic, and cultural experience of the West. We discussed this concept, modernism in Chapter 3.

As part of that strategy, they use the economic measurements we introduced in Chapter 3: Gross Domestic Product, Gross National Income, Gross National Product to measure progress and prosperity. But, as we explored, those indicators provide only a limited view of the human experience. For some, this evaluation, solely based on a country’s capacity to produce, is part of a predatory and dominant perspective.

Equally important: the modernism strategies, and applying only economic measurements of development reinforce the hierarchy of nations. That is, they reinforce the position of poorer, or peripheral countries as dependent upon rich, or core nations. We discussed this concept: World Systems in Chapter 3 as well.

The strategy of importing genetically modified crops and other technologies, of providing loans in exchange for structural adjustment, and the overall strategies that focus on purely global economic indicators hold in their roots a colonialist model that relies on theft of Indigenous land and on exploiting farmers’ and food workers’ labor.

4.5.3 500 Years of Resistance to Colonization and Globalization

Figure 4.15 Photo of Teacher’s Strike in Oaxaca, Mexico 2006

In many corners of the world, we can see resistance to the harmful priorities of foreign aid, and  the dominance of development. In 2006, 70,000 teachers walked out on strike in Oaxaca Mexico (Figure 4.15). Their demands (better resources, wages and working conditions) were consistent with the calls of public sector workers around the world in the period of neoliberal austerity. In Oaxaca, teachers created a protest camp, erecting tents and community spaces within the Zocalo – the city’s central plaza – a tactic which would later be used in Cairo, Egypt during the Arab Spring, and Portland, Oregon during Occupy Wall Street.

On June 14th, 2006, in the middle of the night, police violently raided the teachers’ camp, beating and arresting strikers and burning their tents and supplies. The next morning, the city erupted. Tens of thousands of people, from various walks of life, marched back into the Zocalo, pushed the police out, and held it for the remainder of the summer. Massive protests transformed the city. And community members formed a kind of alternative congress called the Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca (APPO), which was organized according to an indigenous democratic practice known as usos y constumbres.

The movement in Oaxaca is part of a centuries-long process of resistance to colonialism and globalization. If we trace European colonialism back to the late 15th century, we will find that various indigenous nations, enslaved peoples and even some members of the European lower classes, have continually resisted colonialism and globalization fueled by capitalism. While resistance has been ever present, it has varied widely in terms of tactics used and goals pursued. But one common thread runs through many: people haven’t just been fighting against imposed forms of power and exploitation, they have also been fighting for innumerable alternative ways of life.

Take, for example, the Zapatista uprising beginning in 1994 in the Mexican state of Chiapas.  Prior to the uprising, Mexico had undergone a decade and a half of neoliberal reforms under the direction of the International Monetary Fund. The IMF required Mexico to eliminate food subsidies for basic foods like beans, tortillas, bread and rehydrated milk (McMichael 2017). Minimum wage was cut in half while the cost of basic necessities increased. The North American Free Trade Agreement – a neoliberal trade deal between Canada, the US and Mexico – threatened to exacerbate these trends.  And so it was on the day that NAFTA came into effect, January 1, 1994, that indigenous people from Mexico’s poorest state, Chiapas, took up arms.

The Zapatistas would go on to transform resistance movements around the world for their generation (Holloway and Peláez, 1998). They sought autonomy to build their own communities on their own radically democratic terms, but unlike most revolutionary movements in history, they didn’t seek state power or government office. As their spokesman Subcomandante Marco once said, “They do not understand that we are struggling not for the stairs to be swept clean from the top to the bottom, but for there to be no stairs, for there to be no kingdom at all” (Holloway and Peláez 1998:4).

They also didn’t seek recruits. Instead, they tried to forge a non-hierarchical network of communities in resistance to neoliberal globalization. As they put it, they were fighting against the one No and for the many Yeses. “We want a world in which there are many worlds, a world in which our world, and the worlds of others, will fit: a world in which we are heard, but as one of many voices” (Holloway and Peláez 1998:4).

