Monday 28 March 2016

Appropriate ethic of engagement for Development professionals in the twenty first century

Ethical principles in development is necessary as development is not merely fully filled with political interests. According to Cooper (1992), ethics can be analysed from two orientations, namely deontological and teleological ethics. Deontological view considers an action is correct if the action matches with ethical principles such as freedom, justice and, verity without regard for the effects of one’s actions. Meanwhile, teleological ethics, in contrast, consider the further consequences of the enforcement ethical principles. In this frame, ethical development can be understood as a country’s efforts to improve and achieve people’s wellbeing fairly and correctly. 

In this context, it is important to understand development process by using these perspectives. Lack of local community’s participation in Recife project (Brazil) can be seen as a systemic way to conduct abuse of development. In the Recife case, the public meetings to decide upon preferred options is a matter. On the paper, the aim of the project was to establish a direct and mutual relationship with local community where they can question, complaint, and demand (Nuitjen 2013). However, although community has crucial voice, the participatory procedures were deceptive. The process stimulated patron-client relations and reflects undemocratic process where people only actively engage with formal procedures and they have no enough space to ask to deepen their understanding of the project and therefore, they the participation is only to fulfil procedures requirements (Nuijten and Koster 2012, p. 16). This shows a crisis of teleological awareness in linking political actions with public interests.

In terms of innovative development, innovation has become the key word in development today. NGOs, government, the UN tend to push innovative approach. On behalf innovation, all development sectors need to be innovative. However, the concept of it remains unclear which leads to confusing implementation (Krause 2013). For example, OECD defines innovation as implementation of improved products and UNICEF understands innovation as improving children and families’ wellbeing, and Oxford University Humanitarian Innovation Project defines innovation as process to certain context (Krause 2013). As a result, blurred concept can leads to misinterpretation of development, mistranslating what people’s means with development, and even compelling a concept of development in a project. To anticipate it, ethically, clear definition should be put in the beginning of the project.

According to Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum as cited in Crocker (1992), besides hunger, other sever deprivation indicates as ethical failures. Sen argues that ethics should be constructed dialectically with empirical experiences on what causes and hampers development including what causes poverty, exploitation, and other development failures. Sen also concerns ethical values in policy making, how policies designs should have moral basis. When a policy is designed just for decision makers’ interests, it against ethical values. Recife project is an example where influential communities who always criticise were not invited to attend the meetings and the project raises many problems. Injustice and structural poverty are constructed since in in the concept, begins from policies to implementation.

To conclude, clear concept or definition of development, policy, and implementation is necessary and development should also be based on ethical principles that highlights justice, equality, freedom, and public wellbeing. Global development ethics have been acknowledged in global programmes such as in World Development Indicators by World Bank and Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) with the goal creating global partnership for development between rich countries and developing countries. However, agent of development should reflects questions; does moral and ethical affirmation applied in global development and then translated in national programmes come from human morale boosts? Or is there any hidden agenda to exploit?


References

Akaah, I, P., (1997). Influence of Deontological Factors on Research Ethics Evaluations, Journal of Business research, Vol.39, No.2, pp.71-80.

Croker, D,A., (1992). Functioning and capability: the foundations of Sen’s and Nussbaum’s Development Ethic, Political Theory, Vol.20, No.4, pp. 584-612.

Cooper T, I., (1992), Review of the responsible administrator- an approach to ethics for the administrative role-response, Public administration review, Vol. 52, No.3, pp.311-313

Koster, M., Nuitjen, M., (2012). From preamble to Post-project Frustrations: The shaping of a Slum Upgrading Project in Recife, Brazil, Antipode, Vol.44, No.1, pp.175-196.


Nuitjen, M., (2013). The perversity of ‘Citizenship Game’: Slum-upgrading in the urban periphery of Recife, Brazil, Critique of Anthropology, Vol.33, No.1, pp.8-25.

No comments:

Post a Comment