How do these readings discuss and critique Development and/or Microfinance? How has the neoliberal turn in the 1970s and 1980s influenced development discourse?
In these readings Development can be understood as an organizing concept for a set of practices, discourses, and social technologies that emerged out of the late colonial era to organize the relationship between the U.S. and the Global South. These readings critique Development and Microfinance in that they highlight the fact that these projects leave behind the bottom billion. For example, in the 1980s, global movements insisted that development was a neo-imperialist project, one that had to be disrupted and disabled. In relation to Microfinance, Roy explains that the world's poor are now also perceived as potential victims of a predatory trade in debt. Elyachar also critiques development in major ways. One important way is the view of failure in development. Elyachar states, "One of the greatest failures of development in the postcolonial world from this perspective was its failure to deliver on infrastructure." The bottom billion was left to fend for themselves in terms of access to markets because of the lack of infrastructure brought about by development. The neoliberal turn in the 1970s and 1980s influenced development discourse in that there was a new focus on the development of the bottom billion. This is summarized by Roy in her statement, "The new millenium can be understood as the age of poverty, one in which the concern for poverty not only shapes social life but also serves as a key part of the remaking of the global economy."
Julia Elyachar describes Development as a discourse and a set of practices that organized relations between the former colonial powers and the United States during its global ascendency, on one hand, and, on the other, former colonies as well as territories of defeated empires in WWII. Microfinance is described by Roy as a highly popular poverty intervention, that in recent years has begun an intense search for a "moral compass". A critique of Microfinance and Development is that those programs strengthened the conviction that the poor did not need development. Critics of development reject the assumption that the state or development agencies could know the poor and their needs. In the 1980's, States were increasingly forced by neoliberal reform programs to cancel human development initiatives. The people at the bottom of the pyramid, or the "bottom billion" have been turned into market opportunities for the world of business management.
Ananya Roy calls this new millennium the age of poverty as corporations and politics take aim at the growing global issue. From contributor Elyachar, the idea of Development is explained as an organizing concept for a set of practices, discourses, and social technologies that emerged out of the late colonial era to organize the relationship between the United States and the global South (Roy pg. 105). This practice came about after the second world war as the United States took its place as the world’s leading economy and using this advantage to help develop under advantage countries. IN the 1980’s global movements were seen as a neo-imperialist project that needed dismantling. However, they were proponents of these markets in the global south as Neo-Liberal unrestricted market ideologies saw this as business of the state. Roy and contributors go on to critic this idea of Development and Microfinance as forms of predatory practices, preying upon the “bottom billion” which is the billion people living in poverty globally. This realm of poverty presents another economy where debt is sold and bought, essentially selling off the owed money to another party who hopes to collect while the previous owner of the debt is gambling that they would never received their returns and selling it off for a fraction of the actually owed money. It’s a very odd and dark place to operate within the market. It reminds me somewhat of indentured servitude where the remaining labor owed can be sold off to a third party. Another form of predatory action aimed at the bottom billion or the unfortunate is disaster capitalism. This is described as catastrophes and their disproportionate impact on the poverty-stricken population and turned into market gains. This strengthens the argument for the need for humanitarianism as a global form of governing, filling in the moral failures of the state and market.
These articles discuss microfinance and development in two different ways. First, microfinance is way that groups of people in developing or lower socio-economic areas to improve their lives through small loans or group saving initiatives. And, the usage of these loans or programs will go toward their personal development and the development of their communities as a whole. Second, this article discusses these two structures as a potential for capitalists to find their fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. These practices work to entrap the bottom billion in small debts that would be impossible for them to pay off. This is mention as a development trap that does not actually allow these people or communities to develop but rather be gripped by debts that are virtually unpayable.
Initially, microfinance came about from the idea that people at the bottom of the economic pyramid didn’t need anymore help developing and instead could start to be apart of the world market. Financers were interested in the connectivity that these people had in their communities and thought that they could tap into this inter-connectivity as an economic resource. Setting up microfinances allowed these people to take out small, group loans which they could use to potentially open a small business or pay for their children’s education. In theory, creating these small, accessible loans sound ethical and progressive, but in reality, it often creates large amounts of stress, dependence, and debt. Microfinancers try to create an image that they care about helping the poor, but it doesn’t actually get to the root of why there is so much economic inequality in the first place. Before the 1980s, the state and developing infrastructure as a public good were closely related. The neoliberal turn in the 1970s and 1980s influenced development discourse by pushing the state to privatize infrastructures. Also, instead of corporations waiting for development programs to change conditions in poor communities, they were encouraged to redesign their products to to suit current conditions of life in poor countries (Elyachar, 114).
