Development Mind and Economic Matter

When it comes to the impact on international poverty of the ongoing economic crisis in the wealthiest countries, it may be the unexpected that trumps the predictable. Minds may win over matter. And all forms of media and communication will play a vital role in this process. We all know the conventional arguments about the "matter" here - the money! There is a very real possibility that the OECD countries may slip even further away from their 0.7 of GDP international development spending targets. International development spending may move to a closer relationship with key international security concerns. OECD governments will be asked by their citizens to tend their own backyards first. But are we seeing a significant change of mind-set in the balance of power and influence in the way that local, national, and international policy development takes place, particularly related to economic policy? If there is such a change, could that have a much greater long-term impact on poverty and related issues than any GDP % swing? And are media and communication crucial here? Let's face it, when it comes to policy influence, including priorities for the allocation of very substantial funds, the big Northern governments and the major international agencies have the most sway. It is really hard for a small (or even big) developing country government to have a balanced argument with The World Bank. No collective of local and national HIV/AIDS organisations in a country is likely to change the global policies and priorities of a major HIV/AIDS-focused foundation. This is not an equitable process. That inequity that is so frustrating to many in their countries is not just rooted in a comparison of bank balances. Perceptions of competence and track records of success also really matter. When both the organisations setting the policy (and prioritising the resource allocation) and often the individual people involved in their negotiation, guidance, and implementation are either from or draw heavily from countries perceived to be economically successful, that carries real weight. In essence, there is an often unspoken ambience in the room: "hey - you are the ones in trouble, and based on what we have achieved, we can figure it out - so follow us". Any resistance is of course further neutered by who controls the cash! But look where we are now. The USA, after years of guidance re the danger of national debt for other countries has one approaching 40 percent of its GDP. Greece, Ireland, soon Portugal, Spain, and then who knows next, are lining up in the reception area of the IMF for public bailouts. Some of the most powerful financial institutions have either gone out of business or are so heavily government "supported" they have in effect been nationalised - after decades of banging on about the dangers of nationalisation. The hallowed cow preached at the so called developing world by "successful" economies re the mortal dangers of adopting policies like government support to industry and printing money got tossed out and overturned in their economies quicker than a trip to the abattoir. The dreamy social norm that all should be property owners became a stormy nightmare for individuals and macro-economists. And, not finally - there is so much more but no space here, contradicting the strong rhetoric of "free" trade, barriers keep being erected in even the most unlikely of countries, witness Canada stopping the Aussies, of all people, buying their potash deposits (true - I promise!). This is some picture for the past 12 months. The perspectives and tones of that picture are further complicated by the emergence (or possibly just recognition) of some alternative macro-development models and opportunities. There has always been reluctance in the development community to support direct cash payments to the people living in poverty. But programmes such as the ones Brasil has adopted appear to have been extremely successful in supporting moving people out of poverty. China has emerged as a major force in development in many countries. Their focus has, as we all know, been on infrastructure in proximity to mineral and other resources. But they do provide a genuine alternative (competition?) to mainstream development loans and other financing practices. And China is operating at very considerable scale. During the economic crisis it did not go unnoticed that some of the countries that have had the most rapid economic growth and have achieved this through a central planning model - e.g., South Korea, China and Malaysia - seemed to survive the best. There is also increasing recognition that some Northern countries whilst preaching free markets as "the answer" have taken the opposite steps. There are examples above. Two more: Norway essentially runs a state-owned oil industry that is very successful at both making huge amounts of money and securing the long-term future for present and future Norwegians; and, the Canadians now pride themselves on having had a correctly and strongly government-regulated banking industry that not only survived but thrived during the "crisis". But oh how the banking Execs complained like hell before the "crisis" about the threat to free trade of these regulations. In this analysis I am agnostic about which of these dynamics and approaches to development is "best", "good", or even "worth looking at in more detail". What is of most importance for increased development impact is the space that these recent dynamics create: A space that invites public engagement and debate. We all know that the intangibles such as "ownership", "engagement", "buy-in", "motivation", and "leadership" are vital for successful development. It is really difficult to achieve these at scale when governments and populations alike feel, to corrupt Margaret Thatcher's famous phrase, "they have no alternative". Now there are many alternatives. Those alternatives provide the space for creating the ownership, engagement, buy-in, motivation and leadership required for effective and sustainable economic development. Communication and media are absolutely critical in this process. Be it television news, local newspapers, public fora, blogging, theatre, local cultural forms, music, neighbours talking, investigative journalism, talk radio, citizens meeting with politicians, campaigns on particular issues, scrutiny of public spending and reporting by academics, or a myriad of other media and communication forms, it is the engagement of the public in conversations that consider (and perhaps agree with) the policies (their own policies, after all) that is fundamentally important to good policy development. This is a moment in time, for all of the economic reasons outlined above, when the space and opportunity exists to support significant expansion of the media and communication processes that will build those improved policies. A time for the "minds" of the people most affected to be engaged so that a very much improved "matter" can follow. Thoughts? Agree? Disagree? Please do rate and comment.