I have just stumbled across a great series of articles on buzzwords in development. Some aid workers and development scholars are so jaded by these vague but ubiquitous buzzwords that they play “Development Bingo.” Whenever a development pro is giving a lecture, they hold Bingo cards marked with all the buzzwords and check them off whenever the lecturer mentions them in the talk. When they have got a full set of buzzwords, they stand up and shout “Development!” (No doubt leaving more than a few lecturers baffled.)
My favorite article discovery is Andrea Cornwall, Historical Perspectives on Participation in Development, Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, Vol. 44, No. 1, 49-65, March 2006. Professor Cornwall is a brilliant anthropologist at the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex. She also guest-edited a fascinating special issue of the journal Development in Practice (2007, Volume 17, Issue 4) devoted to “buzzwords and fuzzwords.”
In my favorite article, Professor Cornwall gives a history of how the aid powers that be have resorted to the buzzword of “participation” to convey good intentions to give the “power to the poor” over aid affairs, while never in fact ceding any such powers.
What is most scary is that “participation” as a buzzword goes all the way back into colonial times. In 1929, a British MP told the Parliament that they had a “moral responsibility” to give colonial subjects “some participation in the shaping of their own destinies.” Right after World War II, the Labour government would “inspire these {colonial subject} men with the hope that, as never before …. London could assist them in their work of extending popular participation in public affairs.” The irony that these promises were made by an authoritarian empire run from London apparently escaped notice. The US Foreign Assistance Act of 1966 similarly promised to emphasize “maximum participation…on the part of the people of the developing countries” — all while the US was propping up dictatorial Cold War allies who were not too interested in giving power to anyone besides themselves.
Today of course, “participation” (and synonyms like “community-driven,” “empowering stakeholders”, “local ownership” etc. etc.) is everywhere in aid documents. Yet the aid powers giving away their power is not exactly going to happen anytime soon. Cornwall cites the 1998 World Bank “Participation” manual, which lists “the poor and disadvantaged” as only one of many stakeholder groups (another is “World Bank management, staff, and shareholders.”) I wonder which stakeholder is going to win the next battle.
The main function of buzzwords such as “participation” and “empowerment” is to paper over the ugly reality that there will be some battles of conflicting interests between “the poor and disadvantaged” and other more powerful groups like the World Bank and rulers of poor countries — and that the poor will almost always lose such battles.
Using clear language instead of buzzwords would at least force us to confront the reality of the battle for real democratic rights. We should use words that have historically been associated with popular movements actually seeking power to the people (even if those are also misused and have conflicting meanings, at least they meant something historically).
One word that is extremely unpopular in aid documents but has great historical resonance on “power to the people” is “liberty.” Neither the 347 page World Bank 1998 “Participation Sourcebook” nor the 372-page World Bank 2006 “Empowerment in Practice” ever mentioned the word “liberty.” The poor cannot have liberty, but they can have lots of empowerment and participation and ownership and civil society. I’d rather have liberty myself.
14 Comments
Buzzwords and metaphors aren’t restricted to the development discussions, just look at the current financial meltdown (metaphor).
“Toxic assets” – worthless loans
“Haircut” – unrecoverable loss
“Stress test” – apply standard accounting rules
“Restructure” – bankruptcy
“Nationalize” – either nationalize or privatize though a government guarantee
“Bailout” – metaphor, means nothing definite
The press and talking heads like to use such terms because it allows them to sound like they know what they are talking about when they actually have no idea. The TV hosts are an especially ignorant bunch who depend upon such tricks.
It is a sad day when economists start to use such terms as well.
Oh Bill, if you think development is full of jargon and meaningless feel-good word and phrases….I invite you to visit “global health land”. It is worse. As evidence, I refer readers to this wonderful blog entry written by Elizabeth Pisani (author of Wisdom of Whores)….she’s created a Global Fund application generator which will combine the buzzwords you select to create a sure-to-win application.
http://www.wisdomofwhores.com/2008/06/08/get-money-from-the-global-fund/
Participation of the poor in mainstreaming gender empowerment for civil society stakeholders to promote country ownership of good governance for community-driven sustainable development
You forgot “fostering equality and diversity”, which requires cognitive dissonance to believe in, at least when “equality” is defined as equal outcomes as it usually is by those proclaiming both.
Other favorites – strengthening, deepening, and good governance. I have been reading tons of UN documents this week for a project I am working on and am frightened by the staggering amount of non-statements, non-plans and non-strategies they continue to come up with.
Sustainability – Meaning that we hope someone else will pay for this program after we depart given that the paltry sum we put in will only cover the project for a year.
This post is right on point. While at Oxford last year, I wrote my master’s thesis on the words “participation” and “empowerment” in the field of humanitarian development for young people. The conclusions I came up with were that participation as used by humanitarian organizations is far from young people’s actual participation in society. While the former glorifies certain types of participation, it looks very negatively on the ways in which children may actually participate.