Ananya Roy states that we are now in the "age of poverty" because of how visible poverty has become and because of how much effort is being put towards minimalizing it. This new age has led to a renewal of development through reconstruction, humanitarianism, and bottom billion capitalism. The revival of development is centralized around poverty, making the bottom billion the grounds for global ethics. The goal of bottom billion capitalism is to make poverty a frontier of profit through innovations like involving them in global finance through microloans or turning catastrophes into market opportunities. I found it interesting that both of these articles referred to the poor as a huge opportunity for knowledge and profit. This is a perspective I have not previously focused on. Because of this profit potential, Roy talks about the ethicalization of market rule, which refers to the carefulness taken to mitigate the exploitive nature of bottom billion capitalism. For example, it was interesting to read about how microfinance isn't just poverty intervention, it also yeilds a large rate of return in financial markets. This duel purpose can sway the cause away from humanitarian purposes, which calls for a "moral compass" to come in to play. In the end, humanitarianism is a form of global governing which exceeds the scope of the state and market. Elyachar's article is centered around analyzing development in terms of Prahalad's idea of the "next practices". She writes that since the industrial system has led us to the brink of disaster, we must now use the poorest groups to identify new business models and new business infrastructures. The poorest groups are extremely connected because of the failures of the post-colonial world to develop. Without any infrastructure prior, technology provides a basis for communication. Without any system to forget, this new connectivity is easily learned. Also, prior to the 1980s, a development program related to infrastructure would have been considered a public good. With the introduction of neo-liberalism, developmental programs would be pushed to privatize. This is followed by the bottom of the pyramid (BOP) approach, which calls for corporations to redesign products to suit current conditions of poor countries.
In these readings Development can be understood as an organizing concept for a set of practices, discourses, and social technologies that emerged out of the late colonial era to organize the relationship between the U.S. and the Global South. These readings critique Development and Microfinance in that they highlight the fact that these projects leave behind the bottom billion. For example, in the 1980s, global movements insisted that development was a neo-imperialist project, one that had to be disrupted and disabled. In relation to Microfinance, Roy explains that the world's poor are now also perceived as potential victims of a predatory trade in debt. Elyachar also critiques development in major ways. One important way is the view of failure in development. Elyachar states, "One of the greatest failures of development in the postcolonial world from this perspective was its failure to deliver on infrastructure." The bottom billion was left to fend for themselves in terms of access to markets because of the lack of infrastructure brought about by development. The neoliberal turn in the 1970s and 1980s influenced development discourse in that there was a new focus on the development of the bottom billion. This is summarized by Roy in her statement, "The new millenium can be understood as the age of poverty, one in which the concern for poverty not only shapes social life but also serves as a key part of the remaking of the global economy."
ReplyDeleteJulia Elyachar describes Development as a discourse and a set of practices that organized relations between the former colonial powers and the United States during its global ascendency, on one hand, and, on the other, former colonies as well as territories of defeated empires in WWII. Microfinance is described by Roy as a highly popular poverty intervention, that in recent years has begun an intense search for a "moral compass". A critique of Microfinance and Development is that those programs strengthened the conviction that the poor did not need development. Critics of development reject the assumption that the state or development agencies could know the poor and their needs. In the 1980's, States were increasingly forced by neoliberal reform programs to cancel human development initiatives. The people at the bottom of the pyramid, or the "bottom billion" have been turned into market opportunities for the world of business management.