The Zapatistas were partly responsible for inspiring the activists who organized the massive mobilization against the World Trade Organization in Seattle, WA in 1999. There, a broad coalition of groups, from environmentalists to steel workers, staged street demonstrations of 100,000 people with the goal of disrupting WTO trade negotiations. They succeeded, both preventing a new WTO agreement and pushing the arcane world of international trade policy into the realm of public debate. Over the past two decades, the “Battle in Seattle” has found its way into Pacific Northwest lore.

Today, resistance to colonialism and globalization continues to take many forms, from the Standing Rock fight against the Dakota Access Pipeline to the Sunrise Movement’s youth mobilizations against the perpetrators of the climate crisis. Perhaps one could think of it as a kind of “movement of movements.” Each of these movements has its own history, identity and goals, but they also exist within a network of other movements, with at least some shared values and some common antagonists.

In all their diversity, these movements not only seek to challenge the injustices of the dominant paradigm, they also uplift alternative ways of knowing, relating and living in community. In doing so, they remind us that the social world is made, and that it could be made differently. As the slogan of the World Social Forum put it, “another world is possible.”

4.5.4 After the Green Revolution

In addition to mobilizations challenging the injustices of our current systems, we can see this creation of another world emerging with global shifts in how power and influence is used to address poverty. In the report, “Global Development Disrupted” ninety-three leaders share a list of new initiatives or new directions in international development they are most excited about: They include:

• A focus on inclusion and inclusive growth rather than just poverty …
• Non-violent civic action …
• More focus on climate change and sustainable business practices …
• More focus on holistic efforts to address climate and energy issues …
• … giving communities more choice and voice in program design.
  (Ingram and Lord. 2019: 34).

Those leaders also explained that they see a trend toward localization in the development industry. More specifically they see that local governments, local civil society organizations and private companies will play increasingly important roles in addressing needs in receiving nations.

Most striking, some leaders are seeing a demise of development. They say the distinction between “developing” and “developed” are narrowing as countries of all income levels experience similar social, economic, political, and environmental problems. Global issues such as migration, conflict, and climate change, inequality, polarization, marginalization, and corruption are becoming common to more nations, and we need to find solutions as a global community to address them (Ingram and Lord 2019).

Figure 4.16. Muhammad Yunus, founder of the Grameen Bank and recipient of the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize.

We’re also seeing this change in perspective and strategy outside of the traditional development industry. Generally, there exists more of a focus on initiatives that directly provide the poor with what they need to improve their lives on their own. For example, providing microloans has become a popular model to help people who have no means of supporting themselves. A grassroots version of the microloan strategy was popularized by The Grameen Bank in Bangladesh. See an image of its founder, Muhammad Yunus in figure 4.16. Through this project, mini banks are set up in villages that provide loans to groups of five people at a time. No collateral is required to receive a loan, and no written contracts are required between the bank and the borrowers; instead, the system works based on trust.

While the Grameen Bank began in the 1970s, it grew significantly between 2003 and 2007. It has loaned $2.1 billion to approximately 2 million people—94 percent have been women. (Hazeltine and Bull 2003). Watch the 3:26-minute video, “The Grameen Model: Technology + People” to hear how the Grameen Bank works in more detail (Figure 4.17). What do you notice is different about the Grameen strategy from the more traditional development approaches we’ve covered in this chapter?

Figure 4.17. The Grameen Model: Technology + People [YouTube Video]

Another example of people-centered poverty reduction lies in organic farming. Organic agriculture is “a method of production that forgoes the use of pesticides and chemicals in favor of practices that respect the health and purity of the land on which production occurs” (Bloechl 2018). As we described earlier in this chapter, the use of chemicals and pesticides can instill long-term damage to land that could otherwise produce valuable resources. When farmers are supported in returning to organic methods to fertilize and protect their crops, they can benefit in several ways.

They can earn higher incomes than with conventional farming as there are lower costs of production and maintenance. Food insecurity is reduced as organic farming allows for farmers to grow a diversity of crops, relying on surviving crops if others fail in a given season. Farmers are able to have subsistence farms, living off their own production. And organic farming prevents a myriad of health issues that often arise with the use of pesticides and chemicals (Bloechl 2018).