Talk about “buzzwords”. Last week on C-Span I heard an almost hour long Congress debate where everyone was expressing their thanks so much to someone for their “leadership” in an issue so that I was never able to understand what issue was referred to, much less what the leadership had accomplished
Now, on “participation” and “ownership”, let me quote the following from my Voice and Noise 2006 and that as an Executive Director (2002-2004) I said about the World Bank’s Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS).
“Participatory process: In order for the whole PRS initiatives to contribute to long-term development, it is of utmost importance to ascertain that participation and consultation channels are laid out over sustainable paths that include the traditional representatives—like parliaments, private-sector associations, unions, and others—and does not just provide access to temporary participatory tourism, no matter how good its intentions are, or, much worse, whether they constitute a Trojan Horse for hidden agenda.
There is much more to it. We must bear in mind that the concepts of participation and ownership do extend much further than the PRS process, and one should be aware of the temptation of using them as an OK-now-we-have-complied excuse. In this respect, we believe that the PRS would benefit by including direct references to issues that are closely related, such as the use of country systems. A PRS that does not evolve almost instantaneously into a sustained effort to develop country-owned systems, and use them, is a contradiction in terms.”
George Orwell’s commentary on this topic is as relevant as ever.
George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” 1946
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
Buzzword Bingo has being used in the Oil industry for many years. The oil industry is full of self important ,intellectually shallow creatures that use this sort of meaningless drivel to stoke their own egos.
Empty Suits is the term for them and sadly they have infested the whole world with their ilk.
Finance and economics have spawned a whole new lexicon with their buzzwords. Perhaps the best of all being “Quantitative Easing” . If we did that at home we would be imprisoned for forgery. Perhaps it depends on who does it?
…all this and no mention of archispeak, the jargon and spin of architectural profession. Few can match the tassel loafered set for pure bafflegab.
There is nothing exceptional about the development field for buzzwords and meaningless jargon. Try the defense industry. Or management science. That said, a lot can be learned by identifying those buzzwords that have been so overused and misused as to be devoid of meaning. My personal favorite is “ownership”. In the legal realm, ownership is usually unambiguous and doesn’t require much discussion. In development, if there is a discussion about ownership it is usually because the ostensible owners of an activity (usually donors) have decided that it is not politically correct or philosophically consistent for them to be considered owners. Instead of simply transferring ownership to the more politically correct owners (host government or local community) there is a complicated dance around ownership as in you, the beneficiary of the program own it, but I, the donor/stakeholder still get to impose conditions and restrictions. Fuzz words evolve from fuzzy thinking and even fuzzier operations.
Language around participation and ownership of programmes also allows poor people to be blamed for their continuing poverty when programmes don’t work.
Your point is well made and taken . . . But I can’t resist:
From the newly-revised grantwriting manual:
It is advisable to substitute words like “participation,” “stakeholdership” and “empowerment” with the word “liberty,” as the former have come to be seen as fuzzy jargon. “Liberty” conveys a sense of *genuine* participation, stakeholdership, etc., in part because it is rarely used by aid organizations and in part because it is the term historically favored by the poor themselves. In short, the word “liberty” can liberate you from fuzzy, jargony writing, so use it frequently.
Example: “Fostering Sustainable, Gender-Responsive Liberty among Poor Communities in XXXXXX”
However, it is advisable to avoid the related term “liberate.” Claims to be “liberating the poor,” for example, bring to mind the U.S “liberation of Iraq” or the Japanese “liberation of Southeast Asia.” In short, because it has been historically misused by the powerful, “liberate” should never be used in proposals or reports.
Granted, buzzwords obscure ugly realities, but let’s take the discussion one step further. Is it even realistic to define “participation” in terms of ceding power?
There’s certainly scope for involving communities – or at least select community members (another potential minefield) – in deciding what projects are most needed, and in designing projects, and and in monitoring projects.
In fact, most NGOs would at least claim to do exactly this.
Yet what other power is there to cede? Power over budgets? Power over management? Power over hiring and firing of staff?
Often, it seems, our talk about participation, and other buzzwords – for all our talk about how they obscure ugly realities, etc. – is itself a way to avoid some ugly realities.
Namely the fact that there’s a limited amount of power or participation that can actually be delegated to communities and community members. Especially in places like South Sudan, or eastern Congo.
Again, not to say that communities have no role whatsoever. Quite the opposite.
But let’s at least be honest about why some stakeholders exercise final control over projects and programs.
Finally, it’s interesting that you mention “liberty” — the other buzzwords (such as participation or empowerment or ownership) are theoretically tied to projects and programs, and how individuals relate to projects and programs. Liberty, however, is often beyond the ability of any aid agency to deliver.
Why speak about liberty if none of our programs are actually going to affect whether people have liberty or not?
Unless, of course, someone can point to a successful governance project (i.e. one that resulted in better governance, over a long period of time).