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.