Watch the 5:57-minute video, “After the Green Revolution’’ (figure 4.18). It tells the story of the crisis in India, but adds how “(t)he Green Revolution left behind a heavy reliance on chemical fertilizers and pesticides which not only sent farmers into a spiral of debt, but over time poisoned the soil and led to decreasing yields.” (The Sustainability Institute 2015). As you do, pay attention to how the main narrator, Dr. Kate, encourages academic scientists to work with village (farmer) scientists to solve agricultural problems. How is the role of academic scientists portrayed in comparison to the farmers?

Figure 4.18. After the Green Revolution [YouTube Video]. Academic scientists solve problems by collaborating with farmer scientists in India.

4.5.5 Climate Change and Indigenous Rights

Likely the most dramatic shift in perspectives of global development and ways of addressing global inequality lies in the intersection of climate change and indigenous rights. As a result of colonization, Indigenous people make up only five percent of the population worldwide but manage and support 80 percent of global biodiversity. While the traditions, languages, and beliefs of Indigenous people vary tremendously across the world, this statistic points to a common value that is seen in Indigenous cultures: the emphasis on protecting and stewarding of their environments.

For centuries, most Indigenous people across the world have been stewarding the land of their ancestors while simultaneously creating complicated and developed cultures, civilizations, and traditions. These societies and ways of life coexisted and continue to coexist with the natural world around them. As a result, many Indigenous cultures have intimate connections to the land, water, and ecosystems that they have a relationship to. The communities who practice this believe that taking care of and managing these resources will allow future generations to live in prosperity and preserve their cultures and traditions. This leads to a deep understanding of their environment and their own impacts on the systems that they rely on.

The Western translation of some of these ways of being is environmental sustainability: a responsibility to conserve natural resources and protect global ecosystems to support health and wellbeing. While environmentally sustainable practices are being adopted by many, as a whole, the economic, political, and social systems in Western-dominated countries have not reflected these values. This is one of the major contributing factors that has led to intense environmental degradation on small and large scales.

We are now forced to solve environmental challenges with more global coordination. Priorities include living sustainably with our natural resources, preservation of wilderness areas and maintaining or restoring biodiversity. Those priorities have inevitably led to a focus on the values and knowledge of indigenous people. At the same time, as we discussed in Chapter 1, indigenous people are often impacted by climate change more profoundly.

The global need we are immediately faced with: to more deeply care for the earth, alongside the knowledge and ways of being of Indigenous peoples who themselves are often most vulnerable to climate change, poses enormous opportunity for change.

Today there are thousands of resistance-mobilizations led by indigenous people to protect the ecosystems where they reside. In response and support, many organizations are rallying to support them. For example, the organization, Amazon Watch supports and promotes Indigenous-led alternative solutions to climate change, natural resource extraction, and industrial development.

Watch the 1:53-minute video, “Achuar of Peruvian Amazon say NO to GeoPark.”  It describes the leadership of the Achuar people in Ecuador as they stand up to extraction of oil in their territory, and how Amazon Watch is getting involved (figure 4.19). What do you notice about the values around wellbeing that the Achuar express?

Figure 4.19. Achuar of Peruvian Amazon say NO to GeoPark [YouTube video]

Here, it is interesting to wonder: How would the Achuar people depicted in the video define poverty? It certainly is not marked by GDP or possessions made across the globe.

As the Achuar take the lead in defending the health of their environment, and as they are supported by Amazon Watch, they have a better chance of remaining on their territory. If they can remain in their territory, they can maintain their ways of life: ones that provide for their health and wellbeing in ways that are meaningful to them.

Initiatives like these exist throughout the world, with regional and global coalitions organizing rapidly. As Indigenous land rights are protected, it also gives Indigenous people a platform to share their values of living as stewards of the natural world. In the 1990’s Zapatista leadership mobilized to protest colonization and globalization; it also inspired other global movements. During our current environmental uncertainty that calls us to shift our ways of being, Indigenous leadership is similarly acknowledged as invaluable.

Indigenous communities that are voicing these values are sparking shifts in how we think and shape many of our systems. Those shifts include questioning how our global economy operates and the ways we’re doing development. They include re-assessing practical strategies for farming, ranching, and water use. They also include re-evaluating dominant meanings attached to development, such as progress, poverty and wellbeing.