Development terms that need to be replaced or rethought

About my last post…

So my last post ended up receiving a lot more attention than I anticipated, especially in India. Several new individuals have subscribed to the blog, which is simultaneously gratifying and concerning.

Welcome to those who have newly subscribed! I’m not sure I’ll write along the lines of what you expect, but I hope it’s interesting.

Onward to the main event

Global development, as a practice and industry, is constantly evolving. Historically, it was dominated by a handful of Western governments and institutions. However, today it has become a far more pluralist and diverse sector, even as it is still marred by concerns around representation and power (i.e. who has a voice and whose voice matters?).

One aspect of global development that has especially evolved is language. For example, the term offensive “third world,” used to describe non-Western states, has largely been replaced by terms like “developing” or “Global North/South.”

Complementary to our efforts to make global development a more diverse, inclusive and just sector, the language we use is often subject to great debate. Some people may roll their eyes over this and consider it frivolous. However, I believe it is important to interrogate our language both out of respect for the dignity and self-worth of others, and to uphold our personal integrity.

With that said, in this post I will share a list of words or terms commonly used in development that I believe are especially problematic and merit replacement, if not at least strong questioning. Disclaimer: by critiquing these terms, I’m not trying to imply that I am morally superior or anything. I have (and sometimes still) used these terms precisely because they’re so normalized. My hope is rather to invite us to reflect on our language and encourage us to be more thoughtful.

In no particular order, here we go:

• Developed/developing: It is well past time to stop categorizing countries by their supposed levels of “development.” The label made more sense when it primarily referred to a country’s income level, though it was still degrading. If today, development as a concept has evolved to be far more holistic, then our understanding of a country’s socioeconomic status should also shift. Further, this label gives the illusion of a clear end point, when the benchmark set by “developed countries” is more questionable than ever. Personally, it would be best to distinguish countries by more neutral terms, like income levels (high/mid/low-income) or geography (Global North/South), even as I recognize these terms can also be loaded. These are still better alternatives.

• Field: In academic or research institutions, the “field” typically refers to a research site. A “field visit” in turn means going to a location to conduct research. While this may seem benign, it can be highly exoticizing or othering. The “field” is someone’s community or home, not your lab. We don’t refer to places in the Global North as “the field” even if we may go there for research or other knowledge gathering purposes. Why then do we use this term to describe places in the Global South, particularly ones that are low-income or rural? We could easily replace this term with more neutral phrases, like “research visit.”

• Systems/Ecosystems: In recent years, it seems the development sector has again woken up to the realization that policies or programs operate within larger systems and thus require “systems level thinking” or “engagement with the wider ecosystem.” Likewise, there is a strong push, especially from donors, to pursue “systems change.” It’s not that I disagree with this idea — we absolutely should be thinking in terms of systems and how individual policies or programs interact with them. What bothers me is the shallow nature of these statements. Systems change comes from ambitious, broad-based movements seeking to contest entrenched norms or institutions, not a one-time gender sensitization training or public works program. We need to be more honest about what it means to change a system.

• Stakeholders: During an anthropology class in grad school, a classmate made a comment about “gathering stakeholders,” to which the professor sarcastically replied, “ah yes, we love our stakeholders.” While I can’t say for certain why this professor disliked the term, her reaction made me pause and reflect on it. While the term is meant to call out those who have a stake or interest in a matter, I feel it can often feel empty and generic. Who is a stakeholder? What is their position of power relative to others? What do they stand to lose on a matter? We often speak of stakeholders as if they are on equal footing, when they typically are not. We also speak as if we value all stakeholders equally, when we typically do not (especially those local communities we claim to give voice to). I prefer to be more specific when referring to different actors.

• Participatory, inclusive: Building on the above, development institutions — whether it’s governments, NGOs, donors — love to celebrate how participatory or inclusive their programs are. And to be clear, I’m with them. I deeply believe in the intrinsic and extrinsic value to participation. However, the reality is that most community-focused approaches fall well short of their claim. To center community voice means to give meaningful, long-term agency to community members in our work, not to simply consult or interact with them. It would also mean to adequately compensate and recognize them for their time and support, rather than to primarily reward ourselves the financial and non-financial benefits. We should be more earnest about the quality of participation in our programs instead of resorting to blanket claims.

• Citizens: “Citizen” is a powerful term because it summons a state’s obligation to its people. A citizen of a state is entitled to certain rights and protections by law. In democratic nations, the idea of citizenry is also imbued with ideas of participating in public affairs. I can thus understand the appeal of statements like “Governments should include citizens in policy decisions,” or “Governments need to ensure that citizens have access to healthcare.” However, what is the implication of this rhetoric on those who are not citizens of a state? By focusing on citizens, we are implicitly excluding non-citizens from having a voice or access to care, like undocumented migrants in the U.S. For that reason, I prefer to use more general terms like, “the public” or “people.”

• Sustainable: This term has effectively become meaningless by this point. Does it refer to the environment? Does it refer to long-term durability? Both? I don’t know. I’m not sure any of us know. It’s just a term we add to our webpages, programs, and grant applications because it’s supposed to be some marker of success. The word is tired.

As I wrote this, I became more and more sensitive to the fact that a major reason for why we choose words like systems, inclusive, or sustainable is because there is a strong pressure to perform. For example, NGOs need to demonstrate to their donors and other audiences that they are doing meaningfully important work. Governments need to show to their people that they are serious about their concerns and working on them.

There is a certain level of innocence in using inflated language because otherwise one may lose essential funding or support. (Of course, there is also a lack of innocence in that the performance can and often is driven by self-service). Even so, I believe we’re doing a disservice to our work, our communities, and to our sector by yielding to this pressure. If we can’t be sober and honest about our work, then we’ll only distance ourselves from the change we claim to pursue.