Send in the experts . . .

Think about this idea of individualism--that it's your own fault if you're poor, whether you're a person or a country. Compare it with a structural viewpoint--the history of development and underdevelopment, economic exploitation of poor countries for their raw materials, which helped fuel industrialization and wealth generation in the rich countries. Stark technology differences, differences in trade, education, opportunity, etc., reinforced by world treaties supporting free trade and global movement of capital, cheap sourcing of labor, etc.

It's little wonder many people begin to think that poor countries can't possible address their problems--they need the outside experts from the 'successful' (read 'powerful') countries that have written the textbooks on development. They need transfers of technology, ideas, expertise, resources.

There are literally tens of thousands of organizations around the world that do development work in various countries. They hire people to help them design and plan projects, identify problems and project opportunities, and implement projects. Sometimes the initial work comes from outside experts, and projects are handed over to locals. Sometimes not. Most developmetn is not bottom-up, participatory grassroots stuff.

But this has long been the model. We'll send in the experts, they'll tell us what to do, design something, and we'll carry it out on the ground. Development economist Robert Chambers refers to this as 'development tourism.' No one is going to pay high-priced consultants to sit in villages, observe, get to know the men and women, the rich and poor, the young and old, and work with them to chart a course that addresses broadly-based needs. That's expensive. What you get are 'tourists'--go into a village, do some interviews, hold some meetings, figure out quickly what the problems are the obstacles, and the resources, get out and go to the next village, and gather enough data to design a project. The intentions are good.

But the outcomes are subject to some severe 'development biases.' There are:

1. Spatial biases
   The outside experts may not stray far from the 'tarmac' (the runway). It's more expensive, takes more time, and they can see less villages. Same with roads--stay near the paved roads, don't go off into rutted areas that are practically inaccessible during the 4-6 month rainy season (i.e., don't go where the project is likely to flop because the roads are impassable half the year). Once in the village, how do you know you're getting to the ones most in need? They're the ones who live in outlying areas, or who are out in the bush collecting fuelwood or going to the bathroom because they don't have a latrine in their compound.
2. Temporal (time) biases
   If you commute to the village during the day, and go back to the four-star hotel at night, do you really know what's going on? do you know that women are getting up at 4 am to start cooking breakfast because it takes two hours to process the grain and cook the porridge? There are seasonal biases as well. For instance, it's easy to find people to talk to you durin ghte post-harvest season, the dry season. But the most difficult time for many is during the rainy season. People work harder, their food stocks could be running low, they get sick more often (especially malaria, there are more mosquitoes during the wet part of the year) and this can screw up their year's harvest. If women collect their fuelwood in the dry season (to spend more time farming during the rainy season) and you observe that no one collects fuelwood during the rains, you'll not understand one of the most time consuming tasks they do. Maybe it's impossible to represent the different seasons in understanding what people do--but it's essential to understand that missing a season could distort the big picture of what people do--to recognize the limits of information gathering processes and at least ask 'what's it like during the rains?' It's also tough during the rainy season just to find people to talk to. They're all out farming. You might be left with small children, the sick and elderly.
3. Political biases
   couple here include ethnic or racial biases--in many countries certain ethnic groups may be favored over others. The worst case scenario is Rwanda, with the Hutus and the Tutsis. But some countries have 200+ ethnic groups, many of whom may have conflicts. A corrupt government could divert resources from one region, one group to other favored regions or groups. Another common bias is the showcase village. Government officials may not want you to see the worst poverty--they may intentionally direct you to the villages that have received every advantage, that get the money, the dignitaries, the technologies, and that are located along major roads and highly visible.

Hopefully you get the picture--bottom-up development takes hard work. And a minimal use of outside experts. It's expensive (hopefully you're seeing why development measures are often quantitative and relatively easy to collect--even if they grossly misrepresent an economy or people's participation in it). Why not train locals to collect data? They are after all the masters of their environment. At the international level, we train countries' most gifted students, and they quickly find opportunities outside their own countries to pursue that are often more meaningful and financially rewarding. The brain drain, it's called. But why not develop human capital, social capital, from within? The experts may have their place in development, but that place may be facilitating bottom-up, participatory development processes, not telling people what to do, the latter of which often means 'do what we did,' an option that may be unavailable, downright dangerous, and counterproductive.

In the absence of the 'expert,' is the project sustainable?