View of culture in studies of human development

1. View of culture in studies of human development Contemporary approaches to (sustainable) development Florence Bourdon, MSc

2. The Green Revolution • In the aftermath of WWII • Focus on technological innovations • Transfer of knowledge and agricultural extension • Top-down approach • Based on the realist-positivist paradigm

3. The realist-positivist paradigm • Reality exists independently of the human observer. • Scientific research allows us to acquire true knowledge about the nature of that reality (laws of nature). • Scientists discover the truth, they unravel nature’s secrets. The expose the naked truth. • The aim of research is to contribute to the stock of knowledge. • Scientific research is the source of innovation. • Technology is applied science. Röling, 1996

4. Policy application and its consequences • Structural adjustment programs encouraged by the World Bank: market oriented development • Substantial improvement in some countries but not the poorest • Destruction of traditional social networks for subsistence • Ecological consequences

5. Paradigm shift: the constructivist perspective in development • Reality is socially constructed. • Innovation comes from social actors: focus on indigenous knowledge. • Norman Long’s actor oriented approach: agency and strategic rationality. • Bottom-up approach • Use of participatory methods such as PTD (Participatory Technology Development), FFS (Farmer Field Schools), PRA (Participatory Rural Appraisal), etc…

6. Niels Röling’s work on sustainable agriculture: interaction and learning • Norman Long’s focus on agency is too limited: need to look at interaction and collective purposes. • The anthropogenic eco-challenge: human beings became part of the system as a major force of nature. Importance of studying relationships.

7. An example: water dilemmasI. Issues for the future • Scarcity of fresh water in large parts of the world. There simply is not enough for everybody. • Even if there is enough for all, lack of access to safe drinking water for a very significant number of people. • Increasing conflicts about the uses of water.

8. II. Characteristics of water dilemmas (N. Röling, 2001) • Uncertainty: climate change, behavior of complex ecosystems, measurability of underground water flows, climatic fluxes such as El Niño. • Multiple stakeholders with different worldviews, life goals, incentives, and livelihoods: different nations, upstream and downstream farmers, rich landowners and small farmers, urban and agricultural uses, etc… • Separation in space and/or time: consequences of human activities on water can appear years after in a different place. • Economic difficulty: costs are externalized and difficult to ascribe to a specific action and/or actor + different rules/policies for different territorial units.

9. The elements of agency: cognitive agent in context (N. Röling, 2001) Values, emotions, goals Theory Actions CONTEXT Perception of context

10. Guideline to sustainable management of collective resourcesaccording to N. Röling, 2001 • Access to the resource is limited to a defined set of users • Those with access communicate (a platform for dialogue exists) • Clear rules for access and use • A way of monitoring adherence to these rules • Payments for monitoring and use • Sanctions for violating the rules Successful examples exist!!!

11. The Miller-Bawden Quadrants:management of the Spruce Budworm problem Holism III Holocentric (critical social learning) II Ecocentric (use natural controls) Positivism Constructivism I Technocentric (spray) IV Egocentric (pray) Reductionism

12. Main conclusions from Niels Röling’s approach • Changing view to our natural environment: man as part of the system • Use various ‘scientific’ approaches such as ‘classical’ and ‘post-modern’ sciences • Need to accommodate multiple realities/perspectives • Importance of trust in resource management dialogues • Question: how to build supportive institutions?

13. P. Richards and the TAO group approach • How science and technology impact on international development • And are themselves shaped by culture, history and politics • Interdisciplinary • Critical • Grounded in practice • Importance of institutions and ‘culture’

14. Question to the group: why do we put flowers on graves? • Institutions own the ideas for us • Pervasive influence of institutions on the way we look at a given problem • Difference between institution and organization: every organization is an institution but not every institution is an organization. Ex: marriage, burying practices, etc… • Need to create organizations that go beyond institutional cultures.

15. Mary Douglas’ Cultural Theory • Two dimensions: • Grid: the degree to which our lives are circumscribed by conventions or rules, reducing the area of life that is open to individual negotiation. Ex: the attribution of names to children. • Group: the extent to which individual choice is constrained by group choice, by binding the individual into the collective body. Ex: monastic communities are high group.

