The development concept is annoying. What does it mean? promote the culture of a people? promote education? in this context where the idea of sustainable development?
The concept of sustainable development appears to be a political concept ambiguous for several reasons (Theys, 2001): Define sustainable development as does the Brundtland report, is to propose an ambition both naive and utopian because it involves solving insoluble contradictions. This is the risk of erasing these contradictions. Move from consideration of environmental sustainability is a goal that exchange is believed to define a concept against more vague and difficult to define. Affirming the possibility of sustainable development, it is simultaneously refute fears and limits to growth. This is a way to reaffirm the primacy of development on the environment that will then attempting to transform a priority for growth.
The question what development? This question is very broad, so we will be limited to the presentation of three points: the economic and social development.
The economic and social development: Development can be defined as the satisfaction of basic human needs is a cumulative process with a long-term goal is a long term process, development is the process by which a country is able to know sustainable growth, autonomous and properly distributed between social groups and between individuals. In this context, the development has an economic dimension (growth), but it is far from sufficient.
The development also has an ethical dimension. Sen is the Nobel Prize in economics in 1999 which introduced the ethical dimension in the concept of development. Every man has the right to dignity. This is the principle of the dignity of the human person: that a human being must be treated as an end in itself. This is fundamental in the context of cooperation, because it imposes on the other, these differences of these values. Unfortunately, it is often absent.
Note here that the different countries of the world are at a different level of development. So there is a diversity of situations, both in developed countries than in developing countries. Thus, the boundary between developed countries and developing countries is extremely vague. In addition, the situation of countries evolves over time. And countries that were classified, there are still 30 years in developing countries are part today in developed countries. This is the case of Spain, Portugal and Greece and most spectacular case Japan. Otherwise, fortunately rare, occurred in Argentina which was considered a developed country in the 1950s and is now classified as developing countries. The ranking of countries according to their economic and social development is not static and is constantly changing.
But, said developed countries serve as referents. To grow, we must imitate those who began their process of economic development there are more than a century industrializing. This idea is widely used by the development of economic activities including industrial development of the single track. This is a linear approach to the development: companies must go through several stages, from traditional society to a consumer society, the gateway to reach a state of maturity. This analysis in terms of transition from tradition to modernity, is to see that all economic systems operate in a similar development process and, therefore, denies the multiplicity and richness of socio-economic organizations in the South . This denial of the diversity of societies essentially draws its legitimacy from the ruling principle of a universal model of development. Although this analysis has been heavily criticized, it remains dominant. It delegitimizes fact any other alternative way of development including the sustainable development.
Sustainable development: The concept of sustainable development is Anglo-Saxon origin, coined by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature in 1980, it was actually popularized in 1987 by the Brundtland Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development UN.
According to the Brundtland Report, sustainable development must meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs and corresponds to the present generations have to pass a livable world, viable and reproducible. The right to development must equitably meet developmental and the environment. This approach is based largely on the concept of natural heritage composed of a set of renewable and non-renewable, which were inherited from past generations and to be transmitted in the same state, and if possible enhancements to to future generations.
This first approach to sustainable development is mainly based on a perspective that emphasizes environmentalist broadly the notion of environmental sustainability rather than sustained development of economic activities in poor countries.
The main criticism formulated by the authors rightly South against the approach of international organizations in the field of sustainable development is the link between sustainability and poverty. Northern countries seek to implement policies to protect the environment with the objective of limiting the exploitation of natural resources in both the North and the South, while in contrast to the South the need for growth is necessary and has priority over the goals of preservation and renewal of stocks, because poverty in developing countries is the main source of environmental degradation, degradation which itself becomes in turn generate poverty.
So there is a contradiction between the fact of considering the said countries developed as a model to follow and impose a limitation on the exploitation of natural resources in developing countries.
Development at the base and the participatory approach. The basic development is not a new concept, she appeared in the 1930s as part of the French cooperation in Africa. The basic development can be defined as a process by which a society at a time in its history, is organized for better mobilization and efficient use of resources and forces at its disposal in order to reach a state judged better by itself according to its aspirations and cultural norms. Through the official discourse, the basic development appears not only as a philosophy of action, but also as a strategic objective based on a number of strong ideas. The basic development is seen as a prerequisite for development, because it is a development focused on basic needs and their own organizational capacity.
Development at the base and the participatory approach are two concepts in fashion in development operators. Operators are in a mode of participatory action again responding to the real concerns of the people and capable of promoting grassroots development. Development projects should be designed and run by local base, including the villages. The goal is the involvement of a significant number of actions in their well-being.
Popular participation assumes that moral and sociological conditions are met the individual and collective level. Firstly, the needs are expressed by the people who are expressing their interests and consider concrete local initiatives. Second, people must adhere completely to the collective initiative, be physically present and mentally engaged throughout the project. Finally, the membership should result in a certain degree of organization of the local community. The success of the project requires, on the part of management, real integration and availability of officers mobilization.
Participation is really effective when the mobilization and commitment of people are spontaneous and all the village community is involved fully in the process of long-term development, without outside intervention. Visits to the sites of many projects and conclusions of assessment missions can be concluded that when these conditions are not met, there is some form of participation very detrimental to the proper functioning of development activities.
Broadly we can distinguish three cases: The formal participation where people are intended to what the achievements are presented on sites for form, without feeling really involved in successful operations. Participation imposed which corresponds to an effective mobilization conducted under duress but where people fear reprisals or sanctions administration. Participation caused when the initiative usually comes from the outside but nevertheless reflects a voluntary and responsible people.
Conditions of voluntary participation of people, unfortunately, are not met in many projects and development activities. On the ground, the participatory approach runs into limiting factors significantly impact on populations.
First factor: involvement of the latter is seen from the point of view of development operators, as a necessary contribution to the only phases of projects which require a use of labor. Most often, it is the physical intervention is sought. A large number of projects seeking populations as stages of identifying needs and especially execution. Few projects involve people from the design stages, diagnosis, follow-on phases of operations and project evaluation.
Second factor: Differences as to the form of incentive for a massive mobilization of populations between the development operators. Some projects prefer the free distribution of food, others are fond of food donations in exchange for work. It happens in some cases that mobilization is minted in exchange for cash. Sometimes in the same area for similar actions, several projects mobilize populations with different means. This creates distrust people who tend to compare the benefits of a particular project before engaging in a transaction.
Third factor: people's participation is contingent on a series of sociological and cultural barriers including the authoritarian and centralizing management committee projects or internal conflicts in some communities, conflicts between land managers and local authorities, the weight of tradition, the special status of certain privileged actors such as youth and women, the negative effects of food aid and finally the problem of management and training.
It takes place here to redefine the roles of different actors as partners with priorities: a real political will to decentralize decision-making bodies and management programs for people, a willingness to transfer skills in order to grant genuine autonomy grassroots organizations and political will to put into question the exorbitant privileges reserved in projects with external partners including experts, managers, consultants or project managers.
In conclusion, it must be emphasized that these three approaches are closely related. Many NGOs are understood and integrated in their approach these notions of development. Unfortunately, the dominant players, IMF and World Bank, which require policy measures to Southern governments, considering only the universal model and linear development.
