|
Editorial, volume 4, number 3, 1994
Development is about change. It is intimately concerned with enabling the people and groups who are marginalised from power to transform their lives by gaining greater control over the decisions and forces that constrain their opportunities and aspirations. Above all, development is synonymous with distributing power and resources in different ways, and at all levels, in order to create an equitable and more sustainable social equilibrium.
Yet, while many international development agencies are deeply committed to promoting global change, their organisational attitudes to change itself are often ambivalent. At one level, this reflects the sheer difficulty of shifting the centre of institutional gravity from one direction to another. The larger the organisation, the more complex is the process of negotiating between competing interests, and inconsistent (often incompatible) perspectives and priorities. The question of incorporating a commitment to gender equity is a case in point: it is relatively easy to adopt a development policy of analysing gender relations, and promoting equal rights between women and men; it is very much harder -- and more painful -- to translate this into practice, especially since to do so entails examining organisational power relations, and redistributing resources more equitably throughout the entire institution.
Within a wider context, development and relief agencies also face real difficulties in squaring the need to plan their activities within a principled framework with the demands of a working environment in which plans are constantly frustrated by changing events. Planning for change, it may seem, is possible only from a position of stability. Similarly, emergency relief comes to represent the fantasy that it is possible to return to `normality', as though change had never occurred.
Whether change is indeed more chaotic, more profound, or more turbulent today than it has always been is a question open to debate. There is nothing new about crisis -- seen as a turning-point within a situation or process -- and the disasters that result when such crises accumulate, or outstrip a society's capacity to cope. This is not to suggest that all changes are desirable in themselves. Yet, if change is what we are about, it is illogical to behave as though development can begin only after the storm blows over. The challenge is to harness this positive energy to the potential of the women, men, and children who have the most to gain from changing their situation to one that gives them more control over their own lives.
Drawing on thinking from the natural sciences, in this issue Chris Roche explores the concept of change in the context of development, relief, and lobbying activities undertaken by a consortium of European NGOs working in Africa. In particular, he illustrates the need to develop approaches to internal management -- as well as to information-gathering and evaluation in the external environment -- that are sufficiently flexible to cope with changing demands. The theme is taken up by Barry N. Stein and Frederick C. Cuny, reporting on their extensive work on the issue of refugee-induced repatriation. Since the majority of voluntary repatriations occur without external assistance, often in the midst of conflict, and usually involve a return to volatile or unstable situations, the authors argue that the international community must find more appropriate ways to support refugees in their own decision-making processes, and provide timely assistance during the rehabilitation phase. While they question the wisdom of involving the inter-governmental development agencies in programmes relating to the return of refugees under such circumstances, Stein and Cuny argue that the non-governmental sector may play a vital role at the local level. Lucy Bonnerjea discusses the situation of children who become separated from their families, often in the context of armed conflict, and argues that interventions must guard against fashions or conventional wisdoms which fail to take a child-centred approach to family tracing.
Andy Storey looks at population movements of a different kind, questioning the restrictions placed on people travelling to Europe and other rich regions, in search of employment or economic asylum. He challenges the selfish protectionism implied by this `global apartheid', and argues that aid agencies which work in developing countries should do more to challenge existing immigration laws -- and so demonstrate their commitment to the redistribution of wealth on an international scale. Turning to the specific situation of pastoralists in Africa, Ian Scoones and Olivia Graham demonstrate the inadequacy of interventions that fail to recognise the complex systems of social and economic survival that communities have already developed over many generations -- and which include seasonal and cyclical migration. Among other recommendations, they stress the importance of adopting a multi-disciplinary approach to planning, one which builds on people's existing capacities. Ebel Wickramanayake illustrates a similar point in reporting on the mixed success of an attempt at participative planning in Sri Lanka.
Deborah Eade
October 1994
 Previous
|
Next Abstract 
|