16. Cultural Theory Fatalist Low cooperation, rule-bound approaches to organizations. Ex: atomized societies sunk in rigid routines Hierarchist Socially cohesive, rule-bound approaches to organization. Ex: military structures high Grid Individualist Atomized approaches to organization stressing negotiation and bargaining. Ex: ‘government by the market’ thinking Egalitarist High-participation structures in which every decision is ‘up for grabs’ Ex: environmental NGOs low Group high low

17. Perspective taking « public management is like the drains, in the sense that it normally only grabs attention when there is a nasty smell of some kind. But the cultural-theory perspective suggests that what comes as a bad smell is not likely to be the same for everyone. What to one person is an intolerable stink may be scarcely noticeable to another. Views will often diverge sharply on who or what is at fault and what should be done to fix the problem. There is no universal agreement on what counts as ‘problem’ and what as ‘solution’, or when the point is reached where the ‘solution’ becomes worse than the ‘problem’. (…) What some may see as vigorous promotion of order and public safety (for instance through ‘zero tolerance’ of street crime) may be viewed by others as a needless provocation of petty offenders or even an all out war on the disadvantaged, only a short step away from the sort of rapacity conducted by the fascist and authoritarian states against marginal or dissident members of society (cf. Nicholson, 1986). » Source: Christopher Hood: The Art of the State, pp24-25

18. Response to Public Management disasters Fatalist response: ‘resilience’ Stress: unpredictability and unintended effects Blame: the ‘fickle finger of fate’ (or chaos theory interpretation of how organization works Remedy: minimal anticipation, at most ad hoc response after the event Hierarchis response: ‘steering’ Stress: expertise, forecasting, and management Blame: poor compliance with established procedures, lack of professional expertise Remedy: more expertise, tighter procedures, greater managerial ‘grip’ Individualist response: ‘enlightened self-interest’ Stress: individuals as self-interested rational chosers Blame: faulty incentive structures through over-collectivization and lack of price signals Remedy: marketlike mechanisms, competitions and leagues, information to support choice Egalitarian response: ‘community participation’ Stress: group and power structures Blame: abuse of power by top-level government/corporate leaders, system corruption Remedy: participation, communitarianism, whistle-blowing

19. Views of nature Fatalistic Nature as capricious Hierarchist Perverse and tolerant Individualistic Benign, you can do anything Egalitarian Ephemeral and fragile

20. Agricultural Production and Institution Building after War (P. Richards, 2001)The case • Sierra Leone • 52% of the population survived • Distribution of seeds for restarting agricultural production • There are no institutions anymore • How to distribute the seeds?

21. How to Distribute the Seeds? Recreating the former system based on the authority of chiefs? Building new institutions through collective negociations? • Outcome of collective negociations: • Giving seeds to chiefs to decide of distribution • Giving seeds to people over 40 years • Avoid those considered as treators or unreliable • Target the most needy • Give seeds to every person that can cultivate in equal quantity

22. Outcome and Conclusions • Importance of human rights and justice: the mal distribution of aid inputs provided fertile soil for quarrels • Creation of a ‘village peace and rights day’ to discuss about the vulnerabilities that facilitated the war and prevent it from happening again, with the help of a facilitator. • « Among people facing extreme survival challenges, attention to human rights must address immediate material concerns as well as more abstract issues of justice » (P. Richards, 2001)

23. Question • How can we as interculturalists contribute to sustainable development? • How can interculturalists play a role in a ‘dialogue on sustainable resource management’? • How can you use what you learnt here? • How can it be linked to social responsibility in companies? • Do big companies have a role to play in sustainable development? If yes, which one and how?

24. Norman Long and the actor-oriented approach • Agency, social actors and strategic rationality • Multiple realities • Interface encounters • Discontinuities in interests, values, knowledge and power • Methodologies: participatory rural appraisal (PRA) and stakeholders analysis

25. Norsemen on Greenland In the Early Middle Ages, the climate was relatively warm. Norsemen had settled on what was then appropriately called Greenland and developed farming communities based on livestock production. Around 1220, they sent a polar bear to the King of Norway as a present. In return, they received a bishop. He wasted no time and began building churches; religious fervour became one of the hallmarks of the Nordic communities. In the 14th century, the climate became cooler. Slowly the conditions turned against the Norse communities and their way of life. Eventually they had to give up and return to Norway. All that now remains of the efforts are the ruins of their churches. Meanwhile, the Inuit who lived on Greenland at the same time effectively adapted their lifestyle to the change in climate and still make their living on the island.

26. Social dilemmas or ‘the tragedy of the commons’ « The situation in which it is rational for all individuals to make selfish choices, while all would be better off in the end if they made cooperative choices. » (Röling, 2001) • Commons dilemmas: can be solved if all take less from the common good. Ex: water resources. • Public good dilemmas: can be solved if all contribute more to the public good. Ex: maintaining a dam/a dyke.

27. Need to maintain: • Coherence between values, theories, perceptions and actions • Correspondence or structural coupling with the context A story: Norsemen on Greenland