Half way reflections: "Development"

I just relized my internship is about half over. Its crazy how fast time goes. I thought that this would be a good oppurtunity to write about some of the major things I have been learning about 'development' in general. Although, it is sort of a rediculous idea that I am a "Student for Development" as my internship states. Apparently I should supposed to be developing Tanzania?

As I mentioned before, the idea of development is a gigantic term that continues to be larger than I imagine. It can be defined in so many different ways from expanding the wealth of the economy to reducing poverty and from to increasing infastructure and communication to eradicating diseases; it encompasses all people and all sectors of society.

I have had many conversations with people (rrual Tanzanians, fellow SFD interns, businessmen, and CRWRC staff) here about what poverty is and what development is. Many Tanzanians tell me they are poor and need to be 'developed' and 'organized' (their words) and are happy to see wazungu (white people) doing this, but most cannot define what being poor means or what development they need. But often it comes down to increasing their income. Undestandably people want more money, especially those who make barely enough to support their own families. Although I have my concerns with the idea of development being reduced to increading income or poverty simply reduced to a lack of money, I can feel their desperation and frusteration.

Yet when I look at the overall development plan of the Tanzanian government, it doesn't seem to make much sense, even if they define development as increasing the income of the poor. Let me try to explain...

The history of Tanzania is heavily influenced by socialism under the highly respected and honored first President Nyerere, who united the country in a single language and worked towards the best for the very poor. However, this history of socialism has created an attitude of suspicion to outsiders and foreigners which has also led to very closed off trade borders and a reluctance to capitalist policies. Only recently has Tanzania begun to open up their borders and has been encouraging investment from large foreign corporations.

A recent budget released in June announced that the government would offer tax exemptions for large corporations importing oil and exemptions for new foreign businesses being started. These appealing prospects for foreign investments have attempted to attract business from abroad to boost GDP and other economic indicators. However the same budget announced new taxes on non-profit organizations (such as CRWRC) and religious organization, charities and churhes.

Thankfully the Tanzanian parliment shut down the budget in outrage and demanded adjustments (which is still being debated). Yet by looking at the budget we can observe what the development plan is for Tanzania. There is a large desire to increase the size of the economy and GDP, assuming that it will eventually help the poor ("trickle down"). However, my stay in Dar Es Salaam (financial/business capital) showed me that large amounts of wealth and property were owned by a few foreigners and rarely gets to the poor. Often I would see huge construction projects happening in the city only to realize that this building is being contracted by an American or Chinese man who does not even live in the country and in fact owns many other projects. Although these large scale developments boost indicators like GDP they do little to improve the lives of the poor who are begging in the streets in front of the construction site without work.

At the same time, non-profit organizations like CRWRC, are working with the poor and for the poor at a very basic and grassroots level. I have seen the effects of small micro-finance projects and co-ops and how a cippled man is able to own a farm that now employs several non-crippled men and can support his family (and theirs) well. The problem with this is that these small entreupenures have very little effect on the overall economy or measures such as GDP, because most cannot even participate in the 'official economy' since they trade and barter goods at small markets, which simply dont measure on national scales but is how most people engage in market activity dat-to-day (thier own economy).

But at the same time a government must be responsible to its citizens, not foreign NGOs or outside governments, and not be dependant on foriegn aid to do so. Many people say that the long-term goal of development should be that governments are able to care for their own citizens (even in Canada, which also has NGOs and charities). If this is true then how does a government reach the very poor when they are often very heirarchal/top-down structures and can often only influence large scale policies. Perhaps this is the central issue of development. Sorry about the rant....any thoughts?