ReplyDeleteAnanya Roy calls this new millennium the age of poverty as corporations and politics take aim at the growing global issue. From contributor Elyachar, the idea of Development is explained as an organizing concept for a set of practices, discourses, and social technologies that emerged out of the late colonial era to organize the relationship between the United States and the global South (Roy pg. 105). This practice came about after the second world war as the United States took its place as the world’s leading economy and using this advantage to help develop under advantage countries. IN the 1980’s global movements were seen as a neo-imperialist project that needed dismantling. However, they were proponents of these markets in the global south as Neo-Liberal unrestricted market ideologies saw this as business of the state. Roy and contributors go on to critic this idea of Development and Microfinance as forms of predatory practices, preying upon the “bottom billion” which is the billion people living in poverty globally. This realm of poverty presents another economy where debt is sold and bought, essentially selling off the owed money to another party who hopes to collect while the previous owner of the debt is gambling that they would never received their returns and selling it off for a fraction of the actually owed money. It’s a very odd and dark place to operate within the market. It reminds me somewhat of indentured servitude where the remaining labor owed can be sold off to a third party. Another form of predatory action aimed at the bottom billion or the unfortunate is disaster capitalism. This is described as catastrophes and their disproportionate impact on the poverty-stricken population and turned into market gains. This strengthens the argument for the need for humanitarianism as a global form of governing, filling in the moral failures of the state and market.
ReplyDeleteThese articles discuss microfinance and development in two different ways. First, microfinance is way that groups of people in developing or lower socio-economic areas to improve their lives through small loans or group saving initiatives. And, the usage of these loans or programs will go toward their personal development and the development of their communities as a whole. Second, this article discusses these two structures as a potential for capitalists to find their fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. These practices work to entrap the bottom billion in small debts that would be impossible for them to pay off. This is mention as a development trap that does not actually allow these people or communities to develop but rather be gripped by debts that are virtually unpayable.
ReplyDeleteInitially, microfinance came about from the idea that people at the bottom of the economic pyramid didn’t need anymore help developing and instead could start to be apart of the world market. Financers were interested in the connectivity that these people had in their communities and thought that they could tap into this inter-connectivity as an economic resource. Setting up microfinances allowed these people to take out small, group loans which they could use to potentially open a small business or pay for their children’s education. In theory, creating these small, accessible loans sound ethical and progressive, but in reality, it often creates large amounts of stress, dependence, and debt. Microfinancers try to create an image that they care about helping the poor, but it doesn’t actually get to the root of why there is so much economic inequality in the first place. Before the 1980s, the state and developing infrastructure as a public good were closely related. The neoliberal turn in the 1970s and 1980s influenced development discourse by pushing the state to privatize infrastructures. Also, instead of corporations waiting for development programs to change conditions in poor communities, they were encouraged to redesign their products to to suit current conditions of life in poor countries (Elyachar, 114).
ReplyDeleteAnanya Roy states that we are now in the "age of poverty" because of how visible poverty has become and because of how much effort is being put towards minimalizing it. This new age has led to a renewal of development through reconstruction, humanitarianism, and bottom billion capitalism. The revival of development is centralized around poverty, making the bottom billion the grounds for global ethics. The goal of bottom billion capitalism is to make poverty a frontier of profit through innovations like involving them in global finance through microloans or turning catastrophes into market opportunities. I found it interesting that both of these articles referred to the poor as a huge opportunity for knowledge and profit. This is a perspective I have not previously focused on. Because of this profit potential, Roy talks about the ethicalization of market rule, which refers to the carefulness taken to mitigate the exploitive nature of bottom billion capitalism. For example, it was interesting to read about how microfinance isn't just poverty intervention, it also yeilds a large rate of return in financial markets. This duel purpose can sway the cause away from humanitarian purposes, which calls for a "moral compass" to come in to play. In the end, humanitarianism is a form of global governing which exceeds the scope of the state and market. Elyachar's article is centered around analyzing development in terms of Prahalad's idea of the "next practices". She writes that since the industrial system has led us to the brink of disaster, we must now use the poorest groups to identify new business models and new business infrastructures. The poorest groups are extremely connected because of the failures of the post-colonial world to develop. Without any infrastructure prior, technology provides a basis for communication. Without any system to forget, this new connectivity is easily learned. Also, prior to the 1980s, a development program related to infrastructure would have been considered a public good. With the introduction of neo-liberalism, developmental programs would be pushed to privatize. This is followed by the bottom of the pyramid (BOP) approach, which calls for corporations to redesign products to suit current conditions of poor countries.
ReplyDelete